St. Helena City Council
May 14, 2024

1 Xinia Gamero
From: William Wagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezoning
Hello,
My name is William Wagner and I reside at 1160 Hudson Avenue in Saint Helena.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to 1933 Spring Street being re-zoned for high-density housing. While I understand the dire need for more housing in California and Napa County, this particular location is a horrible choice for several reasons.

1. It will entirely ruin the character of the neighborhood.

2. We already have a traffic problem in this neighborhood, due to people taking Valley View as a shortcut to downtown. Adding 100+ more residential units will make the congestion unbearable, not to mention extremely dangerous for the many children who live in the neighborhood and walk and ride their bikes to school.

3. If there is a fire, trying to evacuate that many more people would be dangerous and will jeopardize lives.

4. We already have a water shortage, this many more units will make it critical.

5. There are far better sites in the city for high density housing.

Also, and very importantly, this whole decision was snuck by the residents with zero public notice and no opportunity to even comment on the rezoning.

I strongly urge you to keep the zoning as-is and keep it at medium density.

Thank You,
William Wagner
1160 Hudson Ave.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: elaine chan lund <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:22 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 - 1933 Spring St Rezoning
Dear members of the St Helena Planning Commission,
We reside on Hudson Ave with our children. I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of Site 10 - 1933 Spring St for high-density housing.. While we acknowledge the necessity for increased housing and lend our support to the current proposed medium-density plan, we firmly believe that rezoning this particular location to high density is unsuitable.

Site 10 - 1933 Spring St is situated within a well-established residential neighborhood, surrounded by predominantly single-story homes. Introducing a high-density housing complex into this area would be highly disruptive and fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood.

My opposition about this rezoning stem from several considerations. Firstly, safety concerns arise from the potential influx of residents and vehicles into an area not designed to accommodate such density.

Increased traffic congestion would not only pose risks to pedestrians and cyclists but also compromises emergency response times in critical situations. Additionally, the existing infrastructure, including roads, parking facilities, water, and sewer systems, may not be equipped to support the demands of a highdensity development.

Equally concerning is the impact on privacy that a multi-story complex would inflict upon current residents. This intrusion on privacy is unacceptable and would diminish the quality of life for those already living in the neighborhood.

Furthermore, no other proposed site carries the same magnitude of impact as 1933 Spring St. Rezoning this location would have far-reaching consequences for the surrounding community, affecting not only current residents but also future generations.

In light of these concerns, I urge the City Council to reconsider the rezoning of 1933 Spring St for highdensity housing. Instead, I implore you to explore alternative sites that are better suited to accommodate the necessary growth while preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

Thank you for considering my viewpoint on this matter. I trust that you will make the decision that best serves the interests of our community as a whole.

Sincerely,
Elaine Lund
1166 Hudson Ave
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 6:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 Housing Element
In follow up to my previous email in regards to the rezoning for the housing element of site #10 Spring St., Hudson Avenue in Valley View, I’d like to offer the following addiƟonal remarks; The city has been neglecƞul in their responsibiliƟes to the ciƟzens, especially those most affected, by not providing proper noƟficaƟon that a final decision to rezone Site#10 was made last year. All we received was a general noƟce in 2020 (during Covid) that there was a process to update a zoning ordinance. We were not properly noƟfied at that Ɵme nor was there any noƟce of direct rezoning of 1933 Spring St. along with the aƩached vineyard in 2023 or prior to submiƫng to the State a plan to rezone the site.

Since this area was already zoned for medium density we fully expected this property may be on the list for consideraƟon for the Housing Element. Therefore, having not received a noƟce, and being within the 300 feet of the project we expected the zoning would remain the same and we had Ɵme to bring our concerns to the city.

I find it irresponsible to the ciƟzens that live in this area that the city would idenƟfy a site, not directly noƟfy us in 2020 nor in 2023 that it was being considered for a high density residenƟal rezone, knowing full well that was the plan and was necessary to meet the total amount of required housing units. At the very least we should have been noƟfied in October 2023. I feel this was likely done on purpose as it’s hard to believe an oversight of this magnitude, that affects so many people, was a “NoƟcing glitch”
It’s apparent that the city’s efforts to noƟfy were not forthcoming throughout the process, up to and including March 5 agenda being posted, as no one directly affected, including the owner of the property, were aware this rezone was taking place and being voted on and probably approved on March 5 2024! Now we the people that are directly affected have not been given adequate Ɵme to voice our concerns and offer our input as to possible other soluƟons.

We have just now received a noƟce that rezoning is going to take place on this property, way aŌer the known fact!! 16 units per Acre at 30 feet in height is more density than any small town neighborhood should have to absorb. We are doing more than our part in meeƟng the State mandated housing for the city as currently zoned at Medium Density.

Therefore, I strongly feel that the city should get the housing element approved by finding parcels, or adding to other parcels, 24 addiƟonal homes and not overburden one parƟcular area in the city that is already zoned medium density. I believe you have 88 homes designated at Site 10. Based on maximum numbers per acre, not counƟng the exisƟng house, that’s 64 units at MD. More than enough for us to bear in our neighborhood.

We realize that the city is not responsible for the loss of value of our homes, I’ve been informed it could be as much as $400,000 per home. At medium density Over 30 homes will immediately be financially impacted by any development of this property, along with enduring years of construcƟon. High density makes it worse. Are any other sites imposing the same financial burdens on residenƟal properƟes? Does the east side have four schools and the traffic they bring? Is 42feet in height something Saint Helena wants in a residenƟal area? I would again, highly recommend you consider leaving this site (#10) at medium density and allocaƟng the addiƟonal 24 homes either onto other sites appropriated or by finding another site that will meet the addiƟonal 24 home requirement. Possibly annex land in a more appropriate locaƟon for apartment style living. This will allow the city to meet the required cerƟficaƟon, avoid default and allow the ciƟzens, that should have received their noƟce in a Ɵmely manner, Ɵme to offer their input, ideas and find possible remedies to avoid the detrimental effects the city’s plan will impose to each and everyone of us.

Thank you for your Ɵme.

Thanks,
Laura Keir
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Thanks,
Laura
Agenda Item #10.1.

Patrice Ferguson and John E Camp
1250 Spring Brook Court
St. Helena, CA 94574
March 29, 2024
To: City of St. Helena Planning Commission
Email: [email protected]
We are writing to express our great concern for the recommendation of City Council regarding the rezoning of the property at 1933 Spring Street from medium density to high density. We are adamantly opposed to such a rezoning.

First, we are surprised that we have only learned of the proposal and the process of adding the approval to a meeting to take place next week on April 3, 2024. We were completely unaware of the potential rezoning until neighbors brought it to our attention less than a week ago. I understand that the notice process has been subverted with attempts to cure past problems when the entire intention of the process is to provide meaningful information to stakeholders and interested residents. The swiftness of the City’s actions denies all of us for the opportunity to be heard and participate in decisions that affect all of us.

From what we can tell, the decision to “rezone” from medium to high density has been what appears to be a “cramdown” to residents and the community of St. Helena without consideration of the enormous impact to the Spring Street and surrounding neighborhoods, schools, traffic, safety, water and sewer that would result from the change. We are shocked by the possibility of adding hundreds of units in low rise structures on Spring Street with the enormous problems this would create. We understand that there are other sites that would lend themselves to better transition to the type of housing the City seeks to approve. The selection of 1033 Spring Street to rezone to high density should be denied especially in light of alternatives available to the City that would be more appropriate.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: LINDA REIFF <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 1:40 PM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission April 2 2024 Agenda Item 5.1 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,

I received your letter and background materials regarding the potential rezoning of 1933 Spring Street on March 23, which is 10 days before the Commission is scheduled to vote on the matter.

As a property owner directly across the street, this proposal would have a massive negative impact on my property, and those of 100 other homeowners in the immediate neighborhood.

This is a small town where such a major decision with irrevocable impacts needs thorough review and meaningful conversations, which has not occurred. Further, proper notice to allow time for study and comment is required by law. If the City moves forward with this proposal my neighbors and I will have been denied that right.

I understand that the City has put itself in a precarious situation with the State. I also understand there are enough housing numbers within the other sites to meet the State requirements.

Therefore, in order for the City to meet the State requirements without denying its citizens their rights, the only choice the City has at this time is to remove the rezoning proposal for 1933 Spring Street and resubmit the plan to the State with the remaining sites.

Thank you in advance for resolving this matter.

Sincerely,
Linda Reiff

On 03/04/2024 1:07 PM PST Linda Reiff <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am the owner of the property directly across the street from 1933 Spring and its vineyard, which apparently you are considering re-zoning to high-density housing.

I did not receive any notice from the city on this matter and I have not found any other neighbors of the property who were given notice either. Isn’t this required? The property you are considering is in agriculture which is considered a core community value. The city apparently recently rezoned it to medium density housing and now wants to make it high density housing which would severely impact the agrarian nature of the neighborhood. Why did you not engage with the neighbors on this matter before even considering such a thing?
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 While I understand the city is under pressure from the state to approve more housing, this is not the location where it should be done. The traffic impacts alone would be substantial and given this is the route to two of our public schools, it would be dangerous for children.

I respectfully ask that you not re-zone the property and instead engage with all neighbors about the future of the site. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Linda Reiff

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Bryan Sandoli <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 2:14 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We’ve always valued this community and moved here knowing it was a safe home for our family and future generaƟons.

We understand and appreciate how communiƟes evolve. We have faith that the respecƟve planning commissions approve development with the proper foresight and panning to ensure all aspects have been veƩed and calculated to maintain the highest level of safety and wellbeing of its residents. Safety is obviously one of our highest prioriƟes. Living on Spring Street the last 12 years across from 1933 Spring, we have noƟced firsthand the dramaƟc increase of traffic to the point it is overly dangerous entering and exiƟng our driveway. Unsure when the traffic studies were conducted for the medium density zoning, but all signs show they are dated for today's congesƟon related to the increase in residents, students and tourists by-passing main street. Introducing a high density development project on Spring Street without thorough traffic and environmental studies is irresponsible, grossly negligent and detrimental to our lives and community. The city has several site opƟons that are more viable from a safety/traffic standpoint which also are in greater need of development. These sites all have less of an impact than that of Site 10 without quesƟon.

It's disheartening to learn from members in the community that the city has missed the Housing Element deadlines and associated grace period placing the community out of compliance. Given its poor planning and foresight, the planning commission has exposed us to potenƟal loss of state funding, possible decerƟficaƟon and triggering the ulƟmate penalty of the Builder's Remedy. If the State elects to decerƟfy the Housing Element, the Builder’s Remedy would blatantly disregard any traffic and safety concerns and change the core fabric and safety of our neighborhood and community on Spring Street.

We urge for Site 10 to remain medium density and to eventually develop it wisely for generaƟons to come...

Thank you,
Bryan Dante Sandoli
Spring Street Resident
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Elizabeth Sandoli <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 3:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Dear City of Saint Helena,
My name is Elizabeth Sandoli and I grew up across from 1933 Spring Street. I learned how to drive a car on that street. I had to endure hectic mornings and afternoons when school would begin and conclude. So I cannot imagine how much worse this beloved street’s traffic will become if you follow through with this surreptitious plan. Putting in high-density housing will create an adverse environment for young children growing up in the surrounding neighborhood and will extrapolate the current safety issues. We the community do not appreciate how this plan came to be without our knowledge and now we are supposed to deal with the consequences. The ramifications of this 566.67% increase in density will impact the lives of the future children of St. Helena. I do not doubt that there will be a positive correlation between an increase in population in the area and an increase in car-related injuries in the area. So, if I were in your shoes, I would stay under code 16.32.060 C that “all streets shall be designed and constructed to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare, and to meet the relevant standards outlined in the public works and fire department specifications, and CalTrans standard specifications.” And according to my sources, you have not completed a traffic study for the area. Therefore I do not believe it would be wise to carry out this agenda that will impact the future of this town. Please protect my prospective children by taking the Spring Street site out of the equation. There are many other sites where your agenda would be able to be executed that are exceptionally more conducive to the lives and safety of the citizens of your town. I urge you to eliminate site 10 from your consideration so I can have assurance that my children can grow up in the same “bubble town” that I was lucky enough to have.

Sincerely,
The girl who grew up on 1918 Spring Street
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Karen Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 3:57 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning of 1933 Spring Street: Health and Safety Concerns I would like to comment on the traffic and safety issues surrounding Site 10 of the General Plan's Housing Element to voice my opinion on why NOT to allow it to be rezoned to high-density.

First and foremost, the traffic situation on Spring Street and Valley View already poses significant congestion and dangers during the commuting hours before and after public school hours to and from Grayson Avenue. In addition, Spring and Valley View are used as a thoroughfare for traffic looking to bypass the increasing gridlock traffic on HWY 29/Main Street. We live just in from the corner of Hudson and Spring and the amount of traffic that exceeds the speed limit
The dangers include children who walk and bike to school from the residential neighborhoods west of Allyn and Hudson. There is already a steady stream of cars and semi-trucks that utilize this "thoroughfare" making it a safety hazard. If future-thinking traffic studies are not conducted, the number of additional cars trying to enter Spring Street from 1933 will add to the already dangerous setting we watch from our porch every morning and afternoon. This isn't even bringing into the discussion of the years of construction issues that will be inevitable.

Anecdotally, living at 1918 Spring Street for 14 years, we have been backing into our driveway because we simply cannot back out of it safely. Each day, we drive home on the side of the street for traffic to subside in both directions and then back into our driveway quickly before another car either comes from Valley View or Hudson at speeds nearly impossible to safely complete the task.

I am aware of the different points being made by citizens of our community and will be present at the meeting on 4/2/24 to support the overwhelming opposition to what has been quietly happening without proper studies or information sharing to the neighborhoods most affected.

Sincerely,
Karen
Karen Williams
To help protect your privacy,
Microsoft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Sent from Front
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Matthew Heil <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 3:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Maya DeRosa; Aaron Hecock; [email protected]; cityclerk; Xinia Gamero Subject: Re: [External] Agenda Item 5.1 Ordinance Approving General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments
Attachments: SH Montessori Letter to City re. 3 Parcels.pdf Chairperson John Ponte
Members of the St. Helena Planning Commission
Maya DeRosa, Planning Director
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
March 29, 2024
Re: Opportunity Site #8
Dear Chairperson Ponte, Planning Commissioners and Planning Director DeRosa:

On July 17 2018, St. Helena Montessori wrote a formal letter indicating an interest and openness to provide workforce housing for the school's employees and potentially other workers employed in St. Helena on the property owned by the school located at 882, 884 and 886 College Ave (APN# 009-070-043, 009-070-044 and 009-070-045). Please find a copy of that letter attached.

At that time, the City of St. Helena Zoning Ordinances would have allowed for a project with 8-22 units on that 1.5 acres of property if the land was indeed re-zoned MR: Medium Density Residential as per the request.

The city's proposal to up-zone the aforementioned property to HR: High Density Residential with a target of 30 units is far more ambitions a project than the school was contemplating at the time or is in a position to execute at this time.

We would like to work with city staff to masterplan a solution on this property that would meet the objectives of the school and the city with a housing project that meets the size and scope necessary to fulfill those objectives.

Please feel free to contact me at the school should you have further questions regarding this matter at [email protected] or (707) 738-5291.

Sincerely,
Matthew P. Heil, Director of Development
On behalf of the Board of Trustees
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Matthew P. Heil
Development Consultant
St. Helena Montessori
880 College Ave
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.963.1527 office
707.738.5291 cell
Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor and City Council Members
Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Noah Housh, Planning & Community Improvement Director
City of St. Helena
1480 Main St.

St. Helena, CA 94574
July 17, 2018
Re: City of St. Helena General Plan Update – Rezoning Request, APN#s 009-070-043, 044, 045 Dear Mayor and City Council,
The St. Helena Montessori School (SHMS) would like to thank the City Council and our City Manager for seriously exploring a much-needed housing strategy for our community. SHMS is acutely aware of the need for work force housing, as a majority of our staff must find affordable housing outside the City of St. Helena. We applaud the work that has been done and the completion of the White Paper – “Stabilize, Maintain and Improve Access to Housing” goal presented to the Council on June 26th. Also, we realize that the Council will be taking “one last look” and providing policy direction to finalize our General Plan Update on August 14, 2018.

SHMS owns three ag residential lots adjacent to its campus on College Avenue. Currently these three one-half acres lots are zoned A-20 which may be developed only with a single-family house and an ADU on each lot. The three lots are within the Urban Limit Zone and currently have City utility services stubbed to each of the lots. Our Board of Directors believes that it would be in the best interests of the School and the community if the lots could be re-zoned Medium Density Residential which would provide the SHMS the opportunity to develop affordable workforce housing that would serve its staff and the community.

St. Helena Montessori School would at this time formally request that the City include a rezoning of parcels APN# 009-070-043, 009-070-044 and 009-070-045 from A-20: Agriculture to MR:

Medium Density Residential when providing policy direction to finalize the General Plan Update.

Please feel free to contact me at the school should you have further questions regarding this matter at [email protected] or (707) 738-5291.

Sincerely,
Matthew P. Heil, Director of Development
On behalf of the Board of Trustees
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: carolyn troyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comments from Marc & Carolyn Troyan for the April Planning Committee Meeting To the City of St. Helena,
My husband and I are the owners of 1134 Valley View. We are writing to ask the planning commission to reconsider the rezoning of the vineyard property on Spring street from medium to high density. When we moved our family to St. Helena and joined the community, we were excited to join a vibrant community and amazing school district. We have been overjoyed at the people that we have met and have been giving back through volunteering at St. Helena High school and becoming active members of the local Soroptimists chapter and joining the local chamber of commerce along with being small business owners. When we purchased our property many years ago we knew that there was a chance someday we would have homes behind us and were aware of the zoning change to medium density. The latest development to impact over 40 single homeowners with a high density development in their backyard vs. in another more developed area of town makes little sense to our family. Our vineyard and mountain views will be replaced by apartments and a fence. The impact and loss in value to our property is massive and will have a significant impact on our future plans to retire in St. Helena and continue to give back to the community. I also see a huge impact on our community:
1) Water usage - what is the plan to address this given the high number of units proposed by the change? 2) Sewage and waste treatment usage? We already have issues along spring and other streets and can our current infrastructure handle this additional load?
3) Traffic - valley view is an essential road to two of our schools and I worry about the traffic impact for our families.
4) Decreased value of our properties - how will the city make up for the massive loss we will experience in $ and value of our property?
Finally what other options were considered that might be a better fit and impact less homeowners in the community? As others pointed out there are other sites controlled by the city with less total impact than the one proposed on spring street.

I want to thank the planning department for meeting with me and explaining how hard it has been to find suitable solutions to the demands from the state. However, I feel taking some more time to figure out a better solution and involve the community in a deeper way feels like the right thing to do. Also given all the infrastructure issues we currently face, a more detailed plan from the city would be great to address the areas above.

We ask with all our hearts that you consider the impact you are having on the residents surrounding this area and the massive impact this will have on our community and the value of our properties. Let's keep valley view with some view of the valley.

Thanks for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Carolyn & Marc Troyan
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 --
Carolyn Troyan
CEO & President, Leadership 360
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.leadership-360.org/
LinkedIn
Phone: +1 (415) 812-0690
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Danielle Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 11:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment for item 5.1 on 4/2
Please see the following comment for item 5.1 on the upcoming 4/2/2024 planning commission agenda.

I am wriƟng to state my opposiƟon of the rezoning of site 10 although what’s more concerning than this rezoning is the incompetence and lack of compliance of the city. I’m truly baffled how far this has gone and that the rezoning noƟce to residence was passed off as a glitch.

We need accountability and transparency from our city officials. Residents deserve to be informed and involved in the decision-making process.

It's Ɵme for the city to step up and do beƩer for the community.

Get it together St. Helena.

Regards,
Danielle
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Rita Hellewell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 12:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Christopher Hellewell
Subject: [External] Rezoning of 1933 Spring St.

I would like to comment in advance at the upcoming meeting on April 2nd, as I will be traveling out of town on business and cannot attend.

My husband and I are full time residents of St. Helena, and we are extremely unhappy with the way this matter has been handled, putting many in a situation where they must choose between two bad options all because the town failed in its responsibility to give timely and accurate information about the steps they were undertaking.

Your sleight of hand to rezone the parcel from a medium density to a high density lot without even informing the public (or the owner, from what I understand) is highly concerning to say the very least. You missed many deadlines and then referred to the failure to inform residents as a "glitch." This decision directly affects the property and character of a highly residential area with some 30+ families, and will impact the broader area in ways that have not been addressed. This area has always been a low to medium density area, and the impact of this plan to build a three-story, 100+ unit on traffic, water, sewer , parking, fire and health and safety has not been addressed. It is completely out of keeping with the neighborhood.

We strongly object and ask that the City not rezone the property, and be held accountable for its failure to inform residents of plans that so personally and profoundly impact them and their property. The citizens of this town should not pay the price for the failure of the council to act.

Sincerely,
Rita & Chris Hellewell
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Philippa Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 9:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment for April 2nd commission meeting From: Philippa Ward <[email protected]>
Date: March 30, 2024 at 12:50:58 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comment for April 2nd commission meeting
To- St. Helena City Planning Commission
With regard to the potential upzoning of 1933 Spring Street vineyard from Medium Density to High Density Zoning. I am strongly opposed to the potential of well over 100+ units being built at this location. It is wholly inappropriate to have up to 3 stories and that many units built at this location. The surrounding home owners would suffer in its shadow as they are required to abide by CC&R’s limiting them to 1 story. This city does not have the capability of servicing that many units in one location. We do not have the water, the safety personnel, the sewer capabilities nor the ability to manage the traffic that would result from this potential development.

I also strongly object to the way the residents as well as the owner of this property were noticed, or rather not noticed, until March 21st for an April 2nd meeting. I understand that there is pressure from the state to certify the housing element our city greatly needs and the alternative to not adopting our general plan is dire. These proposed upzoning sites should have been entered into our general plan and new zoning when it was being redrawn and thoughtful discussion could have been had. The requirement for the state housing element is not a surprise and should not be treated as one.

I would encourage thoughtful consideration about what the High Density Zoning of 1933 Spring Street would do to that portion of town. There are more appropriate places that can tolerate high density than a historic vineyard surrounded by single story medium density homes. Please object to the upzoning of site 10.

Regards,
Philippa Ward
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Erin Przybylinski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 7:40 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in regards to the current proposal for high density low income housing on site 10 on Spring Street. I fully support the need for low income housing, but I do not support the current plan for a high density three story 100 unit at this location. I encourage you to amend the plan to medium density and individual units,
Thank you for your exploration of this matter,
Erin Przybylinski
1184 Hudson Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 9:38 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Housing element
In respect to the rezone and development of Site 10 in the Housing Element Considering the proximity of the Saint Helena area, especially the west side of town, to High Fire Risk areas per map linked below the safety of the residents in case of fire should have kept this property from being considered for zoning change and should not have been considered at all for development.

The City of Saint Helena along with Calistoga should have done more to fight SB 9 and 10 and filed for exempƟon. If nothing else fought the County to find more safe areas for development.

By adding hundreds of new homes up valley, in high fire prone areas, with limited evacuaƟon routes, will cause deaths and endanger the safety of its ciƟzens Thank you Brian Schleicher Saint Helena hƩps://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153 Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Doug King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezoning
To the City of Saint Helena, Planning Commission, and City Council Members, As a 30 year homeowner and resident on Hudson Avenue I am writing to urge the City to exclude 1933 Spring Street (Site 10) from the list of sites being considered for rezoning to High Density Residential. This change would drastically alter the historic character of the neighborhood which has been fundamental to the general plan of St. Helena since its inception. This change would create numerous public safety issues and impose negative impacts on the many residents of the area. High density housing would create numerous traffic issues including traffic jams at already congested intersections (Spring and Main, for ex.). Parking would become a challenge and access to Spring Street (already with many visually obstructed corners (Hudson and Spring, Allyn and Spring) would lead to public safety concerns. These are frequently traveled routes for children to schools and parks in the immediate area, and for residents walking for exercise, pets, and downtown visits.

This parcel has been zoned as Medium Density in the most recent General Plan, and is bordered on all sides by existing Medium Density housing, as zoned in the G.P. Converting this parcel from Medium to High Density overtly contradicts the obvious intent and nature of the original General Plan design. It will greatly impact this important area of Saint Helena in many and significant ways.

To consider this change because of pressures from State mandated reforms should be done with rigorous deliberation and maximum input from the community. This does not appear to have been the case. This is a very troubling realization. Changing this parcel to High Density may seem like a quick solution to an immediate challenge but it will create irreversible problems in the long term. I urge you to keep the 1933 Spring Street Street Parcel in the current zoning of Medium Density Residential in order to preserve the character of Saint Helena and protect the best interests of our residents.

Sincerely,
Doug King
Agenda Item #10.1.

Dear City of St. Helena,
I am wriƟng to express my strong opposiƟon to the proposed rezoning of our residenƟal area to accommodate low-income high-density residenƟal developments. As a resident and stakeholder in this community, I believe this rezoning would have detrimental effects on the neighborhood's character, traffic, safety, livability, and overall well-being.

Firstly, our residenƟal area has been carefully planned and developed to provide a balanced environment for families and individuals seeking a certain quality of life. Introducing highdensity housing, parƟcularly designated for low-income residents, may disrupt the harmony and dynamics of our community. It could potenƟally strain exisƟng resources such as schools, healthcare faciliƟes, water, sewer, and transportaƟon infrastructure, leading to overcrowding and increased traffic congesƟon.

Moreover, the sudden influx of high-density housing could negaƟvely impact property values for exisƟng homeowners. Studies have shown that the introducƟon of low-income housing in predominantly medium-density residenƟal areas can lead to decreased property values due to perceived changes in neighborhood desirability and safety concerns.

Furthermore, while I understand the importance of providing affordable housing opƟons, rezoning the Spring Street area for high-density development is not the only soluƟon. There are alternaƟve strategies and locaƟons that can be explored to meet the needs of low-income residents without compromising the integrity of established neighborhoods like ours.

AddiƟonally, I urge the city to consider the long-term implicaƟons of this rezoning decision.

Once the character of our neighborhood is altered, it may be irreversible, affecƟng generaƟons to come. We must prioriƟze sustainable development that respects the needs and preferences of current residents while also addressing the city's housing challenges.

In conclusion, I respecƞully request that the city reconsider the proposed rezoning of our residenƟal area to low-income high-density residenƟal. I believe that preserving the character and integrity of our neighborhood is crucial for maintaining a thriving and cohesive community.

Thank you for considering my concerns and those of other residents who share similar senƟments. I am available to discuss this maƩer further and welcome the opportunity to contribute to construcƟve dialogue on alternaƟve soluƟons.

Sincerely,
Greg Scheinfeld
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maxine Angell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:19 AM
To: Public Comment; Maya DeRosa; citymanager
Subject: Fw: [External] Opposed to Rezoning 1933 Spring Street for 4/2/24 meeting Dear Planning Commission;
This e-mail is supplement to my e-mail dated March 5, 2024 that is attached below.

On March 22, 2024, I received an undated notice from the City of St. Helena regarding a hearing to adopt an ordinance approving a
General Plan Amendment. This Amendment is to bring the Land Use Map and the Zoning Map into conformance with the Citys' adopted and
State Certified 2023-2031 Housing element. Attached to the notice was a two page letter titled Frequently Asked Questions.

Of concern is that the City of St Helena adopted and certified a plan with zoning changes without notice to residents in violation of Saint
Helena Municipal Code sections 17.07.060 and 17.07.060 and State law. Of further concern is that the housing element began nearly three years ago and the city submitted a rezoning of my neighborhood, without providing legal notice to property owners as required.

On Page 2, titled Frequently Asked Questions number #5, it lists a several potential negative outcomes if the changes are not approved, however, these actions, such as fines, decertification by the State and Builders Remedy are directly related to the Citys non-compliance with the state deadlines on two occasions. The most basic question is why are City employees not complying with the laws?
I have lived in the neighborhood for nearly thirty two years and the proposed rezoning would drastically change the charm and character of my neighborhood, as well as affecting, water, parking, noise etc. Valley View Street is an alternative to the Highway 29 and traffic is unsafe as it is.

I am in favor of keeping Site 10 as medium density and increasing the density of other proposed sites, which would enable to City to meet it's quota without disrupting the neighborhood. I am also in favor of transparency and accountablity by city staff and their failure to
provide notice and communication with residents impacted by their decisions. The notice I received on March 22, 2024 should have been
provided years before when rezoning was contemplated and well before it was submitted to the State.

Sincerely,
Maxine L. Angell
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Maxine Angell <[email protected]>
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 10:20:19 AM PST
Subject: Opposed to Rezoning 1933 Spring Street
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Dear Planning Commission;
I am a 32 year resident of Saint Helena and live one house away from the proposed zoning change to 1933 Spring Street from
moderate density to high density housing. I am opposed to rezoning this property and shocked that neighbors were not notified to provide feedback or input into the proposed rezoning. I heard about the rezoning, three days ago from my neighbor who I saw in the yard, yet this change
would have a permanent, deleterious effect on the charm, peace and quiet of the neighborhood.

I am also concerned, that despite promises from city administration and staff to provide communication and resident participation in the democratic process, that these decisions are made by consultants and city employees, with no resident participation and then presented
for approval. How can community development exclude residences bordering the property and the neighboring residents?
I am supportive of the need for affordable housing in St. Helena, yet I do not support 144 units on 4 acres in a quiet, residential neighborhood.

The proposed rezoning will lower my property value and change the quiet, peaceful character of the neighborhood. Valley View Street is used to bypass the freeway and is too congested, as it is. There are many areas of town that are more suitable for a high density project such as the one
that is proposed, some have been previously identified, some not.

I ask the Planning Commission not to adopt the resolution and to provide notice to all residents who would be impacted by the changes before voting on this or any other measure. I believe there needs to be more engagement with residents and more transparency from city a staff and administration about how these issues are advanced within city government.

Sincerely,
Maxine L. Angell
2101 Spring Street
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: debra lunardini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:25 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning Site 10. 1933 Spring Street April 1, 2024
Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission.

This email is regarding the rezoning of 1933 Spring St. (site 10). My home is directly adjacent to this property and like everyone else in the neighborhood the city’s failure to noƟfy surrounding neighbors has broken city and state laws. Had I been properly noƟfied I would have had the opportunity to place my home on the market. I consulted my real estate agent and she says that I’ve already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity. A high density development on that parƟcular lot is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood as most of the homes are ranch style single-story, single-family properƟes. All the homes surrounding the proposed mulƟ- story development complex would also lose their present privacy, not to menƟon creaƟng excessive traffic, parking issues, noise and would raise safety concerns. The rezoning of 1933 Spring Street would surely ruin this small neighborhood.

Sincerely, Debra Lunardini
2081 Spring Street
Saint Helena, CA 94574 [email protected]
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: John Herrguth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 4:46 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 Re-zoning
I am contacting you regarding the proposed rezoning of site 10 in St. Helena. I am strongly opposed to the proposed re-zoning from medium to high-density. Allowing a high density development at site 10 will have a detrimental effect on property values as well as pose serious problems regarding parking, traffic flow, water, sewer, fire and other health and safety concerns. The corner of Spring and Valley View is already a high traffic area, especially during the morning and afternoon with parents shuttling their children to and from school.

The proposed development does not fit with the current character of the neighborhood and would negatively affect existing residents and homeowners. Furthermore, the city was negligent and deceitful in properly informing the residents of the proposed rezoning.

I understand and agree St. Helena needs to provide affordable housing and respectfully request site 10 remain medium density and that the city investigate more suitable parcels to provide the housing it needs to meet state mandated requirements. Allowing site 10 to be re-zoned to high density would be a travesty.

Sincerely,
John Herrguth
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Nancy King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 5:08 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning Spring St Vineyard? - NO!
Do any of you on the board live in Saint Helena?
Well, my husband and I have lived on Hudson Ave for 30 yrs., infact we raised both of our kids in SH. They both successfully went through all of our public schools and competed in most of the sports offered.

Do you understand what would happen to our neighbors, our quiet lovely community, if apartments were built in our neighborhood? So many issues. Just to name a few- water, traffic, parking and more personally the price of all our houses will go way down.

We agree that if the vineyard cannot stay, then keeping the medium density aesthetic makes sense. And we understand and agree that more affordable housing is needed in SH, but put it where it should be, not just the first place that pops up. Not in our backyard.

And, by the way, the way and timing that we were notified is wrong.

And it is clear to all of us that it was not just a “notifying glitch”.

Nancy King
Hudson Ave
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Josh Dempsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 8:21 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Erin Dempsey
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street ~ Rezone
To Whom it May Concern,
My wife Erin and I live full time in St Helena (2705 Spring Street) and we are very concerned about the prospect of a high density project on this site. We understand that the city is under significant pressure to create more housing. A proposed solution is to approve the rezoning for all sites except Site 10. With respect to Site 10, no changes to its current zoning are necessary and it would remain zoned Medium Density Residential (MR). This does not add or remove project sites from the Housing Element and the objective would be to accomplish this minor edit without having to "reopen" the Housing Element.

Keeping Site 10 MR would adjust the calculation for Site 10 from providing 88 housing units (44 lower / 44 moderate) to providing 70 housing units (35 lower / 35 moderate) -- a reduction of only 18 housing units out of 472 total. Based on this, the City would still meet the RHNA allocation (including a 20% buffer) with a respective surplus of 6, 30, and 116 housing units for lower, moderate, and above-moderate income. The community asks that the Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff work with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to determine the quickest way to implement this solution and bring the Housing Element back into compliance.

Josh Dempsey
Vanguard Properties
Regional Director
C: 707.637.6123
Lic # 01297595
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Agenda Item #10.1.

PALMISANO
3/30/2024
This letter is regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting on April 2, 2024, dealing with the rezoning for Site 10; The Spring Street Vineyard Property.

As owners of a home on Hudson Avenue, it is very distressing to know that not only has the property mentioned been rezoned without our knowing until very recently, but the city is proposing to rezone Site 10 from medium to high-density.

This neighborhood is currently surrounded by single family residences filled with retirees and families raising their children. Almost all of the homes are single story giving us a sense that we live in a small town. A high density development in this little neighborhood would feel like something that we would see in an urban environment. It would be the only multi-story building in the entire area. A multi-story development seems to be better suited in an area where there is more space to absorb the sheer height and volume of such a development along with the multitude of parked cars with households always exceeding the allotted parking spots considered for each resident.

The traffic impact on Spring Street and Valley View Street would also be of real concern as we have several schools in the area.

We understand that affordable housing needs to be addressed in all communities and we agree with the original zoning as a medium density development would be appropriate for Site 10.

Thank you for your consideration,
Christy Palmisano
Peter Palmisano
1161 Hudson Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Susan Blanco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Do not rezone Site 10
I live in St Helena and I was not notified of the proposal to rezone Site 10 to high density housing.

Why is this being done without notification and discussion? Susan Blanco
1830 Quail Ct
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ben Rhodes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Lisa Rhodes
Subject: [External] In Opposition to Sites 10 and 11 Rezoning from Medium to High Density Hello City Planning Commission and City Council Members, First, I hope this finds you well as you consider current rezoning within our lovely town, which my wife and I have had the pleasure of enjoying on vacations for years and now as permanent residents the past three plus years. We love St. Helena and plan to retire here to live out our days.

Next, I want to be on record that we appreciate all that you do for its citizens! We know it's not easy, and we thank you for your service to our community.

Now, in the case of certain proposed rezoning sites under consideration, particularly Sites 10 and 11, from medium to high-density, I would like to be on record that we are opposed to it. For example, Site 10 would impact 90 home owners that share the beautiful land and neighborhood community. I understand that building additional housing and/or apartments is important, and I'm all for providing more citizens the opportunity to live and work in our community to help us all thrive. However, Sites 10 and 11 do not appear to be the best choices when others are available to assure we meet state regulations.

Last, please consider the many residents today and future residents impacted by the rezoning you are considering from traffic to parking and safety and so on. We understand it is a tough balancing act living in today and planning for the future; however, please keep St. Helena and our residents living in and amongst the natural landscape where agriculture helps the community thrive.

Regards,
Ben Rhodes
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 City of Saint Helena Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 2, 2024 @ 6PM
Vintage Hall Board Room – Second Floor
465 Main Street, Saint Helena
David Prueter
1118 Valley View Street, Saint Helena
[email protected]
330-206-0094
April 2, 2024
Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission:

I write regarding Public Hearing Agenda Item 5.1 of the City of Saint Helena Planning Commission Regular Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 2, 2024.

Agenda Item 5.1 includes a Staff recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the St. Helena City Council: “Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps.” To summarize: The City Staff is proposing the following six General Plan Amendments (GPAs) to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map (Figure 2.1) and the following six Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs) to update the Zoning Map referenced in Saint Helena Municipal Code Section 17.01.070.

GPA 2024-001, ZMA 2024-001 Site 1 - (1480 Main St.)
GPA 2024-002, ZMA 2024-002 Site 2 - (1572 Railroad Ave.) GPA 2024-003, ZMA 2024-003 Site 5 - (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and Dowdell Ln.) GPA 2024-004, ZMA 2024-004 Site 8 - (882 and 886 College Ave.) GPA 2024-005, ZMA 2024-005 Site 10 - (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) GPA 2024-006, ZMA 2024-006 Site 11 - (1637 Spring St.)
On March 26, 2024, in a letter to Saint Helena City Manager, Anil Comelo, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) revoked its finding that the City’s Housing Element is in substantial compliance. (HCD Letter, March 26, 2024). On March 28, 2024, the City published a Memorandum from Saint Helena Community Development Director, Maya DeRosa, informing all interested parties of HCD’s decision. (City Memo, March 28, 2024). In that Memo, the City contends that “[a]pproving the proposed rezonings is the most expeditious path for the City to bring the Housing Element into compliance with State Law.” In its letter, HCD states that it “is committed to assisting all localities in achieving and retaining substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law." As set forth below, Saint Helena can achieve and retain substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law by approving the proposed rezoning for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 and denying the proposed rezoning for Site 10.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Saint Helena can achieve and retain substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law by approving the proposed rezoning for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, denying the proposed rezoning for Site 10, and correcting a calculation error.

The following table (TABLE 1) provides a summary of the Saint Helena housing calculations contained in the Housing Element, including Pending Projects, ADU Trends, and Project Sites 1-12 divided across Lower Income, Moderate Income, and Above Moderate Income. The values in TABLE 1 assume that the City Council adopts all six GPAs and ZMAs currently before the Planning Commission.

TABLE 1
As shown in the third row from the bottom, Saint Helena’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) total is 256 housing units with 163 for Lower Income, 26 for Moderate Income, and 67 for Above Moderate Income. When preparing the Housing Element, City Staff added a 20% buffer on the RHNA requirement, based on HCD recommendation to create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required. The last row of TABLE 1 shows the surplus of housing units in each income category calculated by taking the difference between the total housing units provided and the housing units required by RHNA plus a 20% buffer.

TABLE 1 uses the following calculation for Site 10: High Density Residential (16.1 to 28 units/acre): 4.4 acres @ 20 units/acre = 88 units: 44 lower / 44 moderate.

If the City Council was to adopt all six GPAs and ZMAs currently before the Planning Commission, Saint Helena would exceed the RHNA plus 20% buffer with a surplus of 15 Lower Income, 39 Moderate Income, and 116 Above Moderate Income housing units.

Project Sites Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
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 163 26 67 256
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 15 39 116 170
Agenda Item #10.1.

3 Alternatively, as shown in the following table (TABLE 2), if the City Council was to adopt the five GPAs and ZMAs for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 and deny the GPA and ZMA for Site 10, Saint Helena would still exceed the RHNA plus 20% buffer with a surplus of 6 Lower Income, 30 Moderate Income, and 116 Above Moderate Income housing units. Indeed, this approach would result in a reduction of only 18 housing units out of 472 total.

TABLE 2
TABLE 2 uses the following calculation for Site 10: Medium Density Residential (5.1 to 16 units/acre): 4.4 acres @ 16 units/acre = 70.4 (70) units: 35 lower / 35 moderate.

Calculation Error
Title 17 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code (hereinafter “Zoning Code”) provides a density range for High Density Residential (HR) of 16.1 to 28 dwelling units per acre. (See Zoning Code 17.16.010). The 2023-2031 Housing Element incorrectly states the range for HR as 16.1 to 26 units per acre. (See e.g., pp. 2-182, 2-185, 2-193, 2-197, 2-199, 2-200, 2-202, 2-204, 2-210). This error improperly assigns a lower maximum density for parcels designated HR and results in an understated site capacity calculation for any project site with an HR designation. Based on this error, the site capacity for project Sites 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 was incorrectly understated as shown below in Table 3.

Project Sites Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
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.) 35 35 0 70 Site 11 (1637 Spring St.) 8 0 0 8
Site 12 (620 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 3 3
Total 198 61 195 454
St. Helena RHNA 163 26 67 256
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 6 30 116 152
Agenda Item #10.1.

4 TABLE 3
As shown in TABLE 3, the error contained in the Housing Element improperly understated the total number of housing units by 20 units. The proposal set forth above and shown in TABLE 2 results in a reduction of only 18 housing units out of 472 total. Therefore, by keeping Site 10 at its current zoning of Medium Density Residential, completing the rezonings for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, and correcting the calculation error contained in the Housing Element, Saint Helena’s Housing Element would provide two additional housing units more than the surplus provided in the original Housing Element that HCD certified on September 25, 2023.

Table 4 shows the total housing numbers obtained by keeping Site 10 at its current zoning of Medium Density Residential, completing the rezonings for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, and correcting the calculation error contained in the Housing Element.

TABLE 4
Project Site
Incorrect
Assumed Site
Capacity
Actual Site
Capacity
Additional Units
Available
Site 2 24 units 26 units +2 units
Site 5 45 units 50 units +5 units
Site 7 26 units 28 units +2 units
Site 8 39 units 42 units +3 units
Site 9 62 units 67 units +5 units
Site 11 28 units 31 units +3 units
Total +20 units
Project Sites Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Site 1 (1480 Main St.) 6 0 0 6
Site 2 (1572 Railroad Ave.) 22 0 0 22
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.) 50 0 0 50 Site 6 (709 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 4 4
Site 7 (821 Pope St.) 12 10 0 22
Site 8 (882 and 886 College Ave.) 18 15 0 33
Site 9 (1447 and 1515 Spring St.) 29 0 24 53
Site 10 (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) 35 35 0 70 Site 11 (1637 Spring St.) 11 0 0 11
Site 12 (620 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 3 3
Total 218 61 195 474
St. Helena RHNA 163 26 67 256
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 26 30 116 172
Agenda Item #10.1.

5 By keeping Site 10 at its current zoning of Medium Density Residential, completing the rezonings for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, and correcting the calculation error contained in the Housing Element, Saint Helena can satisfy all the requirements of Housing Element law and regain certification by HCD.

Importantly, this solution does not add or remove any Opportunity Sites within the Housing Element and should therefore be accomplished expeditiously by an administrative adjustment to the Housing Element, without reopening the Housing Element. Because Saint Helena would still exceed its RHNA allocation including a 20% buffer, the following actions would result in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. Indeed, these actions in combination with the correction in the density calculation would provide more affordable housing within the City than that provided in the Housing Element that HCD previously certified.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission should recommend and the City Council should adopt the following GPAs and ZMAs:

GPA 2024-001, ZMA 2024-001 Site 1 - (1480 Main St.)
GPA 2024-002, ZMA 2024-002 Site 2 - (1572 Railroad Ave.) GPA 2024-003, ZMA 2024-003 Site 5 - (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and Dowdell Ln.) GPA 2024-004, ZMA 2024-004 Site 8 - (882 and 886 College Ave.) GPA 2024-006, ZMA 2024-006 Site 11 - (1637 Spring St.)
The Planning Commission should decline to recommend and the City Council should deny adoption of the following GPA and ZMA:

GPA 2024-005, ZMA 2024-005 Site 10 - (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) Saint Helena City Staff, Planning Commission Members, and City Council Members should immediately seek HCD's assistance in achieving and retaining the compliance as outlined above to regain certification as quickly as possible.

The foregoing proposed solution is deemed reasonable solely for purposes of regaining certification by HCD and finds support among the community from at least the following residents who have explicitly given permission to include their names as supporters of keeping Site 10 zoned Medium Density Residential while still meeting or exceeding RHNA requirements.

Nicole Abiouness
Maxine L. Angell
Pierre Birebent
Nathalie Birebent
John E. Camp
Ana Canales
Jay Carlton
Sandy Carlton
Jackson Carr
Sandra Carr
Danielle Davis
James (Woody) Davis
Leslie Ellis
Cory Empting
Lisa Empting
Patrice Ferguson
Claudia Gambill
Judy Gollan
Jessica Hague
Kevin Hague
John Hawkins
Christopher George Hellewell
Rita Anne Hellewell
Laura Mackenzie Keir
Pamela Susan Kenward
David Kerr
Jeannie Kerr
Nancy F. King
Doug King
John L. Livingston
Diane Franklin Livingston
Debra Lunardini
Elaine Lund
Alyson Nelson
Scott Nelson
Peter Palmisano
Christy Palmisano
Stefano Particelli
Amy Particelli
David Pearson
Kim Phinney
Kathryn Prueter
Agenda Item #10.1.

6 Erin Przybylinski
Linda Reiff
Stephanie Robotham
Bryan Dante Sandoli
Elizabeth Sandoli
Brian Ralph
Schleicher
Stephen Slevin
Seana K. Stephens
Justin H. Stephens
Bruce Streblow
Marcia Lois Sturm
Marc Troyan
Carolyn Troyan
William C. Wagner
Andrea Antonacci Wagner
Philippa Ward
Jeffrey Earl Warren
Troy James Watters
Jesse Weber
Karen Williams
Albert Zecher
Greg Zelazny
Kathy Zelazny
No part of the proposed solution contained herein should be construed as support for or acceptance of development of any kind on any of the project sites. As articulated in the numerous public comments submitted to the Planning Commission on this topic, any development (particularly on Site 10) poses many serious questions related to traffic, parking, safety, fire, water, insurance, privacy, and environmental concerns all of which would need careful consideration. The proposed solution is provided solely for purposes of regaining Housing Element certification by HCD and should not be construed as a waiver (neither implicit nor explicit) of any arguments or legal remedies available now or in the future, including but not limited to the following.

Saint Helena failed to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation in the Housing Element process in violation of California Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).

California Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9) provides in relevant part that “[l]ocal governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort.” As evidenced by at least the recent outpouring of opposition from community members opposed to the City’s rezoning efforts for which no notice was provided, the City failed to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation during the Housing Element process.

Saint Helena violated the Public Hearing Notice Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code and the California Government Code prior to May 2, 2023, and May 9, 2023.

On May 2, 2023, the City of Saint Helena Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the General Plan EIR Addendum and Housing Element Update.

On May 9, 2023, the City Council of the City of Saint Helena adopted a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-001) to update the Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023-2031 and adopted an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Title 17 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code (hereinafter “Zoning Code”) provides that Amendments to the General Plan require a properly noticed public hearing in compliance with Section

17.04.080 of the Zoning Code (hereinafter “Public Hearing Notice Requirement”). (See Zoning Code

17.06.040).

The Public Hearing Notice Requirement provides, in relevant part:

Notice shall be given by the following, except as provided below in subsection C, Special Provisions:

Agenda Item #10.1.

7 a. Mailed notice to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested notice of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site. (Zoning Code 17.04.080).

GPA 2023-001 was an amendment to the General Plan and therefore required a mailed notice under 17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. On information and belief, the City failed to provide proper notice according to the Public Hearing Notice Requirement in the form of mailed notice to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested notice of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the City’s actions and inactions up to and including adoption of GPA 2023-001 violated the Public Hearing Notice Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code and California state law (see e.g., Ca. Gov. Code §§ 65853, 65854, 65091).

The City’s Mailed Notice of March 22, 2024, did not cure previous violations regarding public participation during the Housing Element Process or Public Hearing Notice Requirements.

On March 22, 2024, following postponement of the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for March 5, 2024, and in an attempt to correct a “noticing glitch,” the City mailed notice to residents, property owners, or interested parties within 300 feet of the project sites described in the Housing Element. This mailed notice sent after the City had already adopted GPA 2023-001 in May 2023, after HCD had already certified the Housing Element in September 2023, and after the City had missed the January 31, 2024, deadline to accomplish the rezoning promised in the Housing Element—thereby placing the City at risk of decertification by HCD (which such decertification has since occurred) does not provide the community with an opportunity to be heard.

By law, the City was required to provide mailed notice prior to adoption of GPA 2023-001 in May 2023. Any notice subsequent to the City’s adoption of GPA 2023-001 is insufficient and does not cure the City’s failure to provide proper notice. Footnote 14 on page 4 of the March 19, 2024, Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney’s Office BBK makes this point. Footnote 14 states that “[r]egardless of timing, the City committed to the specified opportunity sites in the adopted Housing Element, so while the City would have had a longer time to implement the rezoning, it would not have changed the City’s commitment to the rezone sites identified in Table 58 of the Housing Element.” In other words, the City Attorney’s Office admits that the City committed to the rezoning (without proper notice) in May 2023 when the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council adopted GPA 2023-001. Thus, the City was required to provide mailed notice prior to adoption of GPA 2023-001 in May 2023 and failure to do so constituted an incurable due process violation.

For at least these reasons, the City’s mailed notice of March 22, 2024, did not cure previous violations regarding public participation during the Housing Element Process or Public Hearing Notice Requirements. Accordingly, the City has committed a due process violation with respect to at least all residents, property owners, or interested parties within 300 feet of the project sites described in the Housing Element.

Sincerely,
David Prueter
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Brian Driscoll <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 9:27 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Re-zone Proposal 1933 Spring Street To Whom it May Concern:

I’m wriƟng to express my strong concern and disapproval of the proposed re-zone at 1933 Spring Street.

We have been residents at 1242 Allyn Avenue since 2018. There are many reasons for our concerns and disapproval. One in parƟcular is the severe traffic condiƟons and disrupƟon this new site will create both during and post development.

That area presently serves both commuƟng (morning/early evening), and school (morning/aŌernoon) traffic on single lane roads in each direcƟon. To add to this exisƟng congesƟon would be intolerable for most. This increased congesƟon could also represent a potenƟal hazard. Homes west of this site would find it more difficult to exit the area in the event of an evacuaƟon.

There are many other issues associated with this, and my hope is this plan will be rejected this evening.

Thanks for listening.

Brian
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Lizette Fiallo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:00 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] STOP! 1933 Spring St Vineyard Rezoning Hi
I'm the owner of 1217 Allyn Ave, St Helena CA, My vote on this rezoning COUNT and I'm against changing the High Density zoning.

Site 10, no changes to its current zoning are necessary and it would remain zoned Medium Density Residential (MR) Thank you
Lizette Fiallo for
Marliz Estate Allyn LLC
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maria Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:01 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10, no changes
Hi
I'm the owner of 1213 Allyn Ave, St Helena CA, My vote on this rezoning COUNT and I'm against changing the High Density zoning.

Site 10, no changes to its current zoning are necessary and it would remain zoned Medium Density Residential (MR) Thank you
Maria Martinez for
Marliz Estate Allyn LLC
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mike Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street Rezoning
Hello,
I had provided comments previously but in light of conversations with neighbors over the last few weeks leading up to the meeting on April 2nd I felt it necessary to expand on my thoughts.

I believe many others had echoed this but as much as I would like to give our city the benefit of the doubt it seems that this rezoning process that was being done in tandem with the state required housing element was done surreptitiously. It is my understanding that the rezoning of the Spring Street site was proposed last May or earlier. The fact that no notice was provided and that planning maps showed Site #10 as still medium-density makes be believe that there was an effort to push this through in an underhanded manner.

Combined with the delinquency of submitting the housing element well beyond two deadlines I am also wondering why our city officials and employees have put us in this position. As I mentioned previously I would love to give these folks the benefit of the doubt but it seems at every turn they have knowingly mislead the community, been incapable of getting the Housing Element done in a timely manner and have shown little or no effort in maintaining a dialogue with the residents that rely on them for this kind of information until now.

From the comments I submitted on March 7th I still feel there are far better sites for this rezoning that would still allow the city to meet the RHNA allocation.

Mike
--
Mike Anderson
Winemaker & Owner
MTGA Wines
707.337.9168
[email protected]
Tastings available by appointment daily from 10am until 3pm.

Check out our Wine(d) Up Podcast now available on YouTube, Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ariana Peju <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:32 AM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: FW: [External] April 2'nd meeting comments
Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,

I live at 1365 Sylvaner Ave for the past 18 years. I have been in napa Valley for 40 years and went to grade school through high school in St Helena. I am writing regarding the highdensity housing plan on Spring St.

The property you are considering putting 88 units is agriculture which is considered a core community value. The neighborhood wasn’t engaged in this discussion, which I don’t understand.

High density housing would severely impact the neighborhood as well as make it unsafe for children. This is the direct route to two public school, and I wouldn’t feel comfortable walking/riding bikes with my young children.

I understand the city is under pressure to approve more housing, however this is not the location where it should be done. It’s dangerous for children.

I do not agree with the new development and appreciate you engaging the community to find the right fit for the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ariana Peju

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jessica Hague <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:05 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment: Planning Commission Meeting April 2: Agenda Item 5.1 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am a 14-year owner-resident of 1154 Hudson Avenue, in close proximity to site 10: 1933 Spring Street.

Having raised two children, now 14 and 13 on Hudson Avenue, who regularly walk to west-side school sites, I can attest that the neighborhood lacks adequate infrastructure to support foot and car traffic for an additional 200+ families. Rezoning the 1933 Spring Street site to high-density multi-story structures in the midst of single-story homes will have permanent, significant, and negative impacts on the safety and character of the neighborhood.

Further, having received your letter regarding the potential rezoning just 12 days before the Planning Commission vote on the matter, I have since come to understand that the City consistently missed key deadlines with the State while ignoring legal noticing requirements with its citizens. The City’s negligence has put itself in a precarious situation, with both the State and citizens of Saint Helena. The City risks decertification and trigger of Builder’s Remedy. The City also risks legal action due to lack of proper resident notification. I have also come to understand that the City’s housing obligation can be met if the Spring Street property is maintained at medium-density zoning.

Therefore, in order for the City to meet the State's requirements without denying its citizens their rights, the City must opt to remove the rezoning proposal for 1933 Spring Street and resubmit the plan to the State with the remaining sites.

Respectfully,
Jessica Hague
Jessica Hague
Vice President, Consumer Sales & Marketing
FROG’S LEAP
707-968-2503 Direct
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Stephen Slevin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:49 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Planning Commission rezoning 1933 Spring Street. SITE 10.

Planning Commission
Pertaining to the rezoning of 1933 Spring Street to High density residential. Site 10.

I am absolutely astonished to being made aware only recently of this rezoning and the fact that the affected community was not appropriately informed & engaged when this proposal was originally put forth years ago as required by law. Especially upon learning that the city council adopted a new zoning ordinance as recently as October 24, 2023, showing 1933 Spring Street as Medium Density Residential. I find this confusing. Neither myself nor any neighbors I have spoken to were notified of the rezoning of 1933 spring street to high density residential until a concerned resident got involved. I understand that the planning commission meeting was then put back a month, and letters were sent out which is no substitute for due notification years ago.

Something as important as this and affecting so many people, should have been properly discussed, with an appropriate amount of input. Had we been made aware we would have been given the opportunity along with our neighbours in the immediate vicinity to raise legitament and significant concerns. In fact it is legally required. I’m not sure why that that opportunity was denied. If you could please explain this was not done? I find the fact that proper notification was omitted from this process very disturbing.

The farmhouse on this property is zoned as historical. No one can come in and knock it down, or even alter it significantly for the explicit reason of preserving the historical nature of the community. My understanding is that this remains the case. Yet a proposal has been put forth to build a high density housing development on the majority of its property. I’m not quite sure who would purchase and preserve this lovely historical house (formerly overlooking a vineyard and mountains beyond) only to abut a multi story development.

Saint Helena’s website states a City Council goal #5: to “Enhance quality of life”. In this circumstance I would accept as a minimum: "maintenance of quality of life already Agenda Item #10.1.

2 established”, a quality of life that has been forged over many decades by the residents that have settled here.

In many respects the vineyards in our neighbourhoods in Saint Helena are akin the public parks in cities. It is the "quality of life" that is Saint Helena. It enhances our surroundings where we live, as every local walking along Spring Street, every jogger, mothers with strollers and families with children and dogs can attest when they go about their daily routines. It is why we all live in this community.

I’m sure we can all agree on one thing, preserving the quality of life in this town.

Stephen Slevin
2081 Spring Street, Saint Helena
[email protected]
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: David Tate <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:53 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezone
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning of 1933 Spring Street.

My wife, my four year old and I live on Spring Street about a block east of the proposed site. From what I have heard the proposed project is for 88 units. This would most likely put 100 more cars on our street. Mornings and late afternoons are already difficult with the current amount of traffic. People driving east turning on Allyn or trying to go around people who do.

The amount of honking alone at these times is surprising for our little town. At most times there are up to ten cars waiting to turn or drive through. It takes us a bit of time to just get in or out of our cars as there is rarely a break in traffic. I cannot imagine what it would be like if this proposed complex goes forward.

During the day it will also increase the amount of people who go dangerously flying down the street often at double the speed limit. Yesterday 4/1/24, I happily watched a police officer pulling people over who were speeding. He did not have a break.

This project would put an undue hardship on everyone who lives in this area and who live on the West side of St. Helena. It is surprising that such a project is not proposed for the east side since that is where all the services are (Safeway, pharmacy, gas etc.) and would limit traffic immensely versus this large amount of new residents having to cross the highway for everything.

Overall we are completely against this proposed project and believe it must be considered elsewhere.

DAVID TATE ·
408.690.1964 Cell
[email protected]
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Gregg Dawley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Zoning
Planning Commission Members:

We live at 2700 Spring Street and want to express our opposiƟon to the upzoning of Site 10 for high-density housing. If rezoned and allowed to proceed with the intended scope and massing, it will likely go down as one of the single biggest blunders in town history. The scale would be completely wrong for this locaƟon, and would create traffic and safety issues that no one has yet thought through. As criƟcal, there will be no aŌer-the-fact remedy, just a history of more turn lanes, more traffic and pedestrian signs, and traffic lights. We can only imagine the negaƟve impact this rezoning will have on the Spring Street corridor and surrounding area.

Having learned about the upcoming planning commission hearing just last night, we are troubled by the apparent late noƟce to residents and lack of community outreach. We are parƟcularly sensiƟve to those living in the immediate area who will bear the brunt if approved. It strikes us as odd that while the town has improved its transparency and outreach (flash polls), this issue has stayed under wraps unƟl the very last minute.

Our understanding is that there is a more equitable soluƟon for all consƟtuents, leaving Site 10 zoned as medium density, and approving all other rezoning under the housing plan. We encourage the City Staff and Planning Commission to do the hard work, engage with the community, and make that happen.

As full Ɵme residents of the community for the last 3 years, we have played close aƩenƟon and observed the many good things happening in St Helena due to the efforts of City Staff and our public officials. We applaud this, and hope all this good work doesn’t get upended and the public trust eroded.

We are hopeful the Planning Commission will come to a decision that is in the best interest of the community, leaving Site 10 zoning unchanged.

Thank you.

Gregg Dawley
Kris Dawley
Agenda Item #10.1.

Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission,
We are writing today regarding Site 10, located at 1933 Spring Street. We are very concerned and oppose the rezoning of this site from Medium Density to High Density.

As you know, Valley View Street and adjoining streets experience a lot of traffic throughout the day. Not only does this neighborhood and surrounding streets experience local traffic commuting to and from school and work, but this neighborhood also experiences a lot of traffic from Highway 29 when the traffic is congested. The “byway” traffic can be tour buses, large construction vehicles, semi-trucks, and cars that tend to exceed the speed limit. The amount of traffic we experience now is sometimes crazy and can be a safety risk for residents enjoying a walk or bike ride, our students who are walking or riding their bikes to and from school, and students traveling to and from Crane Park, where most of the city sports teams practice and play. There has always been discussion about traffic calming measures in this area, but to date nothing has been done. I cannot imagine what our residential streets will look like if the 88 or more proposed units are built on Site 10.

Also, a high-density development at the proposed site on Spring Street is out of character with the surrounding area which consists of one-story, ranch style, single-family properties. The proposed number of residential units seems like a lot of units in a very small space.

I recently read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle: California’s home insurance is being dropped, what does this mean? This article is specifically about insurance companies dropping and/or not writing new policies in areas of high density, specifically the areas that are at highrisk for wildfire and earthquakes. I hope this is taken into consideration along with water, sewer, safety, and traffic circulation challenges, which our little town is already experiencing.

We both understand the importance of providing affordable housing options in St. Helena and we are not opposed to building on 1933 Spring Street. It just seems that the proposed amount of housing, hence the high-density, would be more suitable for other sites on the map.

We ask that you please consider excluding Site 10 from being rezoned to High Density.

In closing, thank you for dedication to the residents of St. Helena and the work that you are doing on the Planning Commission. We know that it is time-consuming and many times you are tasked with very difficult decisions, we are appreciative.

Sincerely,
David & Jeannie Kerr
1135 Valley View Street
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Water Audit California <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:29 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment to Planning Commission for April 2, 2024 agenda.

City of St. Helena Planning Commission:

RE: City of St. Helena Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 2, 2024 @ 6:00 PM, Agenda 5.1
A Resolution to Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps.

The public’s business must be conducted with absolute integrity of the representatives. To advise the public something is true, when in fact it is not, is a breach of the public’s trust in the elected government.

This Planning Commission does not have a stellar record in that regard. Approval of a tentative map for the Hunter/White Fang project was heavily based on the representation that the City was, in the words of the planning commission chair on February 7, 2023, “under the gun to build [affordable] housing. Massively under the gun.” The matter was represented as imperative and that it could not be delayed. Further, it was argued that this was not a new project with tentative intentions, but that the planning commission need only continue to go with the flow of prior events and approvals. Staff avowed “this application was deemed complete back in 2011.” Time has proven these critical and influential statements were demonstrably false.

Herein, we comment generally on the complete and misleading record provided for review. Proper public participation is prevented when relevant information is omitted, either by negligence or intent. The proceeding that was noticed and discussed in staff and counsel reports is not the same matter that will be discussed this evening in violation of CSH Municipal Code chapter 17 and state law, including by not limited to the relevant provisions of the California Code of Regulation and the Government Code including but not limited to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; Govt.

Code section 11120 et seq.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 One could easily miss the brief mention of a critical change in circumstance, the March 28, 2024, revocation of the State’s approval of the Housing Element Plan. The entire premise of the proceeding is to prevent an act that has already occurred. At the very least this matter should be renoticed and briefed to inform the public properly. The approval is dead, and denial by the planning commission tonight will not bring it back.

This proceeding alleges that it is built upon the General Plan. The City hosts archival copies of the General Plan on its website. For unknown reasons, the entirety of the 2019 general plan review is missing from the summary of housing element reviews hosted. The proposal is built in part on an idea of a record, not a record.

Further, and separately, in the demonstrated absence of an adequate supply of water, none of the proposed projects can be built. This is a purely theoretical exercise without real world consideration. When any project tries to come to fruition, whether by city or state imparter, it cannot be built until the water supply issue is resolved.

Respectfully,
William McKinnon
General Counsel, Water Audit California
WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA - A California Public Benefit Corporation 952 School Street #316, Napa, CA 94559 / phone: (707) 681-5111 Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Michael Sweeney <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Opposition to Spot Re-Zoning of Site 10 to High Density Residential-Affordable Housing My name is Michael Sweeney, and I own 1191 Hudson Ave., which shares an immediate border with the subject property (i.e. Site 10). I was never properly notified of the proposed spot re-zoning of site 10 to High Density Residential-AƯordable Housing. I would like to register my vigorous opposition to this impulsive, poorly timed, poorly conceived, poorly executed, and clandestine attempt to spot re-zone the subject parcel.

I strenuously object to the Commission’s aims in spot-rezoning Site 10 on multiple grounds. It will escape no one’s notice that there is—to be exceedingly charitable—an impressive and ever too convenient coincidence that the Commission’s urgency in spot-rezoning Site 10 happens to coincide with the fact that the parcel is in fact under contract with a contingent oƯer in-hand. I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that the Buyer has made its purchase of the parcel contingent upon the Commission re-zoning the subject parcel as High Density ResidentialAƯordable Housing. Frankly, I find it rather unconscionable that the City appears happy to confer upon the Buyer of the parcel an unquestionable economic benefit at the expense, and to the detriment of the Buyer’s immediate and proximal neighbors. I’m wondering if anyone on the Planning Commission or the Planning StaƯ have any vested interest in delivering economically valuable entitlements to the Buyer? Would the Commission be willing to provide records of any and all conversations both internally and with 3rd Parties pertaining to Site 10 under the auspices of the Public Records Act? I’m sure any Civil Servant can appreciate that our faith in the institutions of government are only strengthened when we take great pains to avoid even an appearance of impropriety? Before I proceed any further let me state emphatically that I do not oppose nor begrudge anyone to secure aƯordable housing, and provide themselves and their families with a pleasant, nurturing, and safe environment. I don’ t think anyone could argue with the intrinsic appeal of our beloved city. However, as I stated at the outset, the spot re-zoning of Site 10 is impulsive and poorly conceived, and pursued by the Commission in such a manner as to question the propriety of the endeavor. It strains credulity that anyone on the Commission believes there is nothing problematic about arbitrarily air-dropping-as it were-a 3 to 4 story, 100+ apartment aƯordable housing complex quite literally in the middle of a long-standing, neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. It’s entirely without precedent within the entire city limits! If the Commissions aims and designs on Site 10 are achieved, the potential development would unilaterally and capriciously change the entire character of a neighborhood that has roots that extend back generations! Beyond issues pertaining to fundamentally and irrevocably altering the character of the neighborhood, there are manifold looming logistical nightmares. Any developer on that parcel will be seizing upon various incentives, which would include that of being absolved of adhering to customary, statutory parking availability conditioned upon the proposed number of units. They will be able to squeeze more housing units on the land by burdening the neighborhood with absorbing more random onstreet parking. Mind you, a proposed project wont bring fewer cars, it just simply won’t have to worry about providing the spaces for them. Which brings us to the fact that Valley View and Spring Street are both ALREADY heavily traƯicked roadways. The increased cars and noise and wear and tear on our streets will greatly mar the quality of life and residents peaceful enjoyment of their premises. The added risk of collisions with other vehicles and pedestrians are unacceptable. There is also the issue of the availability of water. By the City’s own admission, its infrastructure is inadequate and poorly maintained. Whenever commercial real estate, hotel, resorts, and the like have sought entitlements, they’ve been routinely rebuƯed for the impact on the water and wastewater infrastructure. Surely a prospective high density project could be no less a burden on an already strained municipal water system? As it stands the City can’t avoid far too many days, many of them serial, where residents can’t even be provided with clear drinking water? How many residents have had the cringey experiencing of Agenda Item #10.1.

2 opening the tap to poor a glass of lovely brown or amber hued water? I can’t imagine said circumstances improving.

Let me close by asking: Is it really aƯordable housing when the proposition of living full time in the City of Saint Helena in fact drives up one’s cost of living? As a prospective resident of some future project on Site 10, I may be paying nominally less for housing, but I’ll be paying more for water and waste management. My budget would likely also become strained by the fact that I now have to pay more in gasoline, repairs & maintenance, and possibly insurance because my circumstances are such that I’m commuting more miles than less in order to access various goods and services that aren’t readily available in Saint Helena (some by design): to wit, there is one car dealer in town, no general service merchandiser, etc. Moreover, it isn’t a given that a future resident might not in fact be limiting their miles driven to work.

Sincerely,
Michael Sweeney
Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: John Hawkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:45 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street high density development - my opposition I’m a neighbor (around the corner at 1234 Hudson Avenue) and think this is a terrible idea for any number of reasons (I’m sure the City has been made aware of the opposing viewpoints). A high density residenƟal development would transplant a housing soluƟon suitable for a large city into a small town of 5,000, a town with very limited resources in terms of water, infrastructure, roads, etc., not to menƟon small town character that is worth protecƟng. I understand there are alternaƟves being proposed that would meet the State’s mandates without such a development – I hope the Planning Commission and City Council explore them in detail, ASAP. I think this is an existenƟal crisis for St. Helena – if this development goes ahead, there is no going back.

John Hawkins
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Dana Gallagher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:50 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezoning
April 2, 2024

Dear Planning Commission,

As a 40 year St. HeIena resident, I am writing to strongly request that you do not move forward with the proposed rezoning of the property located at 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. This sort of development at this location is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods and would substantially change the flow of traffic on Spring Street and Valley View. The majority of the single-family homes surrounding this proposed project are one story. From my understanding, the proposed home types and density, which may include multi-story units, would impede the privacy of the current residents. I believe the city has several other options closer to the center of town that would be more suitable for high density construction.

The traffic and street parking to be used by the entire proposed housing project would empty onto Spring Street, which is already heavily used by both vehicles and pedestrians. The safely factors alone are concerning. The other sites available have much better access to major throughfares and services. It feels like this site was rushed as a solution to St. Helena’s need for housing, rather than work with the residents in a productive fashion to solve the housing needs for our community at a location that fits better with our General Plan and character of the neighborhoods.

I hope the Planning Commission with take into consideration the multitude of letters that have been submitted on this issue, and not move forward with rezoning.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Sincerely,

Dana Gallagher
2624 Colombard Court
St. Helena

BE AWARE OF POTENTIAL FRAUD
All banking information will always be sent using our secure email portal: Proofpoint Essentials
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Justin Stephens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 4:57 PM
To: Jack Oliver; Public Comment
Cc: Seana Stephens; Justin Stephens
Subject: RE: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Jack,
Extremely well put.

Planning Commissioners,
My wife and I concur with Jack’s position and that of many others who cherish both the charm of St. Helena and it’s safety vis-à-vis city streets. With regard to charm, that vineyard IS a cornerstone of the town and has been for nearly a century; and on the topic of safe streets, as avid cyclists with three young children who ride their bikes around the neighborhood on a near-daily basis, we are concerned about the impact of hundreds more residents and their vehicle in such concentration will have on the safety of the area.

As Jack noted there appear to be a bevy of options more suitable in the face of historic preservation and public safety. We urge you to consider the above and other options for the Housing Element while still maintaining compliance with state requirements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Seana and Justin Stephens, and Parker, Preston and Beckett Stephens 2611 Colombard Court (since 2005) and St. Helena since 1979 Justin Hunnicutt Stephens

HUNNICUTT
707-963-2911

COLLATERAL
707-963-2908
From: Jack Oliver <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 6:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to express our hope that you do not rezone 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. Open space and historic vineyards are what gives St. Helena and this neighborhood its charm. The listing for the property even calls it the “Soul of Spring Street” for 90 years. Vineyards are what drive our local economy. They generate jobs in the vineyard, income to suppliers and produce the wine that makes our town and region famous. Putting high density housing in this neighborhood does not seem to fit with its characteristics nor consistent with the General Plan. The traffic and street parking will create many blind spots for cars turning onto Spring street and make it very dangerous for young students to bike and walk to school. The traffic coming out of a high-density location will already impact the back-ups at Spring and Main during rush hours.

The city has many other vacant, unproductive, and dilapidated sites that need improving and seem more suitable for high density housing. Plus, these sites are closer to traffic lights and the Hwy 29 transportation corridor. Why not improve and encourage investment in these non-productive locations as identified in the Housing Element such as sites 5, 2, 1 and the much-studied site 3? Let’s not crush the “soul” of Spring Street, let’s preserve and nourish it.

Sincerely,
Jack and Kate Oliver
1248 Hudson
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Spadarotto, Kate J <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 5:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] No to rezoning 1933 Spring St & Transfer Tax I believe that changing the zoning will negatively impact that part of town. Not only will the infrastructure put a strain on an already strained area, it will drop the property values and decrease the desirability of the area.

I do think we need to do something for the town which is 1. Support the hotel development to increase TOT tax or 2. Support more short term rentals to increase the TOT tax or 3. Increase the sales tax by

0.025% for the city. I think imposing a transfer tax would not accomplish what is thought. It will drive property values even higher (to include the tax in the price of the home) which will prevent our town from being affordable for growing families. Hurting the schools and many other things that make this town so special.

Thank you,
Kate
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Kate Spadarotto
Global Real Estate Advisor
Estate & Wine Industry Specialist
Sotheby’s International Realty
1229 Adams Street, St. Helena, CA 94574
707.321.6231
DRE 02014569
2024 President, North Bay Association of Realtors
Certified in Wine, Winemaking and Vineyards from UC Davis To help protect your privacy, Microsoft
Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft
Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft
Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet.
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please immediately delete its contents and notify us.

Agenda Item #10.1.

RICK TOOKER
[email protected]
D 707.967.4152
April 2, 2024
Via Email to: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
City of St. Helena
Planning Commission
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: GPA 2024-005/ZMA 2024-005 - General Plan/Zoning Amendment Upzoning Opportunity Site #10 from Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR)
Dear Chair Ponte and Planning Commissioners:

Farella, Braun + Martel (“FBM”), located at 899 Adams Street in St. Helena, represents property owners in the community who have expressed concern over the City’s April 2, 2024 consideration of rezoning a 4.4 acre parcel located on Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street (APN 009-441-023). This parcel, commonly referred to as the Quaglia Vineyard Property, has been identified as an Opportunity Site for residential development (Site #10) as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update adopted in May 2023 and subsequently revised in July 2023.

Background
FBM has significant experience with local housing policy and strategies. We have supported clients and local agencies relating to housing locally in the Napa County, and many of us have personally served in the past as planning commissioners and technical staff responsible for providing advisory recommendations to city councils. Some on our staff have personally directed and prepared housing elements for multiple local area communities, all of which were certified by Housing and Community Development (HCD). As a result, we appreciate the need for developing and preserving an adequate supply of housing in St. Helena, including housing affordable to all economic segments of the community. We sincerely support St. Helena’s efforts to identify opportunity sites and to protecting existing housing and plan for new residential development, particularly for lower income households.

Review of the pertinent Planning Commission agenda materials indicates that the Quaglia Property has been zoned Medium Density Residential (MR) for decades, including during the Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
April 2, 2024

two Housing Element Cycles prior to 2023. However, in this most recent 6th Housing Element Cycle, the City determined the parcel should be rezoned from Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR). This upzoning represents an alarming increase in housing density that is inconsistent with the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Although discussion has occurred associated with this upzoning, including prior to and with adoption of the Housing Element, it was not until recently when the details of this property specifically was recognized during the public notice period. Concerns about the Quaglia Property have become more evident for neighbors and interested community members.

Issues with Current Staff Report & Plan Details
As the Planning Commission knows, Spring Street and the streets adjacent to the sides and rear of the Quaglia Property (Olive, Hudson, and Valley View streets) contain single-family homes built at the low end of MR density at approximately 6 du/ac. These neighborhoods are not developed remotely close to the density proposed on the Quaglia Property at between 16.1 and 28 du/acre. Moreover, the existing single-family neighborhoods abutting the Quaglia Property are almost entirely one story in height. The proposal to increase the allowable height of new development on the Quaglia Property to 42 feet, together with the afore-referenced significant density increase, completely disregards generally acceptable professional planning practice. The proposed density and heights are more aligned with what is customarily planned in suburban city centers and adjacent to downtowns where development is feathered outward from the core and avoids abrupt deviations in building mass and scale that otherwise would adversely affect existing community character.

This is not to say that the Quaglia Property should not be an opportunity site for future residential development. We recognize that the analysis pertaining to the Quaglia Property, both in past analysis preceding approval of the Housing Element and more recently with the proposed General Plan/Zoning Map Amendments, is being characterized at far less than its potential as presented in the materials prepared for Planning Commission consideration on April 2, 2024.

Below are just a few examples:
- The entire 4.4-acre Quaglia Property is planned for redeveloped under HR density. At the high end of range between 16.1 and 26 du/acre, this represents a potential for up to 114 units. However, the reporting incorrectly references actual HR density, which is up 28 du/acre. This represents 123 units (7.3 percent more units). Additionally, state density bonus law provides for allowances that is mandatory by local agencies in the number of total housing units when a development exceeds certain affordability levels. Therefore, a suggestion that the maximum number of units based on a zoning density, whether at 114 more correctly 123 units, is not substantiated in our experience working on countless developments.

Three story developments (to include partially subterranean and surface parking) are in American Canyon and Napa with similar densities proposed on the Quaglia Property.

Some, such as the development on the corner of Soscol and Central avenues, are adjacent Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
April 2, 2024

to existing low-rise single-family housing foreshadowing the significance of the potential for adverse impact to the neighborhood surrounding Opportunity Site #10. - Assumed development of the Quaglia Property is 20 du/acre or 88 units (44 lower income units/44 moderate income), which is a fraction of the high end of the HR density range including what is allowable under mandatory state density bonus provisions. However, our experience with development of countless projects requiring a significant percentage of lower and moderate income housing units indicates that density bonuses are frequently sought to offset the affordable units providing proportionately more market rate housing.

Therefore, total units could be higher than 88 units.

Additionally, mandatory zoning concessions are often required by the permitting agency, which frequently include a reduction in off-street parking. The City provides a new strategy to reduce parking for studio and one-bedroom units at just one parking space per unit. However, this is not reflective of parking reality (except in the case of senior housing). A reduction in on-site parking will almost certainly result in significant onstreet parking impacts. Frequent concessions also include additional building height, which in the case of the Quaglia Property is proposed at 42 feet. An example of parking inadequacy in an existing development with similar densities to what is proposed for the Quaglia Property can be seen in Napa at First Avenue west of Freeway drive where each unit is assigned two parking spaces and on-street parking on both sides of the street is awful.
- The materials presented to the Planning Commission explain that the City is responsible for planning underdeveloped and vacant land to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), but they do not clearly explain that future development will be constructed as planned. Our experience indicated that Opportunity Site #10 could be developed much differently as planned. Note that in the description of future potential development, assumed to be 88 units at 20 du/acre, there is no reference to market or above-market rate housing, and unless the property is transferred to a non-profit develop, there is no possible return on investment to develop the site. This omission of full disclosure is something the Planning Commission should explore further in its deliberations of the proposed General Plan/Zoning Map Amendments. - The materials presented to the Planning Commission suggest that the Quaglia Property could be developed differently from what is assumed, inferring that it could also be proposed to be at a lower density. However, it is unlikely that a development proposed below the HR density range (less than 16.1 du/acre), or for that matter less than 20 du/acre or 88 units, would be considered by the City to be consistent with applicable housing policy and zoning regulations. An argument that future development proposed at the low end of the density range at 16.1 du/acre or 70 units, let alone with little or no affordable units, would likely be considered inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
April 2, 2024

- A development containing the large number of units proposed on the Quaglia Property will require a second point of egress separate from Spring Street to accommodate emergency service vehicles as well as for general distribution of residential and service related vehicle trips. This will result in either demolition of an existing single-family home on Olive, Hudson or Valley View streets, or connecting to the only existing undeveloped property near the northwest corner of Olive and Valley View streets.

Typically, each residential unit generates approximately 10 average daily vehicle trips (ADT), which at 88 units assumed by the City to be built in the materials presented to the Planning Commission will be 880 ADT.

This could be substantially more when considering development at HR density will likely be toward the high end of the density range (not including mandatory state density bonus provisions). Putting into perspective the number of vehicle trips for all homes abutting the Quaglia Property on Spring, Olive, Hudson, and Valle Verde streets, just 290 ADT are generated. These roads are not designed at a width to accommodate this level of traffic where two vehicles often cannot pass each other with parking on both sides of the street.

These issues are not fully vetted in the materials presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on April 2, 2024. The potential for adverse impacts has been underestimated based on real-life experience of affordable housing development, including the assumed mix of lower and moderate income housing at just 88 units on the Quaglia Property.

Project Alternatives
The Planning Commission has options other than approving the upzoning on Opportunity Site #10, regardless of HCD’s threat (and ultimately its decision) to decertify the Housing Element Update. Similarly, the Commission is not constrained by the City staff recommendation that there are no options and the most expeditious path to recertification is to approve the General Plan/Zoning Map Amendments.

The suggestion that the Planning Commission has no alternative, whether inferred by HCD or directly stated in the materials presented to the Commission, is an afront to the purpose and intent of open public meetings. The Planning Commission is tasked with encouraging and welcoming public comment and taking into consideration public testimony in its deliberations and final recommendation to the City Council. As presented in HCD’s letter threatening decertification in the record (before it decided to decertify the Housing Element Update), and the materials presented by City staff who essentially opine that there is no other option than to approve the recommended action. If true, then why even hold a public hearing at all.

The point here is that rezoning of Opportunity Site #10 is not the issue per se, but rather it is about the number of units that the property offers regardless of its recommended zoning. The Planning Commission has the authority to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed General Plan/Zoning Map Amendments, but to remove that portion of the recommended action of upzoning Opportunity Site #10 to HR zoning.

Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
April 2, 2024

The result of this recommendation would be that the Quaglia Property would retain its density range of 6.1 to 16 du/acre. However, the Planning Commission could also recommend to Council the proposed General Plan Amendment included specific policy relating to the Quaglia Property to be developed at the high end of the density range to include a mix of 70 lower and moderate income residential units (instead of 88 units), represent a minor reduction of just 18 units and still within the cushion in the plan to achieve the RHNA. Coincidently, given state mandated density bonus law for affordability at these levels (50-50 lower and moderate income units), 20 du/acre would easily be achieved as provided by the state wherein no analysis is required when planning for housing at this density.

There may also be a method of retaining MR density but requiring by policy or code the 20 du/acre on the 4.4 acre Quaglia Property without upzoning the parcel to HR density. With thoughtful planning, an elegant solution could be developed by the City to address this issue of concern to so many residents and it could avoid remanding back the Housing Element Update, as referenced ‘starting over’ in the reporting to the Planning Commission in the reporting materials for April 2, 2024.

Another example of creative problem-solving well within the scope of allowable policy and regulation would be to apply PD zoning to Opportunity Site #10. The purpose and intent of the PD district is to provide for a variety of housing types and densities and to achieve superior relationships among uses, both within and surrounding the Quaglia Property. As explained in Zoning Ordinance Section 17.21.0505, Planned Development Overlay (PD), this approach promotes innovation and creativity in development concepts, as well as cohesive, high-quality and aesthetically pleasing urban structure that otherwise will not exist with abrupt deviations of densities and heights on Spring Street and the neighborhoods to the Quaglia Property under HR zoning.

There may be other possibilities to addressing this issue that have not been considered here in this letter which City staff, the Planning Commission, and concerned community members have thought about after the April 2, 2024 packet materials were circulated. Again, our intention is not to preclude reasonable planning of residential development for the Quaglia Property or resetting the plan for meeting St. Helena’s RHNA. Rather, we propose exploring creative planning solutions that better reflect St. Helena’s character, while retaining housing strategies to provide for its RHNA in this 6th Housing Element Cycle.

Very truly yours,
Rick Tooker
rft: Katherine Philippakis, Esq.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023

0.Introduction
Insert Cover over this page. Do not alter any Heading 1s underneath the covers.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 i
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. iii

1. Policy Document
Policy Document Contents .................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Organization of the Policy Document.................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Key Findings and Recommendations..................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs..................................................................................................................................... 1-9 Quantified Objectives........................................................................................................................................................................... 1-48

2. Needs Assessment
Needs Assessment Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-7

2. Review of the Existing Housing Element .................................................................................................................................. 2-34

3. Demographic and Economic Trends ......................................................................................................................................... 2-58

4. Population and Employment Projections.................................................................................................................................. 2-80

5. Housing Conditions.................................................................................................................................................................. 2-84

6. Housing Market Conditions...................................................................................................................................................... 2-97

7. Special Housing Needs........................................................................................................................................................... 2-108

8. Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints................................................................................................................ 2-130

9. Opportunities for Energy Conservation................................................................................................................................... 2-171

10. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types.................................................................................................................................... 2-173

11. Housing Resources................................................................................................................................................................. 2-180 Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
AFFH Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................................A-1

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................A-5

2. Summary of Fair Housing Issues.................................................................................................................................................A-9

3. Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends....................................................................................................................A-14

4. Local Area of Knowledge .........................................................................................................................................................A-99

5. Sites Inventory Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................A-102

6. Contributing Factors...............................................................................................................................................................A-107 Appendix B: Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element.................................. B-1 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 ii
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 iii
Introduction
Purpose of the Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as the local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include seven required elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as “housing-element law.” California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.

Although the Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the general plan, it has several unique requirements that set it apart from the other six. State law (Government Code Section 65580 (et seq.)) specifies in detail the topics that the housing element must address and sets a schedule for required updates every eight years. The housing element is also the only element reviewed and certified by the State for compliance with State law. Every jurisdiction in the State of California is required to submit a Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and certification.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element establishes a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in St. Helena over the eight-year planning period between January 31, 2023, and January 31, 2031. The Housing Element sets the community goals and policies surrounding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing units to meet the needs of St. Helena residents (present and future. St. Helena is a member of the Association of Bay Area Association of Governments and, therefore, is required submit an updated Housing Element to HCD by January 31, 2023.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 iv
Housing Element Update Components
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update consists of two parts; the Housing Needs Assessment, and this Housing Element Policy Document.

1. The Policy Document states goals, policies,
implementing program, and quantified objectives for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing.

The Policy Document is the action plan that reacts directly to the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and input
from the community. The City will implement the actions specified in the Policy Document throughout the planning period.

2. The Needs Assessment identifies and analyzes the
existing and projected housing needs, provides a list of sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation, documents constraints to housing production, and analyzes fair housing.

In short, the Needs Assessment provides the context for the City's housing action plan.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 5 1.Policy Document
.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-1
Policy Document Contents
Organization of the Policy Document .................................................................................... 1-3 Key Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 1-5 Review of Existing Housing Element ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Demographic and Economic Trends ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Housing Conditions............................................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Special Housing Needs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints............................................................................................................................... 1-7 Sites Inventory and Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types ................................................................................................................... 1-7 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.................................................................................................................................................... 1-8 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs ..................................................................... 1-9 Goal 1 A Diversity of Housing to Meet Local Needs ......................................................................................................................... 1-9 Goal 2 High-Quality Neighborhoods with a Balance of Housing Types .......................................................................................... 1-20 Goal 3 Conservation of Existing Housing........................................................................................................................................ 1-29 Goal 4 Assistance to Support Affordable Housing .......................................................................................................................... 1-33 Goal 5 Resource Conservation........................................................................................................................................................ 1-40 Goal 6 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.................................................................................................................................. 1-43 Quantified Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1-48 Quantified Objectives by Type............................................................................................................................................................. 1-48 Quantified Objectives Summary Table................................................................................................................................................. 1-49 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-2
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-3
Organization of the Policy Document
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Policy Document includes six goals, supported by policies and implementation programs that aim to address identified housing needs during the planning period. The goals, policies, and programs of the Housing Element establish a policy framework to guide city decision-making to meet identified housing needs. The Policy Document is organized under the following goal titles:

1. A Diversity of Housing to Meet Local Needs

2. High-Quality Neighborhoods with a Balance of Housing

3. Conservation of Existing Housing

4. Assistance to Support Affordable Housing

5. Resource Conservation

6. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Goals
The housing goals are articulated as general “end condition statements,” which describe a desired outcome or end state. The goals do not contain an action verb as they reflect a final statement of what the city hopes to achieve. Goals describe ideal future conditions for a topic and tend to be general and broad in nature. How the goal will be achieved is established via the applicable policies and programs.

Policies
Policies are statements on the position the City takes to implement a goal. Policies contained in the Housing Element are important statements as they provide a clear and unambiguous statement that guides a specific course of action for decision-makers to achieve a desired goal. Future actions and development must be consistent with these policies.

Programs
While many policies can be implemented as part of standard City operations, some policies require specific programs to assure their implementation. Housing programs define the specific actions the City will undertake to achieve the stated goals and policies.

For more information, please see the Policy Document Reader's Guide diagrams on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-4
Reader's Guide: Goals and Policies
Reader's Guide: Implementation Programs
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-5
Key Findings and Recommendations
The following section summarizes the key findings in the Housing Needs Assessment and references the resulting programs.

Review of Existing Housing Element
Since the City of St. Helena adopted the Housing Element Update in 2014, the City successfully implemented a majority of the Housing Element implementation programs. Between 2014 and 2021, the City was successful in obtaining additional funding for affordable housing production, preserving existing affordable housing units, and promoting the expansion of multifamily and mixed use housing through the recent 2040 General Plan Update. The City also successfully implemented programs incentivizing and streamlining affordable housing development and revised development standards related to second units for state compliance. While the 2040 General Plan Update process required significant staff time and delayed implementation of some Municipal Code amendments, the City is currently (2022) undertaking a zoning code update that will address the remaining code amendments implementation measures during the 6th cycle. As the code update draws to its conclusion, the City will have more resources available to implement the remaining implementation actions, which have been continued and expanded in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Demographic and Economic Trends
Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to increase because of natural growth and the strong economy drawing new residents to the region. The population of St. Helena increased by 2.1 percent from 2000 to 2020, which is lower than the growth rate of the Bay Area. In 2019, St. Helena’s youth population under the age of 18 was 1,050 and senior population 65 and older was 1,636. These age groups represent 17.2 percent and 26.8 percent, respectively, of St. Helena’s population. Program H-A commits the City to providing sufficient housing sites to meet the needs of the population and Programs H-H and H-I address workforce housing.

Housing Conditions
Number of Homes. The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.

The number of homes in St. Helena increased, 4.4 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate for Napa County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. Program H-N, H-O work to facilitate higher density development, and H-P works to provide residential development opportunities in commercial areas through the implementation of mixed-use zoning.

Home Prices. A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all St. Helena residents to live and thrive in the community.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-6
• Ownership. The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $1 million-$1.5 million in 2019. Home prices increased by 118.2 percent from 2010 to 2020. Program H-GG works to increase affordable homeownership opportunities in St. Helena through the pursuit of mortgage credit certificates.
• Rental Prices. The typical contract rent for an apartment in St. Helena was $1,470 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 15.7 percent from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $59,160 per year. Programs H-DD, H-EE, H-FF, and H-HH work to assist the development of affordable housing. Program H-II includes a commitment to support the Housing Choice Voucher program and to support efforts to expending funding for the program.

Housing Type. It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 63.9 percent of homes in St. Helena were single family detached, 6.1 percent were single family attached, 6.2 percent were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 18.4 percent were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multifamily units. Generally, in St. Helena, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. Programs aimed at addressing the lack of affordable housing types include H-A, H-B, H-E, H-H, H-I, H-J, H-M, H-P, and H-W.

Cost Burden. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In St. Helena, 21.1 percent of households spend 30-50 percent of their income on housing, while 16.6 percent of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing. Lower-income, Latinx, and large households are disproportionally impacted by housing cost burdens. Programs including H-E, H-H, H-M, H-DD, H-EE, and H-FF work to reduce the costs of production or create more affordable housing opportunities by streamlining development approvals, incentivizing affordable housing types, generating funds, and reducing fees.

Special Housing Needs
People with Disabilities. In St. Helena, people with disabilities make up around 12 percent of the total population. Children (under 18) make up around 38 percent of the developmentally disabled population, while adults make up around 62 percent. Most of the developmentally disabled population reside with their parent, family, or guardian.

Senior Households. Senior households represent a higher percentage of the total households in St. Helena, at about 39 percent of households in the city. There is a large income disparity between seniors who rent housing and seniors who own their home. Most seniors who rent make 0 to 30 percent of AMI, and sixty-eight percent of senior households in this income category have housing cost burdens. By contrast, most seniors who own make greater than 100 percent of AMI; thirteen percent of senior households in this category experience housing cost burdens.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-7
Farmworkers. The number of permanent farm workers in Napa County has increased from 2,916 in 2002 to 4,290 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers decreased from 7,855 to 5,734. In St. Helena, the migrant worker student population totaled 20 during the 2019-20 school year, an increase of two students since the 2016-17 school year.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness. According to a Point in Time Count provided by the Chief of Police, there is one homeless person who resides in St. Helena. Countywide, many of the persons experiencing homelessness report chronic substance abuse or mental illness.

Programs H-E, H-H, H-I, H-BB, H-FF, H-KK, H-LL, H-NN, H-OO respond to the city's special housing need by streamlining development review, incentivizing development, or providing directly funding for construction or rehabilitation of housing for those with special needs.

Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints
The non-governmental constraints that restrict building in St. Helena include the price of land, cost of construction, flooding, conservation easements and long-term vineyard leases, and a lack of rental accessory dwelling units. The governmental controls analyzed in this section were land use controls, codes and enforcements, on-and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, and regulations affecting housing for persons with disabilities. The land use controls including zoning and current General Plan land use designations do not constrain residential development; however, some changes are necessary to streamline the design review process. Additionally, water and sewer access are constrained, and the City must prioritize service for proposed development that includes housing for lower-income households (Program H-C). Additionally, St. Helena must also amend the Zoning Code to allow for low barrier navigation centers, consistent with State law. See Program H-F for more information.

Sites Inventory and Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types Sites Inventory. In combination with the City’s pending projects and ADU development trends, the sites inventory provides adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements. St. Helena received a RHNA of 256 total units distributed across very low-income (104 units), low-income (59 units), moderate-income (26 units), and above moderate-income (67 units) categories. A total of 83 lower income housing units can be accommodated on City-owned properties and 332 total housing units can be accommodated on vacant and non-vacant sites. Multiple property owners of vacant and non-vacant sites are supportive of and interested in housing development on their properties. See Program H-A for more information.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types. St. Helena’s Zoning Code allows for a variety of housing types in the City including multiple-family units, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, manufactured and mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units. However, to comply with Section 65915 through 65918 of the California Government Code, St. Helena should amend the Zoning Code to reflect the new Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-8
maximum density bonus provisions that were adopted by the State in 2020. Program H-F commits the City to updating the Zoning Code for compliance with State law.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Earning Populations. 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, H-R, H-S, H-U, H-V, H-W, and H-AA.

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 work poses housing challenges for the community and are seen as an impediment for St. Helena.

Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs H-E, H-H, H-I, and H-KK.

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 medium 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 further 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-R, H-S, H-V, H-W, H-AA, H-DD, H-EE, H-FF, H-GG, H-LL, and H-NN.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-9
Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs
Goal 1 A Diversity of Housing to Meet Local Needs
To facilitate development of a variety of housing types to meet the full range of housing needs throughout our community, with particular emphasis on housing for our local workforce, people with special housing needs, and people with extremely low, very low, low, and moderate incomes.

Policies
HE 1.1 Maintain a sufficient supply of land zoned for residential development to meet the identified housing need at all income levels.

HE 1.2 Work with property owners and developers to facilitate development of new affordable housing throughout the community.

HE 1.3 Encourage the development of affordable housing and remove non-governmental development constraints, as feasible.

HE 1.4 Remove governmental constraints to housing.

HE 1.5 Address workforce housing needs by supporting in-fill and mixed-use development near downtown.

HE 1.6 Encourage innovative housing types and designs.

Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-10
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-A Available Sites Inventory
The City will prepare a sites inventory and suitability analysis that identifies suitable sites for housing
development that allows targeted income housing
developers to have a clear idea of what sites are suitable for meeting the Regional Housing Needs of the City. To
accommodate the remaining lower-income RHNA of 156
units, the City of St. Helena will identify and rezone a minimum of 14 acres to the HDR zoning district, allowing exclusively residential uses and a minimum of 20 units per acre to a maximum of 28 units per acre by January 31,
2024. Rezoned sites will permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right pursuant to Government Code
section 65583.2(h) and (i) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households and will be selected from sites 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10 in the parcel listing (Table 58). As reflected in 11: Housing Resources, each site has the capacity to accommodate at least 16 units and will be available for development in the planning period where water, sewer, and dry utilities can be provided.

The City will maintain an inventory of parcels meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(c); that is, vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive
housing elements or nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element, that are identified to accommodate
housing for lower income households. This inventory shall be made available online. All previously used lower-income sites currently meet the lower-income density threshold (20 du/ac), however the City shall update the zoning code to allow by-right approval for housing developments that
Identify housing sites suitable to accommodate:
· Very low income: 104 units
· Low income: 59 units
· Moderate income 26 units
· Above Moderate income: 67 units
· Total: 256 units
Provide sites that proactively work to overcome
concentrations of lower- and moderate-income
earning populations; with the goal of facilitating
the development of 82 lower income units in the
western portion of the city
Provide sites appropriate for affordable housing
types
Commit to streamlining review of Hunter
Subdivision project to completion with the goal of
Building Permit applications in 2025. Evaluate
timeline at the end of 2025 and if determined
necessary, identify additional housing sites to
meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA requirements
HE1.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
By January 31,
2024
Publiclyavailable
inventory: by
2024
Hunter
Subdivision
Building
permits: 2025
Evaluate
timeline by
end of 2025
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-11
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
include 20 percent or more of its units affordable to lower income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) on these sites.

The City will consider AFFH in the identification of sites within the inventory and will work to provide sites that proactively work to overcome concentrations of lower- and moderate-income earning populations on the eastern
portion of the city.

H-B Growth Management System
The City will remove the Growth Management System
(GMS) from the Zoning Code.

Due to Senate Bill 330, the GMS cannot currently be
enforced. The City shall remove the GMS from the zoning code through the current Comprehensive Zoning Code
Update currently underway. The GMS has been removed
from the Draft Zoning Code, which is scheduled for
adoption in summer/fall 2023.

During the planning period, encourage the
development of:
· 4 very low-income units
· 4 low-income units
· 10 moderate-income units
· 10 above moderate-income units
Address the city's lack of affordable housing by
removing governmental constraints
HE1.1
HE1.4
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Implementatio
n: immediate
Revised
Zoning Code:
by 2025 (prior
to sunset of
SB 330)
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-12
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-C Water and Sewer Access
The City will continue to give priority access to water and sewer infrastructure to projects that include affordable housing units.

As required by State law, the City shall deliver the adopted housing element to water and sewer providers, including a cover memo describing the City’s housing element, as well as the City’s housing needs and regional housing need.

Establish specific procedures providing priority
access to water and sewer infrastructure to
developments with units affordable to lowerincome households, as required by State law Provide water and sewer providers with the
adopted housing element, including cover memo,
as required by State law
HE1.3
HE1.4
Planning
and Public
Works
Departments
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Water
and
Sewer
Enterpris
e Funds
Establish
procedure: by
2025
Provide
providers with
housing
element:
immediately
upon
adoption
H-D Road and Utility Improvement Coordination
The City will continue to work with private property
owners/developers to plan for road and utility
improvements necessary to support housing on sites
identified for lower-income housing, in the event these sites are developed. Funding for off-site improvements will be provided through development impact fees. The City shall annually evaluate funding levels and potential opportunities for use of the funds in line with this program. The City will prioritize funding for improvement projects in the southeast quadrant of the city, including at sites 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12, as possible.

During the planning period, encourage the
development of:
· 4 very low-income units
· 4 low-income units
· 4 units identified for seniors,
farmworkers, or persons with disabilities
Provide funding to assist in the completion of two
roadway or utility improvement projects in the
southeast quadrant, with a goal of providing
$100,000 during the planning period.

HE1.2
HE1.3
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Impact
fees
Throughout
the planning
period, as
needed
Evaluate
funding levels
and
opportunities:
annually
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-13
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-E Streamline Special Needs Housing
The City will apply streamlined ministerial review to housing developments that meet the needs of lower income
households and special needs groups, such as seniors,
people with disabilities, farmworkers, and homeless families and individuals.

The City shall evaluate the streamlined review policy every two years to identify constraints on special needs housing production.

The City shall provide priority processing to development applications that work to provide housing for residents with special housing needs. The City shall also support these applicants by providing technical support through the
entitlement process and shall provide additional density bonuses and modifications to development standards
(beyond State law) to special needs housing projects
proposed on the western half of the city, where fair housing issues are less concentrated.

During the planning period, encourage the
development of:
· 15 very low-income units
· 8 low-income units
· 6 units identified for seniors,
farmworkers, or persons with disabilities
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
Address the lack of farmworker housing in the city
Provide incentives that work to overcome
concentrations of affordable housing on the
eastern portion of the city
HE1.4 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Evaluate
constraints:
every two
years
Apply
streamlined
review:
throughout
planning
period
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-14
H-F Municipal Code Updates
The City will review and amend the Municipal Code, to
comply with State law to:
· Allow low barrier navigation centers for compliance
with Government Code Sections 65660 and 65668
(AB 101).
· Allow for residential care facilities of six or fewer in zones allowing single-family uses, subject only to
the requirements of single-family uses, in
compliance with State law (HSC § 1568.0831); and
permit facilities with seven or more beds in all
residential zones with objectivity and certainty
similar to other residential uses of the same form
· Update Chapter 17.144 (Affordable Housing) to
reflect new maximum density bonus tier framework
in compliance with California Government Code
Sections 65915 through 65918.
· Amend the Zoning Ordinance to define “family” as
one or more persons living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The definition
should not distinguish between related and
unrelated individuals and should not impose a
numerical limit on the number of persons that
constitute a family.
· Update parking requirements related to emergency
shelters for compliance with Government Code
section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) to require only
be the number of spaces necessary for staff
working in the shelter and no more than other uses
in the same zones.
· Allow accessory dwelling units in all zones allowing
residential uses, including the AP Zone, mixed-use
and commercial zones.

Amend the Municipal Code for compliance with
State law by 2025
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city by removing governmental constraints to
housing production
Amend the inclusionary housing ordinance to
update in-lieu fees to reflect real costs of
developing affordable housing, provide incentives
to construct workforce housing, and provide more
on-site housing requirements for affordable
housing development
HE1.4
HE6.1
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
By 2025
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-15
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
· Update Chapter 17.116.030 (Accessory Dwelling
Units) for compliance with Government Code
section 65852.2.
· Update Chapter 173.200 (Reasonable
Accommodation) to remove discretionary finding
requirements that constrain development, including
finding #5, which considers impacts to surrounding
properties or uses.
· Incorporate objective design standards for singlefamily, small lot, and multifamily developments that provide a ministerial design review process
· Provide a by-right streamlined review process for
affordable housing developments meeting state
affordability thresholds, in compliance with SB 35
and SB 330.
· Allow permanent and supportive housing pursuant
to Government Code section 65651 without
discretionary action.
· Allow emergency shelters by right in BPO zone in
compliance with Government Code section
65583(a)(4).
· Expand the definition of emergency shelters to
include interim interventions in compliance with
Government Code section 65583(a)(4).

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-16
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-G Safety Element Update
The City will, in accordance with SB 1035, update the
General Plan Safety Element to include any new information on fire and flood hazards, as well as climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. In accordance with SB 99 and AB 747, the updated Safety Element will also include evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios and to include information
identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.

Update the Safety Element by 2024 HE1.4 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
2024
H-H Workforce and Farmworker Housing
The City will identify and adopt, as appropriate, incentives for development to address the housing needs of
“workforce” and farmworker households, with priority
given to projects in lower-density higher income on the western half of the city. As part of this effort, the City will explore the feasibility of adding an above moderate-income workforce housing component to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and amend the Ordinance as
appropriate.

Identify and adopt, as appropriate, development
incentives such as higher density and height
allowances, a streamlined design review process,
and financial incentives, including fee reductions
and waivers and contributions from the City’s
Housing Trust Fund, to encourage the
development of workforce and farmworker
housing, including additional incentives for those
projects in low-density high-income areas
Encourage the development of:
· 10 units identified for workforce or
farmworker housing during the planning
period
· 2 workforce housing developments in
low-density high-income areas
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
Address the lack of farmworker housing in the city
HE1.4 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
By 2025
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-17
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-I ADU Workforce Housing Incentive Program
The City will implement a program to provide financial
assistance for the development of accessory dwelling units in exchange for affordability restrictions that will provide workforce housing. Potential funding sources include, but are not limited to, Housing Trust Funds and Transient
Occupancy Tax revenues.

To encourage housing mobility and housing choice, the City shall provide marketing of the ADU Workforce Housing
Program (and financial incentives) targeted at low-density areas of the city, with particular emphasis on the western half of the city where fair housing issues and existing affordable units are less concentrated. As part of this effort, the City shall hold up to two multi-lingual engagement
events.

Establish an ADU Workforce Housing incentive
program
Market financial incentives to residents in LR and
MR zones, particularly on the western portion of
the City
in combination with Programs H-Q and H-R,
encourage the development of:
· 80 accessory dwelling units, targeting 60
on the western portion of the city
· 20 ADUs with affordability restrictions
during the planning period, including 15
within the western portion of the city.
· 15 ADUs near downtown
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
Address the lack of farmworker housing in the city
HE1.4 Planning
Department
Housing
Trust
Funds
Transient
Occupan
cy Tax
State and
Federal
workforc
e
housing
programs
State and
Federal
grant
funding
Establish
program: by
2025
Provide
marketing and
engagement
events: 2025
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-18
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-J Non-traditional Housing Types
The City will encourage development of co-housing,
ecohousing, a ‘green’ manufactured home, and other forms of housing, and will ensure these housing types are
considered in the city’s streamlined approval process.

The City will evaluate and update, as appropriate, current zoning practices to remove constraints to non-traditional housing types. The City will also amend the zoning code to provide objective standards for residential development that work for a variety of housing types, including nontraditional housing types.

Evaluate current zoning practices to identify
constraints to non-traditional housing types by
2025
Amend the zoning code to remove constraints and
provide objective design standards by 2026
Encourage the development of:
· 10 missing middle units on infill parcels
or in areas within the western portion of
the city, consistent with AFFH.
· 4 non-traditional housing units during the
planning period.

Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
HE1.5 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Encourage
nontraditional
housing types:
throughout
the planning
period
Evaluate
zoning: by
2025
Amend
zoning: by
2026
H-K Non-Vacant Sites
The City shall adopt a policy(ies) to incentivize new or more intense development on sites included in the sites inventory as lower-income capacity, including sites 7, 9, and 11 (for sites 1 and 2, see Program H-L). Incentives may include, but are not limited to, reducing development standards,
providing flexible parking standards, priority processing, or deferred fees. The City shall engage property owners within six months of adoption to discuss constraints and potential incentives.

Adopt policies that Incentivize the development of
new or more intense uses on non-vacant sites
identified as lower-income capacity to meet the
RHNA.

Encourage the construction of 42 new lowerincome units on sites 7, 9, and 11, including 32 on the western portion of the city
HE 1.1
HE 1.2
HE 1.3
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Engage
property
owners:
within six
months of
adoption
Adopt
incentives:
2024
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-19
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-L City-owned Sites
The City will maintain compliance with the Surplus Land Act throughout the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning
period. The City will assess the appropriateness of and consider implementing the following: outreach
opportunities with housing developers, requests for
proposals, development incentives, fee waivers, priority processing, and financial assistance (when available) to facilitate and incentivize developers to develop housing units on City-owned sites.

The City plans to make 3 properties available through the Surplus Land Act process over the next two years for a
potential development of 57 lower-income units. The City shall conduct studies of City owned sites included in the sites inventor to determine the most efficient use for
housing. These include sites 1, 2, and 3. Through this
process, the City shall engage local affordable housing developers to determine site constraints and potential
policies to meaningfully incentivize affordable housing development on these sites. The City shall proceed with the findings for housing development by 2026. The City
anticipates two-and-a-half years to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (Fall 2026), and one-and-a-half
additional years for land use entitlements and development agreements (Spring 2028).

City owned sites included in the inventory (sites 1-3) shall be rezoned incompliance with Govt. Code Section
65583.2(h) and (i) within one year of the adoption deadline (by January 31, 2024).

Engage local affordable housing developers
immediately
Study city owned sites to determine the most
efficient use for affordable housing development
within the first year following adoption
By 2026, implement an action plan to sell, or
release an RFP to develop, City owned land for
affordable housing development based on the
findings of the conducted studies. Through the
action plan, establish and implement a variety of
incentives to facilitation housing development.

Maintain compliance with the Surplus Land Act
throughout the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Planning Period
Make properties available through the Surplus
Land Act process
Target Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by Fall
2026
Target land use entitlements issuance by Spring
2028
Encourage the development of 57 lower-income
units in the northeast quadrant of the city near
transit opportunities, and where fair housing
issues are less concentrated, and walkability and
environmental scores are more positive
HE 1.1
HE 1.2
HE 1.3
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Engage
developers:
immediately
upon
adoption
Conduct
studies: by
July 2025
Implement
action plan
and incentives
for City
owned sites:
by 2026
Rezone sites:
by Jan. 31,
2026
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-20
Goal 2 High-Quality Neighborhoods with a Balance of Housing Types To plan for a balance of housing types throughout the community. [Existing Goal, modified]
Policies
HE 2.1 Encourage higher density development.

HE 2.2 Promote higher density development opportunities in low density, high resource areas.

HE 2.3 Promote mixed-use developments.

HE 2.4 Promote accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production.

HE 2.5 Allow duplexes to the extent required by State law in all single-family residential zones consistent with SB 9.

HE 2.6 Promote the development of missing middle housing with an area median income target of 120 percent (moderate income).

HE 2.7 Promote a balance of housing types and unit sizes throughout the community.

Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-21
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-M Incentives for Lower-Cost Housing
Types
The City will continue to provide incentives for
higher density housing and will explore possible
incentives for building attached market rate housing
units for rent and for sale. Incentives may include,
but are not restricted to, fast tracking development
applications, deferred development fees, reduced
parking and/or other city standards, and density
bonuses.

Encourage the development of 20 lower income units
during the planning period
Study potential incentives for attached market rate
units by 2027
Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Throughout
the
planning
period
Attached
market-rate
housing
study by
2027
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-22
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-N Zoning to Facilitate Higher Density
Housing
The City will modify the Zoning Code to facilitate
higher density housing, consistent with the 2040
General Plan Update and Housing Sites Analysis,
and discourage the construction of oversize homes,
particularly within the western portion of the city,
consistent with AFFH.

The City shall revise maximum lot coverage to 55
percent and maximum height to 42 feet in the HR
zone and on key housing sites in the MR zone (see
Section 17.40.020(N)).

The City shall revise the zoning code to allow minor
modifications of up to 10 percent increase in lot
coverage standards and 5 percent (or two feet,
whichever is greater) in maximum height. Minor
modifications shall be approved by the Community
Development Director without a public hearing.

The City shall reduce parking requirements for
multifamily uses with three or more units to require
one parking space for studio or one-bedroom units.

The City shall revise Section 17.40.020 to allow
duplexes and triplexes and densities of 5.1 to 16
dwelling units per acres in the MR zone without a
conditional use permit.

Modify the development standards within the Zoning
Ordinance to encourage higher density developments
by 2026, with a goal of encouraging the development
of 30 multifamily units in the HR zone and on key
housing sites in the MR zone, as well as through the
development of duplexes and triplexes in the MR
zone during the planning period
Develop land use patterns that work to overcome
geographic concentrations of lower-and moderateincome earning populations Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.1
HE2.2
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
By 2026
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-23
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-O Exemptions from Minimum Density
The City will amend zoning regulations to prohibit
exemptions from minimum density requirements.

Prohibit exemptions from minimum density
requirements
Encourage development patterns that work to
overcome geographic concentrations of lower-and
moderate-income earning populations
HE2.1
HE2.2
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
By 2026
H-P Mixed-use Development Types
The City will amend the Zoning Code to create and
implement the development criteria set for mixed
use development within St Helena.

Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create and
implement the development criteria set for mixed use
development by 2026
Encourage the development of 20 housing units in
mixed-use projects during the planning period
Explore and adopt, as appropriate, development
incentives such as higher density and height
allowances, a streamlined design review process, and
financial incentives, including fee reductions and
waivers and contributions from the City’s Housing
Trust Fund, to encourage employers to provide onsite employee housing Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.3 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
By 2026
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-24
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-Q Direct Assistance for ADU
Development
The City will continue to provide financial incentives, such as fee waivers and pre-approved plans, for
ADU development.

The City will also explore additional options such as
covering the cost of a feasibility consult or the
license fee for pre-approved plans, or capping total
fees.

The City will work with Napa Sonoma ADU to
provide public information regarding ADUs on the
City website, including a guide for homeowners
explaining the benefits and procedures for adding
an ADU and links to resources, including the ADU
Feasibility Calculator, Home Match Program, and
Standard ADU Plans Program.

Provide direct financial incentives to 10 ADU projects
in the planning period
Explore additional financial incentives by 2025
Provide informational materials and technical
assistance regarding the development of ADUs to 30
households in low-density western portions of the
city within the planning period
Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.4 Planning
Department
Housing
Trust Fund
General
Fund (staff
time)
Explore
additional
incentives:
by 2025
Provide
information
al materials:
by 2025
Engage
Napa
Sonoma
ADU:
annually
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-25
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-R Place-based ADU Strategy
The City will target specific areas for ADU incentives
and will create incentives to construct ADUs in the
low- and medium-density areas near downtown as
well as in low-density higher-income areas of the
city, particularly on the western portion of the city.

Potential incentives include, but are not restricted
to, fast tracking development applications, deferred
development fees, and reduced parking and/or other
city standards.

Establish place-based ADU strategies and incentives
by 2026
In combination with Program H-I and H-Q, the
development of:
· 80 accessory dwelling units, targeting 60 on
the western portion of the city
· 20 ADUs with affordability restrictions during
the planning period, including 15 within the
western portion of the city.
· 15 ADUs near downtown
Proactively work to overcome concentrations of
lower- and moderate-income earning households
Proactively work to relieve displacement pressures on
multifamily zones
HE2.2
HE2.4
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Establish
program: by
2026
H-S Affordability Requirements for ADU
Incentives
The City will link financial incentives and
development standard variances to affordability
requirements for ADUs. Whenever the City assists in
the development of an ADU through financial
incentives or by granting a variance, the City will
require that either the main house or the ADU is
used as a rental unit affordable to lower- and
moderate-income households for a minimum of five
years through an affordable housing regulatory
agreement with the City.

Update the zoning ordinance to include affordability
requirements for ADU projects receiving financial or
regulatory incentives by 2026
Incentivize the development of:
· 12 very low-income units
· 14 low-income units
· 6 moderate income units
HE2.4 Planning
Department
Housing
Trust Fund
General
Fund (staff
time)
By 2026
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-26
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-T Illegal Housing Units
The City will continue to respond to complaints
regarding illegal units. Additionally, the City will
work with the property owners to help bring illegal
units up to code and to abate the use of nonhabitable buildings as living units.

Respond to complaints regarding illegal units
Provide technical support to assist all lower income
units to be brought up to code in the planning period
Provide financial support to assist five lower income
units in the southeast quadrant of the City to be
brought up to code within the planning period
HE2.4 Planning and
Building
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Housing
Trust Fund
Throughout
the
planning
period
H-U Place-based Density Increases
The City will revise the Zoning Code to allow urban
lot splits, duplexes, and other two-unit projects in
single-family residential zones in accordance with
Senate Bill 9. The City will also adopt incentives,
which may include fee reductions, deferrals, or
waivers; flexible development standards; priority
processing, or allowing triplexes on single-family
lots if one unit ensures affordability to lower- or
moderate-income renters by deed restriction. The
City shall publicize informational materials outlining
policies and incentives on the City website and
through mailing lists and social media outlets.

Adopt incentives for small multi-unit SB 9 projects in
single-family zones by 2024, with a goal of
incentivizing the development of 10 SB 9 projects in
the planning period
Publicize informational materials by 2024; update
within 30-days of changes
Revise the Zoning Code by 2026
Proactively work to overcome concentrations of
lower- and moderate-income populations
Proactively work to relieve displacement pressures in
multifamily zones
HE2.2
HE2.5
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Allow
duplexes: by
2024
Adopt
incentives:
by 2024
H-V Multi-unit Development in Low-density
Higher-income Areas
The City will encourage the development of
affordable housing on in-fill parcels and in lowdensity areas in the western portion of the city, in line with the City's commitment to affirmatively
further fair housing. As part of this effort, the City
will explore and adopt, revisions to development
standard to encourage multi-unit developments
within existing neighborhoods throughout the city.

Post an inventory of potential housing sites on the
City’s web site immediately following adoption of the
Housing Element
Explore revisions to development standards to
encourage multi-unit infill development (as part of
comprehensive zoning code update) by 2026
HE2.2, HE2.6 Planning
Department
City Council
General
Fund (staff
time)
Housing
sites posted
to website
in 2023
Standards
update:
2026
Explore
potential
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-27
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
The City will also explore additional incentives to
encourage affordable multi-unit projects in high
resource areas, including, but not limited to priority
permit processing, reduced or waived development
fees, reduced parking and/or other city standards,
and an additional density bonus.

Facilitate the development of three multi-unit lowerincome housing projects on City-owned properties in the planning period
Facilitate the development of five lower- or
moderate-income infill projects in the planning period
Address disproportionate housing needs in infill
areas, including overpayment, overcrowding, and
displacement risk by increasing housing
opportunities; facilitate seven SB9 lot splits to
increase housing opportunities in single family
neighborhoods in the planning period, with a goal of
facilitating development of five lower-income units
on these properties
Explore additional incentives for affordable multi-unit projects in low-density areas on the western portion
of the city by 2026
Encourage the development of eight lower- and eight
moderate income multi-family units in high resource
areas or on infill parcels within the planning period
Proactively work to overcome concentrations of
lower- and moderate-income households on the
eastern portion of the city
Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
addition
incentives:
by 2026
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-28
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-W Missing Middle Housing
The City will review and amend the zoning code and
applicable development standards to encourage and
promote a mix of dwelling types and sizes,
specifically missing middle-density housing types
(e.g., triplexes, courtyard buildings, townhomes,
live/work) to create a diversity of housing types and
densities and increase the availability of affordable
housing to reduce displacement risk for residents
overpaying for housing.

Specifically, the City will add a new mixed use zone,
consistent with the 2040 General Plan Update, and
will evaluate and revise minimum lot sizes and
parking ratios, particularly in high resource, lowdensity areas.

Revise zoning standards to encourage missing middle
housing by 2026
To enhance housing mobility and housing choice,
encourage the development of a variety of missing
middle housing types in infill projects; support the
development of three missing middle housing
developments between three and 20 units
To enhance housing mobility, encourage the
development of 15 lower- and 15 moderate-income
units in low-density high-income areas
HE2.2
HE2.6
HE2.7
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Revise
Zoning
Code: by
2026
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-29
Goal 3 Conservation of Existing Housing
Improve and conserve existing housing, with particular attention to the rehabilitation and retention of existing affordable units. [Existing Goal] Policies
HE 3.1 Protect the existing stock of affordable and market rate housing.

HE 3.2 Support the conservation of existing housing units for those with special housing needs, including seniors and others with special housing needs.

HE 3.3 Monitor housing conditions.

Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-30
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-X Condominium Conversion
The City will continue to restrict the conversion of rental units to condominiums. Current policy allows conversion to
condominiums under certain circumstances when the vacancy rate is high. Because the presence of second homes within the community results in an inflated vacancy rate, the City will update the current policy to eliminate the linkage to vacancy rates. To work to reduce displacement pressures in lowerresourced areas, the revised policy will completely restrict all conversions in the southeastern portion of the city.

Preserve existing affordable housing stock
Update current policy to remove linkage to
vacancy rates
Completely restrict condominium conversion in
the southeastern quadrant of the City
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
HE3.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Update
policy by
2026
H-Y Affordable Housing Impact Fee
The City will continue to charge an affordable housing impact fee whenever housing units are converted to other uses. The City will exempt conversion projects that create affordable for-sale housing from this impact fee. Collected affordable housing impact fees will be used for the preservation and development of housing opportunities affordable to lowerand moderate-income households, and will give priority to projects in the southeastern portion of the city where fair housing issues, and displacement risks exist in greater concentrations.

Evaluate the impact fee against the real cost of
affordable housing development every two years
Discourage the conversion of residential uses to
nonresidential uses
Using funds generated through the Affordable
Housing Impact fee, provide financial assistance
to support the development or preservation of 70
lower-income units in the southeast quadrant,
including, but not limited to, units on sites 5, 7,
and 8
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city by working to retain existing units or
generating funding for future affordable units
HE3.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Throughout
the
planning
period
Evaluate
impact fee:
every two
years
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-31
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-Z At-Risk Assisted Affordable Housing Units
Although there are no assisted affordable rental units
currently at-risk of conversion to market rate in St. Helena, the City with the assistance of the Napa Housing Authority, shall continue to monitor assisted properties. If units are identified as at-risk of conversion, the City will work with the property owners and/or other parties to ensure that they are conserved as affordable housing.

The City will also engage with owners of deed-restricted moderate-income for-sale units (Marietta Townhomes and
Voorhees Circle) at-risk of conversion to market rate within the planning period. The City will work with owners to find solutions to extend affordability requirements.

Unless consistent with the terms of an affordable
housing agreement with the City of St. Helena,
prohibit the conversion of assisted affordable
units to market rate
Retain all assisted affordable units during the
planning period
Immediately (by 2024) engage homeowners with
expiring deed-restrictions
HE3.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Engage atrisk
property
owners:
immediately
, and twice
annually
thereafter
H-AA Vacation Rentals
The City will continue to limit the conversion of market rate housing to vacation rentals and will abate the use of illegal vacation rentals, including time shares and fractional
interests.

To preserve existing affordable housing and reduce
displacement pressures, the City shall adopt a policy
restricting conversion of units occupied by lower- and
moderate- income households in the southeast quadrant of the city to vacation rentals.

Maintain the current stock of market rate
housing
Restrict the conversion of housing units to
vacation rentals occupied by lower- and
moderate-income households in the southeast
quadrant of the city where fair housing issues
exist in greater concentrations
Discourage the conversion of market rate
housing units to vacation rentals, particularly in
low-density higher-resourced areas
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
HE3.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Throughout
the
planning
period
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-32
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-BB Special Housing Needs Rehabilitation Program
The City shall actively pursue federal and State funding sources, including CDBG, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA), CalHome funds, HOME, and other grant sources to establish a program to support the rehabilitation needs of seniors and others with special housing needs, particularly on the southeastern quadrant of the city where affordable units are generally concentrated and displacement risks are
increased.

Pursue funding to assist with rehabilitation costs
for lower income households and seniors, with a
goal of securing $200,000 in funding during the
planning period, including $100,000 for projects
in the southeastern quadrant of the city
During the Planning Period, encourage the
rehabilitation/conservation of:
· 20 units accessible to seniors
· 10 units accessible to persons with a
disability
HE3.2 Planning
and Finance
Departments
CDBG,
AHSC,
PLHA,
CalHome,
HOME
Annually
and as
notices of
funding
availability
are
released.

H-CC Annual Progress Report
The City will continue to review housing needs, conditions, achievements and challenges as part of the City’s regular General Plan review and Annual Housing Element Progress Report, as required by State law.

Submit the Annual Progress Report to the State
Department of Housing and Community
Development and the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research by April 1st of each year
Provide transparency on housing-related actions
and programs
HE3.3
HE4.6
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Annually
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-33
Goal 4 Assistance to Support Affordable Housing
To provide technical and financial resources to support development of affordable housing in our community, especially housing that meets the needs of our local workforce, people with special housing needs, and people with moderate, low, and very low incomes.

Policies
HE 4.1 Develop permanent local sources of funding to support affordable housing.

HE 4.2 Aggressively pursue and ‘leverage’ State and Federal housing funds.

HE 4.3 Address farmworker housing needs.

HE 4.4 Support housing that meets special needs, including senior citizens and persons with disabilities.

HE 4.5 Explore methods to increase Housing Trust Fund money.

HE 4.6 Provide transparency regarding information on housing-related actions, fees, and programs.

HE 4.7 Provide local preference in the procurement process when municipal funds may be used for housing.

HE 4.8 Give preference to projects providing workforce housing affordable to up to 140 percent of the AMI.

Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-34
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-DD Revenue Generation for Affordable Housing
The City will continue to generate revenues for affordable housing through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and
Transient Occupancy Tax and will continue to use the
revenue to support the development or rehabilitation of affordable housing.

Support the development or preservation of
five extremely low- or very low-income units
Address the lack of affordable housing types
in the city
HE4.1
HE4.5
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Housing
Trust Fund
Transient
Occupancy
Tax
Throughout
the planning
period
H-EE Reduced Fees for Affordable Housing
The City will continue to reduce, defer, or waive fees for affordable housing developments and will explore and
adopt as appropriate higher incentives for affordable
housing developments with units affordable to extremely low- and very low-income households.

Reduce fees for 30 extremely-low or very lowincome units Address the lack of affordable housing types
in the city
HE4.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund
Housing
Trust Fund
Evaluate and
adopt, as
appropriate,
potential
additional
incentives: by
2026
H-FF Extremely Low-Income Units
The City will continue to prioritize the use of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in support of the development and
preservation of regulated affordable units for extremely low-income households. The City will immediately engage with developers interested in creating or preserving
housing for extremely low-income households to discuss
available incentives and any financial or technical
assistance the City can provide.

Support the development or preservation of
six units for extremely low-income households
Address the lack of affordable housing types
in the city
HE4.1 Planning
Department
Housing
Trust Fund
Engage
prospective
developers:
immediately
upon
identification
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-35
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-GG Affordable Homeownership
The City will continue to pursue mortgage revenue bonds and/or mortgage credit certificates to promote affordable homeownership opportunities for moderate- and lowerincome households. The City shall evaluate these opportunities and engage with potential partnering
jurisdictions or institutions annually. The City shall also engage with local mortgage brokers and real estate agents to identify existing programs providing downpayment loans or direct assistance to first-time homebuyers and shall make this information available on the city’s website, as well as through up to two multi-lingual engagement events targeting the southeastern quadrant of the city.

Research and identify potential funding
sources in 2024 and annually thereafter with
the goal of establishing a homeownership
assistance program in 2026
Collect and publicize information on existing
programs available to first-time and lowerincome prospective homeowners through State, Federal, or non-profit agencies within
18 months of adoption of the Housing
Element; hold up to two multi-lingual events
in the southeastern portion of the City by
2026
Assist three lower- or moderate-income
households transition from rental housing to
homeownership
Address the lack of affordable housing types
in the city
HE4.2 Planning
and Finance
Departments
General
Fund (staff
time)
Annually
Identify
funding for
City led
program: in
2024 and
annually
thereafter
Collect and
publicize
information
on existing
programs:
within 18
months of
adoption
Targeted
engagement
events: by
2026
H-HH Additional Funding
The City will continue to pursue additional funding for affordable housing and will explore new options for
affordable housing funding.

Explore new funding sources every two years
to support housing for lower- and moderateincome households, seniors, and residents with special housing needs
Address the lack of affordable housing types
in the city
HE4.1 Planning
and Finance
Departments
General
Fund (staff
time)
Explore new
opportunities:
every two
years
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-36
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-II Section 8 Subsidies
The City will continue to partner with the City of Napa Housing Authority to provide rental assistance to low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households through
Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) rent subsidy
certificates.

Support the City of Napa Housing Authority
rental assistance efforts; engage the Housing
Authority annually to explore opportunities
Provide informational materials regarding
Housing Choice Voucher subsidies on the City
website by 2024
Address the lack of affordable housing types
in the city
HE4.2 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Engage the
Housing
Authority:
annually
Informational
materials: by
2024
H-JJ Housing Coordinator
While the City currently contracts with the City of Napa for Housing Authority services, the City will explore the
possibility of establishing a full-time, shared Housing Coordinator for the up-valley communities to: promote
development of new affordable housing in low-density
higher-resourced areas, assist lower-income households
obtain housing in higher resourced areas, and preserve
existing affordable units. The City shall enter into a costsharing agreement, if feasible. The position would serve all of the up-valley communities, including Napa County.

Meet with potential partner jurisdictions a
minimum of two times during the planning
period to explore options
Identify and procure funds to establish a
shared Housing Coordinator for the up-valley
communities to promote affordable
development in low-density higher resourced
areas, assist lower-income households obtain
housing in higher-resourced areas, and
preserve existing lower- and moderate-income
units
HE4.2 City
Manager
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
CDBG,
AHSC,
PLHA),
CalHome,
HOME, and
other grant
sources
Engage
potential
partners: by
2026
Identify
potential
funding: by
2026
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-37
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-KK Farmworker Housing Needs
The City will contribute staff time and City resources, as appropriate, to countywide farmworker housing efforts that may occur during the Housing Element planning period. The City will reach out to affordable housing developers to support regional and City efforts to develop farmworker housing, including assisting with financing or applications, incentives and concessions, expedited review or other
strategies to encourage the development of housing for
farmworkers.

Support local and regional efforts to develop
farmworker housing
Assist in the development of one farmworker
housing project during the planning period
Address the lack of farmworker housing in the
city
HE4.3 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Housing
Trust Fund
Outreach to
affordable
housing
developers by
2024 and
every two
years
thereafter
H-LL Special Needs Housing Opportunities
The City will encourage new developments to provide a
portion of units to meet the special housing needs of
seniors and persons with disabilities, including
developmental disabilities, throughout the city. The City will provide information on available incentives on the City website and shall immediately engage individuals or
agencies interested in special needs production to discuss opportunities and constraints specific to the parcel(s) being considered.

During the Planning Period, encourage the
development of:
· 10 units accessible to seniors
· 5 units accessible to persons with
disabilities
Address the lack of affordable housing types
throughout the city
HE4.4 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Information
to website: by
2025
Engage
potential
developers:
immediately
upon
identification
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-38
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-MM Housing Information Transparency
The City will, in accordance with AB 1483 (2019), obtain, maintain, update, and make publicly available information related to zoning ordinances, development standards, fees, exactions, affordability requirements, and fair housing laws from the Department of Housing and Community
Development, State Fair Employment, and Housing
Commission’s enforcement program, as well as programs
and funding sources for homeowners at risk of foreclosure, the State Historic Building Code, and information on energy conservation opportunities.

The City will, as appropriate, share this information on the City website and/or in hard copy form at City offices. Any changes to such information shall be made public within 30 days of changes. The City will provide these items in
Spanish, as funding and staff time allows.

Create and share a digital information
database in compliance with AB 1483 by 2024
Updated information is made publicly
available within 30 days of changes
Provide information in Spanish, as funding
allows
HE4.6 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Database: By
2024 and
annually
thereafter
Update
information:
within 30-
days of any
changes
H-NN Funding for New Special Housing Needs
The City shall actively pursue federal and State funding sources, including CDBG, Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), CalHome funds, HOME, and other grant sources to support the construction of housing for seniors and those with special housing needs. The City shall
periodically review available housing programs to identify additional funding sources.

Pursue funding to assist with construction and
rehabilitation needs of lower income
households and seniors
During the Planning Period, encourage the
development of:
· 20 units accessible to seniors
· 10 units accessible to persons with
disabilities
HE3.1
HE 4.1
HE4.2
HE4.4
Planning
and Finance
Departments
CDBG,
AHSC,
PLHA,
CalHome,
HOME
Annually and
as notices of
funding
availability
are release.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-39
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-OO Unit Conversion for Extremely Low-Income
Households
The City will continue to explore the potential of using Affordable Housing Trust Fund money to purchase existing housing for conversion to restricted affordable housing and will commit funding as appropriate. Priority for use of Affordable Housing Trust Fund monies will be given to the creation of housing affordable to extremely-low-income
households, particularly within the western portion of the city, consistent with the commitment to overcome
geographic income disparities.

Identify potential funding
Engage with owners of local market rate
multifamily units to discuss opportunities, if
funding allows
Assist in the conversion of two units from
market rate to extremely low-income during
the planning period
Proactively work to overcome concentrations
of lower- and moderate-income populations
Address the lack of affordable housing types
in the city
HE4.1 Planning
Department
Housing
Trust Fund
General
Fund (staff
time)
Identify
potential
funding:
annually
Engage
owners:
immediately
as funding
and potential
properties are
identified
H-PP Surplus and Excess Public Land
The City will, in accordance with AB 1486 (2019) and AB 1255 (2019), annually identify and inventory a list of sites owned by the City that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of in the prior year. This inventory shall be publicly available and be included in the Housing Element annual report presented to the City Council and submitted to HCD.

Regularly maintain an inventory of publiclyowned surplus or excess land on the City website
Annually release information regarding
publicly-owned sites that have been sold,
leased, or disposed of
HE4.6 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
2023, with
annual
updates
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-40
Goal 5 Resource Conservation
To promote resource conservation by encouraging housing types and designs that use fewer resources (water, electricity, etc.) and therefore cost less to operate over time, supporting long-term housing affordability.

Policies
HE 5.1 Encourage alternative energy sources.

HE 5.2 Encourage energy and resource conservation.

Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-41
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-QQ Green Building Ordinance
The City shall update the Green Building Ordinance, as
necessary, to meet or exceed periodic updates to the State’s Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen).

Ensure compliance with CalGreen throughout
the planning period
HE5.1 Planning and
Building
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Throughout
the
planning
period, as
necessary
H-RR Alternative Energy Technologies
The City will continue to encourage the use of alternative energy technologies and will explore incentives for the use of solar energy in new and rehabilitated housing. Incentives to adopt as appropriate include, but are not restricted to, ensuring a streamlined review process for applications, allowing applications to be submitted via email and paid by phone, deferred fees, and reduced applicable city standards.

Encourage alternative energy technologies in
new and existing developments
Explore additional incentives for solar
installation
HE5.1 Planning and
Building
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Explore and
adopt
incentives,
as
appropriate:
by 2026
H-SS Alternative Energy Technology Information
The City will continue to provide public information on energy conservation and alternative energy technologies to residential developers, contractors, and property owners.

Provide information on the City website and at
City Hall regarding energy conservation,
alternative energy technology options, possible
sources of financing, and any applicable
information regarding necessary local permits
HE5.1 Planning and
Building
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
2023;
updated
annually
thereafter
H-TT Cost-Effective Energy Conservation
The City will continue to require cost-effective energy conservation measures in all new and rehabilitated housing to promote long-term affordability for occupants. The City will adopt the State’s new Energy Efficiency Standards as part of any update to the California Building Standards Code and ensure that all new housing units constructed in the City meet or exceed these standards.

Promote long-term affordability
Adopt updated State energy efficiency and
building code standards, as necessary,
throughout the planning period
HE5.2 Planning and
Building
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Every three
years
beginning in
2023
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-42
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-UU Energy Conservation Measures
The City will continue to participate in AB-811 programs and will explore additional state and federal sources of funding to finance local energy conservation measures. Sources of state and federal funds include, but are not limited to, the California Energy Commission State Energy Program and Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Identify and procure additional funding to
support energy conservation measures
Provide information on available assistance
programs on the City website by 2024
Assist three households, through financial or
technical assistance, with the implementation
of energy conservation measures
HE5.2 Planning and
Finance
Departments
General
Fund
(staff
time)
State and
Federal
Grant
Funds
Throughout
the
planning
period
Explore
funding:
annually
Provide
information
on
assistance
programs:
by 2024
H-VV Water Conservation
The City will continue to apply Municipal Code provisions pertaining to water resources, including requirements for water-efficient landscaping for new residential and commercial construction, as well as implementing the "Water Neutrality" policy for all new development.

Reduce water consumption
Require water-efficient landscaping
Implement the "Water Neutral" policy
Implement the Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (WELO)
HE5.2 Planning and
Public Works
Departments
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Throughout
the
planning
period
Agenda Item #10.1.

Administrative Draft Housing Policy Document | May 2022 1-43
Goal 6 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
To assure that housing programs maximize opportunity and housing choice throughout the city and proactively work to overcome patterns of economic segregation and discrimination based upon age, sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, familial status, ethnic background, or disability. [Existing Goal, modified] Policies
HE 6.1 Support equal housing opportunities for all residents of St. Helena.

HE 6.2 Support the fair housing services provider.

HE 6.3 Support regional efforts to affirmatively further fair housing.

HE 6.4 Ensure public investments are equitably distributed throughout the community.

HE 6.5 Consider affirmatively furthering fair housing goals in all housing related decisions.

Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-44
Implementation Programs Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-WW Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The City shall address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity for all persons regardless race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, disability gender, gender identify, gender expression,
sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, veteran or military status, source of income, and genetic
information as protected categories by the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
[commencing with Section 12900] of Division 3 of Title
2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

The City identified barriers to fair housing through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment.

Actions the City will take to address the identified
barriers and foster an inclusive community, include:
· Concentrations of Lower- and Moderateincome Earning Populations: H-A, H-B, H-N, HO, H-R, H-U, H-V, H-W and H-OO. · Insufficient Housing Stock for Farmworkers: HE, H-H, H-I, and H-KK. · Lack of Affordable Housing Types: H-A, H-B, HE, H-H, H-I, H-J, H-M, H-N, H-P, H-Q, H-V, H-X,

H-AA, H-DD, H-EE, H-FF, H-GG, H-LL, H-NN,
and H-OO.
· Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach: H-T,
H-II, H-JJ, H-WW, and H-XX.
· Limited Resources for Persons with Disabilities:

H-BB, H-LL, and H-NN; as well as objectives D,
F and G in this program.

A) Work to coordinate annual meetings with
jurisdictions and fair housing providers in the county
to assist with and participate in promoting fair
housing opportunities through pursing potential
funding opportunities and joint efforts aimed at
educating the community about fair housing issues
and resources
B) Promote the availability of bi-lingual resources by
ensuring that City-provided services and materials
are available in Spanish and that information is
included regarding the availability of interpretation
or translation services
C) Facilitate development of multifamily housing on
the western portion of the city by providing
developers with information on incentives for
affordable multifamily development and maintaining
a list of available sites (for metrics, see Program H-V) D) Use local permitting and approval processes to
ensure all new multifamily construction, as well as
ADUs, meet the accessibility requirements of the
federal and state fair housing acts; with the goal of
facilitating the development of 30 units accessible to
seniors and other residents with special housing
needs
E) Affirmatively recruit a diverse and multi-lingual
staff, as positions become available
F) Work with Napa Valley Transportation Authority
to explore lowering ridership costs for the VineGo
paratransit system
HE6.1
HE6.2
HE6.3
HE6.4
HE6.5
City Council
City
Manager
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
A: annually
C: engage
with
developers
twice within
the planning
period
D: by 2027
F and G:

Every two
years
H: evaluate
opportunities
annually;
complete 3
projects in
planning
period.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-45
Implementation Programs Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
· Place-based Strategies for Community
Preservation and Revitalization and
Displacement Protection: H-A, H-I, H-J, H-N, HQ, H-R, H-U, H-V, H-W, and H-WW.

The City has included additional objectives with this
program. The City shall monitor progress toward these
objectives annually in the Annual Progress Report and
shall implement additional measures as necessary.

G) Work with the County of Napa to carry out an
ADA self-evaluation and transition plan to remove
barriers for persons with disabilities to facilities and programs in Napa County
H) Prioritize capital improvement projects for public
infrastructure improvements that facilitate
affordable housing development in the southeastern
quadrant of the city, with a goal of completing three
improvement projects related to recreation and
parks, public safety, transportation and walkability,
or access to educational facilities in the quadrant
H-XX Fair Housing Provider
The City will continue to utilize and support Fair Housing Napa Valley as the City's fair housing service provider, responsible for implementing fair housing programs,
receiving complaints, and providing referrals to
available resources when necessary. The City will work
with the Fair Housing Napa Valley to provide
educational materials to educate real estate
professionals, property owners and tenants on their
rights and responsibilities and the resources available to address fair housing issues.

Provide direct funding to Fair Housing Napa Valley
with of goal of providing up to $80,000 over the
planning period
Support fair housing investigations with a goal of
assisting with five investigations of existing
affordable developments for rent in the southeast
quadrant of the city and fair housing issues are more
concentrated and displacement risk is higher
Provide multi-lingual informational materials to the
public regarding tenant rights, fair housing issues,
and resources on the City's website and hold one
multi-lingual engagement event to present the
information targeting residents in the eastern
portion of the city
Provide a link to Fair Housing Napa Valley on the
City's website
HE6.2 City
Manager
Planning
Department
General
Fund
Engage Fair
Housing
Napa Valley:
annually
Informational
materials to
City website:
by 2024
Engagement
event: 2025
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-46
Implementation Programs Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-YY Replacement Unit Program
The City will adopt a policy and will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of
Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3) on
sites identified in the site inventory when any new
development (residential, mixed-use or nonresidential)
occurs on a site that is identified in the inventory
meeting the following conditions:
• currently has residential uses or within the past
five years has had residential uses that have
been vacated or demolished, and
• was subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance,
or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to
persons and families of low or very lowincome, or
• subject to any other form of rent or price
control through a public entity’s valid exercise
of its police power, or
• occupied by low or very low-income
households
In order to mitigate the loss of affordable housing
units, require new housing developments to replace
all affordable housing units lost due to new
development
HE3.1
HE6.1
Planning
Department
General
Fund
Implement:
immediately
Adopt policy:
by January
31, 2024
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-47
Implementation Programs Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-ZZ Lot Consolidation
To expand opportunities for additional affordable
housing, the City will encourage the consolidation of
small parcels to accommodate larger-scale and higher
density developments that are compatible with existing
neighborhoods. The sites inventory includes five parcels equating to 39 lower- and 39 moderate-income RHNA
units. These sites were identified based on common
ownership and contiguous lots. While all five parcels are within moderate resource areas, two of these parcels
(site 9) are located on the western portion of the city, an area with fewer fair housing issues, and adjacent to Spring Street in proximity to high-quality transit
opportunities.

While these parcels will be processed by-right pursuant to Gov. Code section 65583(c)), the City will also
implement other efforts to facilitate and encourage lot consolidation.

Post the sites on the City’s website by October 2023
and provide list to interested developers when
requested, and review annually for accuracy
Develop and implement incentives for lot
consolidation by January 2024 such as fee waivers,
reduced development fees, expedited permit
processing, greater density bonus incentives, and
modifications to parking, height, or setback
standards
Facilitate lot consolidation for high density
residential developments by providing appropriate
assistance to developers to encourage negotiations
between property owners
Encourage the development of 39 lower- and 39
moderate income units during the planning period.

To increase housing mobility and opportunities in
areas where fair housing issues are less
concentrated, encourage the development of 15
lower- and 15 moderate-income units on the
western portion of the City
HE 1.3
HE 4.6
HE6.1
Planning
Department
General
Fund
Housing
Trust
Fund
Post sites to
website: by
Oct. 2023
Implement
incentives: by
2024
H-AAA Permit Streamlining Act
The City shall amend the Municipal Code to specify who
is responsible for making CEQA determinations and
within the timeframes of PRC 21080.1 and PRC
21080.2; and determination of when the PSA is
triggered per Government Code 65950(a)(5) the Permit
Streamlining Act (PSA).

Amend the municipal code for compliance with State
law within 18 months of adoption of the Housing
Element
HE 1.3
HE 4.6
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Within 18
months of
adoption of
the 2023-
2031
Housing
Element
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-48
Quantified Objectives
Quantified Objectives by Type
One of the requirements of State law (California Government Code, Section 65583[b]) is that the Housing Element contains quantified objectives for the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified by a community may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need. Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs, however, the quantified objectives shall establish the number of housing units by income category that can be realistically constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved. The City has established quantifiable objectives in implementation programs throughout the policy document. This section summarizes new construction, conservation, and special needs housing objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period.

New Construction Objectives
Extremely low-income 33 units
166 lower-income units
302 total units
Very low-income 73 units
Low-income 60 units
Moderate-income 44 units 136 moderate and abovemoderate units Above moderate-income 92 units Rehabilitation and Conservation Objectives
• Conservation of all existing affordable housing units. • Conserve 200 manufactured homes at manufactured home parks. • Rehabilitation of 20 units for seniors and 10 units for persons with a disability Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-49
Assistance for Special Needs Households
• 35 units of senior housing
• 18 units for persons with a disability
• 12 units for farmworkers
• Assist in the conversion of two units from market rate to extremely low-income during the planning period.
• Assist three lower- or moderate-income households transition from rental housing to homeownership
Quantified Objectives Summary Table
The City will strive to exceed the following targets for affordable housing development in St. Helena.

Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
New Construction 33 73 60 44 92 302
Rehabilitation 10 10 5 5 0 30
Conservation/Preservation 0 120 100 231 0 451
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-50
This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 1-51

2.Needs Assessment
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-1
Needs Assessment Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2-7 Housing Element Purpose...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Authority ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Status.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Consistency with the General Plan........................................................................................................................................................ 2-8 Changes to State Law ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Public Participation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-13

2. Review of the Existing Housing Element ...................................................................... 2-34 Housing Production During the 2015-2023 Planning Period ............................................................................................................... 2-34 Progress in Implementation................................................................................................................................................................. 2-35

3. Demographic and Economic Trends .............................................................................. 2-58 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-59 Population Trends ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2-59 Household Trends................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-60 Demographic Trends ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2-67 Extremely Low-Income Households..................................................................................................................................................... 2-73 Employment Trends............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-73

4. Population and Employment Projections ...................................................................... 2-80 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-80 Population........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-80 Households.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-81

5. Housing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 2-84 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-84 Existing Housing Conditions................................................................................................................................................................ 2-85

6. Housing Market Conditions........................................................................................... 2-97 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-97 For-Sale Housing ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-97 Rental Housing.................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-101 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-2

7. Special Housing Needs................................................................................................ 2-108 Key Findings...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-108 People with Disabilities..................................................................................................................................................................... 2-109 People Living with Developmental Disabilities.................................................................................................................................. 2-110 Seniors .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-112 Large Households.............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-115 Female-Headed Households.............................................................................................................................................................. 2-118 Farmworkers ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-121 Extremely Low-Income Households................................................................................................................................................... 2-123 Persons Experiencing Homelessness ................................................................................................................................................. 2-124 Non-English Speakers........................................................................................................................................................................ 2-128

8. Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints .................................................... 2-130 Key Findings...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-130 Non-governmental Constraints ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-131 Governmental Constraints................................................................................................................................................................. 2-134

9. Opportunities for Energy Conservation ...................................................................... 2-171

10. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types .................................................................... 2-173 Key Findings...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-173 Multiple-Family Rental Housing ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-173 Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing ........................................................................................................................................... 2-173 Housing for Permanent and Seasonal Agricultural Employees.......................................................................................................... 2-174 Zoning for Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing................................................................................ 2-174 Residential Care Facilities.................................................................................................................................................................. 2-176 Low Barrier Navigation Centers ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-177 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-177 Factory Built Housing and Mobile Homes.......................................................................................................................................... 2-177 Accessory Dwelling Units .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-178

11. Housing Resources................................................................................................... 2-180 Future Housing Need......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-180 Residential Site Inventory.................................................................................................................................................................. 2-182 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-3
Availability of Infrastructure and Services ......................................................................................................................................... 2-211 Environmental Constraints................................................................................................................................................................ 2-213 References......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-214 Figures
Figure 1 Population Growth Trends, Indexed to 1990.................................................................................................................. 2-60 Figure 2 Housing Tenure .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-62 Figure 3 Housing Tenure by Race of Householder........................................................................................................................ 2-63 Figure 4 Housing Tenure by Age .................................................................................................................................................. 2-64 Figure 5 Housing Tenure by Housing Type ................................................................................................................................... 2-65 Figure 6 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ............................................................................................................... 2-66 Figure 7 Population Growth Trends ............................................................................................................................................. 2-67 Figure 8 Senior and Youth Population by Race ............................................................................................................................ 2-68 Figure 9 Population by Race, St. Helena, 2000-2019 ................................................................................................................... 2-69 Figure 10 Households by Household Income Level ........................................................................................................................ 2-70 Figure 11 Household Income Level by Tenure................................................................................................................................ 2-71 Figure 12 Poverty Status by Race................................................................................................................................................... 2-72 Figure 13 Jobs in St. Helena........................................................................................................................................................... 2-74 Figure 14 Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ............................................................. 2-75 Figure 15 Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group.............................................................................................................................. 2-76 Figure 16 Jobs-Household Ratio..................................................................................................................................................... 2-77 Figure 17 Resident Employment by Industry .................................................................................................................................. 2-78 Figure 18 Unemployment Rate....................................................................................................................................................... 2-79 Figure 19 Bay Area, Population Totals and Projections, 1990-2050, Plan Bay Area 2050. ............................................................ 2-81 Figure 20 Housing Type Trends...................................................................................................................................................... 2-86 Figure 21 Housing Units by Year Structure Built ............................................................................................................................ 2-87 Figure 22 Occupancy Status........................................................................................................................................................... 2-88 Figure 23 Vacant Units by Type...................................................................................................................................................... 2-89 Figure 24 Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity............................................................................................................................ 2-90 Figure 25 Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity .................................................................................................................. 2-91 Figure 26 Overcrowding by Race ................................................................................................................................................... 2-92 Figure 27 Cost Burden by Tenure ................................................................................................................................................... 2-93 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-4
Figure 28 Cost Burden by Income Level ......................................................................................................................................... 2-94 Figure 29 Cost Burden by Race ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-95 Figure 30 Substandard Housing Issues, St. Helena, 2019............................................................................................................... 2-96 Figure 31 Home Values of Owner-occupied Units.......................................................................................................................... 2-98 Figure 32 Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) .................................................................................................................................... 2-98 Figure 33 Contract Monthly Rents for Renter-occupied Units...................................................................................................... 2-102 Figure 34 Median Contract Monthly Rent.................................................................................................................................... 2-103 Figure 35 Map of Affordable Housing Units, St. Helena............................................................................................................... 2-105 Figure 36 Disability by Type ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-109 Figure 37 Senior Households by Income and Tenure.................................................................................................................... 2-113 Figure 38 Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level..................................................................................................... 2-114 Figure 39 Household Size by Tenure ............................................................................................................................................ 2-116 Figure 40 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ....................................................................................................................... 2-117 Figure 41 Cost Burden by Household Size.................................................................................................................................... 2-118 Figure 42 Household Type............................................................................................................................................................ 2-119 Figure 43 Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status............................................................................................................. 2-120 Figure 44 Farm Labor by County, Napa County ........................................................................................................................... 2-122 Figure 45 Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County.................................................................... 2-125 Figure 46 Hispanic or Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Napa County ............................................................ 2-126 Figure 47 Population with Limited English Proficiency................................................................................................................. 2-129 Figure 48 Discretionary Permit Process Flowchart........................................................................................................................ 2-154 Figure 49 Residential Site Inventory Map..................................................................................................................................... 2-209 Tables
Table 1 Progress Toward the 5th Cycle RHNA ............................................................................................................................. 2-34 Table 2 Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 .................................................................................... 2-39 Table 3 Population Growth Trends ............................................................................................................................................. 2-59 Table 4 Household Trends........................................................................................................................................................... 2-61 Table 5 Average Household Size, St. Helena and Napa County .................................................................................................. 2-61 Table 6 St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................................................. 2-73 Table 7 St. Helena, Population Totals and Projections, 2010-2040, Plan Bay Area 2040............................................................ 2-80 Table 8 Department of Finance Population Projections, Napa County, 2010-2050 .................................................................... 2-80 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-5
Table 9 Plan Bay Area 2050 Population Projections, Bay Area, 2015-2050................................................................................ 2-81 Table 10 Table 2: St. Helena, Household Totals and Projections, 2010-2040, Plan Bay Area 2040 .............................................. 2-82 Table 11 Household Projections by Region, 2015-2050................................................................................................................ 2-82 Table 12 Job Totals and Projections, St. Helena and Napa County, 2010-2040............................................................................ 2-82 Table 13 Job Totals and Projections, North Napa County and the Bay Area, 2015-2050.............................................................. 2-83 Table 14 Housing Permitting from 2015-2019 St. Helena............................................................................................................. 2-86 Table 15 Affordable Home Purchase Prices by Income Level, Napa County................................................................................ 2-100 Table 16 Residential Properties for Sale, January 2023 .............................................................................................................. 2-101 Table 17 Affordable Rental Housing Units, St. Helena................................................................................................................ 2-105 Table 18 Affordable For-Sale Housing Units, St. Helena ............................................................................................................. 2-106 Table 19 Residential Properties for Rent, January 2023.............................................................................................................. 2-106 Table 20 Assisted Affordable Housing Developments by Conversion Risk Status, St. Helena ..................................................... 2-107 Table 21 People with Developmental Disabilities by Age, St. Helena ......................................................................................... 2-110 Table 22 People with Developmental Disabilities by Residence.................................................................................................. 2-111 Table 23 Households by Age....................................................................................................................................................... 2-112 Table 24 Senior Housing Units, St. Helena.................................................................................................................................. 2-115 Table 25 Migrant Worker Student Population ............................................................................................................................ 2-121 Table 26 Farm Labor, Napa County ............................................................................................................................................ 2-122 Table 27 Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Napa County............................................................................ 2-124 Table 28 Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Napa County ............................................................. 2-127 Table 29 Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ...................................................................................... 2-127 Table 30 Price of Vacant Land, March 2022 ............................................................................................................................... 2-131 Table 31 Zoning Districts that Permit Residential Uses............................................................................................................... 2-135 Table 32 Density/Intensity Standards by Zoning District............................................................................................................. 2-137 Table 33 Development Standards by Zone.................................................................................................................................. 2-137 Table 34 Residential Street Width Requirements........................................................................................................................ 2-143 Table 35 Parking Requirements, St. Helena, Napa, Yountville.................................................................................................... 2-148 Table 36 Planning and Development Fees.................................................................................................................................. 2-150 Table 37 Construction Cost Summary, Cost Per Unit and Cost Per Square-Foot......................................................................... 2-151 Table 38 Planning Application Fees – Surrounding Jurisdictions, Single-Family and Multiple-Family......................................... 2-152 Table 39 Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type............................................................................................................. 2-155 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-6
Table 40 Timelines for Permit Procedures................................................................................................................................... 2-155 Table 41 Timelines for Permit Procedures................................................................................................................................... 2-156 Table 42 Housing Types Permitted by Base Zoning District ........................................................................................................ 2-160 Table 43 Pending and Entitled Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 2-181 Table 44 Progress Towards RHNA .............................................................................................................................................. 2-182 Table 45 Site 1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-183 Table 46 Site 2 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-185 Table 47 Site 3 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-187 Table 48 Site 4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-191 Table 49 Site 5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-193 Table 50 Site 6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-195 Table 51 Site 7 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-197 Table 52 Site 8 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-199 Table 53 Site 9 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-200 Table 54 Site 10 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-202 Table 55 Site 11 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-204 Table 56 Site 12 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-206 Table 57 Summary of Housing Units........................................................................................................................................... 2-207 Table 58 Vacant and Nonvacant Sites ........................................................................................................................................ 2-210 .

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-7

1. Introduction
Since 1969, California Housing Element Law has required that local governments develop plans to accommodate and facilitate housing for current and future residents, at all income levels.

Housing Element Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element is to establish a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in St. Helena over the eight-year planning period between January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element sets the policies surrounding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing units that meet the needs of St. Helena residents.

The Housing Element consists of two parts, the Housing Needs Assessment and a Housing Element Policy Document. The Housing Needs Assessment identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs for St. Helena and also identifies sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation. The Housing Policy document will state goals, policies, quantified objectives, and implementation programs for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing, based upon the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and input received through public outreach. Then, throughout the eight-year planning period, St. Helena will implement a set of programs to meet the goals included in the Housing Element Policy Document.

Authority
Housing Elements are required by section 65302(c) of the California Government Code. Housing Elements are one of seven mandatory General Plan Elements. Specific requirements for Housing Elements are set forth beginning at section 65580 of the Government Code, with additional guidance provided by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The combination of the Housing Needs Assessment and the Housing Element Policy Document will address all applicable requirements of state law.

Status
The St. Helena City Council adopted the prior Housing Element in 2015 for the planning period ranging from January 31, 2015, through January 31, 2023. Upon review of the adopted Housing Element, HCD sent the City of St. Helena a letter of compliance on May 29, 2015.1 The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update will plan for St. Helena’s housing needs through the 8-year planning period of January 31, 2023, through January 31, 2031.

While the City’s policies and programs guide housing development during the planning period, the City receives credit for housing units that are built during the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) projection period, which is June 20, 2022, through December 31, 2030, a period of 8.5 years. 2 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development. Housing Element Review Letters. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/he_review_letters/. Accessed on March 11, 2014. 2 California Department of Housing and Community Development. Housing Element Update Schedule. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/6th-web-he-duedate.pdf. Accessed November 2021.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-8
Consistency with the General Plan
California Government Code Section 65300.5 requires that a general plan be internally consistent, meaning that no conflicts exist among the elements of the plan. Government Code section 65583(c) requires that a housing element describe how consistency has been achieved among the general plan elements. The most important aspect of consistency among general plan elements is that policies and implementation measures do not conflict but support one another to achieve the overall goals and vision of a general plan.

In preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City reviewed goals and policies in the various elements of the 2040 St. Helena General Plan. With the passage of SB 1035 in 2018, the City will need to update its Safety Element to include any new information on fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. Program H-G commits the city to updating the Safety Element. Additionally, the City has committed to removing the Growth Management System through Program H-B, and will need to update the Zoning Code for consistency. Consistency with the remaining components of the 2040 General Plan has been achieved through the adoption of complementary policies in each of the elements that support the goals and policies of the other elements.

Changes to State Law
The following items represent substantive changes to State housing law since the City's last Housing Element was adopted and certified. While this is not an exhaustive list, these items are state mandates that must be addressed in the Housing Element.

Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process: Senate Bill 35 (2017) SB 35 requires a streamlined, ministerial review process, or objective design standards, for qualifying multifamily, urban infill projects in jurisdictions that have failed to approve housing projects sufficient to meet their State‐mandated RHNA. Among other requirements, to qualify for streamlining under SB 35, a project must incorporate one of two threshold levels of affordable housing: (1) 10 percent of the project units in jurisdictions that have not approved housing projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for above moderate‐income housing or have failed to submit an annual progress report as required under state law; or (2) 50 percent of the project units in jurisdictions that have not approved housing projects sufficient to meet their RHNA for below moderate‐income housing. Additionally, the Housing Element must describe the City's processing procedures related to SB 35.

The City is not subject to the requirements of SB 35 as it has successfully met its fair share of local housing needs for the fifth cycle, an accomplishment only shared with a small handful of jurisdictions statewide. The City has not adopted a streamlined approval process for multi-family units related to SB 35 or SB 330, however, it has drafted a process to comply with the law which is being codified as a part of the ongoing Zoning Code Update. The process incorporates objective design standards and ministerial review free of discretionary processes. Program H-F commits the City to amending the Zoning Code to provide a by-right streamlined review Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-9
process for affordable housing developments meeting state affordability thresholds, in compliance with SB 35 and SB 330.

Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements: Assembly Bill 879 (2017) and Assembly Bill 1397 (2017)
These bills require additional analysis and justification of the sites included in the sites inventory of the City Housing Element. The Housing Element may only count non‐vacant sites included in one previous housing element inventory and vacant sites included in two previous housing elements if the sites are subject to a program that allows affordable housing by right. Additionally, the bills require additional analysis of non‐vacant sites and additional analysis of infrastructure capacity, and by place size restrictions on all sites. The Housing Element sites inventory has been prepared in compliance with AB 879 and AB 1397.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Assembly Bill 686 (2017) AB 686 requires the City to administer its housing programs and activities in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and not take any action that is inconsistent with this obligation. The City must take actions to overcome patterns of segregation, address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, and foster inclusive communities. The Housing Element must include an assessment of fair housing practices, an examination of the relationship of available sites to areas of high opportunity, and actions to affirmatively further fair housing. This Housing Element includes Program H-WW addressing fair housing and AFFH directly, and objectives to affirmatively further fair housing in programs throughout the Element. Appendix A:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing includes an analysis of fair housing in St, Helena.

No-Net-Loss Zoning: Senate Bill 166 (2017)
SB 166 amended the No‐Net‐Loss rule to require that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. When a site identified in the Housing Element as available to accommodate the lower‐income portion of the RHNA is actually developed for a higher income group, the City must either (1) identify, and rezone if necessary, an adequate substitute site or (2) demonstrate that the land inventory already contains an adequate substitute site. This Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with the No-Net-Loss rule and identifies sites that can accommodate 241 units in addition to the City's RHNA requirement of 256. Chapter 11 includes a detailed discussion of the sites inventory process.

Safety Element to Address Adaptation and Resiliency: Senate Bill 1035 (2018) SB 1035 requires the General Plan Safety Element to be reviewed and revised to include any new information on fire hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies with each revision of the housing element. Program H-G of this Housing Element commits the City to updating the Safety Element within three years of certifying this Housing Element.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-10
By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing: Assembly Bill 2162 (2018) and Assembly Bill 101 (2019)
AB 2162 requires the City to change its zoning to provide a “by right” process and expedited review for supportive housing. The bill prohibits the City from applying a conditional use permit or other discretionary review to the approval of 100 percent affordable developments that include a percentage of supportive housing units, either 25 percent or 12 units, whichever is greater. The change in the law applies to sites in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including in nonresidential zones permitting multifamily use. The City currently permits transitional and supportive housing within all residential, commercial, and mixed-use zones, subject only to the same conditions as residential uses, in compliance with State law.

Additionally, AB 101 requires that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use allowed by right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. The City does not currently comply with this requirement. Program H-F commits the City to update the zoning code to allow low barrier navigation centers by right in areas zoned for mixed use as well as nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses.

Accessory Dwelling Units: Assembly Bill 2299 (2016), Senate Bill 1069 (2016), Assembly Bill 494 (2017), Senate Bill 229 (2017), Assembly Bill 68 (2019), Assembly Bill 881 (2019), Assembly Bill 587 (2019), Senate Bill 13 (2019), and Assembly Bill 671 (2019) In recent years, multiple bills have added requirements for local governments related to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulation. The 2016 and 2017 updates to State law included changes pertaining to the allowed size of ADUs, permitting ADUs by right in at least some areas of a jurisdiction, and parking requirements related to ADUs. More recent bills reduce the time to review and approve ADU applications to 60 days and remove lot size and replacement parking space requirements. AB 68 allows an ADU and a junior ADU to be built on a singlefamily lot, if certain conditions are met. The State has also removed owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs, created a tiered fee structure that charges ADUs based on their size and location, and prohibits fees on units of less than 750 square feet. In addition, AB 671 requires the Housing Element to include plans to incentivize and encourage affordable ADU rentals. In 2020, the City adopted updated ADU regulations which streamlined the review process for ADU construction and conversion The St. Helena Zoning Code allows ADUs in all residential zoning districts, however, to achieve compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, the City must allow ADUs in all zones that allow for residential uses, including the AP Zone, and any mixed-use, and commercial zones. Additionally, several areas of Chapter 17.116.030 need to be revised for compliance with State law. This includes, but is not limited to, the definition of a cooking facility, definition of an efficiency kitchen, allowing both an ADU and JADU for conversions on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, separate conveyance of an ADU or JADU, and restricting bedroom count.

The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive zoning code update that will address these compliance issues. Program H-F in this Housing Element commits the City to revising the code for compliance with State law by 2026.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-11
Density Bonus: Assembly Bill 1763 (2019) and AB 2345 (2020) AB 1763 amended California’s density bonus law to authorize significant development incentives to encourage 100 percent affordable housing projects, allowing developments with 100 percent affordable housing units to receive an 80 percent density bonus from the otherwise maximum allowable density on the site. If the project is within half a mile of a major transit stop, a jurisdiction may not apply any density limit to the project. AB 2345 further amended California’s density bonus law to allow residential projects with some on-site affordable housing to receive a density bonus of up to 50 percent. Specifically, a residential development is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus if 11 percent of the units are very low-income, 20 percent are low-income units, or 40 percent are moderate-income units. The affordable units must remain affordable for a minimum of 55 years. In addition to the density bonus, qualifying projects will receive four regulatory incentives or concessions, depending on how much of the development includes affordable units. Specifically:
• One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for lowerincome households, at least five percent for very low-income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. • Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lowerincome households, at least 10 percent for very low-income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. • Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lowerincome households, at least 15 percent for very low-income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate-income in a common interest development. • Four incentives or concessions for projects where one hundred percent of all units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are for lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that up to 20 percent of the units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. For these projects, if it is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the applicant also receives a height increase of up to three additional stories (33 feet).

The City of St. Helena currently establishes density bonus provisions for affordable housing in Chapter 17.144 (Affordable Housing). The provisions in that Chapter do not reflect the new maximum density bonus tier framework that was adopted by the State in 2020. Because of this, the City is not currently in compliance and has included Program H-F to commit the City to amend the Zoning Code for compliance with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918. The City is currently undertaking a Zoning Code Update. The Draft Zoning Code includes density bonus provisions that comply with State law. The Zoning Code Update is currently scheduled for adoption in summer/fall 2023.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-12
Housing Crisis Act of 2019: Senate Bill 330
SB 330 enacts changes to local development policies, permitting, and processes that will be in effect through January 1, 2025. SB 330 places new criteria on the application requirements and processing times for housing developments; prevents localities from decreasing the housing capacity of any site, such as through downzoning or increasing open space requirements, if such a decrease would preclude the jurisdiction from meeting its RHNA housing targets; prevents localities from establishing non-objective standards; and requires that any proposed demolition of housing units be accompanied by a project that would replace or exceed the total number of units demolished. Additionally, any demolished units that were occupied by lower-income households must be replaced with new units affordable to households with those same income levels. The Housing Element must describe the City's processing procedures related to SB 330. Please see Chapter 8:

Nongovernmental and Governmental Constraints for more information.

The City has adopted an SB 330 process and checklist to streamline the design and approval of by-right multifamily units within the community, in compliance with SB 330.

Surplus Land Act Amendments: Assembly Bill 1486 and AB 1255 (2019) AB 1486 refines the Surplus Land Act to provide clarity and further enforcement to increase the supply of affordable housing. The bill requires the City to include specific information relating to surplus lands in the Housing Element and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports, and to provide a list of sites owned by the county that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of in the prior year. AB 1255 requires the City to create a central inventory of surplus and excess public land each year. The City is required to transmit the inventory to the Department of Housing and Community Development and to provide it to the public upon request. The City has committed to transmitting the required information to HCD each year with their annual report in Program H-CC.

Housing Information Transparency: Assembly Bill 1483 (2019) AB 1483 requires the City to publicly share information about zoning ordinances, development standards, fees, exactions, surplus public lands, fair housing resources, and affordability requirements. The City is also required to update such information within 30 days of changes. The Housing Element will report on the City's compliance with these requirements. Program H-NN specifically commits the City to providing updated information on a range of housing issues through their website and at City offices.

Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019: Assembly Bill 139 (2019) AB 139 established new criteria for evaluating the needs of the homeless population. The analysis must assess the capacity to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count by comparing that to the number of shelter beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of beds that go unused on an average monthly basis, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing (see Chapter 7: subsection Persons Experiencing Homelessness). The bill also established new parking standards for emergency shelters. Lastly, the bill requires the Housing Element to include a review of the effectiveness of the Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-13
housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meeting the jurisdiction’s special housing needs (see Chapter 2: Review of Previous Element).

The City is in compliance with State laws related to emergency shelters, supportive housing, and transitional housing. The City currently permits transitional and supportive housing within all residential, commercial, and mixed-use zones, subject only to the same conditions as residential uses, in compliance with State law.

Additionally, emergency shelters are identified as a by-right use in the I and SC zoning districts.

Standardization of Sites Inventory Analysis and Reporting: Senate Bill 6 (2019) SB 6 requires the City to electronically submit the sites inventory to HCD. The City will submit the final sites inventory to HCD with the adopted Housing Element. Program H-A commits the City to submitting an electronic copy of the inventory to HCD.

Evacuation Routes: Senate Bill 99 and AB 747 (2019)
Two recent bills, AB 747 and SB 99, require the General Plan Safety Element to be updated to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios and to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. The bill requires these updates to occur with the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

Program H-G commits the City to updating to the Safety Element as necessary for compliance with SB 99 and AB 747 during the 6th Housing Element cycle.

Public Participation
Section 65583(c)(5) of the Government Code states that "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all the economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Public participation played a critical role in the formulation and refinement of the County’s housing goals and policies.

Housing issues affect the entire community – residents, employers, and the public and private sectors. The public participation requirement of housing element law presents an opportunity to engage constituents in a dialogue – defining problems and creating solutions. The inclusion of community stakeholders in the housing element public participation process helps ensure appropriate housing strategies are more efficiently and effectively evaluated, developed, and implemented. An inadequate public participation process may lead to community conflict or in worse case scenarios, anti- development initiatives, and NIMBYism. Successful public participation is important because a diverse cross section of the population can be engaged in defining the housing problem and in crafting community sensitive solutions. Another benefit of broad participation and true engagement of the public is that when it is time to adopt housing strategies and approve housing developments, a greater portion of the community has been involved and participated in the plan and more frequently will support its implementation. Meaningful participation creates stakeholders in the ultimate outcome of the process.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-14
In response to the need for public participation, City planning staff worked with consultants to develop a robust community engagement program tailored to ensure the community and other stakeholders are engaged in the process and are given ample opportunities to provide input. The key objective of the community engagement program is to maximize opportunities for everyone interested in the Housing Element to participate. The engagement program includes branding, a project website, business cards, newsletters and eblasts, announcements on the City website and social medial, multiple workshops, a Housing Element Focus Group, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings. This section summarizes our engagement program.

In an effort to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH), the City reached out to a broad range of stakeholders, including not just housing developers and residents, but also to Spanish speakers and those working to address fair housing issues and the lack of affordable housing citywide. Throughout the Update, the Project team asked focus group members, workshop participants, the Planning Commission, and the City Council about fair housing issues in the community. The City has incorporated this feedback into Program H-WW: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, as well as into a variety of programs throughout the Policy Document.

Branding
A branding package was prepared for the project. This included a project logo and style templates for all work products, maps, presentations, and publicity materials.

The common branding helps to build recognition for the project and ensure that this effort is distinct in the minds of the community. The logo to the right will be used on all materials developed as part of the Housing Element Update.

Housing Element Website
During the development and review of the Housing Element, the City created and maintained a website dedicated to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. This website provided easy access to information on the project, including the Housing Element information/Frequently Asked Questions, the project newsletters, and Zoom meeting info. Project documents were posted to the website and comments were encouraged through the provided "Comments" button on each page. A link on the website allowed residents to sign up for the email list. The website also featured a Google Translate menu allowed readers to translate the website into Spanish. Lastly, an accessibility widget was incorporated into the website allowing readers to adjust text size and spacing, contrast, and a number of other aspects of the website to suit the reader's needs.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-15
https://sthelenahousing.com
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-16
https://sthelenahousing.com/documents
https://sthelenahousing.com/basics
The project website features a Housing Element 101 video, presented in English and Spanish.

A
B
C
A: Google Translate Tool: This tool allows users to translate the entire website into Spanish.

B: Email and Contact Buttons: These buttons allow users to join the project email list or provide a comment to the project Team.

C: Accessibility Widget: This widget allows users to choose visibility options for greater accessibility Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-17
For those unable
to attend, event
materials,
presentations,
and videos are
posted to the
Participate page.

In addition to eblasts and Facebook posts,
meetings were announced via the website.

Flyers were posted for each event in English
and Spanish.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-18
Project Business Cards
To encourage the use of the project website, business cards were made up for the Project. The cards were provided to the City and can be handed out to those looking for additional information on the Housing Element Update. Each card lists the project website address and a QR Code that can direct users to that website.

Newsletters and Email Notifications (eBlasts)
During the Housing Element development, two newsletters will be developed and distributed. The newsletters will be designed to give the community a better understanding of the Update process and the draft Housing Element. Both newsletters will be published in both English and Spanish and made available from the project website.

Newsletter: Housing Element Update Overview
The Housing Element newsletter describes what a housing element is, how and why it is being updated, the project schedule, and how to get involved in the Update process. The newsletter also describes the other components of the project, including General Plan amendments, Safety Element update, and the environmental analysis. The newsletter also included information on community engagement opportunities and the project website.

Email notifications (eblasts) were sent out to announce upcoming events and the release of project-related documents. Email addresses were compiled from those requesting notification from the City and from those signing up on the project website and at project events. As of May 2022, the Housing Element email list has 32 subscribers.

Images of the Housing Element Newsletter and an eBlast are included on the following page.

Agenda Item #10.1.