St. Helena City Council
May 14, 2024

City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena

PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes. The Mayor may reduce the four minute time limit for all speakers in circumstances where a large number of citizens intend to make public comment.

Public comment for meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line agenda.

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall:, City Council Members: Anna Chouteau, Patrick Kenealy, Billy Summers

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Estimated start time: 6:05 p.m.

5.1. Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of April 23, 2024
04-23-2024 Regular City Council - Minutes
11 - 19

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during Public Forum. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes. Each person is entitled to speak on any non-agendized item only once at any meeting. Brief questions by Council Members for clarifications may be posed and answered, and Council Members may make requests that items be placed on future agendas, but in accordance with state law, no substantive discussion or action may take place unless and until the matter properly appears on the agenda.

Estimated start time: 6:10 p.m.

7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND

AB 1234 REPORTS:

Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.

Estimated start time: 6:20 p.m.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
Estimated start time: 6:25 p.m.

8.1. Proclamation for National Public Works Week, May 19-25, 2024 presented to Director of Public Works, Joseph Leach
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
National Public Works Week Proclamation
21 - 22

8.2. Proclamation for National Police Week presented to Police Chief Chris Hartley
National Police Week Proclamation
23 9. STAFF BRIEFING
Estimated start time: 6:40 p.m.

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public (present at the meeting) may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote) Estimated start time: 6:45 p.m.

10.1. Waiver of second reading and approval of an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map (Figure 2.1) and Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) referenced in St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.01.070, to bring these maps into conformance with the City’s adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element, and find that the proposed changes are consistent with the adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element.

CEQA Determination: General Plan Environmental Impact Report Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Prepared By: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
Recommendation:

Waive the second reading and adopt the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are consistent with adopted Addendum to 25 - 742

the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element and in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs
2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these
changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps; and

3. Direct staff to explore an overlay and other options including other sites and units to replace Site 10 after adoption of the Ordinance and recertification of the Housing Element by HCD; and

4. Conduct a City Council study session focused on housing in the near future.

Staff Report - Pdf

10.2. Adopt Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute an agreement with Websoft for Mobile Maintenance Management System software to track and maintain 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.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works - Operations
Recommendation:

Approve the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
743 - 763

10.3. 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.

CEQA Determination: Categorically Exempt, Section 15323 Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
765 - 768

10.4. 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.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
769 - 780

Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works - Operations
Recommendation:

Approve the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Jeff Farmer
Public Comment. Eric Hall

10.5. Approval of a Resolution Authorizing execution of a contract with OnCall Engineering firm Haley Aldrich for engineering, design, project and construction management services for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project S24-05 Del Campo Gravity Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement Project for a not to exceed cost of $239,095.50.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works - Operations
Recommendation:

Approve the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Jeff Farmer
781 - 805

10.6. Authorization to pay invoices from Rain For Rent for a cost not-toexceed $40,069.42 and Herc Rentals for a cost not-to-exceed $69,114.15 for emergency pump rentals at the Water Treatment Plant and the Wastewater Treatment Plant for high flow events due to extended rain season
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works - Operations
Recommendation:

Authorization to issue payment for pump rentals needed for inflow & influent (I&I) and Sanitary Sewer overflow (SSO) mitigation.

Staff Report - Pdf
807 - 828

10.7. Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution: 1) Duly approving and adopting a publicly available pay schedule in accordance with the requirement of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, which includes a revised salary schedule for the St. Helena Employee Association to include the Public Works Financial Analyst and Recreation Coordinator classifications; and 2) Authorizing an amendment to the St. Helena Employee Association Memorandum of Understanding to include the Public Works Financial Analyst and Recreation Coordinator classifications.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
829 - 892

10.8. Consideration to adopt a resolution authorizing (1) the City Manager to 893 - 935

enter into an Agreement with We Care Animal Rescue for animal shelter and adoption services for the City of St. Helena; and (2) authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and make non-substantive amendments to the form of agreement CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Justin Tharp, Lieutenant
Recommendation:

Approve the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf

10.9. Authorization for a purchase of MicroC Processing Chemicals for the Micro Bioreactor (MBR) facility testing for a not to exceed cost $72,950.00.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works - Operations
Recommendation:

Authorization to purchase process chemicals MicroC for the MBR Facility.

Staff Report - Pdf
937 - 941

10.10. Approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Kimley-Horn, Inc. for Civil Engineering Services to provide engineering documentation and bid specifications to assist with completion of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project W25-01 Napa Intertie Water Pipeline Replacement for a not-to-exceed cost of $446,200.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works - Operations
Recommendation:

Approval of the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Jeff Farmer
943 - 975

10.11. Approval of a resolution authorizing the purchase of an Asphalt Crack Sealer for $73,365 from Cimline Inc.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works - Operations
Recommendation:

Approve the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
977 - 988

10.12. Approving a revision to the recommended alignment of a section of the Vine Trail to include a bike boulevard along Railroad Avenue between Adams Street and Fulton Lane.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
989 - 997

Prepared By: Eric Janzen, Assistant Public Works Director Recommendation:

Approve Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena approving a revision to the recommended the Vine Trail alignment Through the City of St. Helena.

Staff Report - Pdf

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Estimated start time: 7:00 p.m.

11.1. Second Public Hearing of the Proposed Adoption of a City Charter.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation:

Provide direction to City staff on any amendments to the proposed City Charter.

Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment. Laura Keir
999 - 1013

11.2. Estimated start time: 7:20 p.m.

Proposed approval of a Resolution approving the issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27,000,000 for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of Hunt's Grove apartments and certain other matters relating thereto.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
1015 - 1020

12. OLD BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 7:35 p.m.

12.1. Proposed approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Final Loan Extension and Ground Lease for BRIDGE Housing Corporation and Napa Valley Community Housing related to the Hunt's Grove Apartments located at 548 Hunt Avenue.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
1021 - 1188

12.2. Estimated start time: 7:50 p.m. 1189 - 1232

Presentation of Opinion Research Data Related to the Proposed November 2024 Real Property Transfer Tax Revenue Measure and Direction to Staff.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation:

Direct staff to continue working to place both the Charter City and Real Property Transfer Tax on the ballot for the November 2024 Election and provide direction to staff on the City Council's desired Real Property Transfer Tax structure.

Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment. Laura Keir
Public Comment.Iana Ivanoff

13. NEW BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 8:15 p.m.

13.1. Proposed approval of a resolution awarding Non-Profit Grant Application funding through the Non-Profit Grant Program in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Operations Budget in the amount of $120,000.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
1233 - 1407

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

14.1. A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Youth Opportunities Commission
H. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) I. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
J. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) K. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency

L. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee M. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
N. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports

15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for May 28, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on 14 May 2024.

Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.

If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St. Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City

Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, April 23, 2024 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742. The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.

Present: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers

Absent: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

4.1 Vice Mayor Eric Hall moved to adopt the agenda. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

5.1 Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2024.

Vice Mayor Eric Hall moved to adopt the minutes. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

No public comment was received.

7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, and AB 1234 REPORTS:

Ethan Walsh, City Attorney noted that there was no reportable action from the April 23, 2024 special City Council closed session meeting.

Reports were made by staff and the City Council.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

8.1 Proclamation for Historic Preservation Month May 2024 presented to Executive Director of Napa County Landmarks, Christine French
Estimated start time: 6:20 p.m.

9. STAFF BRIEFING
None

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote)

10.1 This item was pulled.

Approval of a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Land Revision for Fire Fuel Abatement Services for a Two (2) year contract period for a total amount Not-To-Exceed $300,000 with one additional 1-year extension and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

10.2 Consideration of a Resolution to set a Public Hearing for 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 11, 2024, to consider objections to the proposed annexation of the property known as 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-470-010), into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 149.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

It is recommended City Council approve the Resolution and set a Public Hearing for June 11, 2024 to consider objections to the proposed annexation of the property known as 2126 Madrona Ave (APN 009-470-010), into the St.

Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 149.

10.3 Approval of a Resolution authorizing a Sign-on and Retention Bonus for the Water Chief Plant Operator and Wastewater Chief Plant Operator classifications in the amount of $25,000 paid over a 36-month period.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

10.4 Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution approving a joint use agreement with St. Helena Unified School District for City use of the Vintage Hall Board Room through June 30, 2028 for a total cost not to exceed $55,000.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Recommendation:

Adopt the resolution.

10.5 This item was pulled
March 2024 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability.

10.6 Proposed Approval of Resolution Approving Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Financial Services in the amount of $9,800 for a Total Contract Not-to-Exceed Amount of $131,235 for a User Fee Study Update.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

10.7 Proposed approval of a resolution authorizing an administrative budget lineitem correction in the amount of $86,308 for an administrative amendment correction related to Murray Building, Inc. for the completed project No. C22- 0001, Napa Valley Tenant Improvements.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Yosselyn Valencia, Finance Manager
Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024

10.8 This item was pulled.

Consideration and approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Devastating Pyrotechnics, Inc., in the amount of $40,000 for the July 4, 2024 fireworks display.

Vice Mayor Eric Hall moved to approve items 2 through 4, 6 and 7. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

10.1 Approval of a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with Land Revision for Fire Fuel Abatement Services for a Two (2) year contract period for a total amount Not-To-Exceed $300,000 with one additional 1-year extension and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Asst. to the City Manager
Recommendation:

Approve a resolution authorizing execution of the contract.

Joe Leach, Public Works Director reported on the item.

No public comment was received.

Council Member Anna Chouteau moved to approve the item. The motion was seconded by Council Member Billy Summers and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

10.5 March 2024 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
Recommendation:

Receive and file.

No public comment was received.

10.8 Consideration and approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Devastating Pyrotechnics, Inc., in the amount of $40,000 for the July 4, 2024 fireworks display.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Dave Jahns, Parks & Recreation Director
Recommendation:

Staff recommends reviewing the proposed plan for the 4th of July and provide direction to staff. If comfortable moving forward with a fireworks display, authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Devastating Pyrotechnics, Inc.

Dave Jahns, Parks & Recreation Director reported on the item.

Maxine Angell addressed the City Council.

Vice Mayor Eric Hall moved to approve the item. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, and Council Member Anna Chouteau
NOES: Council Member Patrick Kenealy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Council Member Billy Summers
RECUSE: None

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.1 Approval of introduction and first reading of an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map (Figure 2.1) and Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) referenced in St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.01.070, to bring these maps into conformance with the City’s adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element, and find that the proposed changes are consistent with the adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element.

CEQA Determination: General Plan Environmental Impact Report Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024
Prepared By: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
Recommendation:

Approval of introduction and first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are consistent with adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024- 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps; and

3. Consider directing staff to analyze the feasibility of other units to replace Site 10 after adoption of the Ordinance and recertification of the Housing Element by HCD.

Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner reported on the item.

Jeffrey Warren, David Prueter, Bryan Sandoli, Steve Goldfarb, Rick Tooker, Linda Reiff, Mike Quaglia, Lester Hardy, Maxine Angell, Mary Stephenson and Linda Keir addressed the City Council.

Council Member Anna Chouteau moved to approve the introduction and first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are consistent with adopted Addendum to the General Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024- 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps; and

3. Direct staff to explore an overlay and other options including other sites and units to replace Site 10 after adoption of the Ordinance and recertification of the Housing Element by HCD; and

4. Conduct a City Council study session focused on housing in the near future.

The motion was seconded by Council Member Billy Summers and on roll call carried by the following vote:

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: Council Member Patrick Kenealy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Council Member Anna Chouteau moved to continue the meeting beyond 9:00 pm. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Eric Hall and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Council Member Patrick Kenealy moved to continue the meeting beyond 9:30 pm. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Eric Hall and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

11.2 Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.44 to Title 8 (Boarded and Vacant Buildings) of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Recommendation:

Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.44 to Title 8 (Boarded and Vacant Buildings) of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director reported on this item.

No public comment was received.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024
It was the consensus of the City Council to continue the item to a date uncertain.

12. OLD BUSINESS
None

13. NEW BUSINESS
None

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

14.1 A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Youth Opportunities Commission
H. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) I. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
J. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) K. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
L. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee M. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
N. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports

15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
April 23, 2024

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
APPROVED:
______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 14, 2024
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Proclamation for National Public Works Week, May 19-25, 2024

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

National Public Works Week Proclamation 2024
Agenda Item #8.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA

PROCLAMATION

NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
MAY 19-25, 2024
“Advancing Quality of Life For All”
WHEREAS, public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities, and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to the public health, high quality of life, and well-being of the people of St. Helena; and, WHEREAS, these infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, who are engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation’s transportation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders, and children in St.

Helena to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities; and,
WHEREAS, the year 2024 marks the 64th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association/Canadian Public Works Association.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Helena City Council, City staff and the citizens of St. Helena, do hereby designate the week May 19–25, 2024, as National Public Works Week. I urge all citizens to join with representatives of the American Public Works Association and government agencies in activities, events, and ceremonies designed to pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, managers, and employees and to recognize the substantial contributions they make to protecting our national health, safety, and advancing quality of life for all.

Dated this 14th day of May 2024.
____________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #8.1.

City of St. Helena

PROCLAMATION
National Police Week
May 12 through May 18, 2024
In 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and the calendar week in which May 15 falls, as National Police Week; and WHEREAS, the members of the law enforcement agency of the City of St. Helena play an important role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens of our community; and
WHEREAS, it is important that all citizens know and understand the problems, duties and responsibilities of their police department, and that members of our department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, protecting them against violence or disorder, and protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression or intimidation; and
WHEREAS, our police department has grown to be a modern and scientific law enforcement agency which unceasingly provides a vital public service; NOW, THEREFORE let it be resolved, that I, Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor of St.

Helena, along with the St. Helena City Council do hereby proclaim the week of May 12 through May 18, 2024, as National Police Week in the City of St.

Helena. All citizens are asked to join in commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their communities, have established for themselves the rights and security of all citizens.

Dated: May 14, 2024
_________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #8.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Planning
DATE: May 14, 2024
FROM: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Waiver of second reading and approval of an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001,
002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to update the General Plan’s
Land Use Map (Figure 2.1) and Zoning Map Amendments
(ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) referenced in
St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.01.070, to bring
these maps into conformance with the City’s adopted
2023-2031 Housing Element, and find that the proposed
changes are consistent with the adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for
the Housing Element.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Waive the second reading and adopt the proposed
Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan
Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are consistent
with adopted Addendum to the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
Housing Element and in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan
Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005,
006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt
Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002,
003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the
designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be
consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element,
and incorporating these changes into the General
Plan and Zoning Maps; and

3. Direct staff to explore an overlay and other options including other sites and units to replace Site 10
after adoption of the Ordinance and recertification of
the Housing Element by HCD; and

4. Conduct a City Council study session focused on
housing in the near future.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

The City Council adopted the 6th Cycle 2023-2031
Housing Element on May 9, 2023.

Introduction and first reading of the ordinance on April 23, Agenda Item #10.1.

2024.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance
bringing the City's General Plan Land Use Map (Figure

2.1) and Zoning Map into conformance with the City’s
adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element so that the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) will recertify the City's Housing Element.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Without a state certified Housing Element, the City isn't eligible for various state and federal funding opportunities.

There is also the potential for escalating financial penalties of $10,000-$100,000 per month (plus potential for
multiplication of fines based on continued noncompliance).

Additionally, should the City reopen its Housing Element, it could require re-engaging the Housing Element
consultants which would require a contract modifications and additional expenditures.

BACKGROUND:

Recent changes in state housing law have resulted in significant reductions in local land use control by local governments. California's Housing Element law provides that in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, California's local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development.

The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs in order to preserve, improve, and develop housing for all economic segments of the community. The Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the general plan. However, it has several unique requirements that set it apart from the other six elements. State law (Government Code Section 65580 (et seq.)) specifies in detail the topics that the Housing Element must address and sets a schedule for regular updates. State law requires each local government to update its housing element every eight years. The Housing Element is also the only element reviewed and certified by the State for compliance with State law. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is the State department responsible for this certification. Penalties for non-compliance include legal challenges, ineligibility for many State and regional grants, and, in extreme cases, loss of land use control.

The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on May 9, 2023 and certified by HCD on September 25, 2023. The adopted Housing Element included 12 key housing opportunity sites, of which 7 sites were designated to be rezoned in order for the City to meet its assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 256 units during the course of the 8 year Housing Element cycle (the other key opportunity sites do not require rezoning, as their existing zoning was adequate for the density needed to meet RHNA obligations). Site 4 was designated for a zoning change in the Housing Element, however, it was designated to change (from Service Agenda Item #10.1.

Commercial to Mixed-use) when the General Plan was adopted in 2019 and was subsequently updated when changes were made to the adopted Zoning Map when the Zoning Code was adopted in October 2023; so while it is noted as a change site, it has already been changed and is shown below for reference only. Based on the date HCD certified the Housing Element, HCD required that the City adopt the map changes described above by January 31, 2024. Due to a number of factors, the City was unable to meet this deadline and is now working diligently to complete these updates to be compliant with our Housing Element commitments.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Correspondence
On February 5, 2024 the City received a corrective action letter from HCD (Attachment 7) stating that they had reviewed the City's obligations under the Housing Element and found that "the City has failed to implement Program H-A (Available Sites Inventory), including the requirement to rezone several sites to accommodate all of the City’s RHNA. The City provided a written response to HCD in which it identified the multiple rounds of review that were required by HCD, leading to the delay of adoption of the Housing Element and, in turn, the imposition of the stricter one-year rezoning deadline rather than the three years the City would have been entitled to had the Housing Element been certified within 120 days of its January 31, 2023 deadline. In that letter, dated February 26, 2024, the City advised that it had scheduled the requisite General Plan amendments and rezoning actions for its March 5, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, with adoption by City Council anticipated to follow in April. Upon receipt of a number of public comments on the agenda item pertaining to the rezone, the Planning Commission rescheduled the item for its April 2, 2024 meeting. On March 26, 2024, the City received a letter from HCD (Attachment 8) stating that they have revoked their finding that the City's Housing Element is in substantial compliance with state housing law (i.e., they de-certified the Housing Element) as we have not completed the rezonings committed to in Program H-A.

Without a state certified Housing Element, it is more important than ever that the City moves forward expeditiously with the rezoning program it has already committed to as part of the previously certified Housing Element. Not having a state certified Housing Element leaves the City vulnerable to the following:
 Suspension of the City’s authority over issuance of building and zoning permits and subdivision approvals
 No public noticing or review of new housing development  Court-required approval of certain types of housing projects without City or community input
 City prohibited from denying certain affordable housing projects even if inconsistent with adopted zoning and General Plan (commonly referred to as the Builder’s Remedy)
Agenda Item #10.1.

 Escalating financial penalties of $10,000-$100,000 per month (plus potential for multiplication of fines based on continued noncompliance)  Disqualification from various state and federal funding opportunities.

On April 2, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the requested map changes. The City received 96 public comments which are attached to this staff report (Attachments 18 & 19), most of the comments focused on opposition of the upzoning of Site 10 from MR to HR. Staff has prepared responses to the topics raised as well as addressing public questions raised during oral comments (Attachment 17).

The Planning Commission adopted a resolution by a 4-1 vote recommending that the City Council:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are consistent with adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps; and

3. Prior to adoption of rezoning ordinance by Council, staff shall explore with HCD the feasibility of replacing Site 10 with other units, or recalculating potentially available units on other sites, as an alternative to high density zoning for Site 10; if such effort is unsuccessful by date of Council adoption of the rezone ordinance, staff shall analyze other units to replace Site 10.

As directed by the Planning Commission, staff reached out to HCD (by phone and email) to discuss the possibility of leaving site 10 as Medium Density Residential (assuming zero low and 35 moderate units) if there was a means to increase and make up the number of High Density Residential units on other opportunity sites without reopening the entire Housing Element document and restarting the Housing Element process. As of the date this agenda was published, staff had not yet received a response from HCD and is therefore proceeding with the GPAs and ZMAs as directed.

Should the Council direct staff to replace Site #10 with other sites post adoption of these amendments and recertification by HCD, this will require opening up the Housing Element to further scrutiny by HCD, additional site analysis (i.e., finding 4.4 acres of vacant lands or developed lands with owner interest in development on the west side which are suitable for residential development each of which must meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements), and beginning public outreach for identified potential new sites (assuming suitable sites can be identified on the west side). See Attachment 12 for a discussion of Site 10 extracted from the Housing Element. This would require significant staff time, reengaging with our Housing Element consultant team and additional funding for amending their contract. Further, there is no Agenda Item #10.1.

assurance that HCD will accept potential modifications to the Housing Element presented to them.

The Catholic Church School site on Oak Avenue has frequently been brought up as a potential replacement site for Site 10, however, in addition to having to open up the Housing Element as described above, there are several issues with this site: 1) it is 2 1/2 acres smaller than Site 10 2) the site is currently developed which would require some indication from the property owner that they have interest in developing housing 3) the Church is currently in the beginning phases of Chapter 11 bankruptcy which staff has been told is a 3 year process; any land use changes to this site could potentially disrupt that process causing further delays and complications for the Church.

DISCUSSION:

The requested action is for the City Council of the City of St. Helena waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024- 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map (Figure 2.1) and Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) referenced in St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.01.070, to bring these maps into conformance with the City’s adopted and certified 2023-2031 Housing Element, and find that the proposed changes are consistent with the adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element.

ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
The sites requiring rezoning (Attachment 2) as identified in the Housing Element are as follows (a detailed breakdown of these sites can be found in the 2023-2031 Housing Element beginning on page 2-183):
 Site 1 (009-211-016):1480 Main Street (the portion containing old city hall but not the fire station, the fire station is zoned PQP) – Central Business (CB) to MixedUse (MU) - ZMA 2024-001 (see Attachment 10).  Site 2 (009-193-002):1572 Railroad Avenue – Business, Professional and Office (BPO) to High Density Residential (HR) - ZMA 2024-002.
 Site 4 (009-180-008):905 Main Street – Was changed from Service Commercial (SC) to Mixed-Use (MU) with the October 2023 Zoning Code Update, no change required.
 Site 5 (009-660-005):Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane – Service Commercial (SC) to High Density Residential (HR) - ZMA 2024-003.  Site 8 (009-070-043, 044, 045): 882 through 886 College Avenue – Public and Quasi-Public (PQP) to High Density Residential (HR) - ZMA 2024-004.  Site 10 (009-441-023):Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street – Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR) - ZMA 2024-005.
 Site 11 (009-600-018): 1637 Spring Street – Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR) - ZMA 2024-006.

Agenda Item #10.1.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
In addition to requiring amendments to the City’s Zoning Map, referenced in section

17.01.070 of the Zoning Code, the following sites also require that General Plan Figure

2.1 be amended (Attachment 3) to be consistent with the adopted Housing Element as California state law (Gov. Code §65300.5) requires horizontal and vertical consistency for General Plans and zoning ordinances:
 Site 1 (009-211-016):1480 Main Street (the portion containing old city hall but not the fire station, the fire station is zoned PQP) – Central Business (CB) to MixedUse (MU) - GPA 2024-001 (see Attachment 10).  Site 2 (009-193-002):1572 Railroad Avenue – Business, Professional and Office (BPO) to High Density Residential (HR) - GPA 2024-002.
 Site 4 (009-180-008):905 Main Street – Was changed from Service Commercial (SC) to Mixed-Use (MU) with the June 2019 General Plan Update, no change required.
 Site 5 (009-660-005):Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane – Service Commercial (SC) to High Density Residential (HR) GPA 2024-003.  Site 8 (009-070-043, 044, 045): 882 through 886 College Avenue – Public and Quasi-Public (PQP) to High Density Residential (HR) - GPA 2024-004.  Site 10 (009-441-023):Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street – Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR) - GPA 2024-005.
 Site 11 (009-600-018): 1637 Spring Street – Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR) - GPA 2024-006.

Staff Response: The changes noted above bring our General Plan and Zoning Map into conformance with our adopted and formerly state certified Housing Element, consistent with state law. 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 the City can’t force or otherwise require that a property owner build housing. Ultimately the purpose of the inventory is to demonstrate to HCD that there are suitable sites to meet the City’s RHNA and that policies and programs are in place to reduce barriers to housing developers producing housing.

History Regarding Opportunity Site #10
 Has been designated for residential uses since the 1975 General Plan;  Has been zoned Medium Density Residential since the early 1990s;  Was a designated Housing Opportunity Site in both the 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements (2009 and 2015); and
 Because the site has not been developed after being included as an Opportunity Site in the last two Housing Elements, the state required it for future up zoning to Agenda Item #10.1.

High Density Residential (HR) in the current 6th Cycle Housing Element (studied in 2020 and adopted in 2023).
 Property owners of site 10 expressed interest in residential development to staff in the early stages of the Housing Element 6th cycle
 Housing Element Focus Group meetings showed high interest in upzoning to HR.

No formal action was taken.

It is crucial that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Zoning Map and amendments to Figure 2.1 of the General Plan for the above-described parcels expeditiously, as HCD has de-certified the City's Housing Element which can lead to a host of potential negative outcomes, including but not limited to the availability of the builder’s remedy (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(5)) and loss of access to state funding.

The "Builder's Remedy," is a provision of California's Housing Accountability Act that prevents jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element from denying certain housing projects, even if such projects do not comply with the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance or general plan or are incompatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. With the Builder's Remedy, the City loses what discretion it has (i.e. development and design standard requirements that limit heights, require setbacks, etc.) allowing for by right development of multi-family projects on these sites (and other sites) with little City oversight or public review or comment.

For further reading about how the Builder's Remedy is impacting communities, see the following news story: https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/ Additional information regarding this process, site selection, and potential penalties for failure to adopt these amendments can be found in the City Attorney Memorandum (Attachment 4), FAQs (Attachment 5) and Memorandum on the Housing Element Process (Attachment 6) attached to this report.

PUBLIC NOTICING
In accordance with SHMC Section 17.04.080, public noticing for the April 2, 2024 Planning Commission meeting consisted of the following:

1. Legal notice in the Napa Valley Register published on March 21, 2024;

2. Notification via certified mail to each property owner with a zoning or General Plan Amendment (Attachment 16);

3. Mailed notices to all property owners and residents within 300 feet surrounding a site with a General Plan Amendment or zoning change; and

4. An email (sent on March 21, 2024) of the Public Hearing Notice to everyone who signed up for updates on the City's dedicated Housing Element webpage (not a code requirement).

Agenda Item #10.1.

Similarly, public noticing for the April 23, 2024 City Council meeting included a legal notice in the Napa Valley Register, individual notice via certified mail to each property owner with a pending zoning or General Plan Amendment, mailed notices to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of a site with a pending zoning or General Plan Amendment, and an email to everyone who signed up for updates on the City's dedicated Housing Element webpage.

Several commenters asked why they weren't notified of the Housing Element adoption hearings that occurred in May 2023. For noticing in which the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing notice is greater than 1,000 (i.e., General Plan Amendments such as the Housing Element), only a notice in the newspaper is required. No General Plan or zoning designations were changed with adoption of the Housing Element. For General Plan Amendments and rezonings that change the land use designation of specific properties, including applicant initiated amendments, notifying all neighbors within 300 feet of that/those specific properties is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
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 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 City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect) of the Housing Element update (including the RHNA assignment of 256 units) 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 in the EIR Addendum, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified Final EIR were necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum (Attachment 13) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 was appropriate. The proposed updates to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map are solely intended to bring the General Plan and Zoning Map into conformance with the adopted Housing Element and are consistent with the changes analyzed in the EIR Addendum.

On May 9, 2023, the City Council of the City of St. Helena conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing and adopted the Addendum to the General Plan EIR.

Any further comments received regarding proposed updates to the General Plan and related Zoning Code maps have been examined and determined to not modify the significant conclusions of the certified EIR. No additional feasible mitigation measures within the City’s authority are necessary to reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed updated maps, because all impacts are either less than significant, will be mitigated to a level of less than significant through compliance with the existing Agenda Item #10.1.

mitigation, or remain significant and unavoidable even with the imposition of all feasible mitigation. Further, based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the certified EIR and adopted Addendum, none of the conditions triggering the need for subsequent environmental review have occurred.

Individual project’s environmental impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis as they are submitted (as applicable).

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1. Council Ordinance Adopting Updated Zoning Map and General Plan Figure 2.1-c1
Attachment 2. Zoning Map - Updated for Housing Element
Attachment 3. General Plan Figure 2.1 - Updated for Housing Element Attachment 4. City Attorney - Memo re Housing Element Implementation and Rezoning Attachment 5. FAQ - General Plan and Zoning Amendments
Attachment 6. Memorandum - HE Process Summary
Attachment 7. HCD Corrective Action Letter - 020524
Attachment 8. HCD Decertification Letter - 032624
Attachment 9. RHNA Methodology Letter 11-24-2020
Attachment 10. RHNA Assignment Letter 7-7-2021
Attachment 11. Preliminary Sites Inventory - February 2022 Attachment 12. Site 10 extracted from HE
Attachment 13. Density Visualization Examples
Attachment 14. Does Affordable Housing Drive Down Property Values? Attachment 15. HE Site 1 - 1480 Main Draft Exhibit of Parcel Split Attachment 16. Opportunity Site Owner Notifications March 2024 Attachment 17. Response to Comments Summary 4-2-24 PC Meeting Attachment 18. Public Comment Received for 04.02.24 PC Meeting_(Combined) Attachment 19. Public Comment Received AFTER 04.02.24 PC Meeting_(Combined) Attachment 20. 2023 - 2031 Housing Element - certified Sept. 25, 2023_(reduced) Attachment 21. Housing and Safety Elements EIR Addendum_Final April 2023 Agenda Item #10.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AMENDING ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 2.1 (GPA 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) AND THE CITY’S ZONING MAP (ZMA 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) REFERENCED IN SECTION 17.01.070 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE TO BRING THE MAPS INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S ADOPTED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, AND FINDING THAT THESE CHANGES ARE

CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL

PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena (“City”) has duly adopted a zoning ordinance, found at Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, among other things, Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code identifies the zoning designations applicable to parcels within the City and sets forth the standards and processes applicable to the development of parcels within these zones; and
WHEREAS, all cities within the State of California are required by law to adopt a general plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City Council of the City of St. Helena adopted the City’s 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2023, the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”) was certified by HCD as in compliance with state Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, Program H-A of the Housing Element commits the City to rezoning 7 sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), in accordance with Government Code sections 65583(c) and 65583.2(c); and WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance adopted October 24, 2023 allows multifamily housing projects, including those with 20% affordable units, by right in the Medium and High Density zoning districts.

WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Ordinance adopted October 24, 2023 accommodates a minimum density of 20 units/acre for all Housing Opportunity Sites planned for lower-income units.

WHEREAS, the Housing Element was subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State Agenda Item #10.1.

2 CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.), through the preparation and adoption, in May 2023, of an Addendum to the City’s 2040 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042001); and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65860(c) requires cities to amend their zoning ordinances to conform to their respective general plans; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has prepared this amendment to the City’s Zoning Map, incorporated into the City’s Zoning Code by reference in section

17.01.070, in order to implement the General Plan mandates set forth above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has also proposed an update to Figure 2.1 (“Proposed Land Use Diagram”) of the City’s General Plan to bring the General Plan into consistency with the Housing Element and updated Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public input on and consider the proposed amendments to the City’s General Plan Figure 2.1 and Zoning Map, and all persons wishing to testify were heard; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. PC2024-004, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council (1) approve the amendments to the Zoning Map referenced in St. Helena Municipal Code section 17.01.070; (2) approve the updates to Figure 2.1 of the City’s General Plan; and (3) find both actions consistent with the Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Update Final EIR, adopted on May 9, 2023; and (4) prior to adoption of rezoning ordinance by Council, staff shall explore with HCD the feasibility of replacing Site 10 with other units, or recalculating potentially available units on other sites, as an alternative to high density zoning for Site 10; if such effort is unsuccessful by date of Council adoption of the rezone ordinance, staff shall analyze other units to replace Site 10; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

SECTION 1. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to make changes to the Zoning Map of the City of St. Helena, as set forth in this Ordinance and as demonstrated in Exhibit ‘A’ attached hereto and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to make changes to Figure 2.1, “Proposed Land Use Diagram,” of the City’s General Plan, as set forth in this Ordinance and as demonstrated in Exhibit ‘B’ attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Agenda Item #10.1.

3 SECTION 3. By adoption of Resolution No. 2023-44 on May 9, 2023, the City Council, as the decision-making body for purposes of CEQA, has approved and adopted an Addendum to the City’s 2040 General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042001), which was completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Addendum fully analyzed any environmental impacts of the Zoning Map and General Plan updates contemplated herein. Based on substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the certified EIR and adopted Addendum, none of the conditions triggering the need for subsequent environmental review have occurred.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days following its adoption by the City Council.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 23rd day of April, 2024, and duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of May, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

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 Exhibits
Agenda Item #10.1.

4 A – Revised Zoning Map
B – Revised General Plan Figure 2.1
Agenda Item #10.1.

*2024 Update for Housing Element Consistency.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Chaix Ln
Fir Hill Dr
Mills Ln
Melrose Ln
Meadowood Ln
York Ln
Fulton Ln
Tokay Ln
Dean York Ln
W heeler Ln
Inglewood Ave
La Fata St
Victoria Ln
Laguna Seca
Davis Ln
Mccorkle Ave
Tainter St
Stanton Dr
Contento Ln
Edwards St
Money Way
Del Rio Ct
Boyson Ln
Mccormick St
Railroad Ave
Pope St
Starr Ave
N Crane Ave
Kearney St
Hollis Ln
Palmer Dr
Stice Ln
Vineyard Ave
Allyn Ave
Valley View Ave
Hillview Pl
Hudson Ave
Mitchell Dr
Allison Ave
Hunt Ave
Elmhurst Ave
Pinot Way
Charter Oak Ave
Chiles Ave
Madrona Ave
Dowdell Ln
Zinfandel Ln
Big Rock Rd
·|}29
College Ave
Deer Park Rd
Sylvaner Ave
White Ln
Spring Mountain Rd
Fawn Park Rd
Spring St
Silverado Trail
Oak Ave
Crane Ave
Lewelling Ln
·|}29
Stockton St
Madrona Ave Spring St
Howell Mountain Rd
Sulphur Springs Ave
Adams St
Pratt Ave
Grayson Ave
Lodi Ln
Silverado Trail
Howell Mountain Rd
White Sulphur Springs Rd
Stockton St
Silverado Trail
Vineland Ave
Paseo Grand Dr
Mountain View Ave
Park St
Hudson Ave
Garden Ave
Con n Valley Rd
Vallejo St
Scott St
Charter Oak Ave
Data Source: City of St. Helena, 2018; Napa County, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2018, updated 2024. 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.1
Adopted Land Use Diagram
St. Helena General Plan
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Central Business
Service Commercial
Mixed-Use
Office
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture
Open Space
Woodlands and Watershed
Napa County General Plan
Agricultural Resource
Agriculture, Watershed and Open
Space
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

83578.00008\42088950.2
Memorandum
To: City of St. Helena
From: City Attorney’s Office
Date: March 19, 2024
Re: Housing Element Certification and Required Rezoning I. INTRODUCTION
On May 9, 2023, the City of St. Helena adopted its Sixth Cycle Housing Element (“Housing Element”). After the City received feedback from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) and made minor changes in response, the City’s Housing Element was certified on September 25, 2023. “Certification” of the Housing Element means that HCD found it to be in substantial compliance with all legal requirements, reducing the legal risks to the City that are associated with being out of compliance (including, among other things, the ability for developers to propose “Builder’s Remedy” projects wholly inconsistent with zoning and development standards, loss of City access to state funding, and administrative fines and/or lawsuits). However, HCD’s certification relied on the City fulfilling certain ongoing commitments to implement the adopted Housing Element, and failure to fulfill these commitments can result in decertification of the Housing Element.

This memorandum addresses (1) the commitments made by the City to implement the Housing Element, (2) how the City advised HCD that it would fulfill those commitments, and (3) potential ramifications for failing to meet some or all of the City’s commitments.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. Legal Requirements for Housing Element and Implementation Program In general, state law requires all housing elements to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, and establish goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and time-bound programs for meeting the city’s allocation of anticipated housing demand (referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or “RHNA”).1 In particular, the City’s Housing Element is required to include an inventory of sites throughout the City that are suitable and available for residential development, and which have “realistic and demonstrated potential” for being residentially developed during the planning period. 2 Land that is considered suitable for
residential development includes:3
1 Gov. Code §§65580-65583.2. 2 Gov. Code §§65583(a)(3), 65583.2(a). 3 Gov. Code §65583.2(a).

Agenda Item #10.1.

Best Best & Krieger LLP
83578.00008\42088950.2

- 2 -
• Vacant sites within the City already zoned for residential use; • Vacant sites within the City zoned for nonresidential use but which allow for residential development;
• Sites zoned for residential use (including City-owned sites) that are capable of being developed at a higher density; and
• Sites zoned for nonresidential use (including City-owned sites) that can be redeveloped for residential use for which the Housing Element includes a program to rezone the site or permit residential use.

After the City has engaged in this analysis, if it has not identified sufficient sites that meet those parameters and can satisfy the City’s RHNA at all income levels, the City must designate specific sites that will be rezoned to accommodate the remaining need.4 Once these sites are identified and designated, the Housing Element must go on to lay out a specific schedule of actions that it will take during the planning period to implement its objectives, including identifying when rezoning will be completed.5 If rezoning is required to accommodate lower-income portions of the City’s RHNA, such rezoning action must also allow housing development “by right” (without any discretionary approval other than subdivision review), require minimum densities of 16-20 units per acre, and meet other criteria mandated by HCD.6
The deadline by which rezoning of these sites must occur depends on when the Housing Element was adopted. If the Housing Element is adopted within 120 days of the statutory deadline (for St. Helena, that was January 31, 2023), then the City has three years to complete necessary rezoning.7 However, when (as is the case here) the City adopts a compliant Housing Element more than 120 days after the statutory deadline, then the rezoning must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline.8 As the City’s Housing Element was not certified by HCD until September 25, 2023, the City was expected to complete its necessary rezoning by no later than January 2024.

As a reminder, pursuant to Implementation Program H-A, the City has committed to rezoning at least 14 acres to the high density residential (HDR) zoning district, in order to accommodate its remaining lower-income RHNA of 156 units, after accounting for existing available sites.9 This designation will allow for exclusively residential uses, and a density range of 20-28 units per acre. In addition, because sites 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10 (identified in Table 58 of the Housing Element) will be rezoned specifically to accommodate lower-income housing, these sites will be required to allow housing development “by right” (without any discretionary permitting other than subdivision approvals) for owner-occupied or rental multifamily projects in which 20% 4 Gov. Code §§ 65583(c)(1)(B), 65583.2.
5 See Gov. Code § 65583(c).
6 Gov. Code § 65583.2(h), (i).
7 Gov. Code § 65583(c)(1)(A); see also Gov. Code § 65588. 8 Id. 9 St. Helena Certified 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Sept. 25, 2023) p. 1-10, available at https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_HE_Certified_2023_09_25_RL-Total.pdf.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Best Best & Krieger LLP
83578.00008\42088950.2

- 3 -
or more of the units are reserved as affordable to lower-income households. 10 With respect to Site
#10 in particular, it has in fact previously been included as an opportunity site in both the Fourth and Fifth Cycle Housing Elements (for which public input was similarly solicited at the time). The inclusion of this site in previous housing cycles means the City is constrained by state law and the site must be rezoned at the “default” densities specified by Housing Element law,11 and allow residential uses by right when at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households.12
Although the City has a legal obligation to rezone the sites it has identified in its certified Housing Element, this does not impose a requirement on any property owner to actually develop the property, sell the property to an affordable housing developer, or in any way change the existing land use. It only ensures that if the property is developed, it is developed consistently with the City’s plan to meet its RHNA requirements.

In addition, the current proposed action before the Planning Commission and the City Council—to adopt updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code to reflect changes in zoning for implementation of the Housing Element—does not permit or presuppose any specific development project for the sites that will be rezoned. The rezone action will only change the scope of the land uses that are authorized on the site; it will not preapprove any particular development on any of the rezoned parcels. Any subsequent project proposals, assuming they are consistent with the rezone to high density residential, will be processed by the City in accordance with its standard development application procedures, entirely separately from the rezone. Approval of the rezone will therefore not provide any kind of “regulatory shortcut” for potential future developments— all such potential developments will still be required to obtain separate City approval. In fact, failing to approve the proposed rezone, bringing the City out of compliance with its certified Housing Element, is what could enable potential developers to circumvent City zoning and permitting approval, pursuant to the “Builder’s Remedy” provided in state law for cities who are out of compliance with Housing Element laws. (See section C., Penalties Associated with Housing Element Noncompliance, for more discussion.)
B. City’s Past Commitments and Next Steps
Before adoption of the final Housing Element, the City engaged in a robust public review and comment process—at both the Planning Commission and City Council level—to ensure all residents were aware of the pending City action and had an opportunity to provide feedback. This effort included branding, a project website, business cards, newsletters and e-blasts, announcements on the City’s website and social media pages, multiple workshops, a Housing 10 Gov. Code §§ 65583.2(c), (h), (i). 11 In this case, default density is at least 20 dwelling units per acre. See Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iii) and HCD Memorandum “Default Density Standard Option – 2020 Census Update” (March 21, 2022) available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf. 12 Gov. Code § 65583.2(c) Agenda Item #10.1.

Best Best & Krieger LLP
83578.00008\42088950.2
- 4 -
Element Focus Group, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings.

Specifically, the discussion of sites to be included for rezoning as part of the updated Housing Element occurred during at least two Citywide public workshops (on January 20, 2022 and March 16, 2022) and three joint meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission (March 23, 2021, February 22, 2022, and July 21, 2022). There was also a dedicated City webpage for the Housing Element update process, and multiple local newspaper articles published on the topic in 2022 and 2023.

In July 2022, letters were sent to all property owners whose sites were being considered for inclusion as an “opportunity site” in the Housing Element.13 This letter notified each owner of the City’s intent to include their parcel in the City’s inventory for rezoning, reminded owners that this did not impose any kind of mandate to build housing, and gave owners information about how to engage with the City to have their concerns heard. This letter was sent in addition to all legally required noticing obligations for the public workshops, study sessions, and hearings the City also held.

At this time, it is not feasible or legally advisable to “reopen” the Housing Element process to reconsider sites that were selected for rezoning. The City undertook a thorough, well-publicized, two-year long process to reach this point, and, as further discussed below, risks losing its “certified” status with HCD if rezoning is not completed promptly. Members of the public were afforded many opportunities to attend City meetings and advise the City of any concerns with the inclusion of certain sites on the rezone list (and residents were always welcome to reach out to planning staff outside of the formal process for one-on-one meetings). At this stage, revisiting the sites that were approved by HCD for rezoning would not be viewed by HCD as an administrative “adjustment” to the Housing Element, but would instead constitute a major change that could subject the City to a wide range of outcomes, including a high likelihood of HCD’s immediate rescission of the certification of the Housing Element.

C. Penalties Associated with Housing Element Noncompliance In February 2024, the City received a letter from HCD identifying the City’s failure to implement Program H-A (Available Sites Inventory), including the requirement to rezone at least 14 acres to accommodate all of the City’s RHNA. The City provided a written response to HCD in which it identified the multiple rounds of review that were required by HCD, leading to the delay of adoption of the Housing Element and, in turn, the imposition of the stricter one-year rezoning deadline rather than the three years the City would have been entitled to had the Housing Element been certified within 120 days of its January 31, 2023 deadline.14 In that letter, dated 13 These letters were sent to the property owners of record for all sites identified in the City’s inventory of land potentially suitable for rezoning; it is unclear why the owners of Site #10 have indicated they did not receive any correspondence, as they were included as part of the mailing list. 14 Regardless of timing, the City committed to the specified opportunity sites in the adopted Housing Element, so while the City would have had a longer time to implement the rezoning, it would not have changed the City’s commitment to the rezone sites identified in Table 58 of the Housing Element.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Best Best & Krieger LLP
83578.00008\42088950.2
- 5 -
February 26, 2024, the City advised that it had scheduled the requisite General Plan amendments and rezoning actions for its March 5, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, with adoption by City Council anticipated to follow in April. Upon receipt of a number of public comments on the agenda item pertaining to the rezone, the Planning Commission rescheduled the item for its April meeting.

As HCD has noted, because the City is now past the January 2024 rezoning deadline, it is crucial that the rezoning actions identified in the Housing Element occur as soon as possible, so that the City may retain its certification status. Although the proposed action approving the rezones was tabled at the March 5, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, further delaying the process, it is more important than ever that the City moves forward expeditiously with the rezoning program it has already committed to as part of obtaining certification of the Housing Element. Failure to complete the required rezoning in the near future will put the City at risk of HCD rescinding its certification, which can lead to such cascading effects as:
• Suspension of the City’s authority over issuance of building and zoning permits and subdivision approvals15
• Court-required approval of certain types of housing projects without City input16 • City prohibited from denying certain affordable housing projects even if inconsistent with adopted zoning and General Plan (commonly referred to as the Builder’s Remedy)17 • Escalating financial penalties of $10,000-$100,000 per month (plus potential for multiplication of fines based on continued noncompliance)18 • Disqualification from various state and federal funding opportunities.

III. CONCLUSION
Because the City has received certification of its Housing Element, and is required by state law to complete a program of rezoning (as established by Implementation Program H-A) for the sites identified in the Housing Element, continued delays on this action could result in a number of adverse outcomes for the City, including, among other things, decertification and developer access to the Builder’s Remedy. All property owners were given adequate notice of their rights to attend various City meetings throughout 2022 and 2023 at which the potential sites identified for rezoning were discussed; the current proposed rezoning action is simply intended to carry out the implementation program the City has already committed to. 15 Gov. Code § 65755(a)(1)-(3). 16 Gov. Code § 65755(a)(4)-(6). 17 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d). 18 Gov. Code § 65585(l)(1).

Agenda Item #10.1.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and Information Related to General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for Housing Element Compliance • What is the Housing Element?
→ The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan. The process is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify existing and projected housing needs in order to preserve, improve, and develop housing for all economic segments of the community. Every eight years, every City in the State is assigned a housing target or Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element demonstrates to the state how the City plans to zone residential land to accommodate its portion of the RHNA (St. Helena’s share is 256 housing units from 2023- 2031).
• Why did the City continue the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (Item 5.3) from the Planning Commission Meeting on March 5th?
→ It was brought to the City’s attention that property owners within 300 feet of the sites proposed for land use changes did not receive notice of the proposed action by the Planning Commission. In order for this to occur, it was necessary to postpone the action by the Planning Commission to April 2, 2024, so the City could fulfill all the public noticing requirements of SHMC 17.04.080.
• Does being listed as a Housing Element Housing Opportunity Site mandate that housing units be built? → No. Current or future property owners of opportunity sites are in no way obligated or required to build any housing units. The sites inventory is simply how the City demonstrates to the state that we have adequate sites with the right kind of zoning to accommodate our regional housing allocation. Property owners of opportunity sites maintain complete control over whether or not their site develops in the future irrespective of zoning changes. The City may meet its RHNA through the development of other sites that are not noted as opportunity sites.
• Is a 3-story multi-family housing project currently in process or pending approval by the City on the Spring Street parcel (Housing Element Opportunity Site #10)? → No. There are no applications nor projects in process or pending approval for the site on Spring Street. Any potential project proposed in the future would be required to meet City design and development standards including parking, landscaping, setbacks, etc. noted in the zoning code which will ultimately determine the number of units that can be accommodated onsite.
• What happens if these map amendments/zoning changes are not approved by the City Council? → The state can take corrective action if the City is not in compliance with its Housing Element obligations. Such corrective actions might include de-certifying the Housing Element or notifying the Attorney General of the alleged violation. De-certification can lead to a host of potential outcomes that can negatively impact both the City and residents, including but not limited to the availability of the builder’s remedy and loss of access to state funding. Government Code section 65589.5 (d) (5), known as the "Builder's Remedy," is a provision of California's Housing Accountability Act that prevents jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element from denying certain housing projects, even if such projects do not comply with the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance or general plan. Should this occur, the City may lose what discretion it has (i.e. development and design standard requirements that limit heights, require setbacks, etc.) allowing for by right development of multi-family projects on these sites (and other sites) with little City oversight. • How are Housing Element Opportunity Sites Selected?
→ The state of California has strict requirements for what can and can’t be included as a housing opportunity site and the City is required to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) mandates aimed at overcoming patterns of segregation and fostering inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.

The state requires plans for increased housing capacity in low density, high resource areas. A “high resource area” is an area with a greater concentration of place-based opportunities such as transit, jobs, high performing Agenda Item #10.1.

schools, access to amenities, etc. Vacant and underutilized sites already designated for housing are given priority.

Sites are evaluated for environmental concerns, utility and infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period and realistic capacity. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores. Parcels utilized as vineyards outside the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and zoned for agricultural purposes are not prioritized over sites within the ULL and zoned for residential purposes. Additionally, several policies in the City’s adopted and state certified Housing Element require that the City promote and incentivize housing in the western portion of the City to comply with AFFH including Policies H-A, H-N, H-V and H-00. • Why was the Spring Street parcel (Site 10) selected?
→ This parcel was included as a Housing Opportunity Site in the City’s previous two Housing Elements (4th and 5th Cycles). This means that per state law, this site is already subject to by right approval for housing projects with at least 20% affordable units; the City can only require development and design standards in the zoning code. Per the discussion above, this site is considered vacant and underutilized, it is within the Urban Limit Line and already zoned for residential uses, it is the appropriate size, it has access to infrastructure (water, sewer and storm), and has access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.

Furthermore, the site is on the west side of town where HCD is requiring low income units be located. Although currently a vineyard, Site 10 has been designated for residential uses in the City’s General Plan since 1975 and was identified as “vacant or underutilized lands suitable for development” in the City’s 1993 General Plan. The site has been zoned medium density residential since at least 1994. • What is the difference between Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential zoning? → Medium Density Residential (MR) allows for densities between 5.1 to 16 units/acre and for two-story buildings up to 30 feet in height. High Density Residential (HR) allows for densities between 16.1 to 28 units/acre and for three-story buildings up to 42 feet in height. A proposed MR project at the maximum density is nearly identical to a proposed HR project at the minimum density in terms of unit count. State density bonus law also permits affordable housing developers to ask for concessions, incentives and the waiver of City required development standards for housing projects that meet certain affordability requirements. This means a proposed project in the MR district with a certain number of affordable units can, per state law, ask for and receive a waiver of development standards, including height. This result is that a project in the MR district could end up the same height as one in the HR district.

It is important that the City’s Housing Element remains certified by the state so the City can maintain land use controls, such as requiring development and objective design standards to ensure proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area as much as possible. The newly adopted zoning code includes robust design standards specific to multi-family housing for the purposes of ensuring the buildings meet design criteria to mitigate concerns such as massing or continuous rooflines (17.16.040 C). Should the state decertify the City’s Housing Element, we will be subject to the Builder’s Remedy and will have little control over what types of housing is constructed.
• Why does the City assert that there was public outreach during the Housing Element process and public engagement, particularly as it relates to Site 10 on Spring Street? → The City prepared a summary of the public engagement process for the Housing Element which is posted to the March 5th agenda page. The City did receive public comment on the proposed rezoning from MR to HR on Site 10 during the Housing Element adoption process and those public comments are included in the Appendix to the Housing Element. The commentors who submitted comments on that topic specifically were Laura Keir, Mary Wilson and Rick Crebs, therefore this information was part of the public record prior to the City Council approving the resolution for adoption of the Housing Element on May 9, 2023. • Who can I contact for more information?
→ Senior Planner Aaron Hecock: [email protected] Agenda Item #10.1.

1 MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 4, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
RE: Housing Element Public Participation Process Summary As the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element process began over 3 years ago, staff prepared this memorandum to summarize some important information and dates for those who may not have followed the process along the way.

Kickoff / Purpose
In February 2021, the City of St. Helena kicked off the update to the City’s Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs in order to preserve, improve, and develop housing for all economic segments of the community.

Focus Group
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City formed a Focus Group to assist in the development and review of the document. The Focus Group served as a technical working group that assisted in generating ideas and commenting on direction. Recommendations from the Focus Group were used to revise drafts of the Housing Element and provide recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The members of the Focus Group were as follows:
• City Councilmember Paul Dohring (now Mayor)
• Planning Commissioner Autumn Anderson
• Planning Commissioner Rosaura Segura (former Planning Commissioner) • Jennifer La Liberte (Our Town St. Helena)
• Mary Koberstein (former Councilmember)
Public Engagement
In response to the need for public participation, City planning staff worked with its consultants to develop a robust community engagement program tailored to ensure the community and other stakeholders were engaged in the process and are given ample opportunities to provide input. The engagement program included branding, a project website, business cards, newsletters and eblasts, announcements on the City website and social medial, multiple workshops, a Housing Element Focus Group (described above), and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and hearings. The workshop and study sessions are summarized below:

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 The City held three public workshops on the Housing Element. • Workshop #1, held September 16, 2021, provided an introduction to Housing Elements and the Reginal Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
• Workshop #2, held January 20, 2022, included a discussion of the sites inventory process and a walkthrough of potential housing sites.
• Workshop #3, held March 16, 2022, focused on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) in St. Helena. The workshop included a discussion of state requirements, initial findings from the draft AFFH analysis, and potential meaningful actions to overcome fair housing issues in the community.

The City held three joint Planning Commission and City Council public study sessions. • Session #1, held on March 23, 2021, provided information on housing element requirements, legislative guidelines, project schedule and public outreach. • Session #2, held on February 22, 2022, discussed the RHNA and the draft sites inventory.
• Session #3, held on July 21, 2022, was to receive public comment on the public review draft Housing Element Update and for the Planning Commission and City Council to provide direction on revisions and additions.

In addition to having a dedicated Housing Element Update website (www.sthelenahousing.com), there were several newspaper articles written on the Housing Element Update process (see below) and the City provided regular updates through social media posts and eblasts. More than 30 people signed up to receive housing element update emails. Staff attempted to make the process extremely transparent and open for public participation. The St. Helena Star published periodic articles about the Housing Element update process which can be viewed at the links below (this list is not intended to be exhaustive):

January 12, 2022 – Housing Sites Community Workshop:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/news/city-of-st-helena-hosts-communityworkshop-on-housing/article_1969d331-188b-59ec-962d-bbc21bf3d88d.html January 25, 2022 – Housing Sites:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/news/st-helena-mulls-potential-housingsites/article_066395c4-66cd-5dcf-80f9-18b2cbdcd1d4.html February 15, 2022 – Housing Opportunity Sites Joint PC/CC Meeting:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/news/st-helena-to-discuss-housingopportunity-sites/article_a3f7cc3d-6348-517a-9a86-78910914b04b.html March 8, 2022 – AFFH Community Workshop:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/news/st-helena-hosts-housing-workshopmarch-16/article_875ff706-0785-5258-9fbd-9e71cb7a259a.html July 5, 2022 – Draft Housing Element Released for Public Review:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/news/st-helena-releases-draft-housingelement-for-public-review/article_f2e29c56-fc97-11ec-882d-331c870311f3.html Agenda Item #10.1.

3 July 19, 2022 – Joint PC/CC Meeting on Draft Document:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/news/st-helena-to-hear-input-on-housingplan/article_0ad2b244-0781-11ed-b1a0-63a6d91f1859.html May 13, 2023 – Housing Element Adoption:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/st-helena-adopts-long-range-housingplan/article_cdba794e-ef85-11ed-a41b-5f658bfe695d.html September 26, 2023 – State Approved Housing Element:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/housing-st-helena/article_74be9f28-5bd2- 11ee-98c0-87121f8f88f5.html
Opportunity Sites Selection
Vacant and underutilized sites throughout the city were considered as potential for housing development. Site selection for the residential site inventory started with City owned sites where residential development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, utility or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.

In July 2022, letters were sent to all property owners of sites being considered as a housing opportunity site notifying them that their property had been identified, that they are under no mandate or obligation to build housing, and that the City would like to discuss the matter with them including any site constraints, long-term plans for the property, etc. so that we could better understand their position on a potential land use change. The template used for this letter is attached to this Memorandum for review. While this letter did not identify a specific zoning change, the housing opportunity sites were discussed in detail beginning on page 2-149 and shown on Figure 48 in the Public Review Draft Housing Element released to the public on June 29, 2022. The proposed General Plan and zoning changes for each site were identified on Tables 38 to 49 of the draft Housing Element. The draft document and all subsequent versions were available for review on the City’s website, on the dedicated Housing Element website, and at City Hall throughout the process.

Public Hearings for Adoption
In addition to the public workshops and joint Planning Commission/City Council meetings described above, the following noticed public hearings were conducted in order to consider and adopt the City’s 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element and legal ads were published in the Napa Valley Register in accordance with public hearing procedures:
• May 2, 2023: Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council adopt the draft Housing Element.

Agenda Item #10.1.

4 • May 9, 2023: Formal adoption of the draft Housing Element by the City Council.

Attachments
1) Property Owner Notification – Opportunity Sites
Agenda Item #10.1.

July 27, 2022 City of St. Helena
Planning Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Property Owner
Address
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Planning for Future Housing in St. Helena – Your Property at Address Here and the City of St. Helena Housing Element Update
Dear Property Owner:

The City of St. Helena is updating its Housing Element, a state-mandated document establishing the city's long-term housing plan, which is updated at specific time intervals. The current update will cover an eight-year period, 2023-2031, termed the 6th Cycle. Part of the Housing Element involves designating areas of the city for new homes to accommodate the city’s fair share forecasted housing growth (also known as the regional housing allocation). To do that, and to comply with state law, St. Helena must look at various properties throughout the city that could feasibly and practically accommodate the over 250 housing units that the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) and the State has assigned St. Helena. Attached is an informational bulletin that provides additional information on the Housing Element update process.

Based on certain site criteria, your property has been identified as a possible site that could help accommodate future housing units. Please note that this is a state required planning exercise and as the current property owner you are in no way obligated or required to build any homes if your property is ultimately selected as a housing opportunity site as part of the Housing Element update.

Listing sites in inventory is simply how we demonstrate to the state that we have adequate sites with the right kind of zoning to accommodate our regional housing allocation, which is explained in greater detail in the attached bulletin. Property owners of sites listed in opportunity sites inventory will maintain complete control over whether or not their sites develop in the future.

Furthermore, being identified as a housing opportunity site does not necessarily mean that the current use on the site would be removed and replaced; in some cases, potential future housing could be added in conjunction with existing uses.

As the city continues to analyze potential sites, we would like to discuss the matter with you to answer any questions you may have regarding the site selection and long term housing plan process. We would also like to understand more about any constraints on the property, such as Agenda Item #10.1.

long-term leases or plans for development, so that we can better understand your position regarding a potential change in land use on your property.

Please contact Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner, via email at [email protected] or via phone at (707) 968-2747. More information on the city's Housing Element update is available on the designated website st.helenahousing.com. The Housing Element update process will continue throughout the next year and there will be numerous opportunities for additional public participation and input.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachment: Newsletter #1
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 St. Helena Housing Element Update!
We are excited to announce that in February 2021, the City of St. Helena kicked off the update to the City’s Housing Element. The update is scheduled to take approximately two years, and throughout the process, we invite the public to be part of the planning process and provide input on how St. Helena should provide housing over the planning period (2023-2031).

NEWSLETTER #1: HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW
sthelenahousing.com
Have questions? City of St. Helena
Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
[email protected]
What is a Housing Element?
Since 1969, every jurisdiction in California has been required to have a Housing Element as part of their General Plan. Unlike other mandatory General Plan elements, the Housing Element must be updated every eight years and is subject to review and approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Major components of the Housing Element include a housing needs assessment, the identification of sites for housing at all income levels, a review of constraints to housing, and updated policies and programs to carry out the goals of the updated element.

The City’s current 2014-2022 Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and was part of the 5th Cycle of housing element updates in the State. This update for the 2023-2031 Housing Element is part of the 6th Cycle of housing element updates. Between the 5th and 6th Cycles, the State has passed over a dozen of new housing laws, many of which aim to lower barriers to building affordable housing. These will all be addressed with this update.

Another major addition to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update is the inclusion of an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis. This analysis will examine housing practices in the city to identify any areas that may perpetuate housing inequities in the community. Once identified, the Housing Element will create policies and programs to help work towards more equitable housing practices.

Visit the Project
Website to:
▪ Stay informed
▪ Find out about
upcoming
meetings and
events
▪ Sign-up for
email updates
▪ Share your ideas
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Phase 1:

INITIATION
What to expect:
• Website goes live
• Newsletter #1
• City Council (CC)
and Planning
Commission (PC)
Joint Study Session
Phase 2:

HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE
What to expect:
• Community
Workshops #1-3
• CC/PC Joint Study
Session
• Public Review Draft
Housing Element
What does a Housing Element do?
The purpose of a Housing Element is to:
• Provide an assessment of current and future housing needs • Identify opportunities and constraints on housing production • Establish goals, policies, and programs to meet those needs • Update City practices and regulations to reflect new State laws Phase 3:

PUBLIC HEALTH AND

SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE
What to expect:
• Community Workshop #4
• CC/PC Joint Study Session
• General Plan and Zoning
Code Amendments
Phase 5:

HCD REVIEW AND

COORDINATION
What to expect:
• HCD Draft
Housing Element
• Meeting with
HCD
• Response to
HCD comments
Phase 6:

ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION
What to expect:
• Preparation of
environmental
analysis
• Addendum to
General Plan EIR
Phase 7:

PUBLIC REVIEW

AND ADOPTION
What to expect:
• Planning
Commission
public hearings
• City Council
public hearings
• Final Housing
Element
• Transmittal to
HCD
A Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:

Phase 4:

PUBLIC REVIEW

DRAFT HOUSING

ELEMENT
What to expect:
• Community
Workshop #5
• Newsletter #2
• PC Study Session
• CC Study Session PROCESS • 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
Agenda Item #10.1.

3 What is RHNA?
In the process of updating the Housing Element,
each jurisdiction is required to accommodate its fair
share of the regional housing need. The Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the process
used to determine housing allocations for each
jurisdiction. As part of the RHNA, HCD determines
the total number of housing units needed across
California over the next decade. The Association of
Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (ABAG/MTC) is then tasked with
developing a methodology to determine the number
of housing units for which each Bay Area jurisdiction
is required to provide sites.

Under State law, the RHNA is assigned to the
following four income categories:
• Very low household income
• Low household income
• Moderate household income
• Above moderate household income
The household income for each of these categories is
based on a percentage of the Area Median
Income (AMI). The breakdown of these categories is
shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Income Categories
Income Category Percent of AMI
Very low <50%
Low 51-80%
Moderate 81-120%
Above Moderate >120%
In February 2021, ABAG/MTC updated their methodology for RHNA allocations to all Bay Area jurisdictions, which is expected to be finalized in Spring 2021. The City of St. Helena’s draft RHNA requirement is shown in Table 2. Table 2 also illustrates that St. Helena will be responsible for identifying housing sites that can support 223 more housing units than required in the 5th Cycle. Across the state, jurisdictions are facing similar challenges.

Table 2: 5th Cycle and 6th Cycle RHNA Comparison
Cycle Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA
Very Low Low
5th Cycle 8 5 5 13 31
6th Cycle 103 59 26 66 254
Change +95 +54 +21 +53 +223
The inventory and analysis of adequate sites is a labor-intensive and potentially controversial component of the Housing Element Update process. St. Helena will need to evaluate General Plan land uses and the zoning ordinance to determine whether there is enough land available to accommodate the assigned RHNA allocation for each income category. If unable to accommodate the RHNA, St. Helena will need to plan to rezone enough land to meet the RHNA obligation.

Agenda Item #10.1.

4 Get Involved!
For the Housing Element to truly represent the community’s vision for the future, we need your help. The success of this planning effort will depend on the input of the community, and we have provided a range of ways to hear your ideas for the future of St. Helena. You can participate as much or as little as you like, from attending public meetings and community workshops to providing input online from the
comfort of your home.

Visit the Project Website
The project website (sthelenahousing.com) is the hub for timely updates with information on the status of the project, announcements of upcoming workshops and meetings, and
publication of key documents.

Sign-up for Email Updates
You can join the email list on the project website
(sthelenahousing.com). By signing up, you will be notified when the City releases new documents and announces
meetings, workshops, and other events.

Join Meetings and Public Workshops
Not only are these great opportunities to learn about the Housing Element update, but meetings and workshops are
also a great place to share your ideas and connect with the community.

Visit sthelenahousing.com for more information.

How can you make a difference?
Agenda Item #10.1.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
February 5, 2024
Maya DeRosa, Director
Community Development Director
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
RE: Saint Helena Housing Element Implementation – Corrective Action Letter Dear Maya DeRosa:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the City of Saint Helena’s (City) obligations under the housing element and hereby issues its written findings that the City has failed to implement Program H-A (Available Sites Inventory) included in its housing element.

HCD requests that the City review this correspondence and provide a written response to these findings within 30 days and no later than March 6, 2024. HCD will review and consider the City’s written response before taking any action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivisions (i) and (j). As noted below, such action could include revoking HCD’s finding that City’s housing element is in substantial compliance with California’s Housing Element Law and/or referral to the California Office of the Attorney General.

State Housing Element Law
Pursuant to Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e)(4)(C), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c), and 65583.2, subdivision (c), shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline (January 31, 2024).

In addition, HCD must review any action or failure to act by a City that it determines to be inconsistent with an adopted housing element or section 65583 generally, and it must issue written findings to the City accordingly. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1).) HCD must give the City a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to these findings. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A).) If HCD does not receive a written response from the City within 30 days, or the response does not demonstrate that the program action has been implemented, then HCD will revoke its findings that the City’s Agenda Item #10.1.

Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director

housing element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(B).)
Additionally, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General when a City takes actions that are inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Government Code sections 65583 and 65915, among other laws. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).) Findings
On September 25, 2023, HCD found the City’s housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. HCD based its compliance finding on, among other things, a commitment to implement Program H-A to rezone 206 units to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and make prior identified sites available one year from the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), in accordance with Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c), and 65583.2, subdivision (c).

Pursuant to an email communication received on February 1, 2024, the City expects to complete the necessary rezones by June 2024. Based upon this information, HCD finds that the City has failed to implement the required rezone program actions within the statutorily required timeframe.

Next Steps
HCD provides the City until March 6, 2024 to send a written response to these findings.

If you have questions, need additional information, or wish to schedule a meeting, please contact me at [email protected] or Fidel Herrera at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
Agenda Item #10.1.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 26, 2024
Anil Comelo, City Manager
City of Saint Helena
1088 College Avenue
Saint Helena, CA 94574
RE: Revocation of Housing Element Compliance Finding – City of Saint Helena Dear Anil Comelo:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is hereby notifying the City of Saint Helena (City) that HCD has revoked, as of the date of this letter, its September 25, 2023 finding that the City’s housing element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). The City had adopted this housing element on May 9, 2023.

On February 5, 2024, HCD issued the City its written findings that the City had failed to implement Program H-A (Available Sites Inventory) included in its housing element pursuant to Government Code section 65583, and that this failure brought the City’s housing element out of substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. HCD provided the City with 30 days to respond to HCD’s written findings pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i)(1)(A).

On February 26, 2024, HCD received the City’s response to HCD’s written findings.

The City’s response does not demonstrate implementation of Program H-A. HCD thus finds that the City’s housing element is no longer in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. Consequently, HCD is revoking its finding of the City’s housing element compliance, as authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i)(1)(B). HCD’s determination of non-compliance will remain in effect until the City completes required rezone actions in Program H-A. Once the City completes this program action, a copy of the resolution or ordinance should be transmitted to HCD. HCD will review the documentation and issue correspondence identifying the updated status of the City’s housing element compliance.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Anil Comelo, City Manager

HCD is committed to assisting all localities in achieving and retaining substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Reid Miller at [email protected].

Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
“We will conduct city affairs on behalf of our citizens using an open and creative process.”
City of St. Helena  1572 Railroad Ave., St. Helena, CA 94574 Phone: (707) 967-2792  Fax: (707) 963-7748  Website: www. cityofsthelena.org 1572 Railroad Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Phone: (707) 967-2792
Fax: (707) 963-7748
www.cityofsthelena.org
November 24, 2020
Jesse Arreguin, President
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Proposed RHNA Methodology and Subregional Shares
Dear President Arreguin:

The City of St. Helena would like to thank the ABAG Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) for its important work and for the opportunity to provide HMC with more insight on how the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Proposed Methodology dated October 2020 would affect a small, rural community like St. Helena. We have carefully reviewed the Proposed Methodology and submit the following comments as part of the public comment period on the Proposed RHNA Methodology and Draft Subregion Share:
• The St. Helena General Plan designates nearly 50% of the incorporated areas as agriculture and open space with an additional 15% being heavily wooded areas on steep mountainous slopes (designated Woodlands and Watershed), leaving relatively limited in-fill capacity for development at densities needed to accommodate the allocation targets under the draft methodology. • The recently adopted General Plan assumed up to 332 new housing units through year 2040 or approximately 15 units a year.
• The proposed RHNA assignment of 171 units over an 8-year planning period requires 21.375 units per year to be constructed, a 42.5% increase over the annual growth rate contemplated by the current General Plan. While St. Helena recognizes that all cities must share in the region’s need to build new housing, this is a faster growth rate than anticipated in the City’s planning documents. • The accelerated growth required by these RHNA assignments will escalate the need for expanded and updated infrastructure; how are small communities like St. Helena going to pay for this infrastructure? We will enthusiastically work with ABAG-MTC and other local governments to advocate for additional State funding to assist with expanded and updated infrastructure in support of affordable housing projects.
• Although St. Helena is served by the Vine, Napa County’s public transit system, this system is seldom used by those who have access to cars – in other words, it does not draw significant Agenda Item #10.1.

2 numbers of commuters who either work in St. Helena or who live in St. Helena and work elsewhere. As a result, except where construction of low and moderate income housing enables workers to live closer to their place of employment, housing development beyond that contemplated by the City’s General Plan would increase VMT and traffic congestion, and would not support greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. • Small, rural, agricultural communities are not appropriate locations for “high-rise” residential housing which further limits their ability to increase density. • Our ability to assume more growth in the City became further constrained on October 27, 2020, when the City of St. Helena declared a Phase 2 water emergency. No new water connections are permitted during a Phase II emergency.
• The hills and mountains that frame the Napa Valley are in PG&E’s Tier 3 high fire risk zone and have proven to be high fire hazard areas as evidence by the Tubbs, Atlas, Hennessy (LNU Complex), and Glass fires of 2017 and 2020; this further limits our ability to accommodate additional growth outside existing urban limits.
• Placing homes near job centers and away from natural hazards (fire severity zones etc.) and preserving agricultural and open space areas should be given a high priority to avoid the inadvertent loss of farmland and open space and to reduce the significant cost of emergency mitigation and assistance.
• The aggregate total of St. Helena units in Table 5 should be 171, not 172. The proposed distribution by income category is:
o Very Low: 46
o Low: 27
o Moderate: 27
o Above Moderate: 71
• Upon the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020, a paradigm shift has occurred in urban centers around the world relating to commuting patterns and the density of cities identified as job rich centers. Many of the current telecommuting arrangements from Silicon Valley’s technology giants are expected to remain post COVID-19. The region is also experiencing an exodus of workers leaving the Bay Area for Sacramento and other more affordable areas outside the region which will have impacts for years to come. Has ABAG and the RHNA Methodology Committee considered how these demographic shifts may change the assumptions? • The City of St. Helena has faced extraordinary economic challenges this year due to the pandemic and the wildfires. Under these circumstances, it will be important for RHNA to avoid placing a disproportionate adverse financial impact on small, rural communities like ours.

The City of St. Helena appreciates this opportunity to review and comment on this very important housing growth strategy as our region prepares to begin the Housing Element update process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Agenda Item #10.1.

3 Best regards,
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Planning and Building Director
City of St Helena
cc: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
Aaron Hecock, AICP, Senior Planner
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
“We will conduct city affairs on behalf of our citizens using an open and creative process.”
City of St. Helena  1572 Railroad Ave., St. Helena, CA 94574 Phone: (707) 967-2792  Fax: (707) 963-7748  Website: www. cityofsthelena.org 1572 Railroad Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Phone: (707) 967-2792
Fax: (707) 963-7748
www.cityofsthelena.org
July 7, 2021
Jesse Arreguin, President
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Final RHNA Methodology and Subregional Shares
Dear President Arreguin:

The City of St. Helena recognizes the significant milestone of the ABAG Executive Board approving the Final RHNA on May 20, 2021. We further recognize the State is in a housing crisis and HCD and ABAG are leading agencies on the forefront of planning for each subregion to meet this challenge. This letter serves the purpose to convey our concerns with the additional 83 very low and low income “equity adjustment” beyond the 171 units we received in October 2020. While we are not filing an appeal, we find that the 254 unit RHNA assignment poses a legitimate threat to the City’s safety and water supply as articulated further below.
• Fire Hazard: In 2020 the City of St. Helena experienced a local emergency as the Glass Fire consumed 67,000 acres of vegetation in Napa and Sonoma Counties as well as damaging 14 structures in the city limits. It was a sober lesson that the City cannot plan for additional housing growth in this PG&E Tier 3 high risk zone as our hillside areas contain high amounts of fire fuel.

Unlike many larger Bay Area cities that have no fire hazard areas which can therefore accommodate housing infill, St. Helena’s land availability is very constrained and consequently there is a very diminished land capacity that can be assumed for housing growth. Additionally, our relatively remote, rural location with limited emergency evacuation routes presents a particularly concerning safety hazard to both our existing and future residents. • Water Shortage: As communicated in our November 24, 2020 letter to ABAG, our ability to assume more growth in the City became further constrained on October 27, 2020, when the City of St. Helena declared a Phase II water emergency, which occurs when the projected water supply is not sufficient to meet projected demands from the City’s existing customers without significant conservation measures being implemented. This has had an immediate impact upon our development potential as no new water connections are permitted during a Phase II emergency. Since we submitted our last correspondence to ABAG related to the RHNA, our water emergency has become more urgent and residents are currently under water rationing requirements and subject to fines and penalties. A link to a recent article is noted below.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 https://napavalleyregister.com/community/star/news/st-helena-calls-on-water-customers-to-cutconsumption-by-30/article_108f155f-2693-5c3d-830a-35385325bfe4.html The City is in the process of conducting analyses of its existing water supply to better assess its ability to meet current and future demand, as well as exploring additional water resources including but not limited to developing recycled water infrastructure that can be used for irrigation and other non-potable purposes. While the current drought is the impetus for the Phase II emergency, it has raised significant concerns about the City’s ability to accommodate its existing users, let alone significant new development of the type contemplated by the City’s RHNA numbers. We find that our circumstances will result in a likely diminished ability to rely on our local groundwater supply to meet our current domestic water supply needs. This could put the City in an untenable position, stuck between our obligations and desires to both provide our fair share of housing within the region, and ensure the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents by ensuring an adequate water supply. • “Equity Adjustment” : In February 2021, ABAG released the updated Draft RHNA with the equity adjustment for 49 jurisdictions exhibiting above average racial and economic exclusion using a composite score based on the jurisdiction’s divergence index score (a measure of segregation) and percent of the jurisdiction’s households above 120% AMI. We were disappointed to find that our City was further penalized after articulating the many land and infrastructure constraints in our November 24, 2020 letter. We find the equity adjustment did not take into account the aforementioned special circumstances in the City of St. Helena.

In closing, the State of California envisions both wildfires and droughts getting worse with climate change. This is not just about a current drought or related increased fire risk, but reflects a long term reduction in water availability and growth in wildfire danger. Regionally, other larger communities in the Bay Area have a better ability to adjust to drought and have reduced issues with wildfire and we ask that ABAG consider this constraint in future RHNA methodology considerations. The City of St. Helena appreciates this opportunity to share our ongoing concerns with the RHNA assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Best regards,
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Planning and Building Director
City of St Helena
cc: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
Aaron Hecock, AICP, Senior Planner
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #10.1.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4825 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95819
916 706 1374
i [email protected]
www.rinconconsultants.com
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
St. Helena Housing Element Update Preliminary Site Inventory The following report outlines the preliminary site inventory for St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

This site inventory was completed consistent with HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook and following an analysis of RHNA credits, which included pending housing projects within the city and ADU trends expected over the next 8-year housing cycle. After determining RHNA credits, specific sites were considered for potential for housing development starting with City owned sites, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, such as environmental concerns, utility access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.

Sites throughout the city were evaluated using the site requirements and site-specific constraints to compile a list of potential sites. The list of potential sites was presented at two separate focus group meetings (December 16, 2021 and January 27, 2022) and a community workshop (January 20, 2022) to collect feedback from interested parties and the community. Table 1 shows a summary of the total number of housing units that can be accommodated under this preliminary site inventory. The inventory provides enough sites to meet and exceed the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements, especially for above-moderate units. Therefore, there is flexibility on the sites as the Housing Element Update continues through the process and HCD review.

Table 1 Summary of Housing Units
Lower Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Pending Projects 0 0 92 92
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Preliminary Sites 203 62 54 319
Total 203 62 218 483
St. Helena RHNA plus
20% Buffer
192 31 79 302
Surplus 11 31 139 181
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 1: 1480 Main Street (APN 009-211-016)
Current Use Fire Stations and Vacant Structures
Parcel Size 1.66 acres (0.9 acres available for redevelopment) Existing General Plan Land Use Central Business and Public/Quasi-Public Existing Zoning Public/Quasi-Public
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed-Use
Allowed Density 12 to 20 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 22 units
Income Category 22 Lower Income
Site 1 is a 1.66-acre property owned by the City of St. Helena located at 1480 Main Street. City goals are in line with mixed-use residential redevelopment of a portion of the site fronting Main Street. Current uses on-site include the St. Helena Fire Department on the northern portion of the site and a vacant one-story building on the southwestern portion of the site. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone change would be required to change the land use and zoning designation from Public/Quasi-Public to Mixed-Use.

Table 2 Site Summary
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

The site developable area is assumed to be approximately 0.9 acres, with the removal of the vacant building on the southwestern portion of the site. A capacity analysis of the site assumed approximately 80% of the available site area would accommodate housing development (the remaining 20% of the site is reserved for potential landscaping and other site improvements required by the City’s development standards) and a 50% density bonus. Therefore, the site can accommodate approximately 22 lower income units under the maximum density under Mixed Use of 20 units per acre.

Site Capacity Calculations:
� �0.9 acres ∗
20units
acre � + 50% 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 � x 80% = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 2: 1572 Railroad Avenue (APN 009-193-002)
Table 3 Site Summary
Current Use City Hall
Parcel Size 0.93 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Public/Quasi-Public
Existing Zoning Business and Professional Office
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 30 units
Income Category 30 Lower Income
Site 2 is a 0.93-acre property owned by the City of St. Helena located at 1572 Railroad Avenue. City goals are in line with residential redevelopment of a portion of the site. This site is currently used as a temporary location for City Hall. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the land use and zoning designation to High Density Residential.

The entire 0.93-acre site is able to be redeveloped with the removal of the existing buildings. Therefore, the site can accommodate 30 lower income units, with the assumption the site would receive a 50% density bonus and that 80% of the site will accommodate housing (20% of the site is reserved for landscaping and other site improvements). The assumption that the site would be developed at the maximum allowed density of 26 units per acre for High Density Residential zoning and that 100% of the units would be lower income units is reasonable given this site is owned by the City.

Site Capacity Calculations:
� �0.93 acres ∗
26units
acre � + 50% 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 � x 80% = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮 Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 3: 905 Main Street (APN 009-180-008)
Table 4 Site Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 0.27 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed-Use
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed-Use
Allowed Density 12 to 20 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 5 units
Income Category 5 Above Moderate
Site 3 is a 0.27-acre property located at 905 Main Street. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. In addition, the property owner has expressed interest in development of the site with housing. A zoning change would be required to change the zoning designation from Service Commercial to Mixed-Use, which would bring the property into conformance with the existing General Plan land use designation.

The site is vacant and the entire 0.27-acre site is able to be developed. Therefore, the site can accommodate 5 above moderate-income units, using a density assumption of 20 units per acre.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 4: Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane (APN 009-660-005) Table 5 Site Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.8 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Service Commercial
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 36 units
Income Category 36 Lower Income
Site 4 is a 1.8-acre property located on Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. Our Town St. Helena (OTSH) is currently in negotiations to develop property as an affordable housing project. The capacity analysis completed by OTSH indicated high density land use is appropriate for the site. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the land use and zoning designation from Service Commercial to High Density Residential.

The entire site is vacant and OTSH conducted a site analysis to determine a feasible number of units they could develop on-site, given its location and shape. It was concluded the site can accommodate 36 lower income units, which is a density of approximately 20 units per acre. OTSH intends to develop a 36- unit housing development with 100% lower income units.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 5: 709 and 741 McCorckle Avenue (APN 009-100-031, -032) Table 6 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 1.8 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Medium Density Residential Allowed Density 5.1 to 16 units/acre
Assumed Density 5.1 units/acre
Site Capacity 8 units
Income Category 8 Above Moderate
Site 5 is composed of two adjacent properties that total 1.8 acres located at 709 and 741 McCorkle Avenue. Both properties are underutilized with one single family residence and with large undeveloped space on each property. One of the property owners expressed interest in subdividing the property pursuant to SB9, which would allow each lot to be split into two lots with development of up to two units on each lot. The current zoning designation is Medium Density Residential and no changes to land use or zoning are proposed.

The sites are composed of two single family lots which can each be split into two lots with development of up to 2 units on each lot, pursuant to SB9, for a total of 8 above-moderate units (a net increase of 6 units). In addition, each lot could develop ADUs for a total capacity of 10 units. The capacity assumption assumes a total of 8 units (4 on each property), which is conservative given then underlying land use and zoning designation could allow redevelopment
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 6: 821 Pope Street (APN 009-503-001)
Table 7 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residence
Parcel Size 1.0 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 20 units
Income Category 10 Lower and 10 Moderate
Site 6 is a 1.0-acre property located at 821 Pope Street. The site is underutilized with one existing singlefamily residence and large undeveloped areas on-site. Land use designations and existing development surrounding the site consist of multi-family housing. The current zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

Development of the entire 1.0-acre site could accommodate 20 units, 10 lower income units and 10 moderate income units, with a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 7: 882 and 886 College Avenue (APN 009-070-043, -044, -045) Table 8 Site Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.5 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Public/Quasi-Public
Existing Zoning A-20 (Agriculture)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 30 units
Income Category 30 Lower
Site 7 is composed of three adjacent properties that total 1.5 acres located at 882 and 886 College Avenue. The site is adjacent to areas with existing multi-family development. All three properties are vacant and are owned by a single property owner who has expressed interest in residential development on these properties. The site’s land use and zoning designated are currently not consistent. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the land use and zoning designation from Public/Quasi-Public and Agriculture to High Density Residential The entire 1.5-acre site is able to be developed. Therefore, the site can accommodate 30 lower income units, a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 8: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street (APN 009-590-003, -010) Table 9 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 2.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 48 units
Income Category 24 Lower and 24 Above Moderate
Site 8 is composed of two adjacent properties that total 2.4 acres located at 1447 and 151 Spring Street.

Both properties are underutilized with an existing single-family residence and large undeveloped areas on each parcel. The site is surrounded by single- and multi-family development and sites zoned High Density Residential. The current zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The site can accommodate 48 units, 24 lower income units and 24 above moderate income units, a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 9: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View Street (APN 009-441- 023)
Table 10 Site Summary
Current Use Vineyard
Parcel Size 4.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 88 units
Income Category 44 Lower and 44 Moderate
Site 9 is a 4.4-acre parcel located on Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street. The site is considered underutilized as it has a residential land use designation but is currently developed with vineyards. Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential uses on this residentially zoned parcel in the form of town homes, compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition, recent property owner inquiry for residential development of the site indicates opportunity for redevelopment. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the zoning from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

The site can accommodate 88 units, 44 lower income units and 44 moderate income units, a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 10: 1998 Spring Street (APN 009-391-031)
Table 11 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residence
Parcel Size 3.5 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Medium Density Residential Allowed Density 5,1 to 16 units/acre
Assumed Density 5.1 units/acre
Site Capacity 17 units
Income Category 17 Above Moderate
Site 10 is a 3.5-acre parcel located at 1998 Spring Street. The site is occupied by two existing singlefamily residences with large undeveloped areas. The site is underutilized with potential for redevelopment or additional units on-site. The site is zoned Medium Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The site can accommodate 17 above moderate income units, a density of 5.1 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the Medium Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 16 units per acre.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Site 11: 601 Pope Street (APN 009-502-011)
Table 12 Site Summary
Current Use Silverado Orchard Apartments
Parcel Size 2.9 acres (0.75 acres available for development) Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 15 units
Income Category 7 Lower and 8 Moderate
Site 11 is a 2.9-acre parcel located at 601 Pope Street. The site is underdeveloped and is currently occupied by the Silverado Orchard Apartments on the northeastern portion of the site with a large vacant area on the southwestern portion of the site. There is opportunity to expand the existing high density housing development on-site or develop additional housing.

The site is zoned High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The 0.75-acre vacant portion of the site can accommodate 15 units, 7 lower income and 8 moderate income units, a density of 5.1 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Sites Considered but Rejected
The following sites were considered to be included in the site inventory for the City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. However, due to various constraints and feedback from the focus group and community workshop, development of housing within the next 8 years was not considered feasible on these sites and they were not included in the site inventory. 900 Crane Avenue: The property owner expressed interest in housing on-site. However, this site has a large PG&E transmission line running through the center of the property that could prevent residential development of a certain size being constructed on-site. However, this site could be developed with housing in the future. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Industrial to Mixed-Use or Residential. The following policy is proposed to be added to the Housing Element Update to further incentivize housing development in the city: “Explore 900, 902 & 906 Crane Avenue as future housing sites (APNs 009-2800-034/038/039).” If housing is developed on-site within the next 8 years, the units will still count towards the City’s RHNA weather it is included in the site inventory or not.

Adams Street: This site is owned by the City and future City priorities for this site are unknown at this time. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Central Business to Mixed-Use or Residential which could eliminate the possibility of using the site as a future City Hall location or for hotel development. In the site inventory process, we want to identify sites that have the greatest probability of developing residential units during the 8-year Housing Element Cycle. Not including it as a Housing Opportunity Site in no way precludes residential development from occurring on the property in the future.
1340 Tainter Street: This site is owned by the Catholic Church and is developed with several structures.

No vacant space is available on-site for development of housing without the removal of the existing structures. There is no indication the Church is willing to sell the property. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Public/Quasi-Public to Mixed-Use or Residential. The following policy is proposed to be added to the Housing Element Update to further incentivize housing development on this site and others similar: “Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.”
1405 Charter Oak Avenue: This site is the City Corporate Yard. Due to environmental constraints, this site is not ideal as a Housing Opportunity Site. The site is located within the flood zone and Sulphur Creek crosses through the southwest portion of the site. Additionally, Charter Oak Road runs diagonally through much of the site, bisecting the site in half. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Industrial to Mixed-Use or Residential.

Bechstoffer Vineyards: This site is a 13.4 acre site with established vineyards, owned by Bechstoffer Vineyards. The property owner has not indicated they are willing to sell the property or develop housing on-site. The site is too large to meet the State’s assumptions regarding sites suitable for lower income housing, which include sites that are between 0.5 and 10 acres in size. At 13.4 acres this site exceeds the suitable range. Additionally, the site would require infrastructure improvements including utilities and roadway extensions that would make development of housing within the next 8 years not feasible.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

591 McCorkle Avenue: This site is currently developed with a single-family residence and vineyards, and was used in the previous Housing Element (5
th Cycle). Development of housing on this site would require roadway extensions which could create traffic issues due to the site’s size (7.9 acres) and the number of units that would be built. This site is zoned Medium Density Residential and therefore meets the State’s assumptions for moderate and above moderate income housing, however it is not needed to meet the City’s RHNA numbers for those income categories as the inventory already has sufficient sites. 1255 Oak Street: This site is owned by the Grace Episcopal Church and is currently developed with several structures and parking lots. There is no indication the Church is willing to sell the property or develop housing on-site. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Public/Quasi-Public to Mixed-Use or Residential. The following policy is proposed to be added to the Housing Element Update to further incentivize housing development on this site and other underutilized church sites: “Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.” Toogood Property (behind Gotts): This site is a challenging long and narrow 8-acre parcel. Sulphur Creek runs through the northern half of the property and much of the site is located within a designated floodway and 100-year flood zone. To include this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update, the City would need to provide an analysis of why the flood zone would not preclude development of housing in the near term. The site also has existing powerlines over the property which could indicate easements and be a barrier to housing development. In addition, the site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Industrial to Mixed-Use or Residential. 1301 Mitchell Drive: This site is owned by PG&E and is used as a staging site. There is no indication PG&E is willing to sell the property. The site is designated as a cleanup site and was remediated for hazardous materials from a manufactured gas plant that operated on the site from 1883 to 1926. In addition, the parcel is located within a 100-year flood zone. The site also has a large access easement across it to provide access to an adjacent parcel. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from Public/ Quasi-Public and a Rezone of the property from Central Business to Mixed-Use or Residential. 1817 Spring Street: This site was included in the previous Housing Element (5th Cycle) and therefore would require by right rezoning for projects with 20 percent or more affordable housing units. Based on State law, the site would also only meet above moderate or moderate income requirements for the site inventory, which the City has sufficient amounts of. This site could be added to the inventory if directed or needed as the Housing Element Update moves through the process.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Figure 1 Site Inventory Site Locations
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Figure 2 Lower Income Site Locations
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Figure 3 Sites Considered but Rejected
Agenda Item #10.1.

Site Inventory Tables
Agenda Item #10.1.

Site Address or Street APN Acres General Plan Current Zoning ProposedZoning Current Use
MinimumDensity Allowed
(du/ac)
MaximumDensityAllowed(du/ac)
RealisticAllowableDensity(du/ac)
MaximumCapacity
AssumedCapacity
AssumedLowerIncomeCapacity
AssumedModerateIncomeCapacity
Assumed
AboveModerateIncomeCapacity
Included in 5thCycle HE Capacity Assumption Notes Notes Community Workshop #2 Comments 1 1480 Main Street 009‐211‐016 0.8
Central Business and
Public/Quasi‐Public Public/Quasi‐Public Mixed‐Use Fire Station and vacant structures 12 20 20 68 22 22 0 0 No Site developable area assumed to be approximately 0.9 acres. Assumed 50% density bonus and 80 percent capacity. Will require General Plan and Zoning Amendments
This is a City‐owned site and City goals are in line with residential redevelopment of a portion of the site. Will require General Plan and Rezone to Mixed Use.
2 1572 Railroad Avenue 009‐193‐002 0.93 Public/Quasi‐Public Business and Professional Office HR Teen Center 16.1 26 26 48 30 30 0 0 No Assumed 50% density bonus and 80 percent capacity This is a City‐owned site and City goals in line with residential redevelopment of the entire site. Will require General Plan and Rezone to High Density Residential.
3 905 Main Street 009‐180‐008 0.27 Mixed‐Use Service Commercial Mixed‐Use Vacant 12 20 20 5 5 0 0 5 No Vacant and in a location prime for development along Main Street. Will require a Rezone to bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan.
4 Phelps property 009‐660‐005 1.8 Service Commercial Service Commercial HR Vacant 16.1 26 20 47 36 36 0 0 No Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 Our Town St. Helena (OTSH) is in negotiations to purchase property for an affordable housing project. Their capacity analysis identified high density as an appropriate land use, so the site will require General Plan and Rezone
5 709 and 741 McCorckle 009‐100‐031‐032 1.8 MDR MR MR Single‐family residence 5.1 16 5.1 29 8 0 0 8 No Conservative estimate, used 5.1 du/acre instead of 16 One property owner expressed interest in subdividing pursuant to SB9. Sites are both underutilized with single‐family residences and large vacant space. Units were estimated based on SB9 regulations which could allow up 4 units maximum on each current lot.

Not feasible for high density as one of the property
owners is looking to subdivide pursuant to SB9
6 821 Pope Street 009‐503‐001 1 HDR HR HR Single‐family residence 16.1 26 20 26 20 10 10 0 Yes Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 The site is currently zones High Density Residential and it underutilized with one single‐family residence and surrounding by existing high density residential development. Will require by right approval for projects with 20% affordable units since it was used in the previous housing element ` 7 882 and 886 College Avenue
009‐070‐043, 009‐
070‐044, 009‐070‐
045 1.5 Public/Quasi‐Public A‐20 HR Vacant 16.1 26 20 39 30 30 0 0 No Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 These are vacant sites adjacent to areas of existing multi‐family development. All sites are owned by a single property owner with interest in residential on these sites. Will require General Plan and Rezone 8 1447 and 1515 Spring Street
009‐590‐010
009‐590‐003 2.4 HDR HR HR Single‐family residence 16.1 26 20 62 48 24 0 24 Yes Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 These parcels are currently zoned High Density Residential but are underutized with single‐family residences and have opportunities to increase density. They will require by right approval for projects with 20% affordable units.
9 Spring Street (between Hudson &
Valley View) 009‐441‐023 4.4 MDR MR HR Vineyard 16.1 26 20 114 88 44 44 0 Yes Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 This is a vacant/underutilized site with vineyards currently zoned for residential uses. Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential on the site in the form of town homes which would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. There has been recent property owner inquiry for residential development on the site. The site will require by right approval for projects with 20% affordable units and a General Plan and Rezone for HDR.
10 1998 Spring Street 009‐391‐031 3.5 MDR MR MR Single‐family residences 5.1 16 5.1 56 17 0 0 17 No Conservative estimate, used 5.1 du/acre instead of 16 This is a large underutilized site with potential for redevelopment or additional units/density added to the existing single‐family residences. Potential vineyard lease on site 11 601 Pope Street 009‐502‐011 2.9 HDR HR HR Silverado Orchards Apartments 16.1 26 20 19 15 7 8 0 No Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 on the 0.75 acre portion of the site
The site is currently zoned for High Density Residential and has a large undeveloped portion of the site. The site has existing high density, supportive housing and is an opportunity site to expand the existing use or develop new housing
319 203 62 54
Table 13: St. Helena 6th Cycle Housing Element Preliminary Site Inventory Total
Agenda Item #10.1.

Address or Street APN Acres General Plan Current Zoning Use and Reasoning for not Including 900 Crane Avenue 009‐280‐034 0.73 Industrial Industrial There are large PG&E transmittion line that run through the center of the property, which may prevent residential development within the next 8 years. If housing is developed on‐site, the units will still count towards the City's RHNA. The following policy is proposed for addition in the Housing Element Update to further incentive housing: Explore 900, 902 & 906 Crane Avenue as future housing sites (APNs 009‐2800‐ 034/038/039).

Adams Street 009‐150‐006 5.6 Central Business Central Business Future City priorities of the site are unknown at this time. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone of the property to mixed‐‐use or residential which could eliminate the possibility of using the site as a future City Hall locaton or for hotel development. In this process we want to identify sites that have the greatest probability of developing residential units during the 8 year Housing Element Cycle. Not including it as a Housing Opportunity Site in no way precludes residential development from occuring on the property in the future. 1340 Tainter St 009‐231‐004 0.6 Public/Quasi Public Public/Quasi Public Non‐vacant Church owned site; no indication that the Church is willing to sell the property. The site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone. In addition, the site is currently developed with a number of structures that inhibit the development of housing near‐term. The following policy is proposed for addition in the Housing Element Update: Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.
1405 Charter Oak Ave 009‐180‐012 4 Industrial Industrial City Corp Yard. HCD wants City's to consider feasibility of sites with environmental constraints, and this site is a challenging site that is located within flood zone.

Beckstoffer Vineyards 009‐180‐034 13.4 HDR HR
Vineyards. The site is too large to meet State lower income unit assumptions (no sites greater than 10 acres), and the site would require infrastructure improvements such as utilities and roadway extentions which is likely not feasible during the next planning period. Furthermore, the property owner has given no indication that they are willing to sell the property.
591 McCorkle 009‐070‐003 7.9 MDR MR
Single family residence. Used in previous housing element. Site not needed to meet above/moderate income unit numbers and would require roadway extensions and could create traffic issues due to site size. 1255 Oak Street 009‐233‐021 3 Public/Quasi‐Public PQP
Non‐vacant Church owned site; no indication that the Church is willing to sell the property. Including this site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone. In addition, the site is currently developed with an existing use and structures that could be considered to inhibit the development of housing near‐term.

The following policy is proposed for addtion in the Housing Element Update: Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.

Toogood Property (behind Gotts) 009‐180‐036 8 Industrial Industrial This is a challenging long and narrow parcel next to the creek that is in a designated flood zone. The Housing Element would need to provide an analysis of why the flood zone would not preclude development of housing near term. In addition, the site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone 1301 Mitchell Drive 009‐263‐005 1 Public/Quasi‐Public CB This site is owned by PG&E and is used as a staging site. The site was remediated for hazardous materials and has a large access easement across it for access to an adjacent parcel. Furthermore, there is no indication that PG&E would sell the property.
1817 Spring Street 009‐322‐010 1.5 MDR MR
The site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and therefore would require by right rezoning for projects with 20% or more affordable units. Also, based on State law, the site would only meet above moderate income requirements for the inventory, which the City already has sufficient amounts of. We can include if needed.

Table 14: St. Helena 6th Cycle Housing Element: Sites Considered But Not Included Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-202
Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View Street (APN 009-441-023) Table 54 Site 10 Summary
Current Use Vineyard
Parcel Size 4.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 114 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 44 Lower Income and 44 Moderate Income units
Site 10 is a 4.4-acre parcel located on Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street. Recent property owner interest in residential development of the site indicates opportunity for housing. Additionally, Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential uses on this residentially zoned parcel in the form of town homes, which is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The site is considered underutilized as it has a residential land use designation but is currently used as vineyards. As previously discussed, the City has seen recent development of housing on properties with existing vineyards.

Site 10 has greater development potential than the recently developed vineyard parcels since it is located on a residentially zoned parcel, while the 500 Mills Lane and 601 Fulton Lane projects were located on parcels with a land use and zoning designation of Agriculture and therefore are only allowed to develop one housing unit and one ADU per parcel. A General Plan Amendment and zoning change is proposed to change the zoning from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-203
The entire 4.4-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 114 units would be permitted. However, a total of 88 units, 44 lower income units and 44 moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate adequate off-street parking capacity. The site is currently underutilized and does not meet the maximum density allowed under the Medium Density Residential Zone (16 units/acre) or the minimum density allowed under the proposed land use change to High Density Residential (16.1 units/acre) with a current density of 0 units per acre. The site currently has no on-site development and would be allowed 45 percent lot coverage, or approximately 86,000 square feet of building footprints.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring byright approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Residential Land Use
Agenda Item #10.1.

Density Examples
Cottages on Greene - East Greenwich, RI
Lot: 0.85 Acres
Number of Units: 15
Density: 17.7 du/ac
Cottage Court
Townhouse
505 E. Bayshore - Redwood City, CA
Lot: 2.54 Acres
Number of Units: 56
Density: 22 du/ac
Agenda Item #10.1.

Density Examples
Multiplex - 27 units/acre
Lincoln Avenue Apartments - Calistoga, CA
Lot: 2.89 Acres
Number of Units: 78
Density: 27 du/ac
Agenda Item #10.1.









  



!"#$%&"
'(!")$!
*"+
,'
!"&
%#-!

#"
-
$%.
/0
$"#!
0%
"*
1&# ("*

'
"*#
%-!,"%#-!"/

2 3&/
"&
$+%

".$%/
*"/
&#+$!
"&#$(
&0"$!
-#
'#"$% !
*"+
,'

!"&
%#-!

#"
-
$%.
/0
$"#
&"#+%-0"
$(.
'&

4 0 %
'()!
#%$
!"&-!'(%#$
-
+%#$"!
#%-!," +2
5678(

!"&
%#-$&+(, 9&'%
":
+
$;7"*$!
/"
$
<0#
%.!"&
%#-/
:
$
%#$!
"&#$(=#%
"*)!% 

%#>
'%*"#
29!

$&+(*"&#+$!
%#!

%-80%
+/
:
$
=,&%'+#-
*"+
,'
!"&
%#-!
+#"
* $"#
&"#+%-!"/

25#+%"
/
:
$=!"/

Agenda Item #10.1.

 




 
  
  




  
 
 
 




!

 "
 


 
#


 $ 





 
%&

  
' !
 

(  '

)   *
 

 + 


 





  , 

 -!
  
 



  .

 !
-/

 
 
!
 01  





  .

 
 
% 





 ,%
 




2








 3




 


  




 
 
 4


,  ! ! 

, 
 



 
 


 

 
" 


#





!
"
 !
  
5 


"
!  


 
 4!

 
  

  ,
2





 

/
6  

7-



 !

!3

89:;<=>?@A 9=B?C;D@ =
'E
Agenda Item #10.1.

D
D
D
D
D
D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
D
D
D
D
This document shall not be used for
construction unless signed and sealed for
construction. Sheet No.

Original Size
Title
Project
Client
Drawn Designer
Scale
Plot Date: 5 November 2023 - 1:47 PM Filename: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\561\12560056\Tech\Survey\Fire Station\12560056 V-TOPO.dwg ANSI D
Date
Plotted By: Richard Maddock
Project No.

Sheet of
Reuse of Documents
This document and the ideas and designs incorporated
herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD and shall not be reused in whole or in part for any other project without GHD's written authorization. © 2023 GHD
Drafting
Check
0 1"
Bar is one inch on
original size sheet
Design
Check
No. Issue Drawn Approved Date
Project
Manager

CITY OF ST HELNA

PROPOSED SUBDIVIISON
1256056
1 GHD Inc. 11-1-2023
330 Hartnell Avenue Suite B
Redding California 96002 USA
T 1 530 242 1700 W www.ghd.com
Topographic Survey
V-001 1
R.A. MADDOCK
R.A. MADDOCK

AS SHOWN
DATE

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

THIS SURVEY IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED

UNDER MY DIRECTION AND MEETS THE NATIONAL MAP
ACCURACY STANDARDS.
0 30' 60'
N

SEWER LINE W/SIZE AND FLOW DIRECTION

ABBREVIATIONS

DRAIN LINE W/SIZE AND FLOW DIRECTION

AC ASPHALTIC
CL
CO
CONC
DI
FH
FL
MH
RW
SBL
SD
SS
TC
W
WM

CONCRETE

CENTERLINE

CLEAN OUT

CONCRETE

FIRE HYDRANT

FLOWLINE

MANHOLE

RIGHT OF WAY

SET BACK LINE

STORM DRAIN

SANITARY SEWER

TOP OF CURB
WATER

WATER METER

WATER LINE W/SIZE
GS
RCB

GROUND SHOT

REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX

GR GRAVEL

TN TOP OF NUT

CB CATCH BASIN

EL ELEVATION

INV INVERT

DRAIN INLET
LEGEND

SEWER MANHOLE

FIRE HYDRANT

DRAINAGE INLET (SQUARE)

STORM MANHOLE

WATER VALVE BOX

GUY WIRE/POLE

WATER METER

TELE/TV SERVICE

SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE

OTHER PROPERTY LINE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
FENCE
S
D

IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE

SEWER CLEAN OUT/SEWER SERVICE

HOSE BIB/WATER SERVICE

STREET LIGHT

TOP BACK OF CURB

MANHOLE

RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

OLD FILED MAP LINE

FLOW LINE

MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED

GAS SERVICE/CONNECTION
GV
SET 3/4" CIP STAMPED LS 9265

DIMENSION POINT, NOTHING FOUND OR SET

UTILITY POLE

ELECTRIC METER/SERVICE

BENCHMARK

ELECTRIC CABINET

ELECTRIC MANHOLE

PARCEL INFORMATION

ORIGINAL PARCEL
OWNER: CITY OF ST HELENA
TITLE REPORT: OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE - ORDER No. 2202074043-PL SIZE: 1.74 AC
ZONING:

APN: 009-211-016

PROPOSED PARCELS
PARCEL 1:

SIZE: 0.80 AC
PARCEL 2
SIZE: 0.94 AC
*FORMAL LOT SPLIT PENDING.

Housing Element Opportunity Site #1 - 1480 Main Street
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Phelps Family Holdings, LLC March 20, 2024
c/o Phelps Partnership
PO Box 9594
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #5 (APN 009-660-005) - Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE: Service Commercial (SC) to High Density Residential (HR)
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE: Service Commercial (SC) to High Density Residential (HR)
Property Owner,
The Community Development Department of the City of St. Helena is hereby notifying you that the General Plan land use and zoning map designations of your property is changing as described above.

The City’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted in May 2023 and certified by the state in September 2023. Following adoption and certification of the Housing Element, the City is required to update the General Plan and zoning map to be consistent with the changes committed to in the Housing Element. As your property was identified as a Housing Opportunity Site requiring a General Plan and zoning map change to accommodate additional housing units, the City is now required by the state to make the changes described above. You can find more information on the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element by visiting the city webpage at www.cityofsthelena.org/; then click ‘City Hall’; then click ‘Community Development’; then click ‘Planning Division’; then on the left side of the page select ‘Housing Element Update (2023-2031)’ where you will you will find a pdf of the adopted Housing Element and supporting documents.

The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena will hold a public hearing regarding these changes on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 6 pm, in Vintage Hall at 465 Main Street, in order to receive public comments on the General Plan and zoning map updates. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. I can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at (707) 968-2747.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Sincerely,
Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St Helena
Existing General Plan and zoning designation – Service Commercial (SC) Proposed General Plan and zoning designation – High Density Residential (HR) Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
St. Helena Montessori School Inc. March 20, 2024
880 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #8 (APN 009-070-043, 044, 045) – 882 through 886 College Avenue.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE: Public and Quasi-public (PQP) to High Density Residential (HR)
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE: Public and Quasi-public (PQP) to High Density Residential (HR)
Property Owner,
The Community Development Department of the City of St. Helena is hereby notifying you that the General Plan land use and zoning map designations of your property is changing as described above.

The City’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted in May 2023 and certified by the state in September 2023. Following adoption and certification of the Housing Element, the City is required to update the General Plan and zoning map to be consistent with the changes committed to in the Housing Element. As your property was identified as a Housing Opportunity Site requiring a General Plan and zoning map change to accommodate additional housing units, the City is now required by the state to make the changes described above. You can find more information on the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element by visiting the city webpage at www.cityofsthelena.org/; then click ‘City Hall’; then click ‘Community Development’; then click ‘Planning Division’; then on the left side of the page select ‘Housing Element Update (2023-2031)’ where you will you will find a pdf of the adopted Housing Element and supporting documents.

The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena will hold a public hearing regarding these changes on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 6 pm, in Vintage Hall at 465 Main Street, in order to receive public comments on the General Plan and zoning map updates. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. I can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at (707) 968-2747.

Sincerely,
Agenda Item #10.1.

Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St Helena
Existing General Plan and zoning designation – Public and Quasi-public (PQP) Proposed General Plan and zoning designation – High Density Residential (HR) Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Janet Keene, ETAL March 20, 2024
2112 Hounslow Drive
San Jose, CA 95131
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #10 (APN 009-441-023) – Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE: Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR)
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE: Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR)
Property Owner,
The Community Development Department of the City of St. Helena is hereby notifying you that the General Plan land use and zoning map designations of your property is changing as described above.

The City’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted in May 2023 and certified by the state in September 2023. Following adoption and certification of the Housing Element, the City is required to update the General Plan and zoning map to be consistent with the changes committed to in the Housing Element. As your property was identified as a Housing Opportunity Site requiring a General Plan and zoning map change to accommodate additional housing units, the City is now required by the state to make the changes described above. You can find more information on the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element by visiting the city webpage at www.cityofsthelena.org/; then click ‘City Hall’; then click ‘Community Development’; then click ‘Planning Division’; then on the left side of the page select ‘Housing Element Update (2023-2031)’ where you will you will find a pdf of the adopted Housing Element and supporting documents.

The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena will hold a public hearing regarding these changes on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 6 pm, in Vintage Hall at 465 Main Street, in order to receive public comments on the General Plan and zoning map updates. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. I can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at (707) 968-2747.

Sincerely,
Agenda Item #10.1.

Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St Helena
Existing General Plan and zoning designation – Medium Density Residential (MR) Proposed General Plan and zoning designation – High Density Residential (HR) Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
1637 Spring Street LLC March 20, 2024
PO Box 539
St. Helena, CA 94574
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #11 (APN 009-600-018) – 1637 Spring Street.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE: Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR)
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE: Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR)
Property Owner,
The Community Development Department of the City of St. Helena is hereby notifying you that the General Plan land use and zoning map designations of your property is changing as described above.

The City’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted in May 2023 and certified by the state in September 2023. Following adoption and certification of the Housing Element, the City is required to update the General Plan and zoning map to be consistent with the changes committed to in the Housing Element. As your property was identified as a Housing Opportunity Site requiring a General Plan and zoning map change to accommodate additional housing units, the City is now required by the state to make the changes described above. You can find more information on the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element by visiting the city webpage at www.cityofsthelena.org/; then click ‘City Hall’; then click ‘Community Development’; then click ‘Planning Division’; then on the left side of the page select ‘Housing Element Update (2023-2031)’ where you will you will find a pdf of the adopted Housing Element and supporting documents.

The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena will hold a public hearing regarding these changes on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 6 pm, in Vintage Hall at 465 Main Street, in order to receive public comments on the General Plan and zoning map updates. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. I can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at (707) 968-2747.

Sincerely,
Agenda Item #10.1.

Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St Helena
Existing General Plan and zoning designation – Medium Density Residential (MR) Proposed General Plan and zoning designation – High Density Residential (HR) Agenda Item #10.1.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS SUMMARY: APRIL 2, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION

TOPIC AREA QUESTION RESPONSE
Site #10 Development Could Site #10 develop different than described in the Housing Element?
Property owners of opportunity sites maintain complete control over whether or not their site develops and how it develops in the future irrespective of zoning changes. There are currently no legislative or other means to compel a private property owner in this process, meaning the City can’t force or otherwise require that they build housing or require that the housing be built to a specific density. If the site is rezoned to High Density Residential, a developer could develop the site at any density range between 16.1 and 28 dwelling units per acre.

Site Selection 1) What other options were considered that might be a better fit and impact fewer homeowners in the
community?
2) It is surprising that such a project is not
proposed for the east side since that is where all
the services are (Safeway, pharmacy, gas etc.) and
would limit traffic immensely versus this large
amount of new residents having to cross the
highway for everything.
1) Vacant and underutilized sites throughout the city were considered as potential for housing development (see the Preliminary Site Inventory attached to the staff report for more information (Attachment 11)).

Site selection for the residential site inventory started with City owned sites where residential development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, utility or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores. 2) Many of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located on the east side of town, however, the state recognizes that residents with low and moderate incomes are concentrated in the eastern portion of the City. The state of California has strict requirements for what can and can’t be included as a housing opportunity site and the City is required to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) mandates aimed at overcoming patterns of segregation and fostering inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. Several policies in the City’s adopted Housing Element require that the City promote and incentivize housing in the western portion of the City to comply with AFFH including Policies H-A, H-N, H-V and H-00. Specifically, Program H-A requires 82 lower income units in the western portion of the City, which Site 10 helps fulfill.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Traffic (increase, safety,
parking, infrastructure)
Has a traffic study been completed for impacts
related to development on Site #10?
Individual project’s environmental impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis as they are submitted (as applicable).

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 is of continuing informational value. 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 City also determined that the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update (including the RHNA assignment of 256 units) 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 in the EIR Addendum, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified Final EIR were necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum (Attachment 20) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 was appropriate. The proposed updates to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map are solely intended to bring the General Plan and Zoning Map into conformance with the adopted Housing Element and are consistent with the changes analyzed in the EIR Addendum.

Property Values How will the city make up for losses in property values related to the development of Site #10?
Designating sites as suitable for housing falls within the City's authority to regulate land uses. Pursuant to state law, the City can change the land use designation or zoning for a property as long as it doesn't violate some other law or legal requirement (e.g., inverse condemnation).

Contrary to some public opinion, research has shown that affordable housing has no negative impact on the price or frequency of sales of neighboring homes (see Attachment 14 to the staff report).

Agenda Item #10.1.

Utilities (water, sewer,
etc.)
What is the plan to address impacts to water and
sewer given the high number of units proposed by
these changes?
Please refer to the response to traffic issues above, to Section 3.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the General Plan EIR available on the City’s website, and to EIR Addendum (Attachment 20) Section 6.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) for more information related to this question.

The City’s Water Neutral Policy for Development ensures that future water demand does not exceed the current demand, for which the City has sufficient entitlements and resources. New development must offset any new water demand with water conservation retrofits or in-lieu payments for the City to conduct retrofits of existing facilities or homes. The City plans to increase the wastewater treatment plant permited 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.

The City is not requiring that any units be built. As required by the state of California, we are demonstra�ng that we have the capacity to accommodate our Regional Housing Needs Alloca�on (RHNA).

Fire (safety, evacuation,
home insurance)
The development of Site #10 will require a second
point of egress separate from Spring Street to
accommodate emergency service vehicles as well
as for general distribution of residential and service
related vehicle trips.

Any proposed development on Site #10 will be evaluated to ensure compliance with state and local laws. The City has an adopted Safety Element that describes evacuation routes within the City. Fire safety/evacuation improvements are continually be discussed and analyzed.

Missed HCD Deadlines Why did the City fail to meet HCD’s Housing Element Deadlines?
HCD’s deadline for an adopted and certified Housing Element was May 31, 2023 (120 days after January 31, 2023). The City submitted its first draft of the Housing Element to HCD on September 20, 2022 leaving time for revisions, adoption and certification prior to HCD’s deadline. The City ended up receiving three rounds of comments from HCD (from a different reviewer each time).

Coupled with HCD’s lengthy review times, comments and required revisions changed throughout the process making it impossible to meet required deadlines. The City of St. Helena is not alone in this experience, it has happened to countless cities and counties all over the state including the fact that no jurisdiction in Napa County had a certified Housing Element prior to the May 31, 2023 deadline.

RESPONSE TO ORAL COMMENTS SUMMARY: APRIL 2, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION Default Density Is the minimum default density of 20 units/acre mandatory?
Yes. The state requires that a site be able to accommodate a density of 20 units/acre in order to qualify for low-income units to meet the City’s RHNA obliga�on. Only High Density Residen�al and Mixed-Use zoning designa�ons can accommodate this density, therefore, only these zoning designa�ons can be used for low-income units to meet the City’s RHNA obliga�on.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Number of Affordable
Units in the City
How many affordable units does the City currently
have out of the 256 required?
The City’s 256 unit RHNA obliga�on is for the 6th Cycle Housing Element which is for the years 2023-2031. Any units constructed outside this �me period do not qualify towards the current 256 unit alloca�on. No affordable units have been constructed since the 6th Cycle begun in 2023.

Site #10 Vacant and
Underu�lized
How is a farmed site considered vacant and
underu�lized?
For the purposes of the Housing Element, Site #10 is not considered vacant as it is currently a vineyard. However, the site is considered underu�lized as it has been designated for residen�al uses for decades but is s�ll used as a vineyard.

View Changes How would backyard views change if Site #10 is developed?
Site #10 has been designated for residen�al uses since the 1975 General Plan and has been zoned Medium Density Residen�al since the early 1990s; it is not a protected vineyard and has been available for development for decades. Atachment #13 to the staff report shows several different density visualiza�ons from other ci�es that provide example of how development on the site could look.

Challenge RHNA Number Why is the City not challenging the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Alloca�on?
The City raised concerns and objec�ons to its RHNA numbers on two separate occasions (see Atachments 9 and 10 to the staff report). The City expressed concerns about strains on infrastructure and the costs associated with those, the appropriateness of “high-rise” residen�al development, fire threats in our surrounding hillsides, and more. Despite these facts, the Associa�on of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) rejected the City’s request.

May 2023 Mee�ng
No�fica�on
Why were we not no�fied of the May 2023
Planning Commission and City Council mee�ngs?
For no�cing in which the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing no�ce is greater than 1,000 (i.e., General Plan Amendments such as the Housing Element), only a no�ce in the newspaper is required. No General Plan or zoning designa�ons were changed with adop�on of the Housing Element. For General Plan Amendments and rezonings that change the land use designa�on of specific proper�es, including applicant ini�ated amendments, no�fying all neighbors within 300 feet of that/those specific proper�es is required.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 9:14 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Public Comment, Planning Commission, Item 5.3 (March 5, 2024) -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 10:26 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Public Comment, Planning Commission, Item 5.3 (March 5, 2024) As was established by LAFCO, and confirmed by John Tuteur, and to my stunning surprise, the land in and around Bell Canyon is within City Limits (and not in the County). The updated zoning map should clearly so reflect, as indeed was promised to me by the City some years back. Alan Galbraith, St. Helena Mayor, 2014-18.

Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street Rezone
Hello
It’s my understanding that with the new laws in California we are not able to consider lack of parking and traffic and water issues in issuing permits to build. To even consider the properƟes on Spring street for high density is negligent by the city council. The school traffic alone should have been considered along with the “Cut-through” traffic avoiding Hwy

29. It appears we have no say nor choice in our city development.

It will be interesƟng to see what developers benefit from this rezone! Since Site 10 is for sale and was when put on the list!
Thanks,
Laura Keir
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: debra lunardini
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 10:03:17 PM
Re: Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

My name is Debra Lunardini.

Being a third generation Californian born in San Francisco, I grew up with Napa Valley as my backyard. I’ve spent much of my life visiting the valley as a child and as an adult. It was always a treat to get out of the city and spend time with family and friends in the wine country.

Ten years ago I was able to accomplish a lifelong dream and purchase a small 2 bedroom, 1 and 1/2 bath mid century track home in Saint Helena located at 2081 Spring Street. When I saw this house it was quite plain but had a beautiful view across the street of a vineyard, barn and water tower and was next door to a 150 year old ‘Old Vine’ Zinfandel vineyard. It was idyllic. The peace and quiet of living in this beautiful country setting was something I had always dreamed of. It was what originally brought me to St Helena.

I personally designed every detail of every inch of this home. Completely remodelling it using Saint Helena contractors and sourcing all materials locally. Over several years of hard work I created my dream house. I’m an upstanding citizen and an avid believer of shopping at small locally owned businesses and purchase everything I possibly can from our local shops.

When I purchased the house my real estate agent explained that ‘vrbo’was not allowed. I was pleased to hear this as I had no intention of having strangers renting my home and was relieved to know that this quiet, peaceful single family residential neighborhood would remain the same.

I completely understand that things can change. I also understand the need for affordable housing is important.

However changing this to a high density site while proposing an 88 unit monstrosity, on a little over 4 acres is completely out of character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. I know this is quite a difficult balancing act, however these high density proposals would be detrimental and change the character of our local community and ultimately make our city less desirable as a tourist destination.

Sincerely,
Debra Lunardini
Agenda Item #10.1.

Hello,
I am a partial owner along with my three siblings of site #10 of the housing element which is a vineyard located on Spring St. between Valley View and Hudson Street. We also own the residence located at 1933 Spring Street adjacent to the vineyard. Both are currently up for sale. We are adamantly opposed to the "upzoning" of the vineyard property to high density residential. As owners we have not received any public notifications addressed to us regarding this proposal. Even with this meeting on the calendar we still haven't received any notification to us as the owners. We only found out about this through word of mouth. Is this normal to upzone and aggressively devalue a property without even contacting the owner?? Seems anything but transparent.

We have owned this property for over ninety years. In the 1950’s a portion of the property was sold by our family with the intention of it being developed as the current day Valley View subdivision. In that 91 years we have seen the property rezoned from AG to low density then to Medium Density. We did not contest any of those changes as they seemed appropriate for future development. We have done our part in rezoning and selling property for development in this community. Now the move to High Density, which greatly reduces the value of the property from a development aspect is not acceptable to us. Are we to assume this is a thank you for our 91 years of excellent stewardship of the land?
I see there are additional sites available in the community i.e. Adams St. by the library and Bank of America property just to point out a couple. Of all the sites selected #10 has more single family homes attached to the property line than all of the other sites combined! As a matter of fact, there are vineyards within a 500-yard radius of site #10 that have little to no neighboring homes that were not included. No vineyards between White Sulfur Springs Rd. and Grayson Avenue were selected at all.

It appears this site was selected as a result of ease and convenience and not for being feasible or realistic. We inquired as to why it was selected but there was no concrete answer given. We agree with medium density zoning as it is applicable to style and the needs of the neighborhood and the community. This is why we never contested it. Now that we are just finding out about this request, we have been told by city staff that the Planning Commission will sign it and the City Council will follow suit. We hope this public comment isn't just for show as we would have voiced our concerns earlier and advocated for our property, but we never solicited for our input. Seems as if this was done behind the scenes and everybody's mind is made up without input from the people that own the property or those directly affected.

Additionally, the city placed the residence at 1933 Spring St. (adjacent to site #10) in the historic overlay. As I understand it all modifications to the house are discretionary as the historic overlay designation will "preserve the character" of the neighborhood. So how is a high-density development (potentially three-story apartments) directly next to the historic home preserving the character of neighborhood or the historic home? I also noticed this week a house exactly like ours located at the corner of Fir Hill and Madrona Ave. which I believe was built by the same builder during the same era and looked the same as ours was bulldozed. Why is it that some people in this community can level their historic home to the ground and others need discretion to do anything to it? Once again, I can't begin to understand the thought process or rationale with that decision only to go back to site #10 being selected as a means of ease and convenience. In short, Agenda Item #10.1.

the city committed property to the state via the housing element but failed to do their due diligence in receiving input from the people affected the most by the decision.

I looked back at previous meetings regarding the issue that we were never made aware of as well and I see that there were no comments received opposing the matter. Please ask yourself in all honesty, in a city like ours, if 30 plus homes/homeowners were aware that the city was wanting to make their vineyard view into multi-family housing for rent that someone would have commented if the public notification process was working. I know we would have been there.

I thank you and appreciate your time and consideration in the matter.

Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Quaglia, Janet Keene,
Cynthia Quaglia, Debra Mills
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Linda Reiff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 1:08 PM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission March 5 2024 Agenda Item 5.3 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am the owner of the property directly across the street from 1933 Spring and its vineyard, which apparently you are considering re-zoning to high-density housing.

I did not receive any notice from the city on this matter and I have not found any other neighbors of the property who were given notice either. Isn’t this required? The property you are considering is in agriculture which is considered a core community value. The city apparently recently rezoned it to medium density housing and now wants to make it high density housing which would severely impact the agrarian nature of the neighborhood. Why did you not engage with the neighbors on this matter before even considering such a thing? While I understand the city is under pressure from the state to approve more housing, this is not the location where it should be done. The traffic impacts alone would be substantial and given this is the route to two of our public schools, it would be dangerous for children.

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

Sincerely,
Linda Reiff
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Carolina S. Centola <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 2:05 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring
I hereby oppose to re‐zoning 1933 Spring St. to build 88 units.

It will be a total disrupt to town, traffic and safety for our kids.

Kind regards,
CSC
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Hilary Wayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 2:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Re-zoning in St. Helena
Hi there,
I’m wriƟng in to oppose the re‐zoning at 1933 Spring Street in St. Helena.  This is not an ideal locaƟon for many reasons.

The traffic and congesƟon alone in the towns thoroughfare would be incredibly disrupƟve to this community.  I am in favor of high density development in out town but this locaƟon is terrible.  This would really negaƟvely impact the neighborhood and should be stopped.

Thank you.

Hilary Wayne
St. Helena resident
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

Good evening Saint Helena City Council,
My name is Stefano Particelli. I am a 3rd generation resident of Saint Helena. My family has owned and operated a business here since 1960. I stand before you with regret and shock to learn of the planning commission’s proposal to rezone the residential areas of site 10 and 11 from medium density to high density.

I have had the pleasure of raising my three sons, Dante, Luca and Marco in my hometown. Our home is located on Hudson Avenue and for the past eight years, I have watched my children play in a backyard privileged with a vineyard view, ride their bikes around the block freely with little worry of traffic congestion and safety. This is what I did when I was a child. It is the only town I know.

When we purchased our home, we understood the possibility of development in a medium density zone, not high-density apartment buildings. There are nearly 90 family homes that would be directly and negatively impacted by this zoning change. Of the high-density sites identified in the housing element, this one has more homes around it than all of the other sites combined.

There are many reasons you should vote against this proposal.

I’m here to ask for your consideration in preserving the best parts of our community by finding an alternative high density housing solution.

Thank you.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ian Devereux White <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:13 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] OPPOSITION: GPA 2024-001 / ZMA 2024-001 Hello,
I am writing in STRONG opposition to the zoning request at tomorrow nights meeting where the vineyard space between Valley View and Hudson would be approved for development. That area already has traƯic and safety issues as it’s where all the kids and families travel to school and our infrastructure is maxed out as it is in what is a wonderful small community.

Please do not allow this to happen to our community.

Thank you,
Ian White
Father, coach, resident
1365 Sylvaner Ave
ST. Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Tina DeGeorgio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Opposed - Saint Helena Rezoning (Spring Street/Valley View) Importance: High
Dear Planning Commission,
We are so stressed out when we heard about the proposal for rezoning the subject property. This proposal will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be interrupted greatly,

3. Increased traffic - The traffic is already so busy especially during rush hour. The additional 88 plus households will add hundreds of additional vehicles traveling in our neighborhood plus more trucks and school buses. The area roads were not developed for such high density traffic.

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the small town special place, that we have preserved for years, to a mini San Francisco.

5. Privacy - our property’s back door is facing the vineyard with no obstructed view of the vineyard. With this proposed rezoning it will definitely put our property in the same low income housing category.

6. St. Helena will be forever transformed. Our City is rich in history and tradition. This needs to be protected not squandered. Vineyards are the backbone of St. Helena, removing this vineyard is destroying our city. Rezoning will destroy the lifeblood of our city. We cannot erode our precious farmland.

7. Vineyards need to be protected not removed. We are a land locked city, we cannot make more land, or vineyards, once removed it cannot be replaced. Save our vineyard! Thank you in advance for hearing our concerns. We are always available to discuss this important issue by phone at 713.859.5981, or in person.

Thank you,
Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Stefan Blicker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:51 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring St. High density plan
Hello, Stockton St. residents here- my comment about the proposed plan is that this would be a dangerous and expensive mistake. Too much traffic (all parents and children) already exists due to the school proximity- this high density plan would exacerbate this situaƟon tenfold. Spring St is not the place for so many units at once, and the city has other relaƟvely unused properƟes (Library ?) Vote no!
Stefan Blicker
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Joanne Blicker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:59 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring
I am wriƟng to oppose the proposed high density development the city is discussing. We are located at 1243 Stockton and already have so much school traffic on this small street. Not safe to add even more. I am sure there are beƩer locaƟons that you could consider. I am voƟng please don’t or no! Joanne Blicker
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Herta Peju <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:24 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] DEVELOPMENT VALLEY VIEW AND HUDSON - OPPOSE RE-ZONING Respecƞully to the City of St Helena, I’m wriƟng to you So that you consider carefully the consequences of allowing this large housing development At this parƟcular address, so close to the St Helena Elementary School and others.

Imagine the traffic created by such a density housing ……. I’m sure you are aware.

Our children and Grandchildren ( who live on Sylvaner) walk this are freely and will not be able to do any longer.

This will change the character of the small town feel of this unique community.

I urge to vote NO.

Thank you.

HB
Herta Behensky Peju
PEJU Province Winery and Vineyards
8466 st Helena Hwy - p o box 478
Rutherford ( Napa Valley) Ca. 94573
Peju.com
Calmereestate.com
M: 707 480 5195
O: 707 963 3600
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ana Canales <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 5:43 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning of 1933 Spring Street
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

We request that you do not approve the above listed address for high density zoning. Unlike the other high density complexes in town, this is not at end of a street but rather in the middle of a busy thoroughfare. This locaƟon will adversely affect traffic paƩens to both the high school and primary school.

Certainly medium density zoning for this lot would be more appropriate.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Ana Canales and Bruce Streblow
1219 Stockton Street, SH
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Lily Cronwall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 6:48 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street
While we need addiƟonal housing in this small unique town, a large high density development doesn’t belong in this single family neighborhood. Please reconsider how this change will impact the current community.

Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Kimberly Labry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 8:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Concerns of 1933 Spring Street
To the Planing CommissionI am a resident of Napa Valley and my daughter aƩends school in St Helena. We were made aware of the potenƟal build of a high density housing complex at 1933 Spring Street and it is of huge concern for my family and the community. It would negaƟvely impact the community with increased traffic and cars- and put risk to our children and the small community we all call home.

We oppose this happening and would hope the planning commission will take the comments of the residents into account when evaluaƟng this.

Kimberly Labry
916-759-6288
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Lisa Empting <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:10 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning
Hello,
I am writing to you because I oppose the rezoning at 1933 Spring Street between Hudson Ave and Valley View. We live across the street and never received anything from the city on this matter. This area is already a very high traffic area, as locals use it as a back road to and from school and work. Also, many children use it to bike/walk to school and activities. I have three small children and have concerns of all the current traffic. Turning this area into high density would deeply affect Saint Helena residents, negatively. Not to mention, loosing agriculture, the core of our community.

I kindly ask for your consideration to find an alternate place to rezone for high density. Perhaps an area that is not so heavily populated and an are that doesn’t already have existing heavy traffic.

Many thanks for considering the safety of our children in this small community.

Thank you.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 City of Saint Helena Planning Commission
Regular MeeƟng Tuesday, March 5, 2024 @ 6PM
Vintage Hall Board Room – Second Floor
465 Main Street, Saint Helena
David Prueter
1118 Valley View Street, Saint Helena
[email protected]
330-206-0094
March 4, 2024
Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission:

I write regarding Public Hearing Agenda Item 5.3 of the City of Saint Helena Planning Commission Regular MeeƟng scheduled for Tuesday March 5, 2024.

Agenda Item 5.3 includes a Staff recommendaƟon that the Planning Commission adopt a resoluƟon recommending that the St. Helena City Council: “Adopt an Ordinance approving an Amendment to the General Plan (GPA 2024-001) UpdaƟng General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001) to idenƟfy zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporaƟng these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Map.”

The Planning Commission’s adopƟon of the proposed resoluƟon would violate the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code and the California Government Code.

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

17.04.080 of the Zoning Code (hereinaŌer “Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement”). (See Zoning Code

17.06.040). Likewise, amendments to the Zoning Map and text require a properly noƟced public hearing in compliance with the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement. (See Zoning Code 17.07.060).

The Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement provides, in relevant part:

NoƟce shall be given by the following, except as provided below in subsecƟon C, Special Provisions:
a. Mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.
(Zoning Code 17.04.080). (See Addendum to this leƩer regarding subsecƟon C, Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement).

GPA 2024-001 is an amendment to the General Plan and therefore requires a mailed noƟce under

17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. ZMA 2024-001 is a Zoning Map Amendment and therefore requires a mailed noƟce under 17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. On informaƟon and belief, the city failed to provide proper noƟce according to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, Agenda Item #10.1.

2 the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code. For at least the same or similar reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate California state law. (See e.g., Ca. Gov. Code §§ 65853, 65854, 65091). Accordingly, I respecƞully request that the Planning Commission deny adopƟon of the proposed resoluƟon.

The City is aƩempƟng to use the 2023-2031 Housing Element to improperly rezone land and avoid compliance with the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code The ResoluƟon currently before the Planning Commission, states that the “California state law (Gov. Code § 65300.5) requires horizontal and verƟcal consistency for General Plans and zoning ordinances.” (ResoluƟon, Recital 10). ResoluƟon Item A.3 further provides that the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 2024-001) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001) do nothing more than “bring the maps into conformance with the City’s adopted and cerƟfied 2023-2031 Housing Element…” Finally, in reference to the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 2024-001) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001), the Planning Commission Report states that “[t]he changes noted above [i.e., rezoning of Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11] are limited to clean-up items intended to bring our General Plan and Zoning Map into conformance with our adopted and state cerƟfied Housing Element, consistent with state law.” (See Planning Commission Report, page 3, lines 12-14). Despite the deliberately passive language of these recitaƟons, the Ordinance being proposed by the Planning Commission is anything but a simple “horizontal and verƟcal” integraƟon “limited to clean-up items.” Rather, the Ordinance is a de facto rezoning for which, as set forth above, state and local law requires a properly noƟced public hearing in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

Put another way, it appears that the City developed an update to the Housing Element which it is now using as a Trojan Horse to impose drasƟc and undesirable rezoning on neighborhoods, evading the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement. While a memorandum (hereinaŌer the “Memo”) released by the Senior Planner to the Planning Commission on March 4, 2024 (the evening before the Planning Commission MeeƟng) provides a self-serving account of the Housing Element process, I ask the members of the Planning Commission the following quesƟons, at least with respect to Site 10 (the largest proposed rezoning, impacƟng the most members of the community):

1. Can you reasonably agree with the asserƟon in the Memo that the Housing Element process included “a robust community engagement program tailored to ensure community and other stakeholders were engaged in the process and are given ample opportuniƟes to provide input” when, as evidenced by the Public Comments submiƩed to the Planning Commission within the last few days, many homeowners living adjacent to Site 10 (including the Site 10 property owner) were unaware of the proposed rezoning?

2. Is a Focus Group of five (5) people, consisƟng of only city officials and a fair housing advocate, sufficient and representaƟve of the community and inclusive of the people impacted most by the proposed changes?
Agenda Item #10.1.

3 3. If the City truly “aƩempted to make the process extremely transparent and open for public parƟcipaƟon” (as the Memo states), how did only “30 people sign[] up to receive housing element update emails” over the course of three years?

4. Although the Memo refers to “workshop and study sessions” (the aƩendance at which is unclear), can you reasonably conclude that such sessions were effecƟve at accomplishing the stated public parƟcipaƟon objecƟves when, as evidenced by the Public Comments submiƩed to the Planning Commission within the last few days, many homeowners living adjacent to Site 10 (including the Site 10 property owner) were unaware of the proposed rezoning?

5. Although the Memo alleges that a leƩer was sent to the property owner in July 2022, the City admits that “this leƩer did not idenƟfy a specific zoning change.” Is one leƩer, sent only to the property owner, and which fails to inform the property owner of the proposed rezoning truly adequate, and does it not unreasonably omit those in the neighborhood impacted by the rezoning?
I respecƞully submit that the City’s efforts to include the community in the Housing Element process were, at best, seriously ineffecƟve and unsuccessful, and, at worst, intenƟonally decepƟve and insincere. The City’s acƟons to rezone land—presented now under the guise of a simple “clean up” to be consistent with the Housing Element—suggests that the City was aware that if it had engaged the community in good faith during the Housing Element process that it would have encountered resistance, making the Housing Element process more challenging. While I understand the need for the City to adopt a Housing Element in compliance with state mandates, the City has done so in a manner for which all evidence shows a failure to secure sufficient public parƟcipaƟon. Although the City may find saƟsfacƟon in its ability to appease the California Department of Housing and Community Development, it has done so by unfairly sacrificing the consideraƟons and prioriƟes of its own community members and neighborhoods.

IrrespecƟve of whether the City’s efforts for public engagement during the Housing Element process were sufficient, importantly, the Memo is silent with respect to any aƩempts to comply with the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code. As set forth above, the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 2024-001) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001) currently before the Planning Commission require a properly noƟced public hearing in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site. As set forth above, on informaƟon and belief and as further evidenced by the Memo’s silence on the topic, the city failed to provide proper noƟce according to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code as it is a de facto rezoning, not merely a simple clean-up. For at least the same or similar reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate California state law. (See e.g., Ca. Gov. Code §§ 65853, 65854, 65091). Accordingly, I respecƞully request that the Planning Commission deny adopƟon of the proposed resoluƟon.

Sincerely,
David Prueter
Agenda Item #10.1.

4 Addendum
GPA 2024-001 and ZMA 2024-001 are not subject to the Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code.

The Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement provide:

Special Provisions. The following special public hearing noƟce provisions shall apply to the adopƟon of a General Plan, General Plan element, substanƟve text amendment of the General Plan, substanƟve text amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, and any project, including a General Plan land use map amendment, for which the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing noƟce pursuant to this Title is greater than 1,000:

1. Placing a display adverƟsement of at least one-eighth page in a newspaper determined to be a newspaper of general circulaƟon in the City; or

2. Placing an insert with any generalized mailing sent by the county or City to property owners in the area affected by the proposed ordinance or amendment, such as billing for City services.

The public hearing noƟce required pursuant to this SecƟon shall be in lieu of that required by subsecƟon B, NoƟcing Procedures, except for the applicant and property owner. (Zoning Code 17.04.080, emphasis added)
On informaƟon and belief, neither GPA 2024-001 nor ZMA 2024-001 is subject to the Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code because the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing noƟce pursuant to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement is not greater than 1,000. Specifically, with reference to the sites idenƟfied in amended Figure 2.1 of the General Plan (GPA 2024-001; Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11) and the sites idenƟfied for rezoning in the Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2024-001; Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11), none individually or in combinaƟon, would require greater than 1,000 noƟces when counƟng the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site. Moreover, to the extent the Planning Commission asserts that the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing noƟce pursuant to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement is greater than 1,000 for GPA 2024-001 and/or ZMA 2024-001, at least ZMA 2024-001 is sƟll not subject to the Special Provisions because the Special Provisions apply to “the adopƟon of a General Plan, General Plan element, substanƟve text amendment of the General Plan, substanƟve text amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, and any project, including a General Plan land use map amendment,” of which ZMA 2024-001 (a Zoning Map Amendment) is not one.

Because GPA 2024-001 and ZMA 2024-001 are not subject to the Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code, GPA 2024-001 and ZMA 2024-001 require a mailed noƟce under 17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. As set forth above, on informaƟon and belief, the city failed to provide proper noƟce according to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Celine Birch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:43 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Oppose high density zoning-1933 Spring St To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Saint Helena and I oppose the rezoning of 1933 Spring St as high density.

Thank you,
Celine
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Nancy King <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:20 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Quaglia Property
How is it possible that we were never notified by the city that our backyard view of over 30 years would go from vineyard and the western hills to 3 or 4 story apartment buildings? My husband and I oppose this decision and totally disagree with the way it is being processed.

Nancy and Doug King
1143 Hudson Ave, St Helena, CA
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Melinda Kearney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:59 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission March 5, 2024 Agenda Item 5.3 Dear St. Helena City Council,
I am writing as a homeowner and a fence-sharing neighbor of 24 years to parcels 10 and 11 on Spring Street between Hudson Ave and Valley View.

It is my understanding as an owner of a property within 300 feet of a parcel up for a change that I would receive direct notice of any rezoning proposals. And as a member of this community, I would have the opportunity to express my point of view on this project before it's decided. To date, I have not received any direct information from the city regarding this proposed change. Why is this? I am opposed to the proposed change from medium density to high density housing on this parcel. There are over 30 homes and properties directly affected by this proposed change, with the potential to devalue our properties, change our quality of life and negatively affect pedestrian safety in an area already impacted by high traffic flow to schools and Hwy 29 bypass.

We have a unique and special town for many reasons, and while I endorse and understand the need for housing especially for our workers, I believe there are other properties that would have less negative impact and a more positive outcome with thoughtful consideration, planning and community input.

We all deserve and have the right to know of proposed changes that would have impact on our properties.

Why did we not receive notice?
Thank you.

Melinda Kearney
707-287-4113
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Elaine Honig <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 9:03 AM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission March 5 2024 Agenda Item 5.3

Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I live at 1248 Stockton Street and am writing to offer my support for rezoning 1933 Spring St to high density housing. We need housing in town, and the east side has complained that they have to carry the burden of new development. This location is perfect for more west side housing, and you have my full support.

This site will bring more affordable housing to town, enhance our town with more people who can support our businesses. Please don’t let the complaints of a few people outweigh the need of the many.

Sincerely,
Elaine Honig
Founder & CFO
STUDIO 4Forty
707-479-2055
[email protected]
www.studio4forty.com

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maxine Angell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:20 AM
To: Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: [External] Opposed to Rezoning 1933 Spring Street Dear Planning Commission;
I am a 32 year resident of Saint Helena and live one house away from the proposed zoning change to 1933 Spring Street from
moderate density to high density housing. I am opposed to rezoning this property and shocked that neighbors were not notified to provide feedback or input into the proposed rezoning. I heard about the rezoning, three days ago from my neighbor who I saw in the yard, yet this change
would have a permanent, deleterious effect on the charm, peace and quiet of the neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Woody Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:33 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Housing Element- Public Comment 3/5/24 To whom it may concern,
My name is Woody Davis. My wife and I are very fortunate to live in St. Helena, a block away from my childhood home that I grew up in. We have a 1-year-old that we are excited to raise in St. Helena and grow up in the same town as I did.

My wife stumbled across the recent proposal that suggests multiple sites have their zoning adjusted, mostly in favor of increasing the housing density from its current zoning, in the biweekly e-agenda for this meeting.

While I am all for more housing if need be, the planning commission should not make irrational decisions and hide things from the community. Proposed sites 10 and 11 stand out to me. They are in the middle of single-family neighborhoods and existing vineyards, making St. Helena the community it is. Every other site is neighboring multi-level commercial or residential sites (or at least in view of one).

Site 10 is the one that stands out the most. Yes, I have a lot of stake as it is my backyard. But I also grew up in this neighborhood and have fond memories of riding my bike and playing within this block.

Bringing high-density housing will severely impact this already busy cut-through on Valley View and surrounding streets.

Per CC&Rs we can’t build our house over a story and a half but the city is okay with 3 story-high, high-density housing units towering over the perimeter of our lot, which is quite contrary to our regulations.

Even property owners, like us, within 300 feet of the site have never been notified of the proposed change. The city has not been transparent with this change and even property owners like Mr Quaglia haven’t been inaccurately notified of the rezoning. The city posts via its new newsletter initiative and social channels about downtown updates, filling potholes, and getting electric city vehicles, but not this, which has a much larger impact.

Lastly, see below. This is an email correspondence between Maya and me. I asked about zoning changes but because I did not use the correct project names she refused to acknowledge changes were being proposed. To me and others I have asked, this seems irrational and I don't understand how she couldn't acknowledge changes were going on within a separate project for the same address.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Thank you for your time and I hope you make decisions as if this was your home too.

Woody Davis
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: David PEARSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 11:10 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Low Cost Housing Project
Dear City of St Helena,
I am a resident of St Helena since 2004. I live with my family at 1450 Hudson Avenue.

I have been informed of the plans to transform vineyard land on Spring and Valley View into low-cost housing.

Please know that I am opposed to this project moving forward.

While I am supportive and understanding of the need for low-cost housing in St Helena and Napa Valley, I am quite surprised and very concerned by this decision in particular. It seems to me that there are other areas in St Helena that are much more spacious and more appropriate for this kind of project. But most concerning is the fact that there has apparently been no notice given to residents immediately impacted. If this is accurate, that residents have not been advised and given the chance to publicly comment, then it is crucial that the proper procedure be respected.

Pending this clarification, I am strongly opposed to moving forward with this project.

Sincerely,
David Pearson
David Pearson
President
Joseph Phelps Vineyards
St. Helena, CA 94574
Mobile- (707) 531-3872
Email - [email protected]
Web - www.josephphelps.com
######################################################################################### ##
"Le contenu de ce message peut etre protege et / ou confidentiel. Si vous avez recu ou avez des raisons de croire que vous avez recu ce message par erreur, s'il vous plait, supprimez le sans le lire et avisez immediatement l'expediteur.

The contents of this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you have received or have reason to believe you have been sent this email in error, please delete it without reading it and notify the sender immediately."
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 ######################################################################################### ##
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mcknz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezone 1933 Spring St property
To
Planning Commission/City Council
In response to the necessary public notice to those that live 300 feet within a property considered for development/ change:

The previous notices, stating property being was considered for meeting the states housing mandates for 2031, never informed us that this particular property would be rezoned!! We as residents should have had a direct communication stating the zoning was changing to “High Density”.

We would have provided further comment and strongly disagreed to this move.

Therefore, this matter needs to be fully reviewed and the opportunity for all to express our concerns now knowing the full facts.

This matter needs to be delayed to allow the City’s requirements to their citizens be met! We are strongly opposed to the rezone due to all of the items most of the folks have noted. This area is already heavily impacted by traffic and congestion within the main path of two schools and used to transport folks off highway 29 through town.

I understand areas off Dean York , were taken out of consideration because the views would be blocked? Hardly a valid reason when Spring St views will be blocked the lighting alone for this many units will blind us all (we never did get shields on the intrusive LED lights PGE put in!) and the traffic pattern that already exists in the area. It’s a freeway of speeding cars throughout the day.

Based on the new state laws, it’s my understanding, once this is rezoned the commission and councils will have very little, if any, say in the control of the development.

There are better more suited areas!
Thank you
Brian Schleicher
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Sally and Sam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: [External] Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 To Whom it may concern,
Re: Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential
We are opposed to the "upzoning" of the 1933 Spring Street property to high density residential, and would like the commission to consider the environmental impact of putting 88 units on a 4 acre parcel would do at this location, in addition to the additional traffic load, and changing the overall character of the neighborhood in this area.

As residents who own property on Valley View, we have not received any notification addressed to us as residents living in close proximity to this proposal, and or knowledge of reasonable attempt at outreach to the surrounding residents to garner comment and feedback on the proposal.

We would respectfully request that the proposal is rejected.

Sincerely
Sam and Sally Burton
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jessica Hague <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:01 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment: Planning Commission Meeting March 5th: Agenda Item 5.3 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am a 14-year resident of 1154 Hudson Avenue and strongly oppose rezoning Site 10:Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street and Site 11:1637 Spring Street from Medium Density to High Density. Further, I remain consistent in my opposition to rezoning when these 2 sites were identified and rezoned from Low density to Medium density 8 years ago.

The city’s opportunity sites selection process has disproportionately affected existing residential areas along Spring Street while ignoring larger vacant parcels along other east-west artery streets like Madrona Avenue and Sulphur Springs. I believe that the city can find way to maintaining the character, and safety of our existing residential neighborhoods, while seeking to create new residential development opportunities. The infrastructure along Spring Street, Valley View and Hudson Avenue is inadequate to support a high density residential zone. Spring at Hudson, Valley View at Hudson is currently unsafe for pedestrian crossing, and lack safe and ADA-compliant sidewalks.

The city has an opportunity to explore the potential for other westside sites north of Spring Street and south of Grayson Avenue, such as vineyard parcels along Crane Avenue, Fir Hill at Madrona, Madrona at Hudson Avenue, Sulphur Springs. The city was called upon to do so 8 years ago, and I find it extremely disappointing that instead of heeding the call from concerned citizens at the time, they have simply doubled down on previous decisions to meet the state requirement.

From MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 2024 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner RE: Housing Element Public Participation Process Summary Opportunity Sites SelecƟon
Vacant and underuƟlized sites throughout the city were considered as potenƟal for housing development. Site selecƟon for the residenƟal site inventory started with City owned sites where residenƟal development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residenƟal use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residenƟal development or residenƟal development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, uƟlity or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realisƟc capacity assumpƟons. Sites idenƟfied for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, ameniƟes, health care faciliƟes, and grocery stores.

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

1 Xinia Gamero
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street
Not in favor of rezoning.
-Resident of Saint Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: bonnie storm <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 5:44 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 spring Street
I am a resident on Tainter Street. I feel this high density proposal belongs somewhere else.

Bonnie Storm
Sent awkwardly from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Gemma Hanna <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:46 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Planning Commission, Rezoning, April 2 I am a resident of Saint Helena and am strongly opposed to the rezoning of 1933 Spring Street to high density. As a high school student in St. Helena, it would negaƟvely impact traffic geƫng to school and increase the chance of accidents.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:12 AM
To: Xinia Gamero; Aaron Hecock
Subject: FW: [External] Opposed to Rezoning

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Thank you, your comment has been received and will be included in the agenda packet for 4/2 when this item is on the next Planning Commission agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:22 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Subject: Opposed to Rezoning
Below is a copy of our note sent to the Planning Commission:

Dear Planning Commission,
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 We are so stressed out when we heard about the proposal for rezoning the subject property. This proposal will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be interrupted greatly,

3. Increased traffic - The traffic is already so busy especially during rush hour. The additional 88 plus households will add hundreds of additional vehicles traveling in our neighborhood plus more trucks and school buses. The area roads were not developed for such high density traffic.

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the small town special place, that we have preserved for years, to a mini San Francisco.

5. Privacy - our property’s back door is facing the vineyard with no obstructed view of the vineyard. With this proposed rezoning it will definitely put our property in the same low income housing category.

6. St. Helena will be forever transformed. Our City is rich in history and tradition. This needs to be protected not squandered. Vineyards are the backbone of St. Helena, removing this vineyard is destroying our city. Rezoning will destroy the lifeblood of our city. We cannot erode our precious farmland.

7. Vineyards need to be protected not removed. We are a land locked city, we cannot make more land, or vineyards, once removed it cannot be replaced. Save our vineyard! Thank you in advance for hearing our concerns. We are always available to discuss this important issue by phone at 713.859.5981, or in person.

Thank you,
Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Tom DeGeorgio
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Rita Cervone <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 10:43 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] DEVELOPMENT VALLEY VIEW AND HUDSON- OPPOSE RE-ZONING Importance: High
Respecƞully submiƩed to the City of St. Helena,
As the Great Aunt of my 3 Great Nephews who live on Hudson St. I am Adamantly Opposing this high density rezoning. It will bring even more traffic dropping the children to and from school, and impact many children that bike or walk to school. This will change the footprint of our small town that is unique to our community.

I am urging you to Vote NO.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rita Cervone
St. Helena Resident
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Allison Hackett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 11:27 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] In Opposition of Rezoning on 1933 Spring Street Hi there,
I am in opposition of the potential rezoning on 1933 Spring Street for high-density housing.

Thanks,
Allison
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 11:40 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Spring St.

Public Comment
-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Crowley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:57 AM
To: cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Spring St.

Please reconsider high density housing in this area.

Joan Crowley
707-477-8039
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Katherine Salinas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment - Quaglia Vineyard 1933 Spring Street.

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed high-density rezoning in our community - Quaglia Vineyard 1933 Spring Street. While I understand the need for development, I believe that this particular proposal will have significant negative impacts on our neighborhood, especially concerning the safety of our children, the commute to school for many families, and the unique charm of Saint Helena.

The potential consequences of increased traffic due to the rezoning not only impact the safety of our children on their way to and from school but also have the potential to diminish the visual appeal of our beautiful town. The character of our community is deeply intertwined with its landscapes and green spaces, we must consider the long-term impact on these elements before making decisions that alter the fabric of our town.

Another concern is the potential increase in traffic that would result from this rezoning. Spring Street already has congestion and traffic during drop-off and pick-up times. Many students in our community rely on biking as their mode of transportation to school. The increased traffic associated with high-density development could create unsafe conditions for these young cyclists, posing additional risks to their well-being.

I strongly urge you to consider the potential consequences this rezoning may have on the safety and quality of life for the families in our community. I believe that a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to development, with due consideration for traffic management, would better serve the long-term interests of our neighborhood.

Thank you for your time, I trust that you will carefully weigh the concerns raised by the community before making any decisions on the proposed rezoning.

Sincerely,
Katherine Salinas
CEO

Meuse Gallery
1331 Main Street,
St. Helena, CA 94574
d-707-968-5942
c-831-224-3717
[email protected]
www.meusegallery.com
Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Stephanie Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:04 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning proposal for 1933 Spring
To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to make clear my opposition to the rezoning of 1933 Spring to high-density housing. I grew up on Olive Ave and attended school in town, primarily walking or biking to and from school and home for the majority of my childhood, and playing in the streets with friends in the neighborhood. Spring and Valley View are already heavily impacted by traffic for both schools on Greyson and west-side residents avoiding main street traffic. Adding 100 units on that property would increase traffic and decrease visibility on Spring and the Valley View intersection as parking would certainly overflow onto Spring. The increased risk to the children and teens who rely on the green belt on Valley View to get to school would be a travesty, and a contradiction to the recent investments in street safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The appeal of raising a family in a small safe town is the freedom and independence it affords the kids, an aspect of my childhood I am incredibly grateful for and want for my nephew growing up in the same neighborhood. I am a young single professional and am acutely aware of the issues related to housing in the Valley, but do not believe this type of development is the solution. There are other areas in town that could more appropriately sustain this type of development, but I believe the primary focus of the city should be addressing the number of vacant homes and storefronts in town. Putting 100 units in the middle of a working-class neighborhood when there are hundreds of vacant mansions will only serve to increase the revenue and inequity issues in the community while detracting from the appeal to both residents and tourists.

Thank you for your consideration,
Stephanie Davis
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Megan Particelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: [External] Rezoning the Quaglia vineyard
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:13 AM Megan Particelli <[email protected]> wrote:

To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Megan Particelli, long time resident of St. Helena. I am emailing to share my opposing position in regards to rezoning the Quaglia vineyard on 1933 Spring Street into a high-density housing complex, turning the now vineyard into approximately 100 housing units on 4.4 acres. The city did not notify any residents including the owners of the property. Additionally, the many children and families in the surrounding area would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, with unsafe biking conditions for students who bike to school.

Thank you,
Megan Particelli
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Brittany Payton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 3:25 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street Rezone
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed rezone at 1933 Spring Street. I am a homeowner at 1106 Valley View which backs up directly to the proposed site that you want to put at least 88 units on a mere 4 acre property. I am greatly opposed to this rezone change for many reasons. First off, this parcel is right in the middle of many homes and on a busy street that is already a main road to get to two schools. This location makes absolutely no sense in putting in that many units. There is no parking on Spring Street already and having this many cars would seriously exacerbate the situation. Not to mention the noise, the lights, the water issues - all in the middle of a residential area.

After reviewing the other sites around town that would make a lot more sense to put this many units on, I am even more firm in my belief that putting in 3 story apartment buildings in this area is ludicrous. Turning this parcel into a high density will greatly impact all of us that have already been living here for years - for us homeowners that moved to this area because of the quiet and the peaceful surroundings. This place is not the right area for apartments - please consider looking elsewhere in town that would not put that many units right on top of the neighbors that have been here for a long time.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider 1933 Spring Street (site 10) and leave it alone as is. This is not the right space for high density zoning - and I know I'm not alone in my thoughts.

Best,
Brittany Anderson
1106 Valley View Street
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mike Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezone
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning of 1933 Spring Street. I am a 3rd generation resident of St Helena and reside with my wife at 1106 Valley View Street so our backyard overlooks this proposed site. I think many can agree that having more housing available for residents to both live and work locally is needed. I can also understand the challenge of making this happen due to the pressure of state-mandated legislation under CEQA. That said there are obvious flaws with this proposed site, as well as others.

The rezoning of the 1933 Spring Street site to high density makes no sense. First, residents surrounding the area would lose privacy and property value, especially considering that the high-density builds would necessitate 2 or 3 story buildings which clearly have no place being in this part of town surrounded almost exclusively by one-story homes. It is completely out of character for this part of town.

Second, though I am sure many have brought up this issue, would be both the amount of traffic and parking issues that would be created by another 1-2 cars per unit. Considering that this could be approved for 88, or more units, this already busy neighborhood would be inundated with traffic. There are already traffic and safety issues up and down Spring Street and Valley View because of the amount of vehicles and those that travel well over the posted speed limits.

Third (and to be somewhat solution oriented), of the sites in consideration there are at least three that would easily be a better fit given their proximity to Highway 29, businesses downtown, bus stops, Safeway, gas stations etc. They would also have less impact on surrounding homeowners that would be directly adjacent to the site. Sites 1, 5 in particular and even site 8 with access to the Trail and 29. Even finally finding something to do with the always-contested Adams Street project could be a better option. Each of these areas would be much more appropriate for high-density housing.

Finally the sheer disregard of the planning commission not notifying residents with the affected area astounds me. The owner of 1933 Spring Street wasn't even notified. I only happen to hear about it by word-of-mouth from a passing neighbor, as was the case for nearly all of us.

Sincerely,
Mike Anderson
--
Mike Anderson
707.337.9168
[email protected]
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Maya DeRosa
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Aaron Hecock
Subject: FW: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 9:14:30 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Xinia, please post this comment to the PC agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2024 9:13 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Subject: Opposed - Saint Helena Rezoning (Site 10 1933
Spring Street/Valley View)
Dear Planning Commission,
This letter is a supplement to my previous note dated March 5, 2024 (see attached).

While we are not opposed to low income housing, my wife and I believe that the current proposal is detrimental not only to many residents of St. Helena, but to the City itself. We believe this is a very slippery slope that will forever change our city in a negative way, the proposal will have a detrimental impact on parking, water, sewerage and other services. High density, low income housing will require infrastructure that currently does not exist in our City. Low income residential housing will require nearby service providers such as Walgreens, CVS, fast food chains and other lower cost service providers that also do not exist in our City. St. Helena has prided itself for being a small town with no large corporate chains no tall buildings, and no big city issues.

Agenda Item #10.1.

As a homeowner, we are of course concerned about our home values.

We are also concerned about losing our cities lifeline – grape vineyards. Vineyards and grape growing, have been the
cornerstone of St. Helena for well over 100 years. The vineyards and wine makers have long been our cities golden jewel. They not only bring revenue to the city; they bring worldwide notoriety by producing world-class wines. Once a vineyard is removed, it is lost forever. We are a land locked City, we cannot create more land. Removing vineyards is a monumental mistake. St. Helena will become the next San Francisco. Houses on top of houses.

It starts with one miss placed project.

Finally, I am concerned that our due process rights have been violated by not providing proper rezoning notices to neighbors within 300 yards of the project.

Thank you in advance for listening to our concerns, we are happy to meet with you at anytime.

Tom & Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View St.

St. Helena
713.859.5981
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Tina DeGeorgio <[email protected]>
Date: March 5, 2024 at 10:46:59 AM GMT+11
To:[email protected]
Subject: Opposed - Saint Helena Rezoning (Spring
Street/Valley View)
Dear Planning Commission,
Agenda Item #10.1.

We are so stressed out when we heard about the
proposal for rezoning the subject property. This
proposal will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are
as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood
properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be
interrupted greatly,

3. Increased traffic - The traffic is already so busy
especially during rush hour. The additional 88 plus
households will add hundreds of additional vehicles
traveling in our neighborhood plus more trucks and
school buses. The area roads were not developed for
such high density traffic.

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the
small town special place, that we have preserved for
years, to a mini San Francisco.

5. Privacy - our property’s back door is facing the
vineyard with no obstructed view of the vineyard.

With this proposed rezoning it will definitely put our
property in the same low income housing category.

6. St. Helena will be forever transformed. Our City is
rich in history and tradition. This needs to be
protected not squandered. Vineyards are the
backbone of St. Helena, removing this vineyard
is destroying our city. Rezoning will destroy the
lifeblood of our city. We cannot erode our precious
farmland.

7. Vineyards need to be protected not removed. We
are a land locked city, we cannot make more land, or
vineyards, once removed it cannot be replaced.

Save our vineyard!
Thank you in advance for hearing our concerns.

We are always available to discuss this
important issue by phone at 713.859.5981, or in
person.

Thank you,
Agenda Item #10.1.

Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Tom DeGeorgio
On Mar 6, 2024, at 5:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Subject: Opposed to Rezoning
Below is a copy of our note sent to the Planning
Commission:

Dear Planning Commission,
We are so stressed out when we heard about the proposal for rezoning the subject property. This proposal
will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be interrupted greatly,

3. Increased traffic - The traffic is already so busy especially during rush hour. The additional 88 plus households will add hundreds of additional vehicles traveling in our neighborhood plus more trucks and school buses. The area roads were not developed for such high density traffic.

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the small town special place, that we have preserved for years, to a mini San Francisco.

5. Privacy - our property’s back door is facing the vineyard with no obstructed view of the vineyard. With this proposed rezoning it will definitely put our property in the same low income housing category.

Agenda Item #10.1.

6. St. Helena will be forever transformed. Our City is rich in history and tradition. This needs to be protected not
squandered. Vineyards are the backbone of St. Helena,
removing this vineyard is destroying our city. Rezoning will destroy the lifeblood of our city. We cannot erode our precious farmland.

7. Vineyards need to be protected not removed. We are a land locked city, we cannot make more land, or vineyards, once removed it cannot be replaced. Save our vineyard!
Thank you in advance for hearing our concerns. We are
always available to discuss this important issue by phone at 713.859.5981, or in person.

Thank you,
Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Tom DeGeorgio
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Pierre Birebent
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning of vineyard block at 1933 spring st Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:15:56 AM
The city keeps developing housing on every green lot in St Helena.

This town has enormous water and traffic problems.

Those, needs to be addressed and solved, before thinking of changing zoning , and building more housing.

Those tiny vineyards in town ( in the middle of the wine country ), should be preserved and cherished, and could be use for school projects, and ,or, public or private labels promoting the city of St Helena.

I strongly oppose the rezoning and development of what is called lot 10.

Thank you
Pierre Birebent
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: John Livingston
To: Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: [External] 1988 Spring Street rezoning
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 10:23:27 AM
To the Planning Commissioners'
I'm writing to express my objections to your recent communication and notification of rezoning of the 1933 Spring Street property. It is startling to learn of the commissions missed deadlines to the state and lack of the legal and timely notification to about 100 impacted families of rezoning this property to high density. This malfeasance now jeopardizes state funding, risks decertification and an unregulated Buildings Remedy. Moreover the introduction of potentially 200 or more families in multi storied housing in the midst of a residential community of single family homes destroys the character of this community, devalues the homes and overwhelms the existing infrastructure for traffic, utilities and safety.

Scaling back to the previous zoning of medium density could still be done without compromising the future housing responsibilities of the city and produce a more compatible develolpment of site 10.

Respectfully,
John and Diane Livingston
1148 Hudson Ave.

St. Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Public comment for the April 2 Planning Committee Meeting Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 1:18:02 PM
Xinia, please note that Pat Kenealy is providing a public comment (below) as a St. Helena citizen and not as a City Council Member.

Cindy
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue *NEW ADDRESS
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Pat Kenealy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 4:55 PM
To: cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Public comment for the April 2 Planning Committee Meeting Dear Planning Commission:

We are writing you to OPPOSE the rezoning of Site 9 (Spring Street between Hudson Ave and Valley View Street) from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

We drive on Spring Street daily, bike on it weekly and have a 6-year old son who uses it to go Agenda Item #10.1.

to and from school, playground, park, etc.

Allowing high-density housing in such an already-busy traffic area is a terrible idea. It is immediately adjacent to two key street crossings used by school children and others, and abuts the already overcrowded sections of Spring Street and Valley View that locals -- and increasingly visitors -- use to "go around" downtown traffic.

Spring Street and Valley View already have speeding problems and congestion and parking problems, and any high-density development would make these worse.

There are plenty of "edges" of Saint Helena, and higher density neighborhoods that would be better sites for greater density.

We support the most of the rest of the zoning changes you're considering at this meeting but OPPOSE this reckless, dangerous increasing of Spring Street density.

For safety's sake, don't increase density where Saint Helena already feels too much like any other Bay Area suburb. Please don't encourage some developer to change the existing combined residential / agricultural use of Site 9 to high density housing that could fit in better elsewhere in town.

Sincerely
Tracy Kenealy
Pat Kenealy
2995 Spring Street
Saint Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Patti Antonaccio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:09 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment on rezoning Spring St
Dear City of St Helena,
I live close to Spring St and close to the proposed rezoning from medium density to high density. I walk Spring Street almost every day and drive it as well. In the mornings, when the school children are going to and from school, there are so many cars, I now wait quite a while to be able to enter the Spring street from Hudson Ave. I can only imagine how bad it would be if the zoning is changed to high density! We have all 4 private schools on the west side with many parents/etc. taking their children to and from the schools on the west side. There are not many artery streets to take all this extra traffic. And the danger to cars and walkers along the Spring Street artery.

I am opposed to the rezoning to high density from medium density. Medium density fits with the character of the neighborhood. High density apartment buildings would be out of character along with too many cars in a very compact area with few artery streets. Even with new medium density housing in the area, this will add a lot more cars at the 2 commute times during the day but not as many as high density.

Thank you for your time.

Patti
Patti Antonaccio
1100 Hudson Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Courtney Shifflett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 3:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Rezoning
Hello,
I am a full time resident of St Helena and I am writing to express my strong belief that the zoning at 1933 Spring street should not change. That area is already so congested trying to get to our children’s schools.

More units in that area will only bring more issues with traffic and seems like a very unsuitable location for high density. I very much object to the rezoning of this property. Thank you.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jenny Wagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 4:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment - Spring Street
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing today in opposition of the proposed re-zoning of 1933 Spring Street. I was born and raised in St. Helena and feel fortunate to be raising my children in the same town.

The local community has been left out of the Housing Element process. The re-zoning of 1933 Spring Street has been a total shock to residents of St. Helena, including myself.

How could one think that Spring Street is an appropriate space to build a three-story 100+ unit housing complex? There are many issues that need to be addressed, including - safety, traƯic, parking, water… the list goes on.

I drive my three children to the Primary School every morning, passing 1933 Spring Street. The intersection of Spring St. and Valley View is heavily traƯicked before and after school. Many children walk or ride bikes, and cross the street right there. This is no safe place to add 100+ high density housing units.

Aesthetically, this proposed housing complex would be a burden to the established residential neighborhood that exists. It would be very sad to see this historical vineyard in the middle of St. Helena be ripped out to be replaced by high density housing. This town has been built on agriculture and it would be a shame to re-zone Spring Street for high density housing.

Thank you,
Jenny Clark
Jenny Wagner
Emmolo Winemaker
Main Office: 707.963.4204
[email protected]
wagnerfamilyofwine.com

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jack Oliver <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 6:30 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Attachments: 2023 - 2031 Housing Element - certified Sept. 25, 2023 269.pdf Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to express our hope that you do not rezone 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. Open space and historic vineyards are what gives St. Helena and this neighborhood its charm. The listing for the property even calls it the “Soul of Spring Street” for 90 years. Vineyards are what drive our local economy. They generate jobs in the vineyard, income to suppliers and produce the wine that makes our town and region famous. Putting high density housing in this neighborhood does not seem to fit with its characteristics nor consistent with the General Plan. The traffic and street parking will create many blind spots for cars turning onto Spring street and make it very dangerous for young students to bike and walk to school. The traffic coming out of a high-density location will already impact the back-ups at Spring and Main during rush hours.

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

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

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-209
Figure 49 Residential Site Inventory Map
Figure 49 Residential Site Inventory Map
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jeffrey Earl Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 7:12 PM
To: Jack Oliver
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Re: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Excellent letter. Im copying it and sending it in as well—saying i concur.

John Livingston told me there was a meeting coming up. Can you tell me when it is? We don’t seem to be gettings any correspondence on this.

J
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Jack Oliver <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

Sincerely,
Jack and Kate Oliver
1248 Hudson
<2023 - 2031 Housing Element - certified Sept. 25, 2023 269.pdf> Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jeffrey Earl Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 7:49 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Jack Oliver; Diane Livingston; Aaron Baraak; Mike Shifflet; Mike Norman; Dave & Susan Wight; Cory Empting; Alexander Avetoom
Subject: [External] Spring Street zoning change
Besides the environmental damage this project will do to the creek, streets and traffic, I strongly support the words of my fellow citizen and neighbor, Jack Oliver We are writing to express our hope that you do not rezone 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. Open space and historic vineyards are what gives St. Helena and this neighborhood its charm. The listing for the property even calls it the “Soul of Spring Street” for 90 years. Vineyards are what drive our local economy. They generate jobs in the vineyard, income to suppliers and produce the wine that makes our town and region famous. Putting high density housing in this neighborhood does not seem to fit with its characteristics nor consistent with the General Plan. The traffic and street parking will create many blind spots for cars turning onto Spring street and make it very dangerous for young students to bike and walk to school. The traffic coming out of a high-density location will already impact the back-ups at Spring and Main during rush hours.

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

Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Carmen Policy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:01 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Gail Policy
Subject: [External] Housing Element Site 10 - Spring St. between Hudson Ave. and Valley View Street (009-4411-023)
Please accept this email message as our formal comment concerning the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting on April 2, 2024, dealing with the change of zoning for the caption property on Spring Street. We own a house on Hudson Avenue which is occupied by family members. This residence is in the center of a community neighborhood which possesses the qualities that St. Helena strives to create and hopefully maintain. Families abound and the area bustles with children who walk the streets and ride bicycles to schools. The density that exits is already heavy for Wine Country standards but seems to work well. Spring Street has become a somewhat busy thoroughfare which is a connection to various parts of downtown plus serves as an option to avoid Main Street. It also feeds traffic heading to and from the High School, Crane Park, Farmer’s Market and a great number of social and athletic events. The traffic can be heavy and distracting at times and will definitely increase unreasonably as the Site 10 property becomes more developed.

This particular site is already zoned for medium density and the neighborhood seemed willing to accept that fact rather than try to reverse it for reasons that were explained by the City. We actually did not know that this plan was going to be considered and thought it had been abandoned. However, we are now faced with the proposition that the still existing plan is to enhance the density of the area to a high level which will have an exponentially negative impact on everything that occurs with this level of expansion. We will be facing width, breadth, height and density issues that will negatively impact the entire area which is already impacted by its proximity to surrounding facilities and traffic patterns. This plan in effect takes a well-functioning and admirable neighborhood into a state of urban crush. St. Helena is not the city of Napa nor do we want to be. We understand the so called State Mandate is a factor but our City leaders should be certain to protect our community from the potential harm of bureaucratic and impersonal over reach. Please remember that the area you are affecting is the main residence for those who occupy these houses. The plan to create high density zoning for the site in question has the effect of putting a “high rise” effect in the center of a neighborhood…..it just doesn’t fit or work.

Thank you for accepting and considering this comment.

Gail Policy
Carmen Policy
1112 Hudson Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #10.1.