St. Helena City Council
May 14, 2024

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

built, and don’t support the City prioritizing Affordable Housing Trust Fund dollars for affordable projects in the western portion of the city at the expense of projects in the eastern portion.

H-C OTSH believes we should be planning for a more sustainable and less cardependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and expand height limits and reduce parking requirements. Up and in should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and west of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City, and we believe a housing task force could explore how to unlock the potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be the last option as it runs a great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with vibrant wine and tourism industries.

H-D Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle housing. Also, please define “missing middle” in terms of Area Median Income. The water neutrality requirement should be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle housing. The City could consider requiring other trade-offs such as no-irrigation landscaping or rain capture systems.

H-J “ADU Workforce Housing Incentive Program” -- broaden the potential funding sources to include grants, state and federal programs. Also, consider working with the County Assessor to allow a property tax reduction on the larger property in exchange for 30-year a deed restriction on an ADU, with proper monitoring to ensure compliance.

H-M OTSH believe the City should immediately remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement on MDR Zoning. At a minimum, it should be removed for any parcel identified in the HE as a Housing Opportunity Site. Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition to these projects and makes developers wary of taking the significant financial risk that is required for this type of development. Also, consider allowing deed restrictions for missing middle projects (as defined by the City) and in exchange grant fee waivers and eliminate the housing impact fee requirement.

H-P We should not incentivize ADUs beyond existing state mandates unless they have a deed restriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange. While this may be implied it isn’t clearly stated.

Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

H-R, H-DD “Affordability requirements for ADU incentives; reduced fees for affordable housing” – these should include a reference to the mechanism that will restrict affordability (i.e., affordable housing regulatory agreement).

H-S “Illegal housing units” – these types of policies or programs can be double edged as they often end up displacing households that cannot afford to live in legal units.

Consider a companion program that sees to support households displaced by this program.

H-U Under Objectives – “Support the development of 3 multi-unit housing projects….support the development of five infill projects….” What does “support” mean? As written it implies a maximum the City will “support” during the planning period.

H-?? Under Goal 3, Conservation of Existing Housing – consider adding an implementation program: “The City will work to obtain CDBG or other available funds to create an ‘Affordable Housing Conservation Fund’ so units can be acquired quickly when they hit the market and preserved at affordable levels.” H-Z “Vacation Rentals” – the City should consider prohibiting vacation rentals in certain zoning districts if it hasn’t already.

H-FF “Affordable Homeownership” – the City should work with the County’s Proximity Housing Program to provide down payment assistance to St. Helena first-time home buyers. If the County is amenable to working with the City to create a funding set-aside for St. Helena, the City could then market the program or work with others to do so.

H-II “Housing Coordinator” – this is an immediate need, and a specified time frame is encouraged rather than “ongoing”. It would be preferable to do this as a City of St Helena position, but a shared position is better than none. OTSH would prefer the City consider a Housing / Economic Development FTE rather than a lower level, part-time Housing Coordinator. Also, meeting with partner jurisdictions twice during the 13-year planning cycle does not appear to be sufficient.

Proposed Sites
Site maps It would be helpful to add a north arrow to the aerials.

Agenda Item #10.1.

P.O. Box 94 St Helena, CA 94574
www.ourtownsthelena.org

develop 36 to 50 units.”

Housing Opportunity Sites
Adams Street What is the rationale for the size and placement of the Opportunity Site on the Adams Street property?
709 McCorkle This site was recently purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound. It has a low to zero probability of being developed for affordable housing.
741 McCorkle This house was recently renovated with significant capital improvements and is unlikely to be further developed in the next HE cycle.
1637 Spring This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing.

Proposed site We encourage the City to add 620 McCorkle Avenue (APN 009-502-003-000) as a “key housing site”. This 0.76-acre site is zoned MDR and is currently on the market. Including it as a key housing site would eliminate the requirement for a conditional use permit and be consistent with the goal to remove barriers to development of multi-unit housing.

Conclusion
OTSH commends the City for its work on this document. Realizing that the HEU is a mandated document that needs to follow strict guidelines, we hope the City will also create an implementation plan that identifies measures, cost analysis, staff and funding resources, and time frames for meeting the goals contained herein.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Land designation
Hi
It appears numerous parcels sent to the state to meet our quota fir homes are not currently available for sale? Are they going to be for sale? And we are not aware? Or, emanate domain enforcement would  be necessary? I firmly disagree with the high to med density development of Valley View Hudson vineyard property being developed as traffic on the road is already more than a residential area should have to handle between cut threw traffic to avoid Hwy 29 to the school traffic it’s impossible to safely get out of your driveway or even ride a bike! Spring Street is narrow and I notice in addition three sites are designated as possible development.

The government/ Bay Area need to either agree to continue our exempt status. Recognize us as a primary agricultural area or the Napa Vally will be destroyed!
Laura
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

As concerned St. Helena residents, we have read the Housing Element Update and plan to attend the public forum.

We support the city’s efforts to identify appropriate sites for potential development to provide additional housing that is badly needed. Yet af te
r
reading about proposed rezoning and adding more density, we remain vigilant in pointing out situations where multi—unitprojects would negati vely impact neighborhoods.
e have shared with several City officials the situation we face after th e recent purchase of the parcels at 1521 and 1541 Elmhurst. The owner, Jennifer Mozzetti, and her friend John Bowman, a self-described devel oper from Napa, have disrupted this peaceful neighborhood with their allege d plans to develop the parcel at 1541 Elmhurst into a multi—unitsite with “cooperation of the City.” They initially claimed, as a result of their purc hase of the two parcels, they “owned” the Elmhurst Alley from the property 1 5 2
1 extending to the end of the alley.

The city, through correspondence from Eric Janzen on 5/17/22 and sev era
l
other emails, assured us that the Elmhurst Alley was listed by the Coun ty Assessors as a public right of way and is not owned by Ms. Mozzetti.

Elmhurst Alley is a single lane, dead-end alley that extends off busy Sp rin
g
Mountain Road. It provides access to the vehicles of 5 single family ho me
s
in
addition to the mail truck, delivery trucks and home health care vehicle s
t
h
a
t
service those homes. The tightness of this alley already poses safety questions for Emergency and Fire Department vehicles.

Housin
g
Efor PublicComment
le Aaron City Senior Planner, of St.Helena
ahecoc
k@
cityofst
helena.
org
Cityof St Helena, Hall
Received
JUL1132
0 2
2 1480 Main
St Helena, CA
July 10
, Dear H
ec
o
c
k,
Agenda Item #10.1.

Any development the propert at 1541 Elmhurst from its current singley family residence tamul would beunwisead unsafe expnding the tiunit
number of alley u
s
e
r
s
.
(day finds the with street many as15
Garb
age
garbage cans as isCertai goal the of adding multi—unit housing inSt !)nly, Helena is a lauda
ble
one b
, ut drop tonew amulti-unit project already anin
dense neighborho
od
wit limited access from asingle-lane, blind aley, would h be ill-conceived.

2. Can individu
als,
see todevelop multi-unit housing ontheir own
kin
g
properties appl
y
tbeinclude onthis site list?
od
Ifthe answer is either question, tokindly we arequest site visit, in person, by a m
e
m
be
r
ofthe Planning Commission, sothate impact of
will beobvious.

Our specific qu
est
io
ns
are hope these w you can answer:

1.The Housing mentions aninventory possible ofsites, yet no public, that mi
gh
t
beused dvelop tomore housing.
is the parcel atElmhu currently onthis site or list being rst considered?
Sincerely
_
yours,
Dayna Van Kleeck
1800 Spring Mountai
n
C
o
u
rt
/‘
/
H n Ki . 1781 Spri
ng
MRoad
ou
nta
in
-/A ' Susan Ki
stl
ei
1781 S
p
ri
n
g
Moun Road
tain
ad
di
ng
more housing and residents onAlley Elmhurst
Agenda Item #10.1.

Lampkin
777 Spring Mou
ntain
Roa
d
Terence Ford
1806 Spring Mou
ntain
Cour
t
Vlad
ymer
DeLevi 1809 Mounta Court
in
Brenda Hill
1777 pri inRoad
Polin
a1809 Mounta Court
in
Ka F0
1806Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #10.1.

Iv Polina D
eL
ev
i
1809 Spr
ing
Court Mo
unt
ain
Kat r
y
n
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mount
ain
Teren
ce
Fo
rd 1806 Court Mounta
in
Jim L
a 1777 Road Mount
ain
Brend
a
H
ill 1777 Road Mount
ain
VIad
ymér 1809
\De —
Levi
Mountai Court
n Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Nancy Dervin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; CityCouncil; Aaron Hecock Subject: Re: [External] Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now! Dear HCD,
I am concerned about the City of St. Helena putting forth a Housing Element Draft that contains at least one property that the City has repeatedly been told is absolutely not available which is 601 Pope Street. There are other properties on the Draft that are also potentially not available but this one site is positively not available.

We have a huge housing shortage problem, like most communities. Knowingly including unavailable sites is unethical as well as contrary to the purpose of identifying housing opportunity sites.

What should be or can be done about this?
Sincerely,
Nancy Dervin
St. Helena, CA
From: St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]> on behalf of St. Helena Housing Element <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:31 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Review Draft Housing Element Available Now!

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Mary Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Subject: [External] Housing sites
I wanted to comment on the list of potential sites for housing that was in the St Helena Star. I’ve taken the time to look at each of the addresses mentioned.    With the exception of one, I found all of them viable locations. My one exception is the vineyard location on Spring St.

One of the things that makes St Helena unique are the vineyards still scattered within the city. They are a part of our heritage, displaying the agriculture that has made this valley the world class jewel that it is.  Please allow this one to remain as it is.

Respectfully,     Mary Wilson
Sent from my iPad
Mary Wilson
1426 Kearney St.

St. Helena, Ca. 94574
707‐529‐4406
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Aaron Hecock
Cc: Mary Stephenson; Maya DeRosa; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Jennifer La Liberte; Jordan Bentley; Joe Mcgrath
Subject: [External] Re: [External] A Potential New Opportunity Site Aaron:

Thanks.

Speaking as a private citizen and neighboring property owner (and concurring with Mary as an OTSH Board member), I would also advocate that this lot [620 McCorkle  ‐ APN 009‐502‐003‐000] be added to this HE cycle as a "Housing Opportunity Site".

In light of the recent multi‐family developments on that street I would recommend however that it remain MDR, otherwise it may cause too much opposition with residents on the south side of McCorkle.

The goal would be to eliminate conditional use requirements which become, as you know, major entanglements in entitlement.

However, as MDR it should be explicitly listed under 17.40.020 Permitted Uses (N):

N. Multiple-family dwellings, apartments, and dwelling groups at a density up to the maximum allowed by the medium density residential district shall be allowed as a permitted use on the following MR zoned parcels, which are identified as “Key Housing Sites” in Table 42 of the city’s 2015-2023 housing element, and are identified as follows by street address and assessor’s parcel number (APN): 567 Pope St. APN 009-070-002; 591 McCorkle Ave. APN 009-070-003; 1817 Spring St. APN 009-322-009; Sulphur Springs Ave. APN 009-362- 015; Spring St. APN 009-441-023 and 009-552-002; 576 Pope St. APN 009-552-003; 1105 Pope St. APN 009- 090-003. (Ord. 17-2 § 6 (part); Ord. 16-8 § 1; Ord. 15-2 § 7 (part): Ord. 12-2 § 6: Ord. 07-5 § 2 (part): Ord. 05-4 § 1 (part): Ord. 03-4 § 11: prior code § 27.51)
Please confirm that the above constitutes "public comment".

Thx,
Joe
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:13 AM Aaron Hecock <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mary,
You can certainly make a public comment requesting that it be included as a housing opportunity site. We're holding a joint Planning Commission & City Council meeting on July 21st from 3‐5 pm to take public comment on the public review draft of the Housing Element Update and to receive direction on proceeding. You can comment in writing beforehand, verbally during the meeting, or both.

Kindly,
Aaron
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Aaron Hecock
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Aaron Hecock; Maya DeRosa
Subject: [External] HE Draft Input
Aaron/Maya:

Here are some additional comments/inputs re: Housing Element. Please do not take them as criticism of your hard work.

The Housing Element can be a valuable tool to accomplish our municipal housing objectives if we shape it correctly.

Thanks,
Joe
General Comments:
* Current planning meetings should be held in person with a zoom option. It should no longer be acceptable that public meetings are held entirely by Zoom. It also should not be acceptable that participants to Zoom meetings have no idea how many other participants are present, and, if  participants "opt‐in"  to identify themselves, are identified. * The document and the process are too long, too bureaucratic, and not specific enough with respect to immediate and effective actions and policy changes that will alter the climate in any meaningful way to have a real near‐term impact on affordable or missing middle  housing.
* The document itself is outdated with may reference to data as far back as  2019 representing "current" data. We lived in a far different world than in 2019.
* A major flaw in the Housing Element process for Above Moderate or Market Rate units. Our State Legislators did not comprehend second home or vacation communities.

So meeting the HE RHNA objective for Above Moderate by enabling, say, the Hunter Project is nonsensical if say 50% of the SFHs ultimately become vacation homes.

Having these types of development consume constrained water, sewer and other valuable resources can impinge on more critical housing needs.

Specific Section / Page Comments:

H‐C We should be planning for a more sustainable and less car‐dependent future. We should be exploring opportunities to increase infill density and explore expanding height limits, and reduce parking requirements. Up and In should be the focus. The block of land from south of White Sulphur Spring Creek to Grayson and West of Highway 29 and east of Crane vineyard  is one of the most poorly utilized sections of the City. We should unleash a task force to see if we can unlock Agenda Item #10.1.

2 potential here. Expanding the Urban Limit Line should be our last option, and runs great risk of negatively impacting what makes this such a great and desirable place to live with a vibrant wine industry and tourism economy.

H‐D. Water and sewer access should be prioritized for both affordable and missing middle. Also please define "missing middle" in terms of AMI %. 200%? Water Neutrality Requirement should also be eliminated for any attached affordable and missing middle. Mandate no‐irrigation landscaping instead. All new buildings in CA are highly water efficient by California Building Code. It is better that we have new stock than old stock re: environmental sustainability (similar to newer car fleet vs. older regarding emissions).

H‐M. It should not take 4 more years following 3 years working on the Housing Element to understand what Zoning Ordinances need to be changed to enable housing.
1) Start with removing the Conditional  Use Permit requirement in some manner on MDR Zoning.  At minimum, it should be reduced for any parcel identified in Housing Element as Housing Opportunity Site (not just Key Housing Opportunity Site") . It is imperative to reduce or eliminate "discretionary" review. Discretionary review is the toehold for opposition on these projects. It is also a toehold for CEQA opposition. 2) Define "Missing Middle" in terms of AMI.  200%?
3) Tradeoff off 2:1 (or some such ratio) of affordability requirements on private developers for below moderate units for moderate to missing middle (200%) cutoff units. Ie a developer can meet "affordable" designation if he/she builds (2) deed‐restricted moderate to missing middle (80‐200%AMI?) units for every (1) required < moderate unit (<80% AMI unit).
4) Eliminate Water Neutrality requirements for above. This is just one more hurdle. 5) Eliminate Housing Impact Fees for above. By very nature these projects are having a POSITIVE housing impact. 6) Reduce overall permit fee structure for above. (on page 2‐142 it calculates 12.3% of multi‐family costs on Permits & Fees. This is right after it the HE states that governmental constraints are not a factor? ) Pg 1‐15:

H‐J. What can we do to entice existing ADUs into a deed‐restricted affordable? How about a tradeoff on property tax relief on that unit for 30‐yr deed‐restriction and rental occupancy rate compliance?? Pg 1‐19:

H‐P. We should not further incent ADUS beyond existing state mandates unless they have deed‐restriction and rental occupancy requirements in exchange.

Pg 1‐29:

H‐II. What are the accountabilities of the Housing Coordinator? Why would we not do this under existing Departments? Pg 1‐34:

H‐UU. We should be considering "no‐irrigation" landscaping (at least after plants take hold).

We should eliminate the Water Neutrality Requirement on any deed‐restricted affordable < 200% AMI. This is a cumbersome and complex and expensive requirement to comply with. New attached buildings under CBC are highly water efficient and perform well below 65 GPD per capita. Nix the irrigated landscaping as a tradeoff.

Pg 2‐38:

HE1.B. This document indicates that because units have been built in last cycle that Growth management System was not an obstacle. This is untrue. 632 McCorkle was "lucky" in that we straddled two years and literally consumed (8) of the (9) available allocation. Had this been a 10 unit project, it is not clear what the City would have done. Had there Agenda Item #10.1.

3 been another similar project, it is unclear what the city would have done. Uncertainty is the enemy of Investment and the friend of Risk.

Pg 2‐103
Table 16 ‐ Grayson Apartment  2 units funding source were  not Tax Credits, nor AHP, nor RHCP, nor City funded. These two units were funded privately through inclusionary requirements on 632 McCorkle. This is an important point, because we will not solve the housing crisis here exclusively through non‐profits.

Pg 2‐125:

Saying that Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances are not a "governmental constraint" to development is an entirely untrue statement and somewhat offensive coming from a government agency.  While I would not argue that enhancements in the California Building Code are in most cases warranted, they have most definitely affected housing costs and housing production and have contributed to the shortage of affordable housing stock. Enhancements to CBC  in ADA, Seismic, Fire, and Environmental requirements have played a significant role in the increase in housing costs.   This must be acknowledged. As for Fire Code, nearly all of the costs in the building code are for suppression systems to extinguish a fire that starts inside the building. Most homes in  CA are destroyed by fire from outside the building.. The CBC however is very clear and the requirements do not have broad interpretation, so while costly to comply with, is not a great impediment.

Zoning Ordinances however and discretionary reviews are something entirely different. Developers do not like uncertainty. If a Zoning Ordinance can be interpreted differently by different people ‐ that is problematic. And if the outcome of a Design Review Meeting may be different based on the makeup of a Commission that is problematic.

Developers do not like uncertainty. This is why discretionary reviews are highly problematic. To bring a complete application to Design Review Submission ‐ let's say 8‐12 units ‐ could easily require an investment of $250K. Surveys, Civil Plans, Arch Plans, Elec Plans, Plumbing Plans, Mechanical Plans, etc. This all with the possibility of project Denial.

Lastly. CEQA is a major governmental constraint and should be acknowledged as such. CEQA should have no role in infill projects within ULL unless special circumstances warrant. 2‐132:

We should articulate what Design Review is "not". For projects that are entitled, Design Review has no function in determining whether a project can be built or not to its entitlement. It would be much preferable to establish objective design guidelines that should be followed for multi‐family rather than subject applications to a highly subjective process. 2‐138:

Parking requirements for 2 Bedrooms within the ULL should be reduced to 1.5 spaces for <200% AMI.

Housing Opportunity Sites Input
For the sites listed, the probability that any given site gets developed in the next HE cycle range between 0% and 95% (Phelps Site). Most sites identified have a low probability (< 10%?) chance of being developed. 709 McCorkle: This site has recently been purchased and is intended to function as an estate compound. 741 McCorkle: This house has been recently renovated with significant capital improvements, and is unlikely to be further developed in this HE cycle.
1637 Spring Street: This site has recently been purchased for the intent of turning it into employee housing. My understanding is that the current plan is to convert 1 BRs into 2 BRs through garage conversion.

Agenda Item #10.1.

4 620 McCorkle:  Per prior inputs, this site should be added to the Housing Opportunity Site and Key Housing Opportunity Site list.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.

PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 13, 2022
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AICP Senior Planner
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft
VIA: Email
Dear Mr. Hecock:

First of all ,we would like to thank you for the this very through and professional work product. It is obvious that much research and attention to detail has been taken.

A question. Under the Water Section it is stated that “although the maximum amount of (Bell Canyon) water that is available to the City is 992 acre-feet”. Why? In Section 11. Housing Resources -Future Housing Needs we note the following:

The City must ensure the availability of residential sites at adequate densities and appropriate development standards to accommodate these units by income category.(Emphasis added).

Based upon our work in attempting to find suitable land for new “affordable” Essential worker housing our experience, in part, differs from the report’s conclusions:

Regarding the City owned Adams Street parcel considerable thought should be given to identifying the Eastern most portion of the parcel, not the Western end for “affordable” housing. SHHC submitted as preliminary site plan so indicating. Thus, leaving the West end for a potential city hall location or other civic functions. To us, it does not make sense to place any type of affordable” housing at the West end.

Site 4: 905 Main Street. When SHHC made inquiries, we were informed that the owner expressed that this for-sale price of this parcel would exceed $1,000,000. Given the suggested density of five units that would make the land cost per unit $200,000. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be nearer to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.

Site 7: 81 Pope Street. Zillow estimates that the current price for this property is approximately $2,000,000. Again, that would work out to a land cost of $100,000 per unit of the projected 20 “affordable Units (to say nothing of the cost of demolishing the existing structure). . For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Site 9: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street. The Zillow estimated sales price for each of the existing residences at $1.6mm to $1.75mm, totally $3.35mm in value. For the estimated 24 units that works out to a land cost of $139,583.00 per unit. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be near to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible.

Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View. From my notes during the public comment portion, I believe it was Joe McGrath who said that this property had recently been sold and lease-back on a long-term basis. Based upon that it would appear this parcel is not currently available.

Site 11: 601 Pope Street. This property owner declined SHHC’s to acquire this parcel under a long-term lease. We offered $200,000 per year for a sixty-five-year lease and their response was “oh, we just like the way it looks”.

Site 12: 1637 Spring Street. As recently as this spring this property owner expressed No interest, and the direct quote was “let them try and develop it.” Therefore, Mr. Hecock, unless that City is prepared to use Eminent Domain as in Kelo v.

New London, it appears that the identified sites does not fulfill the “must” requirement of available sites to satisfy Saint Helena’s 2023-2031 RHNA requirements.

Respectfully submitted:

Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Agenda Item #10.1.

Saint Helena Housing Coalition, Inc.

PO Box 988
Saint Helena, CA 94574
July 25, 2022
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AICP Senior Planner
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element Draft
VIA: Email
Dear Mr. Hecock:

Again, we would like to thank you for leading this sixth Housing Element 2023-2031 document incredibly rich document full of quite important and relevant data.

However, we have some considerable concerns over facts stated and conclusions reach:

Issue #1:

In this report you state “The Housing Element must also identify adequate residential sites available for a variety of housing types for all income levels; provide assistance in developing adequate housing to meet the needs of lowand moderate-income households; address governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; conserve and improve the condition of the existing stock of affordable housing; and promote housing opportunities for all persons”. (Aaron Hecock-Report to the City Council & Planning Commission Meeting -21 July 2022, page 4) (Emphasis added).

Response #1A:

Not being lawyers we referred to recognized authorities on the words contained in the above Issue #1.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Ensure – “We define ensure as "to make sure, certain, or safe" and one sense of insure, "to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions," is quite similar. But insure has the additional meaning "to provide or obtain insurance on or for," which is not shared by ensure.” Certain – Ascertained; precise; identified; definitive; clearly known; unambiguous; or in law, capable of being identified or made known, without liability or to mistake or ambiguity, from data already given.”
Realistic- means “based upon what is real rather than on what is wanted or hoped for” Real – means “having objective independent existence; not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory; being precisely what the name means; occurring or existing in actuality” Black’s Legal Dictionary:

Adequate means “Sufficient; proportionate; equally sufficient; equal to what is required; suitable to the case or occasion; satisfactory”
Availability Means “This phrase, among mercantile men, is a term well understood to be anything which can readily be converted into money; but it is not necessarily or primarily money.” Agenda Item #10.1.

Ready means “Prepared for what one is about to do or experience; equipped or supplied with what is needed for some act or event; prepared for immediate movement or action”(Emphasis added) Demonstrate means “to prove indubitably”
Indubitable Proof “Evidence of which is not only found creditable but is of such weight and directness as to make out the facts alleged beyond a doubt.” Must “This word, like the word ‘shall’ is primarily of mandatory effect.” Based upon the above definitions SHHC is perplexed as to how the Housing Element can, in good conscience, or on any legal basis include 601 Pope Street or 1837 Spring Street as both owners have stated that they are not interested.

I just spoke to the owner who has been a dear friend of our families for 37 years and she stated ,“No one contacted me and further had no interest in allowing their back acreage to be developed into ‘affordable’ housing.”? Response #1B:

During the public comment section of the July 21m, 2022 2023-31 Zoom Housing Element, Rick Crebs, from SHHC, raised the issue of financial feasibility of Sites #4, 905 Main Street is stating “When SHHC made inquiries, we were informed that the owner expressed that this for-sale price of this parcel would exceed $1,000,000. Given the suggested density of five units that would make the land cost per unit $200,000. For most “affordable” housing the land cost should be nearer to $50,000 per unit to qualify for the necessary grants and/or financing thus making this parcel financially unfeasible”.

Similar financial analysis was also offered on Site #7 821 Pope Street, (land costs of $100,000 per unit); Site #9 1447 & 1515 Spring Street, (land costs of $139,583 per unit).

Based upon that information provided during the Housing element Zoom meeting of Thursday, July 21, 2022, a question was directed by a city council member to the city’s staff relative to the property valuations statements raised by Rick Crebs of SHHC on valuations attributed to Zillow. The response was questioned of the authenticity of the Zillow valuations. This seems odd in that the Housing Element report refers to Zillow eight (8) times as the authority on real estate valuations.

It was further stated that grants or low interest loans would off set the high land costs.

Please allow SHHC to provide a current financial analysis as present in SHHC’s Offer to Develop 88 Units (using

2.3 acres at the East end of the Adams Street city owned parcel).

Use of Grants: Adams Street as an example:

Total Construction Costs $43,116,112 or average of $489,956 per unit (Leased, not sold land) Funding necessary to complete this project: (Projected) City/County $2,000,000 (4.4%)
Other Grants $32,337,084 (75.0%)*
Mortgage or Bond $ 7,054,364 (16.40%)
Total $43,116,112 100% (rounded)
*The largest grants that SHHC has been able to discover are from the California Department of Housing Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants which currently has a maximum grant amount of Agenda Item #10.1.

$35mm, so the Adams Street project comes close to it. This information is supplied to illustrate the extreme difficulty present in realistically financing the Saint Helena community to provide the “Must” in the RHNA requirement.

Issue #2:

In this report you state “The issue of owner consent to being included on the housing opportunity sites list has come up on several occasions. Being listed as a housing opportunity site in no way terminates or otherwise affects existing uses on-site. Furthermore, there are currently no legislative or other means to compel a private property owner in this process, meaning we cannot force or otherwise require that they build housing. That said, owner consent is not a requirement for inclusion in the housing opportunity sites inventory (Government Code 65583.2).

The inventory is to show that there are suitable sites to meet the City’s RHNA and the programs are there to help housing developers to make that happen. Designating sites as suitable for housing falls within the City's authority to regulate land uses. If the Housing Element were to designate an already developed site.” Response to #2:

Mr. Hecock, it is true that California government Code does not include language requiring “owners Consent”. but, by the same logic, it does not exclude requiring the “owners’ consent.” This, it would seem that your comment is non-responsive. Further, Code 65583.2 refers to Government code 65583 which, in part, states “(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for development during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. (Emphasis added).

Further, in referring to the word definitions provided above, that the proposed Saint Helena Housing 2023-2031 Document on a factually basis fails to meet with any degree of accuracy of the meanings of the authenticated meaning of the words; Adequate, Available, Demonstratable, Ensure, and Must.

In closing, such vagueness in the prior Housing Element Reports may have been tolerated in the past. However, our town is critically deficient in sufficient “affordable” housing for all AMI’s. The fact that so many are required to commute to work in the Upper Valley each day clearly contributes to unnecessary Green Housing Gas (GHG) emissions to say nothing of the cost to commute which further contributes multiple well vetted studies that conclude that the majority of those renting are cost burdened. Many in the 50-60% of household income! Lastly, the lack of a strategy to affirmatively address Saint Helena’s housing crisis is to deny, or turn its back, on its pledge to work towards a policy of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Our town can no longer rely upon the old “Three Card Monty Trick” in addressing the statutory issues the Housing Element requires.

SHHC’s First Suggestion:

The city should consider removing Sites 4 (905 Mains Street, Ste 7 (821 Pope Street, Ste 9 1447 & b1515 Springs Street as being financially unrealistic due to associated land costs and instead revise the Adams Street parcel from 30 unit of Lower Income to the recommendations in the following graph:

Table 50 Summary of Housing Units (Extracted)

Lower
Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income Total
Agenda Item #10.1.

Pending Projects 0 4 88 92
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Recommended Changes Site Inventory
Site 3 (Adams Street) -22 9 76 63
Site 4 (905 Mains Street) 0 0 -5 -5
Site 7 (821 Pope Street -10 -10 0 -20
Site 9 (1447 & 1515 Spring Street) -24 0 -24 -48
Totals -56 -1 47 -10
Remaining Sites (Consolidated) Site Inventory
Sites 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,12 152 87 244 483
Color Code -Purple-Doubtful
Red - Subtractions
Green -Additions
The results reached is close to a net neutral on units for each category of AMI housing. And the inclusion of 88 units plus 50 for the OTSG/Phelps’s project equates to a realistic 54% of Saint Helena’s 2023-31 RHNA required allocation.

SHHC’s Second Suggestion:

While draconian, the only true solution SHHC sees to the significant challenges in achieving the forthcoming coming 2023-31 RHNA Site locations allocations is for the city to firmly state that it will undertake, if necessary, Eminent Domain proceeding as in the Kelvo v. New London U.S. Supreme Court Decision.

In closing, it is time to discard the Housing Element word games from the past and boldly put forth only those Opportunity Sites that are certain and available.

Respectfully submitted:

Rick Crebs
Rick Crebs, CEO
[email protected]
707-580-0418
Ccs: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Maya DeRosa, Director of Planning
Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor
Paul Dohring, Esq. Vice Mayor
Lester hardy, Esq., City Council Member
Eric Hall, City Council Member
Anna Chouteau, City Council Member
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023 General Plan Update
Addendum
prepared by
City of St. Helena
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2023
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023 General Plan Update
Addendum
prepared by
City of St. Helena
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2023
Agenda Item #10.1.

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Table of Contents
Addendum i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Project Title.........................................................................................................................3

1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................3

1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................3

1.4 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3

1.5 Project Description..............................................................................................................6

1.6 Environmental Review ........................................................................................................7

1.7 Discretionary Action............................................................................................................7

1.8 Prior Environmental Document(s) ......................................................................................8

1.9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) ...................................................................8 Project Context...............................................................................................................................9

2.1 St. Helena General Plan ......................................................................................................9

2.1.1 Housing Element...............................................................................................10

2.1.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element ........................................................14

2.1.3 2040 General Plan EIR.......................................................................................15 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164...............................................................................17 Environmental Effects & Determination ......................................................................................19

4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or Substantially More Severe Significant Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR ...............................................19

4.2 Determination...................................................................................................................19 Addendum Methodology..............................................................................................................21

5.1 2040 General Plan Consistency.........................................................................................21

5.2 Accommodation of the RHNA...........................................................................................21

5.3 Consistency with Horizon Year 2040 Projections .............................................................22

5.4 Preliminary Environmental Considerations......................................................................23 Addendum Evaluation ..................................................................................................................25

6.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................25

6.2 Agricultural Resources......................................................................................................29

6.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................33

6.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................39

6.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources..............................................................43

6.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change.............................................................47

6.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity...........................................................................................51

6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................55

6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................59

6.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing ..................................................................................65

6.11 Noise .................................................................................................................................69

6.12 Public Services and Recreation .........................................................................................73

6.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................77 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
ii

6.14 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................81 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................85 References....................................................................................................................................86 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................86 Tables
Table 1 City of St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation......................................................12 Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the 2040 General Plan Update EIR...........15 Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category ................................................................................22 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Project Area ........................................................................................................................5 Figure 3 Housing Element Sites Inventory Locations – Vacant and Underutilized (Nonvacant) Sites...................................................................................................................................13 Agenda Item #10.1.

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Addendum iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADU Accessory dwelling unit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP Best management practices
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
EIR Environmental impact report
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HRA Health risk assessment
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM Particulate matter
ROG Reactive organic gas
SB Senate Bill
SHMC Saint Helena Municipal Code
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile organic compounds
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
iv
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Executive Summary
Addendum 1
Executive Summary
The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the City of St.

Helena General Plan. State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The project would update the City of St.

Helena Housing Element as part of the 6
th cycle of updates. For St. Helena, the planning period runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element update identifies residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups, defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). It analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons. The proposed project also includes revisions to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Elements to be consistent with California law regulating evacuation routes and climate change vulnerability.

The Housing Element update establishes objectives, policies, and programs to assist the City of St.

Helena in achieving state-mandated housing goals. The City’s implementation of these policies and programs includes amendments to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan and the rezoning of several sites in the inventory of potential sites for meeting the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. No formal land use changes or physical development is proposed at this time and future changes would require environmental evaluation as potential impacts are location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until a project site and development proposal are identified.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583(c)(1), these actions will be accomplished within three years of the City of St Helena’s adoption of the Housing Element update. As required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(8), the Housing Element update provides a timeline for processing each of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other land use documents which implement the Housing Element update.

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, the City determined that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the 2040 General Plan update (2040 General Plan update Final EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001) is of continuing informational value. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the Housing Element update are within the scope of the previously certified Final EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 exist. Based on the information and analysis provided below, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified Final EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
2 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Introduction
Addendum 3
Introduction
This document is an Environmental Impact Report Addendum that analyzes the City of St. Helena’s (City’s) proposed Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update Project (hereafter also referred to as the “General Plan update,” “proposed project,” or “project”).

1.1 Project Title
City of St. Helena General Plan Update

1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of St. Helena
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574

1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
(707) 967-2783 x 530

1.4 Project Location
The Housing Element update planning boundaries (Plan Area) coincide with the St. Helena city limits. The area encompasses approximately 5 square miles of land in the western portion of Napa County. The city is located northwest of the City of Yountville and southeast of the City of Calistoga, surrounded by unincorporated areas of the County. State Route 29 and 121 provide regional access to the city from the north and south. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Plan Area, and Figure 2 shows the Plan Area’s boundaries in its immediate location. In addition, the project identifies 11 vacant and underutilized sites within the city that can accommodate new housing or rezone. The vacant and underutilized sites to be studied for housing opportunities are shown broadly in Figure 3 and correspond to the list provided in the Housing Resources chapter of the needs assessment of the Housing Element update. Not all parcels have street addresses at this time.

With most of the City developed and preservation of open space a priority, all draft vacant and opportunity sites are on currently underdeveloped, underutilized, or vacant lots.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
4 Figure 1 Regional Location
Agenda Item #10.1.

Introduction
Addendum 5
Figure 2 Project Area
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
6 1.5 Project Description
The project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan and update to the existing Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan. These elements are a part of the St. Helena General Plan, which is a long-term document with text and diagrams that express the goals, objectives, and policies necessary to guide the community toward achieving its vision over approximately 20 years (i.e., 2040). The General Plan was subject to a comprehensive update as well; it underwent extensive environmental review in the form of an EIR, which was certified in 2019. The EIR for the St. Helena 2040 General Plan includes discussion of alternatives and growth inducing impacts (direct and indirect impacts) associated with urban development in the city.

State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The Housing Element update identifies residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups, defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). It analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons. The project would update the City of St.

Helena Housing Element as part of the 6
th cycle of updates. For St. Helena, the planning period runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031.

Additionally, the Housing Element update would bring it into compliance with state legislation passed since the adoption of the 2040 General Plan and 2015-2023 Housing Element. There are multiple main components of the Housing Element update that mirror those of the previous Housing Elements, but that have been updated to reflect current conditions, including:
▪ An introduction to review the requirements of the Housing Element, public participation process, and data sources
▪ A profile and analysis of the city’s demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs
▪ An analysis of constraints on housing production and maintenance, including market, governmental, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified needs ▪ A review of resources available and results of a housing sites inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of St. Helena’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing need
▪ A review of the City’s housing programs and evaluation of accomplishments under the 2013- 2021 Housing Element
▪ A Housing Plan to address the city’s identified housing needs, which identifies the City’s housing goals, policies, and implementing programs
▪ An identification of the goals, policies, and programs and the city’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period, by income group, based on growth estimates, past and anticipated development, and income data
The Housing Element update establishes objectives, policies, and programs to assist the City in achieving state-mandated housing goals. The city’s implementation of these policies and programs includes future amendments to other elements of the General Plan and the rezoning of several sites in the inventory of potential sites for meeting the city’s RHNA obligation. Pursuant to Government Agenda Item #10.1.

Introduction
Addendum 7
Code section 65583(c)(1), these actions will be accomplished within three years of the City of St.

Helena’s adoption of the Housing Element update. As required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(8), the Housing Element update provides a timeline for processing each of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other land use documents which implement the Housing Element update.

1.6 Environmental Review
In April 2019, the City of St. Helena certified the St. Helena 2040 General Plan update and Final EIR (City of St. Helena General Plan 2040, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001) for an update to General Plan, including the Land Use Element. The certified Final EIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) associated with future development allowed under the General Plan update and included a thorough analysis of the estimated build out of the City through the horizon year 2040. The EIR estimated new development for residential, commercial, office, industrial, hospital and hotel uses throughout the city and sphere of influence and evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with an estimated total buildout of 400 new dwelling units. The EIR found that, with implementation of the policies and programs contained in the General Plan and recommended mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with future development under the General Plan update would be less than significant, except impacts on agricultural resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, and transportation and traffic which would be significant and unavoidable.

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, the City determined that the EIR certified for the 2040 General Plan update is of continuing informational value. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the Housing Element update are within the scope of the previously certified EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists. Based on the information and analysis provided below, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

Like the 2040 General Plan update, the Housing Element update does not include any development proposal or approval and future development of any specific housing site would be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).

1.7 Discretionary Action
Implementation of the Housing Element would require the following discretionary actions by the City of St. Helena City Council:
▪ Approval of an Addendum to the General Plan EIR
▪ Adoption of the updated Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element In addition to the above-mentioned actions, future amendments to the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) consistent with the implementing programs of the updated Housing Element would also be adopted by the City Council.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development reviews the proposed Housing Element in accordance with California law. No other review by outside public agencies is required.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
8 1.8 Prior Environmental Document(s)
The City of St. Helena General Plan 2040 Final EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001.

1.9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
The location and custodian of the City of St. Helena General Plan 2040 EIR is the City of St. Helena Planning Department, 1088 College Avenue St. Helena, CA 94574. A copy of the EIR also is available online at the City of St. Helena website: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/2040- general-plan-update
Agenda Item #10.1.

Project Context
Addendum 9
Project Context
The project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan and update to the existing Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan (collectively referred to as “project”). These elements are a part of the St. Helena General Plan, which is a long-term document with text and diagrams that express the goals, objectives, and policies necessary to guide the community toward achieving its vision over approximately 20 years (i.e., 2040).

2.1 St. Helena General Plan
California law requires that each city and county in California adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan,” the purpose of which is to plan for important community issues such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection. Furthermore, the General Plan is used to project future demand for services such as sewer, water, roadways, parks, and emergency services. A General Plan is only successful when it reflects the priorities and values of the community and is a key tool for influencing quality of life.

City of St. Helena decision-makers (e.g., City Council and Planning Commission), rely on the General Plan as the basis for making decisions on matters such as land use and the provision of public facilities (e.g., roads, parks, fire stations). It is also a policy document that guides decisions related to protecting, enhancing, and providing those things that the community values most, such as open space, habitat conservation, economic development, and protecting the character of the community.

California law requires that every general plan, at a minimum, address certain subject categories (called “elements”), which include land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. A general plan may also address other subjects that are of importance to the community‘s future, such as sustainability, community design, and public art. St. Helena’s adopted General Plan includes the following elements which address all state-mandated elements with additional policies and actions to address Environmental Justice issues:
▪ Land Use and Growth Management
▪ Economic Sustainability
▪ Public Facilities and services
▪ Circulation
▪ Historic Resources
▪ Open Space and Conservation
▪ Public Health, Safety, and Noise
▪ Climate Change
▪ Housing
▪ Parks and Recreation
▪ Arts, Culture, and Entertainment
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
10 2.1.1 Housing Element

2.1.1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City of St. Helena with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. A priority of both state and local governments, Government Code Section 65580 states that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.” Pursuant to the state law, the Housing Element has two main purposes:

To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs
To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs The Housing Element is one of the eight General Plan elements the state mandates in Government Code Section 65302. The Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The City of St. Helena’s current Housing Element, adopted in 2015, identifies strategies and programs that focus on:

Conserving and improving existing affordable housing
Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community Assisting in the provision of affordable housing
Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities
The residential character of St. Helena is largely determined by the variety, location, and maintenance of its housing. The Housing Element is an official response to the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the population, establishing goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City of St. Helena decision making and set forth an action plan to implement these housing programs through an established planning period.

2.1.1.2 Updates to the Housing Element
State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Section 65588). The Housing Element must identify residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and to meet the needs of special population groups as defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). The Housing Element analyzes market and governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons.

The previous Housing Element covered an eight-year planning period (January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023), Government Code Section 65588(e).

The City of St. Helena Housing Element is now being revised as part of the 6 th cycle of updates, the
period of which runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. Therefore, this update is referred to as the “Housing Element update.”
Agenda Item #10.1.

Project Context
Addendum 11
The 2023-2031 Housing Element would bring the Element into compliance with California law enacted since the City’s adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and with the current Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG’s) RHNA. The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following components, as required by California law:
▪ An assessment of the City’s population, household, and housing stock characteristics, existing and future housing needs by household types, and special needs populations. ▪ An analysis of resources and constraints related to housing production and preservation, including governmental regulations, infrastructure requirements and market conditions such as land, construction, and labor costs as well as restricted financing availability. ▪ Identification of the City’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 RHNA and inventory of sites determined to be suitable for housing.
▪ Opportunities for Conservation in Residential Development: California law requires cities to identify opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. ▪ Review of the 2015-2023 Housing Element to identify progress and evaluate the effectiveness of previous policies and programs.
▪ A Housing Plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs to facilitate the 2023 Housing Element update (6 th Cycle).

2.1.1.3 Changes in California Law
The following items represent substantive changes to California law since the City’s last Housing Element was adopted and certified in 2015. The Housing Element update incorporated and addressed all pertinent housing law changes.
▪ Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process: Senate Bill (SB) 35 (2017) ▪ Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements: Assembly Bill (AB) 879 (2017) and AB 1397 (2017)
▪ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: AB 686 (2017)
▪ No-Net-Loss Zoning: SB 166 (2017)
▪ Safety Element to Address Adaptation and Resiliency: SB 1035 (2018) ▪ By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing: AB 2162 (2018) and B 101 (2019) ▪ Accessory Dwelling Units: AB 2299 (2016), SB 1069 (2016), AB 494 (2017), SB 229 (2017), AB 68 (2019), AB 881 (2019), AB 587 (2019), SB 13 (2019), and AB 671 (2019) ▪ Density Bonus: AB 1763 (2019)
▪ Housing Crisis Act of 2019: SB 330
▪ Surplus Land Act Amendments: AB 1486 and AB 1255 (2019) ▪ Housing Impact Fee Data: AB 1483 (2019)
▪ Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019: AB 139 (2019) ▪ Standardization of Sites Inventory Analysis and Reporting: SB 6 (2019) Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
12 2.1.1.4 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Required Buffer The Housing Element must address the City's fair share of the regional housing need (as determined by ABAG) and specific California statutory requirements. It must also reflect the vision and priorities of the local community. As of December 2021, ABAG determined a final RHNA Allocation of 256 units for the City of which 162 must be affordable to lower-income households, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 City of St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation Income Category (Percent of Napa County Area Median Income) Very Low
(<50%)
Low
(50-80%)
Moderate
(80-120%)
Above Moderate
(>120%)
Total
Housing Units
RHNA Housing units 104 59 26 67 256
RHNA + 20% Buffer 121 71 31 79 302
California law requires local jurisdictions to identify enough future housing sites inventory to not only cover the jurisdiction’s 6th Cycle RHNA, but to also provide for an additional buffer capacity above the RHNA. The buffer capacity is required to accommodate realistic production rates of affordable housing units. Additionally, the buffer can allow for instances when a smaller residential project must be considered for a given property or when existing units are demolished. The “No Net Loss” Law (Government Code Section 65863) requires maintenance of sufficient sites to meet the RHNA for all income levels throughout the planning period. With this required buffer, the number of housing units identified in the Housing Element is 307.

To meet the objectives of the RHNA and provide sufficient capacity for housing development, the Housing Element identifies sites for residential development. The Housing Element update identifies some sites for land use changes either to be consistent with the existing Land Use Element or to permit or increase residential uses on the sites. However, neither the Housing Element nor the City itself develops housing. Moreover, as described in further detail in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, below, the Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not itself implement land use changes, but puts forth goals and policies that support housing efforts. As described in the Housing Element update, the City’s RHNA can be accommodated in the following categories:
▪ Vacant or underutilized sites, where new residential units can be developed under current General Plan regulations;
▪ Sites to be rezoned to permit residential uses or permit them at a high density ▪ Planned or pending projects where no rezoning is required; and ▪ Current accessory dwelling units, also known as “granny flats” Figure 3 shows the locations of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in sites inventory in the Housing Element update. All sites in the housing sites inventory are within the City’s limits.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Project Context
Addendum 13
Figure 3 Housing Element Sites Inventory Locations – Vacant and Underutilized (Nonvacant) Sites Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
14 2.1.1.5 Zoning and General Plan Amendments
The project would involve an amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to rezone existing land use designations to Mixed-Use, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. Some existing sites are designated as land uses other than a residential land use category and would be rezoned to mixed-use or residential land use categories. Select sites would be upzoned from existing residential land use categories to more dense residential land use categories. Most of these sites are located in the central areas of the City to reflect the intensity of existing nearby higher density parcels. Future development of those sites would require separate CEQA review and compliance with local development standards.

Due to the proposed zoning modifications on particular Draft Housing Element vacant and underutilized sites, a General Plan Amendment would be required to change the land use designations on those sites to be consistent with the zoning.

2.1.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element
The Safety element is one of the eight General Plan elements the state mandates in Government Code Section 65302. The project includes revisions to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element which identifies forces of nature and events resulting from human action that have the potential to cause harm to life and property in the City. The goal of a Safety Element is to reduce the potential short and long-term risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other hazards.

Identifying the source of such threats allows decision-makers to take preemptory action to minimize the damage, particularly as it relates to new development. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element also addresses noise, fire and police protection, hazardous materials, solid waste, and public utility systems. A climate change vulnerability assessment identifying potential impacts from climate change on vulnerable populations and natural and built assets in St. Helena was also conducted for the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update.

California law requires specific changes to a safety element when the municipality undergoes an update to the Housing Element. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update includes revisions to be consistent with California law through the following actions:
▪ Identify and propose policies for residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. ▪ Update information relating to flood and fire hazards and city assets at risk due to climate change vulnerability.
▪ Propose and strengthen policies related to risk reduction, emergency preparedness and evacuation, and community and facility resilience infrastructure and strategies. ▪ Propose additional policies to address climate change hazards, including extreme heat days, extended drought, increased precipitation, and worsening air quality such as investing in backup power sources, funding for weatherization of homes, and providing cooling centers.

2.1.2.1 Changes in State Law
The following represent bills passed by the California State Legislature and approved by the Governor that require substantive changes to a Safety Element when a municipality undergoes an update. The Safety and Community Services Element update has incorporated and addressed all pertinent safety element law changes.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Project Context
Addendum 15
▪ Residential Emergency Evacuation Routes: SB 99 (2019) ▪ Evacuation Routes: AB 747 (2019)
▪ General Plans: SB 1035 (2018)
▪ Climate Change Adaptation: SB 379 (2015)
▪ Integration of Local Hazard mitigation Plan: AB 2140 (2006) ▪ Seismic and Geologic Hazards: SB 926 (2004)
▪ Flood Mapping: AB 162 (2007)

2.1.3 2040 General Plan EIR
The 2040 General Plan update EIR addressed the potential environmental effects (direct and indirect) of the planned buildout of St. Helena through the year 2040 and concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in levels of environmental impacts as detailed in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the 2040 General Plan Update EIR Issue Area Highest Level of Impact Mitigation Proposed in the General Plan EIR Aesthetics Less than significant None
Agricultural Resources Significant and Unavoidable None Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6
Biological Resources Less than significant None
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than significant None
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate
Change
Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measure GHG-1
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Less than significant None Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant None Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant HYDRO-1 Land Use, Population, and Housing Less than significant None Noise Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measure NO-1 Public Services and Recreation Less than significant None Transportation and Traffic Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measures TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR-5, and TR-6
Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant None The General Plan has an approximate year 2040 horizon, but actual buildout of all planned land uses may occur earlier or later, as long-range demographic and economic trends are difficult to accurately predict. The designation within the proposed General Plan of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the site will be developed or redeveloped with that use during the planning period, as most development will depend on property owner initiative and market conditions.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
16 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum 17
Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section
15164
Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when changes are proposed to a project that has a previously certified EIR. When considering the need for additional environmental review, the fundamental determination a lead agency must make is whether the previously certified EIR retains some informational value or whether changes in the project or circumstances have rendered it wholly irrelevant. If the previously certified EIR has continuing informational value, the lead agency then must determine whether the proposed changes in the Project requires additional environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that a lead agency will prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) states that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR may be prepared for a project with a certified EIR unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:

The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The analysis pursuant to Section 15162 demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a new EIR, would be required.

The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
18 final EIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to deciding on the project.

The City of St. Helena prepared this Addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, to evaluate whether the project’s environmental impacts are covered by and within the scope of the General Plan Final EIR). The following Addendum details any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and/or "new information of substantial importance" that may cause one or more significant effects to environmental resources.

The responses herein substantiate and support the City of St. Helena’s determination that the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update policies and programs are within the scope of the General Plan EIR, do not require subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and, in conjunction with the EIR, preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Environmental Effects & Determination
Addendum 19
Environmental Effects & Determination

4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or
Substantially More Severe Significant Effects
Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in Project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ None
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Energy, Greenhouse
Gases, and Climate
Change
□ Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use, Population, and
Housing
□ Noise □ Public Services and
Recreation
□ Transportation and Traffic □ Utilities and Service Systems

4.2 Determination
Based on this analysis, the 2040 General Plan EIR has continuing informational value and:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Methodology
Addendum 21
Addendum Methodology

5.1 2040 General Plan Consistency
To promote a uniform and compatible vision for the development of the community, California law requires the General Plan be internally consistent in its goals and policies. The Housing Element and the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element are components of the General Plan, and thus, the Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update must be consistent with the vision of the General Plan and supported by goals and policies of the other General Plan elements. General Plan elements and policies that affect housing are summarized below:

The Land Use and Growth Management Element directs the location, amount, and type of residential development in St. Helena. It presents the desirable pattern for the ultimate development of the city and reflects the community’s evolution and changing demographics over the General Plan horizon. The Land Use Plan details the location and the density of development allowed throughout the city.

The Community Design Element guides the form, character, and appearance of the community to preserve the city’s history and character in future commercial, industrial, and residential development.

The Circulation Element defines a safe, efficient, and adequate circulation system in St. Helena that responds to all circulation needs. Circulation means the actual physical circulation system consisting of freeways, streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks, and trails, as well as modes of transportation, including cars, buses, trucks, trains, bicycles, ridesharing, and walking.

The Open Space and Conservation Element and Parks and Recreation Element establish goals and polices to protect sensitive resources from development impacts; maintain and improve appropriate access to open space; and ensure park and recreation opportunities are sufficient to meet the needs of future residents.

The Economic Sustainability Element establishes goals and policies to guide city efforts to maintain an economically viable community, including providing a range of housing and employment opportunities that meet the needs of residents and workers alike, that attract families and businesses to create demand for planned land uses, and that establish and fund public service levels to preserve St. Helena’s quality of life.

The Climate Change Element directs the City’s response to and plans for climate change by addressing energy and water conservation, renewable energy production, transportation, sustainable business development, and reduction of climate change impacts in the city.

5.2 Accommodation of the RHNA
The City’s RHNA for the current planning period is 256 units, which includes 162 very low and lowincome housing units, 26 moderate income housing units, and 68 above moderate housing units.

The City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that can facilitate and encourage the development of such units. As shown in Table 3, the City anticipates the development of 72 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) during the eight-year planning period and 93 units would be accommodated from planned and approved (pipeline) Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
22 projects, which can count towards the RHNA. A total of 307 units were identified on vacant and nonvacant sites under the existing General Plan land uses, as well as on sites requiring rezoning under Program H-A.

Although the housing sites inventory has been identified for future planning purposes as part of the Housing Element update, the adoption of the Housing Element itself does not change the current zoning or General Plan designations of the properties. California Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the start of the Housing Element planning period to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards.

Therefore, the City’s rezoning program, which is identified as Program H-A of the Housing Element update, would be a separate project and evaluated in accordance with CEQA at the time of its review. Prior to the approval of any changes in land use, the City would evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the rezoning or change in land use.

Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category
Site Category/Approach Very Low/Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA plus buffer 192 31 79 302
Vacant or underutilized parcels 203 69 35 307
Planned or Pending Projects, no rezone 4 1 88 93
Accessory Dwelling Units 0 0 72 72
Total 207 70 195 472
RHNA Surplus (15) (39) (116) (171)
As shown in Table 3, existing vacant or underutilized residentially zoned properties, planned, and pending projects that require no zone change, and accessory dwelling units would yield four very low and low income housing units under current conditions. Therefore, the City of St. Helena needs to account for the additional 188 very low and low income housing units through a combination of the remaining approaches. The 188 very low and low income housing units fall within the projected horizon year buildout and housing unit assumptions addressed in the General Plan and General Plan EIR.

5.3 Consistency with Horizon Year 2040 Projections
The General Plan EIR reports that in 2018 there were 2,735 existing housing units in St. Helena and predicts that by horizon year 2040, St. Helena will have 3,067 units (Chapter 2, Project Description), assuming an addition of 332 new housing units citywide between 2018 and horizon year 2040. As discussed above, the City of St. Helena’s RHNA for the current planning period is 256 units. In addition, the Housing Element includes a required buffer which plans for a total of approximately 302 units during the planning period. Including the pending and approved projects, ADU trends, and vacant and nonvacant sites, the Site Inventory would accommodate approximately 472 units as shown in Table 3 which would exceed the 332 units by an additional 140 units. Therefore, additional environmental analysis would be required prior to the implementation of the rezoning program identified as Program H-A in the Housing Element.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Methodology
Addendum 23

5.4 Preliminary Environmental Considerations
The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific development projects, but rather puts forth goals, policies, and programs that support housing efforts in St. Helena. Each future housing development project and housing program adopted in the Housing Element would be subject to separate review to determine potential impacts on the environment related to each project as potential impacts are location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until a project site and development proposal are identified. When a specific development proposal is considered for approval, that project would be subject to adopted development guidelines and standards and be required to incorporate applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the 2040 General Plan EIR certified in 2019 (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3)). If a subsequent activity (in this case a specific development proposal) would have effects not identified in the program EIR (the 2040 General Plan EIR and this Addendum), the lead agency must prepare additional CEQA documentation.

Similarly, the goals, policies and programs in the updated Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element, in and of themselves, do not propose specific projects that result in a physical change to the environment. Should a project associated with implementation of the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element have the potential to result in a physical change in the environment, it would be subject to separate review under CEQA.

This Addendum Evaluation, therefore, includes the analysis of the changes and potential impacts related to the adoption of Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates.

No physical development or changes in land use are addressed or evaluated. The City would analyze any future development or changes in land use separate from the adoption of the Housing Element.

This Addendum Evaluation is intended to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the existing St.

Helena 2040 General Plan update Final EIR to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. In particular, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this Addendum Evaluation assesses whether the updated Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element, as a policy and programs document, includes impacts not addressed or analyzed as significant effects in the St.

Helena 2040 General Plan update Final EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
24 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
Addendum 25
Addendum Evaluation

6.1 Aesthetics
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
a publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
26 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
Addendum 27
2040 General Plan EIR Aesthetics Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to aesthetic resources would be less than significant for scenic vistas, scenic highways, visual quality, and light and glare (Section 3.1, Aesthetics). It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to projectspecific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban design and visual quality. As such, all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning aesthetic resources such as those that address architectural design, lighting, landscaping, building setbacks, and visual compatibility.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards. The City would evaluate any proposed land use changes for potential environmental impacts prior to approval of the proposed land use change. Furthermore, future development proposals could be subject to further environmental analysis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) and as required by state law, to evaluate potential impacts specific to that proposal.

Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual character, and would not create new sources of substantial light or glare which adversely affects views. The sites are located on vacant as well as non-vacant properties such as those with existing buildings or vineyards. However similar to the analysis within the 2040 General Plan EIR, any individual development projects consistent with the Housing Element would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban design and visual quality. As such, all projects proposed under the Housing Element implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning aesthetic resources such as those that address architectural design, lighting, landscaping, building setbacks, and visual compatibility.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. None of the implementation items would cause impacts to scenic vistas or resources or directly develop new structures which would impact views and create substantial glare. Any potential updates to structures to mitigate potential risks to wildfire or other climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
28 design and visual quality. Therefore the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR and no additional environmental assessment of aesthetics is required.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Agricultural Resources
Addendum 29

6.2 Agricultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Significant and
Unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
30 2040 General Plan EIR Agricultural Resources Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources (Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources). The EIR found that implementation of the 2040 General Plan could result in the loss of up to 118 acres of land identified as Important Farmland, including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. The 2040 General Plan EIR found the loss of farmland is not directly mitigable, without preventing development altogether. No feasible mitigation measures were identified for agricultural land conversion that would fulfill the objectives of and implement the 2040 General Plan update. Therefore, and implementation of the plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Important Farmlands.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards. .

The General Plan goals and policies support continued farming and restrict uses that would interfere with farming and open space uses in certain areas. Most of the sites identified within the Housing Element update are located on sites with existing development and on sites zoned for residential or commercial uses. The Housing Element update includes one site identified for housing which is located on prime farmland. However, the site has a land use designation of Public and Quasi-Public and housing development would not result in any more severe impacts to agricultural resources than were a public facility developed on the site as currently shown in the General Plan. In addition, the 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts to farmland (Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources). Therefore, the Housing Element update would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. .

There would also be no new impacts to Williamson Act contracts, as none of the identified sites in the sites inventory are under Williamson Act contract.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. These updates would not convert existing farmland or forested land and would not impact any land under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no impact related to agricultural resources.

Conclusion
The Housing Element Update does not propose the development on housing on any areas of the City not already analyzed for development in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would update information and goals, policies, and objectives to be consistent with the State legislation and would not change growth assumptions or buildout assessed Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Agricultural Resources
Addendum 31
in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR and no additional environmental assessment of agricultural resources is required.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
32 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 33

6.3 Air Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Violate air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-1, AQ-2,
and AQ-3
No No No Yes Yes
c. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-1, AQ-2,
and AQ-3
No No No Yes Yes
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
AQ-4, AQ-5,
and AQ-6
No No No Yes Yes
e. Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
34 2040 General Plan EIR Air Quality Findings
As discussed under in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant. The 2040 General Plan would support the goals of Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) 2017 Clean Air Plan, include all applicable control measures, and would not conflict with its implementation.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable. Construction emissions associated with a potential level of annual development that is consistent the General Plan’s 2040 growth projections could result in reactive organic gas (ROG), NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PM) emissions construction activity that exceeds BAAQMDrecommended CEQA significance thresholds. All other potential construction emissions would be below BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds. In addition, maximum daily operational emissions associated with potential 2040 growth under the General Plan would result in ROG and PM10 emissions that could exceed BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds.

All other potential operational emissions would be below BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds. To reduce impacts related to air quality emissions of criteria air pollutants, the 2040 General Plan EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 which would reduce ROGs from architectural coating, and PM from construction, as well require all development with the potential to create point-source air quality impacts to receive BAAQMD review prior to approval. In addition, any development under the 2040 General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable air quality plans, California Air Resources Board (CARB) and BAAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing air pollution emissions. However, because the detail of future projects under the General Plan cannot be known, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require construction projects in the City of St. Helena to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. BMPs may include:
▪ Watering all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) three times per day using recycled water. ▪ Covering all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material. ▪ Removing all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ▪ Limiting all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ▪ Completing all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved as soon as possible. Laying building pads soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ▪ Minimizing idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ▪ Maintaining and properly tuning all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper working condition prior to operation. • Staging construction equipment as far as possible from existing sensitive receptors (away from the southeast property line and surrounding residences).

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 35
▪ Posting a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
▪ Where warranted, the project sponsors shall incorporate the following language into construction specifications if significant risk is anticipated based on design level construction schedule, duration and concurrent construction activities:
▪ Powering portable equipment by electricity if available or if electricity is not available, using propane or natural gas if feasible. Diesel engines shall only be used if electricity is not available and it is not feasible to use propane or natural gas. ▪ Ensuring that all mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously or 20 hours cumulative meets, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent and be equipped with diesel particulate matter filters that meet CARB-certified Level 2 or 3 Diesel Particulate Filters. Alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require that applicants proposing development of projects within the City of St. Helena require contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce constructionrelated fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-volatile organic compounds (VOC) coatings that have a VOC content of 10 grams/liter (g/L) or less be used during construction. All project applicants shall submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require all development applications with the potential to create point-source air quality impacts be referred to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for review and comment to ensure compliance with BAAQMD requirements prior to approval of the project.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require development projects to meet CARB setback recommendations from air contaminant sources for sensitive uses, or conduct specific air quality and health risk impact analyses and identify project specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To protect sensitive receptors require discretionary projects in proximity to Highway 29, Silverado Trail and the Rail Corridor to include an analysis of mobile source toxic air contaminant health risks. The analysis, if necessary, shall identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce health risks to acceptable levels.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6: All applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD, shall prepare a site-specific construction health risk assessment (HRA) taking into account both project-level and cumulative health risks (including existing toxic air contaminant sources). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than BAAQMD project level and cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), additional feasible on- and offsite mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
36 The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to sensitive receptors regarding pollutant concentrations by the General Plan would be less than significant. Although implementation of the General Plan could result in new sensitive residential receptors and new non-residential land uses that would potentially be emissions sources, permitted stationary sources in St. Helena are primarily located in commercial or semi-rural areas while most of the sensitive receptors, such as schools, residences, and retirement homes, are located in the downtown area of the city. In addition, individual development projects would be evaluated through the BAAQMD permit process and the CEQA process to identify and mitigate any significant exposures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 would reduce potential impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant.

Buildout under the General Plan would not cause or significantly contribute to CO concentrations that exceed State or federal ambient air quality standards for CO. Regulatory mechanisms, including asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations for demolition and renovation outlined in BAAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 11-2, would ensure impacts from asbestos containing materials present during demolition of existing structures would be less than significant.

Heath risks associated with receptor exposure to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) would be less than significant because the use of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be temporary and would combine with the highly dispersive properties of DPM, additional reductions in exhaust emissions would occur in the future, and construction-related activities would be short-term, incremental through time, and would occur at scattered locations throughout the city such that an individual receptor location would not be exposed to DPM exposure for a prolonged period of time.

However, without specific details on the locations of building footprints or their construction schedules, a quantitative evaluation of potential health risk impacts is not possible. Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6 would mitigate air quality impacts from construction to reduce health related impacts.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined impacts related to objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards.

While potential air quality-related impacts of future projects cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the project site and development design is known, including the number of units, potential number of residents, and potential vehicle miles traveled, operational impacts would be addressed by provisions in the General Plan, the Green Building Code, and other regulations and standards that govern air quality in St. Helena. Short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction of the sites, such as dust generated by clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas- and diesel-powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers would be subject to BAAQMD rules and protocols Further General Plan goals Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 37
and policies support reduction of air quality impacts. Mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR will be implemented to help reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. These measures would remain in practice with implementation of the Housing Element update.

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could contribute to impacts related to criteria pollutants. Annual development under the Housing Element update could increase construction emissions from indirect land use changes. Potential impacts caused by more development would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 identified in the General Plan EIR.

However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation, the same as impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could impact sensitive receptors. However, the Housing Element update does not proposed new land use changes which would place new sensitive receptors in areas with emission sources.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not directly result in development or activities that would generate air pollutants, cause an increase in VMT, or generate objectionable odors. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would not allow for more housing units or increase projected growth forecasts in the city. In addition, the updates would be subject to all applicable air quality plans, CARB and BAAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing air pollution emissions. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have less than significant impacts related to air quality.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
38 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Biological Resources
Addendum 39

6.4 Biological Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
40 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan,
natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Biological Resources
Addendum 41
2040 General Plan EIR Biological Resources Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant for effects to listed species or their habitats, loss of significant populations of sensitive species, protected wetlands, wildlife migration or movement corridors, local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or conflicts with conservation plans and habitat management plans and habitat groups identified therein (Chapter 3.4 Biological Resources). Individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review. As such, all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning the protection of biological resources, including listed species, habitats, and all planning resources designed to protect and conserve these resources.

Furthermore, future development would be required to comply with State and federal law and policies within the Open Space Element of the General Plan that protect biological resources. The General Plan is consistent with the SHMC and Open Space and Conservation Element policies and standards for tree preservations. The General Plan does not include any policies that would interfere with the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Habitat Conservation Plan for PG&E facilities, rightsof way, buffer lands, owned lands and easements, access routes and mitigation areas.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan that identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th cycle RHNA throughout St.

Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density.

As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Most sites identified in the sites inventory are located in previously developed areas with limited potential for disruption to undeveloped habitat areas, including sites that have previously been developed or infill sites in well developed areas. The sites inventory also includes vacant sites, although these sites have been previously disturbed and are in proximity to developed areas.

Consistent with the 2040 General Plan EIR, the project would not adversely affect biological resources, including special-status species, riparian habitats or wetlands, or migratory species and wildlife corridors, to a greater extent than buildout under the General Plan, and impacts would remain less than significant. Build out under the Housing Element update would be subject to all applicable requirements of the SHMC and Open Space and Conservation Element policies as well as the PG&E Habitat Conservation Plan for PG&E facilities, rights-of way, buffer lands, owned lands and easements, access routes and mitigation areas.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. Policies contained within the update include vegetation management and maintenance and debris removal in stream channels that are designed to mitigate wildfire, erosion, and flood risk. These policies also stipulate that such activities must use best practices to protect wildlife and habitat. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning the protection of biological Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
42 resources, including listed species, habitats, and all planning resources designed to protect and conserve these resources. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to biological resources.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum 43

6.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA § 15064.5?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA § 15064.5?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
44 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native Tribe and
that is:
▪ Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
▪ A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum 45
2040 General Plan EIR Cultural Resources Findings
As discussed under Impact CUL-1 in Section 3.4, Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Future development under the General Plan could result in demolition, deconstruction, relocation, or alteration of historic resources. The SHMC establishes procedures for archaeological surveys and mitigation measures for archaeological and paleontological resources and protections for significant architectural or historical buildings. Policies within the Historic Resources Element would further mitigate potential impacts on historic districts and buildings.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and the proposed policies and implementation actions within the Historic Resources Element.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program 1.1 to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update, including associated construction activities would result in less than significant impacts to historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources within the Plan Area. Buildout under the Housing Element update would adhere to State and local development guidelines that govern historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources, including AB 52 and SB 18 and policies in the City’s Historic Resources Element. Native American tribes requesting consultation will be notified of projects when project-specific environmental review begins, according to AB 52 and SB 18 (if applicable), and tribal representative requests will be included into project approval, including notification, monitoring, and consultations in accord with federal and state requirements. Any evidence of cultural resources that might be unearthed in the process of construction would be required to comply with SHMC which establishes mitigation measures for archaeological resources.

Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to archaeological resources and human remains would remain less than significant, the same as impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with relevant policies and standards within the General Plan Historic Resources Element and the SHMC previously adopted to protect archaeological and paleontological resources and significant architectural or historical buildings. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to cultural resources.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
46 Conclusion
The 2040 Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
Addendum 47

6.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Significant and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Significant and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Cause wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of
energy during project
construction, operation, and/or
maintenance?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Conflict with the CBC Energy
Efficiency Standards, the CARB
passenger vehicle GHG emission
reduction targets for 2020 and
2035, or any other applicable
energy conservation regulations?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
48 2040 General Plan EIR Energy, Greenhous Gas Emissions, and Climate Change Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be significant and unavoidable, Section 3.6, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change.

Buildout under the 2040 General Plan would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions from baseline conditions by 2040 and would not make substantial progress towards meeting the State’s 2050 goal of 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels pursuant to Executive Order S-03-05. The primary source of GHG emissions under the General Plan would be from the transportation sector and the second largest source of emissions would be from the commercial/industrial sector. To reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure GHG-1. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measure and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing GHG emissions, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The City of St. Helena shall adopt and begin to implement a Climate Action Plan within a goal of 18 months, but no later than 36 months, of adopting the Proposed Plan update to address the GHG reduction goals of Executive Order B‐30‐15 and Executive Order S‐ 03‐05 for GHG sectors that the City has direct or indirect jurisdictional control over. The Climate Action Plan shall include a community inventory of GHG emission sources, and quantifiable GHG emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and an interim target for the General Plan buildout year 2040, that are consistent with the statewide GHG reduction targets.

The City shall monitor progress toward its GHG emissions reduction goals and prepare reports every five years detailing that progress.

In addition, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulation regarding GHG reductions would be significant and unavoidable.

Under buildout of the 2040 General Plan, per capita emissions would exceed the significance threshold of 2.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population in 2040, which would conflict with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, AB32, and Executive Order S-03-05, and BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would help reduce GHG emissions, however further action at the State and federal level would be necessary to achieve State reduction targets. At the time, there were no post‐2030 State or federal measures that would assist the city in achieving the efficiency target in 2040, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. Therefore, the General Plan could potentially conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, meaning impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to energy resources would be less than significant for energy consumption and consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would decrease net energy consumption and per service population energy consumption due to delivery of energy through Marin Clean Energy which has higher goals for renewable energy than PG&E and through an increase in fuel efficiency for vehicles. Furthermore, policies within the General Plan aim to reduce energy consumption of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline and diesel fuels by fostering an increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy, encouraging bicycle and pedestrian transit, and decreasing use of cars. All future development under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with the latest California Building Code (CBC) requirements, including CBC Energy Efficiency Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
Addendum 49
Standards, as well as all federal, State, and local rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation.

By decreasing demand for energy- and fuel-related energy resources both overall and on a per service population basis and complying with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, impacts to energy consumption and consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Implementation of the Housing Element update could increase the demand for electricity and natural gas. However, new development would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in CALGreen, which could decrease energy consumption in new and retrofitted structures. In addition, consistent with the General Plan, the Housing Element supports higher density that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fuel consumption compared to existing lower-density development. Therefore, energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and the Housing Element update would not conflict with nor obstruct a State or local plan for increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of GHG emissions or otherwise conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. Annual development under the Housing Element update could exceed the GHG significance threshold applied in the 2040 General Plan EIR and conflict with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Potential impacts caused by development allowed under the Housing Element would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, identified in the General Plan EIR. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation, the same as impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not increase built out or population increases in the city and would not directly result in development or activities that would increase demand for energy or increase VMT. Policies within the update encourage use of renewable back-up power sources and storage that would support the City’s a more reliable and less wasteful source of energy for use during emergencies. In addition, any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk from climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with the CBC Energy Efficiency Standards, policies within the General Plan aimed at reducing energy consumption of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline and Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
50 diesel fuels, and all federal, State, and local rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions, energy or climate change.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Addendum 51

6.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

No No No Yes Yes

1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

2. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

4. Landslides? Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
52 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or topsoil loss?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Section 1803.5.3,
Expansive Soil, of the California
Building Standards Code (2013),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Addendum 53
2040 General Plan EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity would be less than significant for adverse effects related to rupture of a known fault, strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides; soil erosion; landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; locating development on expansive soils; and installing septic tanks and alternative waste water disposal systems in expansive soils, Section 3.7, Soils, Geology, and Seismicity. It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to projectspecific development and planning review, including adherence to standards for geology, soils, and seismicity impacts. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant in regard to impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, buildout under the Housing Element update could result in impacts related to geologic hazards, including seismic activity, faults, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, and unstable soils. However, new development would be required to comply with local and state codes and requirements related to geologic hazards, including the CBC, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, and applicable General Plan policies. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. In addition, consistent with buildout allowed under the General Plan, new development under the Housing Element update would connect to the existing sewer system and not include septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions that would mitigate potential impacts related to geology and soils by requiring soils and geology reports for new development, prohibiting development on instable slopes, and limiting development in hillside areas with potential for slope failure. None of the implementation items would directly result new structures that would be exposed to seismic activity, faults, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, or unstable soils or involve septic tanks. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and any impacts would be mitigated through compliance with all applicable General Plan policies, the CBC, the NPDES program, and all other applicable local and state codes and requirements. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
54 Conclusion
The Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum 55

6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on a site that is included
on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
56 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
g. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport, public use airport, or
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Planning
Area?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum 57
2040 General Plan EIR Hazards and Hazardous
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts for hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant for transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school; location of development projects on hazardous materials sites such that the new use would create a hazard to the public or the environment; interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; and risk from wildland fire in lands adjacent to urbanized or residential areas, Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. It further stated that the Plan Area. The 2040 General Plan EIR described that individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to state, regional, and local regulations and standards related to hazards. There are no airport land use compatibility plans within the planning area or public airports, public use airports, or private airstrips within two miles of affecting any portion of the General Plan planning area.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, construction and operation of the development allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing regulations related to use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Applicable regulations would include those set forth by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation, and BAAQMD. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure impacts related hazardous materials would remain less than significant, consistent with the 2040 General Plan EIR. The proposed Housing Element update would not include circulation changes and is not located within the planning boundaries of any airports. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions to enhance emergency response and evacuation procedures through testing of response exercises and maintaining the City’s emergency response plan. In addition, policies and implementation actions address risk associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wildfire prevention and response. The update is would not directly result in development that would have the potential to impact hazards or hazardous materials. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with relevant Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
58 policies within the General Plan California, as well as applicable standards from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation, and BAAQMD.

Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 59

6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
60 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
HYDRO-1 No No No Yes Yes
g. Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam, or inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 61
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
i. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
62 2040 General Plan EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant for water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, depletion of ground water, drainage, runoff, erosion, and siltation. It further stated that new development under the General Plan would primarily result in redevelopment of previously developed sites with residential, commercial, and public uses, which would have a limited effect on local drainage or runoff characteristics. The 2040 General Plan EIR also concluded that on-going compliance with the NPDES requirements, including required implementation of BMPs to treat storm water runoff and protect water quality, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts related to water quality, runoff, and flooding. Buildout of the General Plan would generate a small increase in impervious surfaces, although the planning area is already largely developed. However, it would not be anticipated that new development would contribute to a significant impact on water quality, groundwater recharge, or runoff.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to placement of housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map would be less than significant with mitigation.

Implementation of the General Plan could result in development on sites partially or fully within the 100-year flood zone or construction of new housing within flood hazard zones. Policies within the General Plan and compliance with the SHMC regulate development in flood hazard areas, consistent with standards from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To further reduce impacts related to development within flood zones, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: Any proposed development or redevelopment on land designated as regulatory floodway on current Federal Emergency Management Agency maps shall, prior to issuance of a construction permit, obtain and submit to the City a Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, demonstrating that a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis showed that grading modifications were performed such that the proposed development would no longer be within the floodway. These modifications shall be completed without raising the base flood level or impacting other properties.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Development allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing regulations, including NPDES requirements, required BMPs, San Francisco Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association ’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and General Plan policies related to water quality, runoff, and erosion, siltation, and flooding control. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 63
impacts related to water quality, drainage, erosion, siltation, runoff, and flooding would remain less than significant, the same as impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update, including associated construction activities could result in impacts to groundwater supply.

Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 identified in the General Plan EIR and project-level environmental review, which would identify potential impacts and reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the same as under the General Plan.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions that reduce risk of floods and impacts related to flood hazards. None of the policies or implementation actions would impact hydrology or water quality or directly result in development that would alter existing drainage patterns, contribute to runoff, degrade water quality, impact groundwater supply and recharge, or expose people or structures to flood hazards. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with NPDES requirements, including required implementation of BMPs to treat storm water runoff and protect water quality, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not have an adverse impact and hydrology and water quality.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
64 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Land Use, Population, and Housing
Addendum 65

6.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
d. Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
66 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Land Use, Population, and Housing
Addendum 67
2040 General Plan EIR Land Use Planning, Housing, and Population Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant as they pertain to dividing established communities, conflicts with applicable land use plans, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and displacing substantial numbers of existing housing or people, Section 3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing. The 2040 General Plan EIR further found that General Plan implementation would not physically divide an established community and would beneficially increase connectivity throughout the city. The 2040 General Plan EIR further stated that individual development projects under the General Plan would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, which would ensure adherence to standards for land use planning, housing, and population.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies a range of sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of
these sites may differ from those identified in the General Plan EIR. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031Consistent with development under the General Plan, the Housing Element update would not involve circulation changes to the Plan Area, and individual development projects would occur within private and City-owned property in already developed areas. In addition, projects under the Housing Element update would be subject to General Plan policies related to increased connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, and drivers in the City. Therefore, development under the Housing Element update would not physically divide a community, and impacts would remain less than significant. Moreover, consistent with the General Plan, development under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing zoning and development regulations in the SHMC and policies in the General Plan. Compliance with these regulations and policies and required development and planning review would ensure individual projects would not conflict with applicable land use policies, plans, and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. None of the policies or implementation actions would result in new structures that would physically divide a community or change existing land uses. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would not displace people or housing or result in population growth. would not result in significant adverse impacts related to land use, population, and housing.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
68 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Noise
Addendum 69

6.11 Noise
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Expose persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the proposed
General Plan Noise Element, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Expose persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
NO-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the Planning
Area above levels existing
without the project?
Significant and
unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Result in a substantial temporary
or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the
project
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
70 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, expose people residing or
working in the Planning Area to
excessive noise levels?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
f. For a project within the vicinity of
a private airstrip, expose people
residing or working in the
Planning Area to excessive noise
levels?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Noise
Addendum 71
2040 General Plan EIR Noise Findings
As discussed under in Section 3.11, Noise, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to construction, traffic, railway, and stationary noise sources would be less than significant. Policies within the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element address construction operation noise, noise compatibility along the rail line, traffic noise impacts, and stationary noise sources. Impacts from to traffic-related vibration and rail vibration was determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to vibration during construction would be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts related to traffic vibration and rail vibration were less than significant. Construction of new development under the 2040 General Plan could result in use of heavy duty equipment that could produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses.

Construction equipment operating within 25 feet of sensitive land uses could generate distinctly perceptible vibration, non-pile driving construction activities occurring within 25 feet of sensitive uses could result in significant vibration impacts. In addition, pile driving occurring within approximately 175 feet or 300 feet of sensitive uses for vibratory/sonic pile drivers and impact pile drivers, respectively, could also result in significant vibration impacts. As the specific future projects to be developed under the General Plan are not known at this time, and as the level of construction activity that would occur at various locations for future projects is also not known, it is possible the future construction activities could result in significant vibration impacts in portions of the Planning Area near historic structures and sensitive receptors such as schools and residences. To reduce construction related vibration impacts, the General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure NO-1 which would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NO-1: Where vibration impacts have the potential to cause structural damage or distinctly perceptible human response (reference Tables 3.11-12 to 3.11-14, or more recent sources), require a vibration study, prepared by a qualified vibration consultant. The study should include a site-specific engineering assessment of potential vibration impacts to structures and sensitive receptors from construction activities and specify a mitigation plan to minimize the impacts using all reasonable and feasible means available. The mitigation plan should include a procedure for establishing threshold and limiting vibration values for potentially affected structures, based on an assessment of each structure’s ability to withstand the loads and displacements due to construction vibrations and a commitment to develop a vibration monitoring plan during the engineering phase and to implement a compliance monitoring program during construction.

The 2040 General Plan EIR reported there would be no noise impacts related to exposure of people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise levels related to use of a public airport or private airstrip since the Planning Area is not in proximity to either a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest public airport to St. Helena is Angwin-Parrett Field located 4 miles northeast of the Planning Area and the nearest private airstrip is the Pope Valley Airport located 7 miles northeast of the Planning Area.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
72 change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, construction of individual projects under the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of noise levels within the city. Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to Mitigation Measure NO-1, which would reduce construction vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Operation of individual projects under the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of traffic-related noise levels within the city but they would be less than significant. Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to policies identified in the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element and standards within the SHMC related to noise. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts related to increases in noise levels from construction, traffic, rail, and stationary sources would remain less than significant. Consistent with development allowed under the General Plan, the proposed project would not be located within the vicinity of a private air strip or an airport land use plan and would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive airport-related noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions aimed at minimizing noise, including noise generated by construction and traffic. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with noise standards within the SHMC and General Plan. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no impact related to noise.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum 73

6.12 Public Services and Recreation
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for fire
protection, police protection, schools,
parks, or other public facilities?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
74 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum 75
2040 General Plan EIR Public Services and Recreation Findings As discussed in Section 3.12, Public Services, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout under the 2040 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to local fire and police agencies or other public facilities within the City of St. Helena. Projected new development under the 2040 General Plan could result in population and employment increase but would not result in substantial increase demand for fire services, police services, schools, parks, recreation, and library facilities. The increase in service population would not require construction of new or expansion of existing facilities for fire service, police service, schools, parks or other public facilities. Policies within the General Plan monitor the need for additional public facilities, pursue sites for future facilities, require Fire Department and Police department review of individual development projects, and implement public safety impact fees. In addition, potential new or expanded public service facilities would be subject to additional CEQA review. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the General Plan and analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout under the Housing Element update could increase the demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and library services within the city but is not anticipated to generate a need for the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing ones. Most sites are urban infill sites where development already exists and public services are already being provided. New development would be required to pay safety impact fees and subject to review by the Fire Department and Police Department. Additionally, General Plan policies governing public services would remain in effect for the Housing Element update and future development projects.

Compliance with General Plan goals and policies regarding public services and recreation would ensure that new housing would not result in a substantial demand to public services. These goals and policies would continue to apply to projects implemented under the Housing Element update.

Therefore, potential impacts to public services associated with implementation of the updated Housing Element are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not result in development that would increase demand for public services or governmental or recreational facilities. The update includes policies and implementation actions that would ensure adequate provisions of public services, including fire and police protection, and protect of City facilities from potential natural and made-made hazards which would improve response times and safety. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would increase service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for public services and facilities. Potential development Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
76 would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with General Plan goals and policies regarding public services and recreation. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no impact related to public services or recreation.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Transportation and Traffic
Addendum 77

6.13 Transportation and Traffic
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components
of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways,
and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Significant and
unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable
congestion management
program, including, but not
limited to level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management agency
for designated roads or
highways?
Not discussed None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
78 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Transportation and Traffic
Addendum 79
2040 General Plan EIR Transportation Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to transportation would be significant and unavoidable regarding consistency with policies and regulations related to roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, Section 3.13, Transportation. The 2040 General Plan EIR determined 7 out of 27 analyzed intersections would have significant impacts. Policies and actions within the General Plan aim to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, improve circulation throughout the city, and promote options for alternate forms of transportation. To reduce impacts to intersections, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measures TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR5, and TR-6. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Main Street is a State highway (State Route 29), therefore mitigation measures along Main Street are subject to Caltrans approval and cannot be guaranteed by the City. In addition, improvements to accommodate future traffic volumes may not be implemented due to lack of funds. Therefore, because the City cannot guarantee that needed improvements would be implemented, impacts to intersection traffic operations are significant and unavoidable.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that other transportation impacts would be less than significant, including potential to conflict with applicable congestion management programs, change in air traffic patterns, increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, emergency access, and potential to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031), including urban infill sites and sites with existing development.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 5064.3, subdivision(b), a project’s transportation impact is now based on VMT instead of an level of service analysis as conducted under the 2040 General Plan EIR. Under the updated State requirements, VMT are derived based on location and the amount and distance of vehicle travel attributable to a project, including induced automobile travel. Significance criteria used to determine VMT impact include questions as to whether the project would cause substantial additional VMT, or substantially induce additional automobile travel by increasing physical roadway capacity in congested areas (e.g., by adding new mixed flow travel lanes) or by adding new roadways to the network.

The Housing Element update would facilitate development of 307 units to meet the City of St.

Helena’s RHNA for the current planning period. The proposed housing sites in the Housing Element update would concentrate housing development in the City, which would reduce overall VMT.

Furthermore, the policies within the General Plan encourage the use of transit, bicycling and pedestrian routes and work to reduce VMT. Buildout under the Housing Element update would be subject to comply with these policies. Therefore, potential transportation impacts associated with Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
80 implementation of the updated Housing Element are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update includes policies and implementation actions to alleviate evacuation constraints for residential developments with less than two emergency evacuation routes and would strengthen emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures. None of the policies or implementation actions would impact congestion management programs, change air traffic patterns, increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use, impair emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with applicable policies in the General Plan aimed at reducing VMT and transportation impacts. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no adverse impacts related to transportation.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 81

6.14 Utilities and Service Systems
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
UTS-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Require or result in the
construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and
resources such that new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
82 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Be served by a landfill with
insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
g. Not comply with federal, State, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #10.1.

Addendum Evaluation
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 83
2040 General Plan EIR Utilities and Service Systems Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to wastewater, water supply, and solid waste would be less than significant provided that proposed projects would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations and the policies and actions within the General Plan addressing wastewater capacity, stormwater runoff, water conservation, waste management, recycling, and composting. The City plans to increase the wastewater treatment plant permitted capacity from 0.5 million gallons per day to 0.65 million gallons per day by 2030, which would have sufficient capacity to accommodate buildout under the General Plan. Any new stormwater facilities would comply with all applicable environmental regulations, including project-level environmental review and NPDES permits regulations. The City’s Water Neutral Policy for Development would ensure future water demand does not exceed current demand by requiring any new water demand be offset by water conservation retrofits or in-lieu payments for the City to conduct retrofits.

Buildout under the General Plan would not require exceed the capacity of the Clover Flat Landfill which has significant remaining capacity. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be no significant impacts to the city’s utilities or service systems.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th cycle RHNA
throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. Many of these sites have existing connections to utility and service systems as they are infill sites or already developed. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). .

All future development accommodated under the Housing Element update would be required to adhere to the General Plan, adopted master plans, and other regulatory requirements concerning water, wastewater, storm drains, solid waste, and other infrastructure; water supply; and wastewater treatment systems.

Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could increase population such that new or expanded wastewater facilities would be required to provide utilities and service systems to new development. In addition, future development for new or expanded facilities would be subject to further environmental analysis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) and as required by state law, to evaluate potential impacts.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update includes policies and implementation actions that aim to enhance and protect the City’s utilities and service system, such as improving efficiency of stormwater drainage systems and ensuring adequate water supply. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would work to address these goals and would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with applicable policies in the General Plan, NPDES permits regulations, and the City’s Water Neutral Policy for Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
84 Development. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no adverse impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Summary of Findings
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 85
Summary of Findings
The Housing Element update is part of the City’s General Plan, and like other elements within the General Plan, includes goals and policies that the City should meet when it comes to the planning of housing. The Housing Element is unique from the other elements within the General Plan in that it is required to be periodically updated to align with the State’s allocation of the RHNA. Also, the Housing Element includes Housing Programs that are required to be implemented within the planning period established for the Housing Element. These programs are usually implemented over time as a separate project after the Housing Element is adopted. The Housing Element update does not involve site-specific projects but does include identified sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of RHNA housing units during the 6th cycle.

The sites inventory (provided in the Housing Resources chapter of the Housing Element update) yields housing units that exceed the number needed to meet the RHNA requirements, as demonstrated in Table 3.

The General Plan Program EIR is accompanied the City’s 2040 General Plan update. Future development and zoning changes associated with the Housing Element’s Housing Programs will be subject to applicable development standards and reviews established by City ordinances.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update does not involve site-specific projects but proposes policies and implementation actions that are aimed at enhancing emergency response and evacuation procedures and minimizing impacts to people and structures from natural and manmade disasters. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure would be designed to mitigate potential impacts associated with climate safety hazards. Potential updates and development would not generate population growth or additional VMT or result in an increase in demand for services or facilities.

This analysis demonstrates that adoption of the Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in impacts beyond those addressed or analyzed in the General Plan EIR, nor does the General Plan update present new information that shows impacts would be more significant than those described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR applies to the General Plan update and no additional environmental assessment is required.

This analysis was performed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and is intended to determine if additional environmental review is required or if the changes proposed by the project are within the scope of the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR. This analysis determined that the 2040 General Plan EIR is of continuing informational value, the proposed changes in the General Plan update are within the scope of that previously certified EIR, and none of the conditions requiring the preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 exists. Therefore, the City of St. Helena, as lead agency, has determined that this Addendum to the EIR is sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA and no additional environmental review is required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, this Addendum does not need to be circulated for public review and can be included in or attached to the final EIR. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to deciding upon the Project.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
86 References
Bibliography
St. Helena, City of. 2018. St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2010042001. St. Helena, CA. October, 2018.

St. Helena, City of. 2019. General Plan Update 2040. St. Helena, CA. April, 2019.

List of Preparers
Rincon, Consultants, Inc. prepared this Addendum under contract to the City of St. Helena. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darcy Kremin, AICP, Director
Ryan Russell, Project Manager
Leeza Segal, Associate Planner
Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 14, 2024
FROM: Lesley Milton, Asst. to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute an agreement with Websoft for Mobile Maintenance
Management System software to track and maintain our
underground utility assets as part of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects W26-02 & S26-02 Asset
Management and Computerized Maintenance and
Management System Development and Implementation
for a three-year period and a total not-to-exceed cost of $86,100.00.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the attached Resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize acquisition of a web-based asset management
and maintenance system to digitally track and strategically maintain City infrastructure assets.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total three-year fiscal impact is $86,100. The cost for Year 1 is $45,150 and the cost for Year 2 and Year 3 is $20,475 each. Costs for Years 1 and 2 are included in CIP Projects W26-02 and S26-02 adopted budgets and Year 3
costs will be incorporated into future operating budgets.

BACKGROUND:

Several CIP Projects in the current 5-year program are focused on inventory and mapping of our underground utility system. Currently there are no complete digital records of the City's utility assets. This software will take data from current projects that are completing inventories of the City's sewer and water systems and the City's road networks and combining them into one digital asset management platform for more efficient management and maintenance of the infrastructure.

MobileMMS supports all types of maintenance programs with intuitive, map-based interfaces, flexible form builders, and customizable workflow configurations. The software integrates seamlessly with our existing GIS data for complete transparency into asset details and information about the surrounding work area. Additional features include a built-in work order management and reporting tool and is configurable to what the City needs.

Agenda Item #10.2.

DISCUSSION:

This program will allow for better planning and tracking of changes to our assets, allowing for pin-pointing trouble spots and managing maintenance strategies more proactively. Not only does it geographically locate all the assets but allows staff to create work orders and document historical, site specific issues for future reference.

This program is fully cloud based and will be used on portable devices by staff to update real time in the field. Staff intend to use this program initially for underground utility assets incorporating all of the CCTV footage that has been gathered through CIP projects and street network assets, but in the future will consider adding other assets to the system, as capacity permits, including but not limited to tree inventories, sidewalk assets, streets light inventories, compliance tracking, inspections, SSO and more.

Cost for Year 1 and Year 2 are budgeted for within CIP Projects W26-02 & S26-02 Asset Management and Computerized Maintenance and Management System Development and Implementation. Ongoing costs past Year 3 will need to be incorporated into future budgets. No additional funding is requested at this time.

Cost Per Year of Contract
Year 1 (Implementation + Annual Subscription) $ 45,150.00 Year 2 (annual subscription only) $ 20,475.00
Year 3 (annual subscription only) $ 20,475.00
Total Cost of 3-year contract $ 86,100.00
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is not a CEQA project.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 7: Enhance Organizational Effectiveness
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
20240514 PSA Websoft Mobile MMS
Implementation Categories
Agenda Item #10.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT WITH WEBSOFT FOR MOBILE MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOFTWARE AS PART OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS W26-02 & S26-02, ASSET MANAGEMENT & COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD AND A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED COST OF $86,100.00

RECITALS
A. There are currently no complete digital records of the City’s utilities assets; and
B. Several Capital Improvement Program Projects in the current 5- Year Program are focused on the inventory and mapping of the City’s underground utility system; and
C. Mobile MMS Software supports all types of maintenance programs and integrates seamlessly with our existing GIS data for complete transparency into asset details and information about the surrounding work area; and
D. Compiling data from several projects that are completing inventories of the City’s sewer and water systems and combining them into one digital asset management platform will allow for more efficient management.

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

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Approves a Professional Services Agreement with Websoft Mobile MMS Software for CIP Projects W26-02 & S26-02 for $86,100.00 and authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Approved at a Regular Meeting if the St. Helena City Council on May 14, 2024, by the following vote:

Agenda Item #10.2.

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
1 CITY OF ST. HELENA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

WEBSOFT MOBILE MMS SOFTWARE
This Agreement is made and entered into as of May 14, 2024 by and between the City of St. Helena, a public agency organized and operating under the laws of the State of California (“City”), and Websoft Developers Inc. at 2020 Research park Dr. Ste 140, Davis, CA 95618-6150 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services for the following project:

Websoft Mobile MMS Software Subscription (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “A” b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $86,100. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed.

Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
2 be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Term.

The term of this Agreement shall be from May 14, 2024 to May 13, 2027 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Project. Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”).

Consultant shall complete the services required hereunder within the mutually agreed upon schedule. The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; pandemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
3 8. Standard of Care; Performance of Employees
a. Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions. b. Consultant’s employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, including a City Business License, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Contract. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Contract, Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Consultant or its sub-consultants who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project.

9. Assignment and Subcontracting
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates and subcontractors as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:

Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
4 (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status. (iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
5 (i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident or disease Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
6 f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
7 (i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner to the extent arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any negligent acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
8 Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1. c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
9 14. Safety.

Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life-saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.

15. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

16. INTENTIONALLY DELETED

17. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a the Superior Court of California for the County of Napa.

18. Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
10 19. Ownership of Documents and Confidential Information. a. All deliverables and other documents generated by Consultant in the performance of the Services, including all work papers, work-in-progress, designs, drawings, documents, data, computations, specifications, studies and reports prepared by Consultant as a part of the Services or authorized Additional Services (“Consultant Work Product”) shall belong to and be subject to the sole ownership and use of City. b. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, drawings and specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City. c. During the course of the performance of this Agreement, Consultant may receive written or verbal information from City, its representatives or agents, not in the public domain. Such information may include City’s know how, trade secrets, and other proprietary and confidential information and Consultant agrees to treat such information as confidential information belonging to City. Consultant agrees that neither it, nor its officers, employees, representatives, agents, successors, or assigns, will disclose such information to any third party or use the same in any manner without the prior written consent of City. Moreover, Consultant agrees to safeguard such proprietary and confidential information from unauthorized disclosure and/or use using the same degree of care it uses to protect its own proprietary and confidential information, but not less than a reasonable standard of care. In the event that disclosure of such information is sought pursuant to any law or regulation, Consultant shall promptly notify City of such fact to allow City to assert whatever exclusions or exemptions may be available to it under applicable law or regulation.

20. Organization
Consultant shall inform the City when it receives the Notice of completion who it assigns as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

21. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

22. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
CONSULTANT:

Websoft Developers Inc.
2020 Research Park DR STE 140
Davis, CA 95618-6150
Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
11 Attn: Joseph Leach
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

23. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

24. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

25. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

26. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

27. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

28. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

29. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

30. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
12 City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

31. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
13 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF ST. HELENA

AND WEBSOFT DEVELOPERS, INC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF ST. HELENA WEBSOFT DEVELOPERS, INC.

By: By:

Anil Comelo
City Manager Its:

Printed Name:

ATTEST:

By:

Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #10.2.

Mobile MMS
14 EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services & Schedule of Charges/Payments
Agenda Item #10.2.

1 Billing inquiries should be made to: Manoj Desai at (530) 759-8754 ext. 210or [email protected] Quote # Q-100128
Quote Date 04/17/2024
Expiry Date 07/18/2024
QUOTE Websoft Developers, Inc.
2020 RESEARCH PARK DR STE 140
DAVIS, California 95618-6150
TOTAL $45,150.00
City of St. Helena
Attn: Joe Leach
1088 College Ave
St. Helena, California
94574
Subject :

St. Helena: MobileMMS Quotation
We have a new mailing address:

PO Box 4008
Davis, CA 95617
# ITEM & DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 MobileMMS Subscription
Includes yearly hosted software license for MobileMMS software with unlimited access for all agency-related tasks including Work Orders, Customer Service Requests, Vertical Assets, Maintenance, Water and Wastewater management, Compliance, Backflows, and USA ticketing. See attached for a representative list of implemented activities. Licensing will also include Android/IOS App. The implementation below includes only those features related to water, wastewater, and storm.
$20,475.00

1.00 x 20,475.00
2 GIS and Customer Implementation for agency-related tasks related to water, wastewater, and storm. We will convert all existing data sources and publish the City's GIS on our ArcGIS server platform. This implementation cost includes any future modifications. We will meet on site every month with additional interim monthly web-based meetings. * GIS integration and display of all relevant data sources on a web-based system * Conversion of the existing work order/customer service tracking system * Development of complete WWTP and WTP maintenance system - Includes vertical asset representation
- Complete preventative and work order management
* USA ticketing with positive response
* Implementation of Work Order management system
- Includes Customer Service (Water/Sewer) integration with Utility Billing - Work Order management including automated routing, workflows, and escalation - Citizen request integration from existing system or web-based form - Collection and distribution preventative programs including line cleaning, CCTV, valve exercising, and flushing
* Implementation of Backflow Management System
- Three hierarchy system with customer, backflow devices, and tests - Spreadsheet-based synchronization with Utility Billing system $24,675.00

1.00 x 24,675.00
Agenda Item #10.2.

2 Billing inquiries should be made to: Manoj Desai at (530) 759-8754 ext. 210or [email protected] Sub Total 45,150.00
Total $45,150.00
# ITEM & DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
- Import of all existing data
- Tester portal for remote completion of testing
- Customer letters and notifications
* Reporting
- Use of ad-hoc reporting tools
- Development of a 10 customized reports or Excel datasets for management analysis * Training for system use and administrative management Terms & Conditions
Recurring yearly fees will be billed annually with 1 initial payment. Initially implementation fee will be billed upon project initiation. Annual renewal will be billed automatically unless customer cancels services prior to renewal date. Renewal rates will include an annual increase equal to 5%. This increase will be waived with a 3 year or longer contract.

Agenda Item #10.2.

MobileMMS Implementation Examples
Area Category Task
Water Backlfow Testing and scheduling
Water Customer Service requests
Water Distribution Flushing
Water Distribution Main line repairs
Water Distribution Meter replacement
Water Distribution Service repairs
Water Distribution Valve exercising
Water Water Plant Daily inspections
Water Water Plant Asset representation/tracking
Water Water Plant Maintenance
Water GIS Point creation/modification
Water Integration Utility billing/CRM
Water Recycled Use site inspection/tracking
Water Regulatory Sampling
Water Regulatory Water waster
Water Wells Daily inspections
Water Wells Asset representation/tracking
Water Wells Maintenance
Wastewater Customer Service complaints
Wastewater Distributed Foaming/root cutting
Wastewater Distributed Line cleaning
Wastewater Distributed Manhole inspection
Wastewater Integration CCTV
Wastewater Lift Station Inspections
Wastewater Lift Station Asset representation/tracking
Wastewater Lift Station Maintenance
Wastewater Treatment Plant Daily inspections
Wastewater Treatment Plant Asset representation/tracking Wastewater Treatment Plant Maintenance
Wastewater Regulatory Fats, Oils, Grease inspections
Wastewater Regulatory SIU permitting/inspection
Wastewater Regulatory SSO
Streets Customer Service requests
Streets Integration Street condition/PMI
Streets Sidewalk Inspections
Streets Sidewalk Maintenance
Streets Signs Reflectivity/Inspection
Streets Signs Sign GPS location add/move
Streets Signs Support and sign maintenance
Streets Street Crack sealing
Streets Street Maintenance
Streets Street Pothole
Solid Waste SB1383 Solid waste separation management
Trees Customer Service requests
Trees Tree GPS data point collection
Trees Tree Preventative maintenance
Parks Inspection Facility inspections
Parks Parks Customer requests
Parks Parks Park maintenance
Facilities Facilities Facility maintenance
Facilities Facilities Maintenance requests
Fleet Customer Service notification
Fleet Customer Service requests
Fleet Integration Fuel management
Fleet Maintenance Mile/time PM
Other Inventory Inventory management
Other Planning Permitting
Other SCADA SCADA integration
Other Survey GPS data point collection
Other Time card Time card tracking
Other Traffic Signal asset management
Other Traffic Traffic requests/studies
Other USA USA with positive response
Reporting Dashboard Customized user dashboard
Reporting Excel User spreadsheet integration
Reporting Custom Insurance billing
Reporting Custom Official receipts/notification
Reporting Grid Quick reports
st. helena_features.xlsx 4/17/2024
Agenda Item #10.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 14, 2024
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration and approval of a resolution authorizing a temporary closure of Adams Street on Sunday, June 16,
2024, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; mobile food vendors to park and operate on Library Lane during the car show
event; and allowing the possession of open alcoholic
beverages on the closed portion of Adams Street during
the Rianda House Car Show Event scheduled for June 16,
2024.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Council previously approved all items for the May 4, 2024 Rianda House Car Show.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize the road closure of Adams Street, allow for
mobile food vendors to park and operate on Library Lane for the Rianda House Car Show, and allow open alcoholic beverages on the closed portions of the streets during the event.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Financial Impact is a loss of $1,300 in General Fund Revenues for a fee waiver request the applicant submitted to waive for an encroachment permit fee and road closure fee.

BACKGROUND:

The Rianda House Car Show is presented by the Gunilda Rianda Senior Center Association ("Rianda House") for the purposes of raising awareness of the needs of older adults in the community and raising funds to support Rianda House's programs and services.

This event was previously planned and approved to take place on Saturday, May 4, 2024. Due to rain that would negatively affect the cars presenting in the show, Rianda House has moved the event date to Sunday, June 16, in an effort to avoid inclement weather and encourage community turnout.

The event will require the temporary closure of Adams Street east of Library Lane to the dead end. The closure will occur from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 16, 2024, with the event itself taking place from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The closure will allow for the event, which is planned to display 75 classic cars and vintage trucks, as well as setAgenda Item #10.3.

up and clean-up of the event. Additionally, it will allow for mobile food vendors to operate on Library Lane during the event.

DISCUSSION:

Rianda House will be taking the lead on communicating and coordinating with all residences and businesses within a 1,000-foot radius of the of the road closure, per the conditions of the road closure form, and will coordinate to ensure alternate access for any commercial driveways affected by the closure.

The event will include mobile food vendors to occupy approximately 6 parking spaces on Library Lane, while still allowing the public access to businesses on Library Lane during the event. The food vendors will be blocked off with delineators and caution tape to contain pedestrians on the sidewalk and away from traffic on Library Lane.

There will be a barricade equivalent to K-rail that will prevent errant vehicles driving through the closed portion of Adams Street for the actual event. The registration table will be set up shortly past the barricades. Rented restrooms and trash cans will be placed at either end of the closed portion of Adams Street. Vehicles in the car show will be lined up along the closed portion of Adams Street.

The event will require a permit from the Police Department if amplified music is being utilized and will require security should the gathering be planned for an excess of 250 people.

The event organizers will continue to coordinate and update City staff members from the Police and Public Works Departments and follow through with any additional requirements that staff may have for the actual event.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Agenda Item #10.3.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
APPROVING (1) A TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF ADAMS STREET ON
SUNDAY, JUNE 16, 2024, FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. FOR THE RIANDA HOUSE CAR SHOW; (2) APPROVAL OF MOBILE FOOD

VENDORS TO PARK AND OPERATE ON LIBRARY LANE DURING THE
RIANDA HOUSE CAR SHOW EVENT; AND (3) APPROVING A PERMIT

AUTHORIZING THE POSSESSION OF OPEN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
ON THE CLOSED PORTION OF ADAMS STREET.

RECITALS
A. Rianda House Senior Activity Center is planning the Rianda House Car Show to bring the community together for the purpose of raising awareness of the needs of older adults in the community and raising funds to support Rianda House’s programs and services;
B. The St. Helena Public Works Department has requested temporary closure of Adams Street from east of Library Lane to the dead end of Adams Street for the event;
C. Closure of the City street in the area will provide space for event activities;
D. A request has been made by Rianda House for mobile food vendors to park and operate on Library Lane during the event; E. St. Helena Municipal Code Section 9.04.010 authorizes the Council, by permit, to allow possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets or any private or public off-street parking lot; and F. Section 21101(e) of the California Vehicle Code provides the local authorities may, by resolutions, temporarily close a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction or a public officer of employee that the local authority designated by resolution, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing;
Agenda Item #10.3.

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

1. The City Council finds that the benefits derived from the temporary closing of the City street for the Rianda House Car Show outweigh the anticipated inconvenience to the neighborhood and citizens, and authorize closure of Adams Street from east of Library Lane to the dead end of Adams Street on Sunday, June 16, 2024, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

2. Mobile food vendors are permitted to park and operate on Library Lane while the event takes place.

3. Temporarily closing a portion of the subject street is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.

4. The possession of open containers of alcohol is permitted on public streets and parking lots encompassed by this event.

5. The City Manager is directed to provide reasonable levels of City staff support to accomplish closure of streets and related activities.

Approved at a Regular Meeting if the St. Helena City Council on May 8, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.3.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 14, 2024
FROM: Lesley Milton, Asst. to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Haley Aldrich Inc. for engineering services and project management
support to procure and replace all city utility smart meters as part of CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment
for a not-to-exceed cost of $406,000.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the attached Resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

This project and budget were approved with the adopted
5-Year Capital Improvement Program.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
Engineering firm Haley Aldrich to provide owner’s
representative, design, and construction management
services to complete CIP Project W24-04 Smart Meter
deployment.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total financial impact of the professional services agreement is a not-to-exceed amount of $406,000. The
CIP Project W24-04 has a total project budget of $1.97
million dollars.

BACKGROUND:

Included in the approved 5-Year CIP Program is a project to update all City utility customer water meters to SMART meter technology. SMART meters are efficiency tools that can help insure efficient meter operations, real time readings, and customer access to usage. The meters currently in use only partial SMART technology but the system is sporadic and routinely provides inaccurate readings up to 30% of the time, requiring staff to conduct duplicate and triplicate readings.

By replacing the ageing infrastructure, the City can provide better services to our utility customers with more accurate reads, instant access for the customer on consumption, and lower overhead costs all contributing to keeping rates consistent.

DISCUSSION:

In an effort to expeditiously reduce unaccounted for water and the amount of redundant staff effort to reread faulty meters, staff needs assistance to deliver the SMART meter replacement project. Haley & Aldrich, one of the City's On-Call engineering and project management firms, has been requested to provide assistance. Haley Aldrich has Agenda Item #10.4.

proposed to provide design, Owners Representative services as well as construction management services to deliver this project.

Design services include preparation of written specifications and standard details that will be combined into a bid packet for contractors to bid on the installation of new, city purchased, meters installed on existing services.

Owner’s Representative services include the preparation of four separate staff reports to authorize bidding on the contractor installation work, to authorize the purchase of SMART meters from the City’s preferred vendor, to authorize award of a construction contract to the successful bidder, and to accept the completed project and authorize release of bonds.

Construction management services include execution of the construction contract with the successful bidder, facilitating the pre-construction conference, processing contractor pay estimates, review of prevailing wage documents for compliance with DIR requirements, and inspection of the meters, necessary meter boxes, and as-needed concrete replacement.

The CIP Project W24-04 has a total project budget of $1.97 million dollars as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - W24-04 Budget
Item Amount Adopted
Design $150,000
Construction Management $150,000
Construction Contract $1,500,000
Contingency $170,000
TOTAL $1,970,000
Because additional funding of $106,000 is needed to complete the design and implementation portion of the project, staff is requesting funds be transferred from the Construction Contract budget into the Construction Management budget as noted in Table 2.

Table 2 - Recommended W24-04 Budget
Item Adopted Budget Recommended
Budget
Design $150,000 $256,000
Construction Management $150,000 $150,000
Construction Contract $1,500,000 $1,394,000
Contingency $170,000 $170,000
TOTAL $1,970,000 $1,970,000
Agenda Item #10.4.

Haley Aldrich, Inc
Haley Aldrich, Inc has provided full-service engineering and construction management services such as capital project design for sewer, water, storm drain, transportation (including pavement and roadway design, pedestrian safety and bicycle facilities); project/program management; development review; encroachment permit processing; construction management and inspection; and program/project management of projects in coordination with other consultants. The City is currently working with Haley Aldrich on several additional CIP projects and their intimate knowledge of the City infrastructure is very beneficial to the this and other projects.

While the Water & Wastewater Rate Study programmed the funding for this project via bonds, staff continues to seek grants and alternative funding sources to reduce the total debt incurred by water customers.

Staff recommends approval of this professional services agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is not a CEQA project.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution Smart Meter PSA Haley _ Aldrich
0208353-017.REVISEDProposal.SMART Meter Deployment.2024-04-24 Agenda Item #10.4.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT

WITH THE ON-CALL ENGINEERING FIRM HALEY & ALDRICH FOR ENGINEERING,

PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT W24-04 SMART METER DEPLOYEMENT FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED COST OF $406,000.00.

RECITALS
A. SMART meters are efficiency tools that can help insure efficient meter operations, real time readings, and customer access to usage.

B. The meters currently in use only partial SMART technology but the system is sporadic and routinely provides inaccurate reads up to 30% of the time, requiring staff to conduct duplicate and triplicate readings.

C. Included in the approved 5-Year CIP Program is a project to update all City utility customer water meters to SMART meter technology.

D. By replacing the ageing infrastructure, the City can provide better services to our utility customers with more accurate reads, instant access for the customer on consumption, and lower overhead costs all contributing to keeping rates consistent.

E. In an effort to expeditiously reduce unaccounted for water and the amount of redundant staff effort to reread faulty meters, staff needs assistance to deliver the SMART meter replacement project.

F. Haley & Aldrich, one of the City's On-Call engineering and project management firms has provided a proposal to provide design, Owners Representative services as well as construction
management services for this project.

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

Agenda Item #10.4.

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Approves a Professional Services Agreement with Haley Aldrich for the engineering, design, and construction management services for CIP Project W24-04 for $406,000.00.

3. Authorizes a budget transfer of $106,000 from the Construction line 31-60 item to Design line item 31-10 for this project.

4. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Approved at a Regular Meeting if the St. Helena City Council on May 14, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.4.

HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
785 Ygnacio Valley Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.393.3092 Dir
925.433.2321 Teams
[email protected]
www.haleyaldrich.com
April 24, 2024
Joe Leach, PE, Director
Public Works Department
Lesley Milton
Assistant to the City Manager
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Subject: REVISED PROPOSAL - Capital Improvement Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment Dear Joe, and Lesley,
Thank you for inviting Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley & Aldrich) to submit this revised proposal to provide owner’s representative, design, and construction management services, with a five (5%) percent contingency, on a time and materials, not-to-exceed, basis for Capital Improvement Project No. W24-04, SMART water meter deployment. Project W24-04 is described in the currently approved Capital Improvement Program as a four-fiscal year project beginning FY 2023/24 and completed FY 2026/27. St.

Helena has directed Haley & Aldrich to move as expeditiously as possible to deliver the total project within the next fiscal year. If successful, the project would be completed by June 30, 2025. Haley & Aldrich has revised this proposal to reflect the increased cost of completing the project by June 30, 2025.

The design portion of this work will consist of a written specification and standard details that will be combined into a bid packet for contractors to bid on the installation of new, city purchased, meters installed on existing services. The bid documents will also include specifications and standard drawings for replacement of valve boxes, if needed, and removal and replacement of concrete (sidewalk flags) if needed to facilitate the replacement of meter boxes. Concrete removal and replacement will be bid incrementally by the square foot to allow removal and replacement to the nearest expansion, or control joint.

Owner’s Representative services include the preparation of four separate staff reports to authorize bidding the contractor installation work, to authorize the purchase of SMART meters from the city’s preferred vendor, to authorize award of a construction contract to the successful bidder, and to accept the completed project and authorize release of bonds.

Construction management services include execution of the construction contract with the successful bidder, facilitating the pre-construction conference, processing contractor pay estimates, review of contractor’s prevailing wage documents for compliance with DIR requirements, and construction observation of the installed meters, necessary meter boxes, and as-needed concrete replacement.

Agenda Item #10.4.