Agenda, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, May 28, 2024 (part 4 of 5)

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

19. Ownership of Documents and Confidential Information. a. All deliverables and other documents generated by Consultant in the performance of the Services, including all work papers, work-in-progress, designs, drawings, documents, data, computations, specifications, studies and reports prepared by Consultant as a part of the Services or authorized Additional Services (“Consultant Work Product”) shall belong to and be subject to the sole ownership and use of City.
b. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, drawings and specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.
c. During the course of the performance of this Agreement, Consultant may receive written or verbal information from City, its representatives or agents, not in the public domain.

Such information may include City’s know how, trade secrets, and other proprietary and confidential information and Consultant agrees to treat such information as confidential information belonging to City. Consultant agrees that neither it, nor its officers, employees, representatives, agents, successors, or assigns, will disclose such information to any third party or use the same in any manner without the prior written consent of City. Moreover, Consultant agrees to safeguard such proprietary and confidential information from unauthorized disclosure and/or use using the same degree of care it uses to protect its own proprietary and confidential information, but not less than a reasonable standard of care. In the event that disclosure of such information is sought pursuant to any law or regulation, Consultant shall promptly notify City of such fact to allow City to assert whatever exclusions or exemptions may be available to it under applicable law or regulation.

20. Organization
Consultant shall assign Charles Hester and/or Bryan Godbe as Project Manager(s). The Project Manager(s) shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

21. Limitation of Agreement.

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

22. Notice
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 405 of 697 ends

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

CITY:

City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574
Attn: Andrew Bradley, Office of the City
Manager
CONSULTANT:

Bryan Godbe, President
Charles Hester, Vice President
1220 Howard Ave, Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

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

24. Equal Opportunity Employment.

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 406 of 697 ends

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

30. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

31. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 407 of 697 ends

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

AND GODBE RESEARCH
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF ST. HELENA Godbe Research
By: By:

Anil Comelo Its:

City Manager
Printed Name:

ATTEST:

By:

Ethan Walsh
City Attorney
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 408 of 697 ends

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT THE 2024 RESIDENT

SATISFACTION SURVEY
Presented to the City of St. Helena
March 13, 2024
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 409 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 14

BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
Godbe Research Background
Legal Name & Address of Company
Godbe Corporation -- dba: Godbe Research
Corporate and Project Office:
1220 Howard Avenue
Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010
p. 650-288-3020
f. 650-288-3003
w. www.godberesearch.com
Year Founded
Godbe Research was founded in January of 1990 and has been in business continually for more than 34 years. We have exclusively provided public opinion research, voter polling, and market research services since the founding of the firm, with a geographic specialization in northern California where the firm is based.

Legal Form of Company and Subsidiary Status
Godbe Research is a California Corporation and is in good standing with the California Secretary of State. Godbe Research is not a subsidiary of a larger ‘parent company’ and the firm’s two principals are the only two shareholders. In addition, we do not hold any financial position in any subsidiary firm. Thus, we’ve been under the same ownership since our founding in 1990.

Corporate and Project Office
Godbe Research maintains two offices, including our corporate office in Burlingame, CA, as well as a project office in Reno, NV. All work for the City of St. Helena (St. Helena or City) will be performed from our Burlingame, California based office from which Bryan Godbe, our proposed project manager, is located.

Proposal/Contract Contact Project Contact/Manager
Charles Hester Bryan Godbe
Vice President President
1220 Howard Avenue 1220 Howard Avenue
Suite 250 Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
p. 650-288-3021 (direct) p. 650-288-3027 (direct)
e. [email protected] e. [email protected] Litigation, Arbitration & Bankruptcy Statement
Godbe Research has never filed for bankruptcy during the life of the firm and has never been a defendant in any litigation, past or current. In addition, we have never in the life of the firm had a contract terminated for cause, nor have we been subject to any arbitration regarding any project, contract, or client.

Page 410 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 15
(focus groups, one-on-one interviews, triads) research methodologies, as well as hybrid studies (more than one methodology) and research consulting.

Godbe Research does not provide political consulting, public education and outreach, financial advisory, planning or architectural services, legal/counsel, or underwriting services that could be a conflict of interest with our community/resident survey or other public opinion research processes by having future project dollars tied to the results and recommendations from our studies.

Additional Information
Godbe Research is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, ethnicity, political partisanship, gender identity, sexual orientation/identity, or sexual/gender preference.

Godbe Research Experience
Godbe Research, a State of California certified small business enterprise (SBE), was founded in January of 1990. The firm is a full-service public opinion research agency that offers its clients extensive experience in research studies to address resident satisfaction and community priorities, community needs assessments, public education and outreach strategies, strategic and general planning efforts, revenue and ballot measure feasibility, customer and user satisfaction, public sector marketing efforts, and other customized client needs. Our offices in Burlingame, CA (Corporate) and Reno, NV (Southwest/ Northwest) house a staff of highly trained and experienced research and a commitment to providing superior quality research and client services.

The firm has been employed by public and private sector clients throughout California and the western United States and has extensive experience in all accepted quantitative (telephone surveys, mail surveys, Internet surveys & intercept surveys) and qualitative (focus groups, in-depth interviews & triads) research methodologies as well as hybrid studies involving more than one methodology and the analysis of secondary research. The combined expertise of the Godbe Research team spans almost 60 years in the field of public opinion research. The Godbe Research Team consists of the President (Bryan Godbe), Vice President (Charles Hester), and a staff of Senior Research Managers, Senior Statistical Analysts, and Research Analysts. Each team member has the education and experience commensurate with their position at Godbe Research, and the team regularly teaches, authors, and speaks in the field of survey research. In short, you will not find a more experienced and educated team in public opinion research for local government agencies.

Over the 34+ year life of the firm, Godbe Research has conducted almost 3,000 public opinion research projects to evaluate topics such as resident satisfaction, quality of life, community priorities, and evaluating community needs. Our specific experience includes the development and implementation of resident satisfaction, community priorities, and other similar public policy surveys for clients such as the City of Union City, City of San Rafael, City of Hayward, City of Morgan Hill, City of Solvang, City of San Leandro, City of South San Francisco, City of Concord, City of Novato, City of Fairfield, City of Campbell, City of Menlo Park, City of Davis, City of Millbrae, City of El Cerrito, City of Redwood City, County of El Dorado, County of Marin, City of Mountain View, Town of Windsor, City of Folsom, City of Los Altos, City of Belmont, City of Suisun City, City of San Bruno, Town of Danville, City of Santa Maria, City of La Habra, City of Burlingame, City of Salinas, City of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Maria, County of Kern, City of South San Francisco, City of Saratoga, City of Half Moon Bay, Town of Los Gatos, City of Elk Grove, City of Roseville, City of Santa Rosa, Town of Moraga, City of Rancho Cordova, City of Santa Clara, City of Carlsbad, City of Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 411 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 16
Cupertino, City of Richmond, City of Pleasant Hill, City of Santa Barbara, County of Solano, City of West Hollywood, City of La Mirada, City of Moreno Valley, City of Burbank, and dozens of others. In addition, Godbe Research developed the City of St. Helena’s inaugural Resident Satisfaction Survey in 2022.

As an organization, Godbe Research is a small business, and we manage our commitments wisely. This means managing our project load so that our President or Vice President can be directly involved in each project we conduct at the project manager level. Similarly, we do not take on so many projects that we need to juggle team members or remove team members from current projects. Thus, Godbe Research is committed to allocating the team members outlined in this proposal for the duration of the survey project, including having Bryan Godbe (President) as the project manager and day-to-day contact from Godbe Research for the duration of the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process for the City of St. Helena.

Below is a diagram of the general research process we undertake as part of our quantitative resident satisfaction survey programs, with a similar process for our qualitative research and hybrid studies. While each of our studies is highly customized based on a given client’s needs, we follow this process for each of our research projects. We are here with you throughout the process, and even between events as we understand that our research studies are designed to inform and support public policy decision making such as budgeting, planning and prioritization, community outreach and engagement, employee training, and other tasks that could take many months to implement once the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey has been completed.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 412 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 17

PROJECT WORK PLAN
Godbe Research is a recognized leader in public opinion research, market research, and voter polling for California local government agencies. Our firm believes that the success of any research study depends on recognizing the individual and unique needs of each of our clients, and then crafting a project work plan to meet those specific needs. To this end, Godbe Research has developed the following project work plan for the City of St. Helena to illustrate the types of considerations that go into each of our resident and community survey research projects.

Research Objectives
Before beginning any research project, Godbe Research spends significant time reviewing each client’s research objectives to choose the most appropriate research design. Based on our understanding of the project from information provided by the City as well as our experience with hundreds of resident satisfaction survey projects, Godbe Research understands that City has several research objectives to be addressed by the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey study, the most important of which is to evaluate resident satisfaction, importance, and needs of City-provided services, programs, and facilities as well as to track the results of the City’s 2022 resident satisfaction survey conducted by Godbe Research.

The formal research objectives for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey will be refined between Godbe Research and the City of St. Helena at the project kick-off meeting and as the project unfolds.

Scope of Work
To accomplish the research objectives of the City of St. Helena for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process, we recommend a hybrid Internet and telephone survey with text and email recruitment for the Internet version of the survey and calls to cell phone numbers and landline telephone numbers for the telephone version of the survey. Accordingly, Godbe Research has provided our proposed scope of work below and specific tasks for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey are thus envisioned to include:
 Conducting an electronic format (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet) project kick-off meeting with the St. Helena project team, as well as additional meetings to discuss the research objectives, questionnaire design, sampling design, and other facets of the overall project in detail.
 Designing and refining a survey instrument of approximately 18 to 25-minutes in length so that it addresses the research objectives of the City of St. Helena for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process. The survey instrument is developed in an iterative process with the City with multiple points for input, review, and approval prior to considering the survey “final” and ready for pre- testing and fielding. o The survey will be designed to be formatted for both Internet and telephone survey modalities as a ‘hybrid survey’ and both versions of the survey will be identical save for instructions specific to each modality.
o Please note that the 2022 Resident Satisfaction Survey conducted for the City by Godbe Research was 22-minutes in length, on average.
 Programming, refining, and testing the Internet version of the survey instrument using our Internet survey software package. This will be done by our partner team of IT and programming experts.
 CATI programming the telephone version of the survey instrument for efficient and accurate data collection, and training telephone interviewing personnel on the questionnaire and interviewing protocol.
o For our telephone interviewing projects, Godbe Research uses only live interviewers, who have been intensively trained on the survey questionnaire, and who are located in the western United States.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 413 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 18
 Pre-testing the survey instrument in both modalities to ensure that the questions and response codes are understandable to respondents, and to ensure that the survey length coincides with the budgeted survey length for the project.  Developing a recruitment email and recruitment text for the Internet version of the survey and working with St. Helena so that Godbe Research can send recruitment emails and texts to City residents with known self-reported email addresses and cell phone numbers, respectively, in the voter file or that we can obtain through City-provided lists or third-party matching.
o The text and email should be signed by the St. Helena City Manager to convey both the importance of the survey to the City and to assure residents that this is a Citysponsored survey event. Finally, the email will come from the City’s recognizable @cityofsthelena.org email domain to further convey that this is a City-sponsored survey.
 Development of a stratified and clustered listed sample of City of St. Helena registered voters as the starting point for our sampling design, given that it is the best source of known and self-reported contact information (e.g., cell phone numbers, email addresses, and landlines) for St. Helena residents. For reference, we have identified that there are a total of approximately 4,650 adult residents (ages 18+) and approximately 3,450 registered voters in the City, which means that 74% of the City’s residents are registered to vote. For all registered voters, we have email addresses for 1,775 voters or 52% of the voting electorate in the City. We also have cell phones for approximately 1,212 voters or about 35% of the voting electorate in St. Helena. Finally, we also have landline telephone numbers for 1,595 City voters or 46% of the voting electorate in St. Helena.

The usage of a listed voter sample as our sampling source also allows us to analyze data by the registered voter population as well as the ability to weight the data to see results by the larger adult resident (18+) population in the City. o Godbe Research also plans to match City-provided lists (e.g., parks and recreation registration database) to the voter file to increase the contact information for voters in our sampling frame AND to include adult residents who are not registered to vote, so long as we have first name, last name, contact information, and physical address for matching purposes and to ensure that only St. Helena residents are included in our sample.
o Finally, any contact information provided by the City will remain strictly confidential and will not be used in our analysis and reporting after the survey has been completed. This is similar to the voter file information where contact information is redacted from the analysis to preserve respondent anonymity and confidentiality.  Optionally translating the telephone version of the survey instrument into Spanish and providing Spanish language interviewing based on respondent preference.  Conducting approximate 18, 20, 22, or 25-minute Internet and telephone interviews with between up to 300 (n=300) total St. Helena residents according to a strict interviewing protocol and our recommended sampling design of registered voters matched against City-provided lists. A sample size of 300 interviews would provide for a margin of error of no greater than +/-5.6% at the 95% confidence level, when looking at all adult residents (including registered voters) in the City of St. Helena. o For reference, we were able to collect a total of 364 (n=364) interviews with St.

Helena residents in the 2022 resident satisfaction survey process.  Merging the Internet and telephone data files, as well as processing and weighting the data to adjust for population distribution and strategic oversampling, as needed. o This includes weighting the data to the larger adult resident population in the City based on the U.S. Census, ACS Projections, or other data source as needed by the City.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 414 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 19
 Developing a topline report of initial findings as the first reporting deliverable in the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process and conducting an online format meeting with the City to review the topline report.
 Analyzing the data from the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey and preparing a report of results, findings, and conclusions for St. Helena which directly addresses the research objectives outlined for this specific 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process, as well as comparing applicable questions and topics to other cities and regions as requested by the City.
o The report, in PowerPoint format, will include an overview and discussion of the research objectives, methodology discussion, key findings section, overview of satisfaction/importance of City-provided departments and services, comparisons to other cities/regions for applicable questions/topics, a demographics section, and a complete set of crosstabulations for questions asked in the survey.  Presenting the results and recommendations from the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey to the City of St. Helena for up to five (5) online presentations as necessary (AB 361 authorized; to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 variants, and; of course, reduce unnecessary carbon emissions).
 Post-project consulting with St. Helena regarding the results and recommendations from the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process, as needed (no additional charge to the City).

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 415 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 20

GODBE RESEARCH PROJECT MANAGER
Reliable public opinion research results depend on having a firm that understands the complexities and nuances of survey research design, including sampling theory, questionnaire design, and data analysis. Accordingly, the team at Godbe Research is comprised of recognized experts in survey research design and implementation, and for 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey project for the City of St. Helena we will assign our most experienced project manager, Bryan Godbe (President).

Bryan has designed and conducted more than 200 survey research projects in the past three years alone for California cities, counties, and other public sector agencies, including the 2022 Resident Satisfaction Survey for the City. Bryan will execute all stages of the survey project, including sampling design and questionnaire development, overall project management, analysis, reporting, and presentations, and would be the day-to-day contact for City staff and administration. A resume for Bryan has been provided below and he will be assisted by additional Godbe Research team members, as needed.

Bryan Godbe, M.A.

President
Founder of Godbe Research, Mr. Godbe has almost 40 years of experience in public opinion research, public relations, and government affairs. In this capacity, he has conducted public opinion and market research projects at the national, state, and local levels including projects for the Cities of San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Jose (California) as well as Portland (Oregon), Seattle (Washington), and Henderson (Nevada).

Mr. Godbe received a Silver Anvil Award from the Public Relations Society of America for the development and implementation of an outstanding government affairs program on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District. This program was based on Mr. Godbe's extensive research including baseline research, focus groups and three tracking surveys. In addition, Bryan has also recently completed recent community priorities and resident satisfaction surveys for clients such as the City of Novato, City of Fairfield, City of South San Francisco, City of San Rafael, City of Belmont, City of La Mirada, County of San Mateo, City of Millbrae, City of Los Altos, City of Union City, City of Folsom, City of Menlo Park, and others.

Prior to founding the firm, Mr. Godbe was Vice President of Research at a California based public relations firm. Mr. Godbe also previously served as the Senior Research Consultant at the Center for the Study of Los Angeles, at Loyola-Marymount University. He has a Master’s Degree from the University of Michigan where he studied survey research methodology at the Institute for Social Research; and a B.A. degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 416 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 21

PROJECT COST OPTIONS
Godbe Research takes considerable pride in delivering reliable and practical research projects ‘on time and on budget.’ In doing so, we prefer to provide a firm, fixed fee format for our cost proposals. This is because we do not believe in assigning arbitrary hours and rarely do projects (even highly similar in terms of work scope) take the same amount of time or resources. Thus, we feel that firm and fixed-fee pricing represents the best value to our clients based on the three most important factors in any survey: sample size/number of interviews, the length of the survey in number of minutes, and the languages in which the survey is administered.

Based on our understanding of City of St. Helena’s research objectives and goals for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process, Godbe Research has provided costs to conduct an 18, 20, 22, or 25-minute survey comprised of up to 300 (n=300) St. Helena adult residents using the methodology and sampling design outlined in this scope of work document. The survey process will be conducted via a hybrid Internet and telephone survey methodology with email and text to Internet recruitment as well as calls to cell phones and landlines, and a given resident will only be able to complete the survey once even though they can choose their method of participation based on the contact information we have available. Finally, we have also provided optional costs to translate the telephone version of the survey into Spanish and to provide Spanish language interviewing based on respondent preference.

The prices below reflect the all-inclusive costs to complete the project for the City of St.

Helena-- the overall cost will not exceed those shown below, provided that parameters of the project (survey length, sample size, hybrid methodology, etc.) conform to those outlined in this proposal. Should project parameters or City or St. Helena needs change, we will be happy to provide amended costs prior to proceeding. Finally, please note that the City will only be charged the total amount from the cost options listed below that reflects the final time-tested survey length for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process.

Hybrid Survey of up to 300 (n=300) St. Helena Residents Project Task 18-min. 20-min. 22-min. 25-min.

Listed Voter Telephone Sample $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Email Sample Purchase $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00
Additional Cell and Email Matching $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 Internet Version
Programming/Testing
$5,750.00 $6,000.00 $6,250.00 $6,500.00
CATI Programming of Telephone
Version
$1,350.00 $1,500.00 $1,650.00 $1,875.00
Internet Version
Recruitment/Hosting
$2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Telephone Interviewing $4,800.00 $6,000.00 $7,200.00 $8,400.00 Data Processing $950.00 $950.00 $950.00 $950.00
Research Fee $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Project Management $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Miscellaneous Expenses $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
English Only Survey Costs $29,450.00 $31,050.00 $32,650.00 $34,325.00 Spanish Translation and
Programming
$650.00 $725.00 $775.00 $875.00
Spanish Interviewing Fee - Phone $500.00 $600.00 $700.00 $800.00 English and Spanish Survey Total $30,600.00 $32,375.00 $34,125.00 $36,000.00 Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 417 of 697 ends

83389.00001\40708740.1
22 GODBE RESEARCH
www.godberesearch.com
California/Corporate Offices 1220 Howard Avenue
Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010
Southwest/Reno Office
59 Damonte Ranch Parkway Suite B-309
Reno, NV 89521
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 418 of 697 ends

83389.00001\40708740.1
23 EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. This is a time-and-materials contract.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 419 of 697 ends

83389.00001\40708740.1
24 EXHIBIT C
Activity Schedule
Survey Development: June 2024 through November 2024
Survey Outreach/Collection: December 2024
Survey Data Gathering: January 2025
Survey Results Report to City Council: February 2025
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 420 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
APPROVING: AN AGREEMENT WITH GODBE
RESEARCH IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $32,375

FOR A COMMUNITY SURVEY

RECITALS
A. Recognizing the importance of the community feedback and the value that it has on identifying priorities for the City Council, the City Manager sees the opportunity in conducting a statistically valid Community Survey delivered by telephone and email as a means to achieve these desired results; and
B. Staff solicited proposals from three companies for the baseline survey conducted in 2022; and
C. Godbe will be able to incorporate the baseline survey results from the 2022 survey they conducted that included quality of life, taxpayer/budgeting, and high level satisfaction questions and topics; and
D. Godbe will provide statistically relevant information showing the change in survey results from the baseline year of 2022 to the new results to be collected in December 2024; and
E. The cost to use Godbe is $32,375 for a proposed 20 minutes and includes conducting the phone and email survey in English and Spanish and would be adjusted to a lower price if the survey length is shorter; and F. Godbe has been employed by public and private sectors the United States and internationally, and is providing research in neighboring jurisdictions including Calistoga and the City of Napa. Godbe is able to accommodate the City's timeline as it relates to project completion.

G. Godbe Research has represented that they have the necessary expertise, experience, and qualification to perform the required duties; and H. The City desires to enter into a professional services agreement with Godbe Research to provide a Community Survey.

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

1. The City Council approves the Agreement with Godbe Research for a total not to exceed amount of $32,375; and

2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 421 of 697 ends

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 28, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Hall:

Council Member Chouteau:

Council Member Kenealy:

Council Member Summers:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 422 of 697 ends

PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT THE 2024

RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY
Presented to the City of St. Helena
March 13, 2024
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 423 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 1

Services Provided
Godbe Research is a full-service public opinion research and voter polling agency. We offer expertise in all accepted quantitative (telephone, Internet, mail, and Intercept) and qualitative (focus groups, one-on-one interviews, triads) research methodologies, as well as hybrid studies (more than one methodology) and research consulting.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 424 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 2
Godbe Research does not provide political consulting, public education and outreach, financial advisory, planning or architectural services, legal/counsel, or underwriting services that could be a conflict of interest with our community/resident survey or other public opinion research processes by having future project dollars tied to the results and recommendations from our studies.

The combined expertise of the Godbe Research team spans almost 60 years in the field of public opinion research. The Godbe Research Team consists of the President (Bryan Godbe), Vice President (Charles Hester), and a staff of Senior Research Managers, Senior Statistical Analysts, and Research Analysts. Each team member has the education and experience commensurate with their position at Godbe Research, and the team regularly teaches, authors, and speaks in the field of survey research. In short, you will not find a more experienced and educated team in public opinion research for local government agencies.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 425 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 3
As an organization, Godbe Research is a small business, and we manage our commitments wisely. This means managing our project load so that our President or Vice President can be directly involved in each project we conduct at the project manager level. Similarly, we do not take on so many projects that we need to juggle team members or remove team members from current projects. Thus, Godbe Research is committed to allocating the team members outlined in this proposal for the duration of the survey project, including having Bryan Godbe (President) as the project manager and day-to-day contact from Godbe Research for the duration of the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process for the City of St. Helena.

We are here with you throughout the process, and even between events as we understand that our research studies are designed to inform and support public policy decision making such as budgeting, planning and prioritization, community outreach and engagement, employee training, and other tasks that could take many months to implement once the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey has been completed.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 426 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 4

Helena to illustrate the types of considerations that go into each of our resident and community survey research projects.

Accordingly, Godbe Research has provided our proposed scope of work below and specific tasks for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey are thus envisioned to include:
 Conducting an electronic format (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet) project kick-off meeting with the St. Helena project team, as well as additional meetings to discuss the research objectives, questionnaire design, sampling design, and other facets of the overall project in detail.  Designing and refining a survey instrument of approximately 18 to 25-minutes in length so that it addresses the research objectives of the City of St. Helena for the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process. The survey instrument is developed in an iterative process with the City with multiple points for input, review, and approval prior to considering the survey “final” and ready for pretesting and fielding.

 The survey will be designed to be formatted for both Internet and telephone survey modalities as a ‘hybrid survey’ and both versions of the survey will be identical save for instructions specific to each modality.  Please note that the 2022 Resident Satisfaction Survey conducted for the City by Godbe Research was 22-minutes in length, on average.  Programming, refining, and testing the Internet version of the survey instrument using our Internet survey software package. This will be done by our partner team of IT and programming experts.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 427 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 5
 CATI programming the telephone version of the survey instrument for efficient and accurate data collection, and training telephone interviewing personnel on the questionnaire and interviewing protocol.
 For our telephone interviewing projects, Godbe Research uses only live interviewers, who have been intensively trained on the survey questionnaire, and who are located in the western United States.  Pre-testing the survey instrument in both modalities to ensure that the questions and response codes are understandable to respondents, and to ensure that the survey length coincides with the budgeted survey length for the project.  Developing a recruitment email and recruitment text for the Internet version of the survey and working with St. Helena so that Godbe Research can send recruitment emails and texts to City residents with known self-reported email addresses and cell phone numbers, respectively, in the voter file or that we can obtain through City-provided lists or third-party matching.  The text and email should be signed by the St. Helena City Manager to convey both the importance of the survey to the City and to assure residents that this is a City-sponsored survey event. Finally, the email will come from the City’s recognizable @cityofsthelena.org email domain to further convey that this is a City-sponsored survey.
 Development of a stratified and clustered listed sample of City of St. Helena registered voters as the starting point for our sampling design, given that it is the best source of known and self-reported contact information (e.g., cell phone numbers, email addresses, and landlines) for St. Helena residents. For reference, we have identified that there are a total of approximately 4,650 adult residents (ages 18+) and approximately 3,450 registered voters in the City, which means that 74% of the City’s residents are registered to vote. For all registered voters, we have email addresses for 1,775 voters or 52% of the voting electorate in the City. We also have cell phones for approximately 1,212 voters or about 35% of the voting electorate in St. Helena. Finally, we also have landline telephone numbers for 1,595 City voters or 46% of the voting electorate in St.

Helena. The usage of a listed voter sample as our sampling source also allows us to analyze data by the registered voter population as well as the ability to weight the data to see results by the larger adult resident (18+) population in the City.
 Godbe Research also plans to match City-provided lists (e.g., parks and recreation registration database) to the voter file to increase the contact information for voters in our sampling frame AND to include adult residents who are not registered to vote, so long as we have first name, last name, contact information, and physical address for matching purposes and to ensure that only St. Helena residents are included in our sample.
 Finally, any contact information provided by the City will remain strictly confidential and will not be used in our analysis and reporting after the survey has been completed. This is similar to the voter file information where contact information is redacted from the analysis to preserve respondent anonymity and confidentiality.
 Optionally translating the telephone version of the survey instrument into Spanish and providing Spanish language interviewing based on respondent preference.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 428 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 6
 Conducting approximate 18, 20, 22, or 25-minute Internet and telephone interviews with between up to 300 (n=300) total St. Helena residents according to a strict interviewing protocol and our recommended sampling design of registered voters matched against City-provided lists. A sample size of 300 interviews would provide for a margin of error of no greater than +/-5.6% at the 95% confidence level, when looking at all adult residents (including registered voters) in the City of St. Helena.
 For reference, we were able to collect a total of 364 (n=364) interviews with St. Helena residents in the 2022 resident satisfaction survey process.
 Merging the Internet and telephone data files, as well as processing and weighting the data to adjust for population distribution and strategic oversampling, as needed.
 This includes weighting the data to the larger adult resident population in the City based on the U.S. Census, ACS Projections, or other data source as needed by the City.
 Developing a topline report of initial findings as the first reporting deliverable in the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process and conducting an online format meeting with the City to review the topline report.
 Analyzing the data from the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey and preparing a report of results, findings, and conclusions for St. Helena which directly addresses the research objectives outlined for this specific 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process, as well as comparing applicable questions and topics to other cities and regions as requested by the City.  The report, in PowerPoint format, will include an overview and discussion of the research objectives, methodology discussion, key findings section, overview of satisfaction/importance of City-provided departments and services, comparisons to other cities/regions for applicable questions/topics, a demographics section, and a complete set of crosstabulations for questions asked in the survey.
 Presenting the results and recommendations from the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey to the City of St. Helena for up to five (5) online presentations as necessary (AB 361 authorized; to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 variants, and; of course, reduce unnecessary carbon emissions).  Post-project consulting with St. Helena regarding the results and recommendations from the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey process, as needed (no additional charge to the City).

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 429 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 7

Bryan Godbe, M.A.

In addition, Bryan has also recently completed recent community priorities and resident satisfaction surveys for clients such as the City of Novato, City of Fairfield, City of South San Francisco, City of San Rafael, City of Belmont, City of La Mirada, County of San Mateo, City of Millbrae, City of Los Altos, City of Union City, City of Folsom, City of Menlo Park, and others.

He has a Master’s Degree from the University of Michigan where he studied survey research methodology at the Institute for Social Research; and a B.A. degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 430 of 697 ends

City of St. Helena
Proposal to Conduct the 2024 Resident Satisfaction Survey Godbe Research Page 8

The prices below reflect the all-inclusive costs to complete the project for the City of St.

Project Task 18-min. 20-min. 22-min. 25-min.

Listed Voter Telephone Sample $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Email Sample Purchase $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00
Additional Cell and Email Matching $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 Internet Version Programming/Testing $5,750.00 $6,000.00 $6,250.00 $6,500.00 CATI Programming of Telephone Version $1,350.00 $1,500.00 $1,650.00 $1,875.00 Internet Version Recruitment/Hosting $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Telephone Interviewing $4,800.00 $6,000.00 $7,200.00 $8,400.00 Data Processing $950.00 $950.00 $950.00 $950.00
Research Fee $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Project Management $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Miscellaneous Expenses $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00
English Only Survey Costs $29,450.00 $31,050.00 $32,650.00 $34,325.00 Spanish Translation and Programming $650.00 $725.00 $775.00 $875.00 Spanish Interviewing Fee - Phone $500.00 $600.00 $700.00 $800.00 English and Spanish Survey Total $30,600.00 $32,375.00 $34,125.00 $36,000.00 Hybrid Survey of up to 300 (n=300) St. Helena Residents Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 431 of 697 ends

GODBE RESEARCH
www.godberesearch.com
California/Corporate Offices
1220 Howard Avenue
Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010
Southwest/Reno Office
59 Damonte Ranch Parkway
Suite B-309
Reno, NV 89521
Agenda Item #12.7.

Page 432 of 697 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 28, 2024
FROM: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and adoption of a Resolution: (1) Awarding the R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project to Argonaut
Constructors in the amount of $2,197,939.77; (2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Construction Contract with Argonaut Constructors; (3) Requesting a budget increase for project R24-79 of $1,315,233.75; (4) Authorizing budget transfer from Measure T fund balance; (5) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve Change Orders not to exceed 10% of the contract amount; and (6) Determining the project to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the Resolution

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Resolution 2024-038, approval plans and authorization to solicit bids on was adopted by City Council on March 26, 2024.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To deliver the City's annual Pavement Restoration Project in accordance with the City's 5 Year Pavement Management
Plan and approved Capital Improvement Program.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: A summary of anticipated expenditures and funding sources are presented below.

Estimated Project Costs
R24-79 - Pavement Restoration $ 2,197,939.77
Estimated Construction Costs $ 2,197,939.77
Construction Contingency (15%) $219,793.98
Estimated Total Project Cost
for Construction $2,417,733.75
Funding Sources
R24-79 Project Budget $1,102,500.00
240 - Additional Measure
T
$1,315,233.75
Total Available Funding
in FY 24/25 $2,417,733,75
Agenda Item #12.8.

Page 433 of 697 ends

BACKGROUND:

The R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project is a continuation of the City's efforts to improve and maintain 26 centerline miles of roadway within the City of St. Helena.

On June 13, 2023, the City Council adopted the FY 2023-24 to FY 2024-25 budget and the FY 2023-24 to FY2027-28 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which includes the R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project.

On December 12, 2023, the City Council adopted an updated 5-Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP). R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project represents Year 1 of the updated PMP. This updated PMP included an expanded project scope for Year 1 when compared to the previously approved FY24-25 budget for the project. Staff is requesting Council to approve an increase to the project budget and approve necessary budget adjustments to account for the expanded scope of the project. The budget of future years will be reallocated to the current project. Additionally, the project funding will be supported by the existing Measure T fund balance.

The project plans were developed by Coastland Consulting Engineers of Santa Rosa.

The project plans, specifications and contract documents were compiled by City staff and approved for bid solicitation by City Council on March 26, 2024.

This project includes the resurfacing of many high priority roadway segments including Pratt Avenue, Hunt Avenue, Spring Street, Birch Avenue, Vidovich Lane and the entirety of the Sylvaner subdivision. Additional elements of this project include restriping traffic lines and crosswalks, various repairs to sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the installation of ADA compliant curb ramps.

DISCUSSION:

On April 11, 2024, a Notice Inviting Bids and project plans and specifications was posted to the City of St. Helena website and posted at area construction plan rooms and exchanges. On May 2, 2024, five bids were received and opened publicly at City Hall.

All bids are provided by reputable, licensed firms and are complete and competitive.

The bid results are as follows:

Company Base Bid
Argonaut Constructors, Santa Rosa $ 2,197,939.77
Ghilotti Brothers, San Rafael $ 2,197,945.95
Team Ghilotti, Petaluma $ 2,577,141.00
J.V. Lucas Paving, Martinez $ 2,478,030.42
Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc, San Rafael $ 2,480,265.00
Engineer's Estimate: $2,150,000
City Staff reviewed all bids and find that Argonaut Construction is the lowest responsible and responsive bid. Argonaut Construction holds a valid Class A General Contractor’s License No. 171432 in the State of California, with no enforcement actions listed. Their Agenda Item #12.8.

Page 434 of 697 ends

license expires on 12/31/2025. Argonaut Construction bid is consistent with the engineer’s estimate. Argonaut Construction has successfully executed a multitude of similar projects in the North Bay region and previously for the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff will be filing a Notice of Exemption for this project, citing a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for existing facilities. The contractor is required to perform standard stormwater pollution prevention measures.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - R24-79 Resolution
Agenda Item #12.8.

Page 435 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Consideration and adoption of a Resolution: (1)
Awarding the R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project to
Argonaut Constructors in the amount of $2,197,939.77;
(2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Construction Contract with Argonaut Constructors; (3)
Requesting a budget increase for project R24-79 of
$1,315,233.75; (4) Authorizing budget transfer from
Measure T fund balance; (5) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve Change Orders not to exceed
10% of the contract amount; and (6) Determining the
project to be exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

RECITALS
A. The project plans for the work were approved by the Director of Public Works pursuant to authority by St. Helena City Council on April 1, 2024; and B. Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04; Article 3 Public Works Projects; Section 3.04.220 on June 22nd, 2023 a notice inviting bids was posted and distributed to contractors inviting bids for the R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project; and
C. On April 11, 2024, five (5) bids were received and opened in accordance with applicable law; and
D. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Project was Argonaut Constructors of Santa Rosa, CA in the amount of $2,197,939.77; and E. City staff has determined that Argonaut Constructors’ bid satisfies the bidding requirements for the project; and
F. City staff has verified that Argonaut Constructors possess a valid Contractor’s License, Class A, number 171432 that qualifies Argonaut Constructors to complete the project; and
G. The Pavement Restoration Project R24-79 has been found to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as it consists of minor alterations of existing street and sidewalk facilities.

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

Agenda Item #12.8.

Page 436 of 697 ends

1. Awarding the R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project to Argonaut Constructors in the amount of $2,197,939.77; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract in the amount of $2,197,939.77 with Argonaut Constructors for the R24-79 Pavement Restoration Project; and

3. Authorizing a budget increase and budget transfer from Fund 240 (Measure T) for project R24-79 of $1,315,233.75;

4. Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve change orders not to exceed 10% of the contract account; and

5. The Pavement Restoration Improvements Project R24-79 is found to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as it consists of minor alterations of existing street and sidewalk facilities, as the project involves no expansion of an existing use.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 28, 2024 by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall: __________
Councilmember Chouteau:__________
Councilmember Kenealy: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #12.8.

Page 437 of 697 ends

Page 438 of 697 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 28, 2024
FROM: Jose Calderon, Engineering Technician II
SUBJECT: Approving request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of the fiscal year FY-2024 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian /
Bicycle project funding.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the Resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this action is to provide City Council the opportunity to consider and adopt a resolution to allow the City to apply for the Transportation Development Act
Article 3 Grant for Quick Build Traffic Calming Projects.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact at this time.

BACKGROUND:

Senate Bill 325 was enacted by the California Legislature with the goal to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. Known as the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, this law provides funding to be allocated to transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans. Article 3 of Senate Bill 325, also known as TDA-3 sets aside funding specifically for bicycle and pedestrian projects including quick-build style projects. The program is governed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and administered by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. The City recently completed Capital Improvement Program Project R21-02, which improved the pedestrian crossings at Pratt Avenue/Highway 29 and Elmhurst Avenue/Highway 29 which was partially funded by a grant from a previous TDA cycle.

DISCUSSION:

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Napa Valley Transportation Authority are currently accepting applications for FY24-25 TDA grant cycle. Staff is requesting City Council approval to proceed with an application to fund the installation of pedestrian safety enhancement devices in the City. Staff have identified two locations which would greatly benefit from a "quick build," or "packaged" style-safety enhancement. The first location is at the intersection of North Crane Avenue at Spring Street. This location serves as an informal crossing point for significant cross-town pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The second location is at South Crane Avenue at Crane Park. Neither of these locations have existing pedestrian crossing facilities, and are Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 439 of 697 ends

heavily trafficked by vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle users. While the City intends to design and install permanent facilities in the future, the deployment of a quick build treatment in association with the TDA-3 grant opportunity would be a welcome and important safety improvement.

Components of the quick build package will include a centerline median/barrier to serve as a traffic calming pedestrian refuge, multiple in-road warning signs similar to the recent installation on Spring Street north, and roadway and crosswalk striping. A location map is provided as Attachment C. Upon approval of this request, staff will submit the project application which is due by May 31, 2024. Staff will proceed with design and component research. Preliminary designs will be presented to the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) and City Council for further comment and installation approvals.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None
GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Attachment A - Findings
Attachment C - Location Map
Attachment B - Application
Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 440 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -
Approving request to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for the allocation of fiscal year FY-2024
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian /
Bicycle project funding.

RECITALS
A. Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
B. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding; and C. MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
D. The City of St Helena desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; now, therefore, be it.

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

1. The City of St Helena declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code; and

2. That there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of St Helena to carry out the project; and

3. That the City of St Helena attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and

4. That a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 441 of 697 ends

association of governments, as the case may be, of Napa County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 28, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall: __________
Councilmember Chouteau: __________
Councilmember Kenealy: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 442 of 697 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

ATTACHMENT A
Approving a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of fiscal year FY-2024 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian / Bicycle project funding.

FINDINGS
A. That the City of St. Helena is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of St. Helena legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.

B. That the City of St. Helena has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B.

C. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).

D. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.

E. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).

F. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).

G. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or final design and engineering or quick build project; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic and/or Class IV separated bikeway; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of St. Helena within the prior five fiscal years.

H. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 443 of 697 ends

2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.) or responds to an immediate community need, such as a quick-build project.

I. That any project described in Attachment B bicycle project meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in the California Highway Design Manual or is in a National Association of City and Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance or similar best practices document.

J. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed in the allocated time (fiscal year of allocation plus two additional fiscal years).

K. That the City of St. Helena agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.

Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 444 of 697 ends

Spring St at N Crane Ave
S Crane Ave
at Crane Park
TDA-3 FY24-25
Quick Build Projects for
S Crane Ave and Spring
St at N Crane Ave
Center island with
High Visibility
crosswalks in the
middle
Pedestrian
Crossing and
Traffic Calming
Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 445 of 697 ends

MTC, November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

ATTACHMENT B
TDA ARTICLE 3 PROJECT APPLICATION FORM

1. Agency City of St Helena

2. Primary Contact Mario Traverso

3. Mailing Address 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, CA, 94574

4. Email Address [email protected] 5. Phone Number 1(707)204-9084

6. Secondary Contact
(in the event primary
is not available)
Jose Calderon
1(707)312-1280
[email protected]

7. Mailing address (if
different) N/A☒

8. Email Address [email protected] 9. Phone Number 1(707)312-1280

10. Send allocation
instructions to (if
different from
above):

11. Project Title Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Quick Build

12. Amount requested $50,000 13. Fiscal Year of
Claim
2024

14. Description of Overall Project:

15. Project Scope Proposed for Funding: (Project level environmental, preliminary planning, and ROW are ineligible uses of TDA funds.)
The City of St Helena has identified two locations that will benefit greatly from the deployment of quick build pedestrian crossing and traffic calming safety improvements. The quick build improvements will include a modular pedestrian refuge, roadway striping, ADA facilities, speed humps and in road warning signage.

The City of St. Helena proposes the funding will be used for procurement and installation of quick build materials, including median barriers, signage, and roadway striping. The design will be prepared by City staff and presented for approval by the Active Transportation Committee and City Council.

Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 446 of 697 ends

November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 2

16. Project Location: A map of the project location is attached or a link to a online map of the project location is provided below:

Project Relation to Regional Policies (for information only)

17. Is the project in an Equity Priority Community? Yes☐ No☒

18. Is this project in a Priority Development Area or a Transit-Oriented Community? Yes☐ No☒

19. Project Budget and Schedule
Project Eligibility
A. Has the project been reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee? Yes☒ No☐ If “YES,” identify the date and provide a copy or link to the agenda.

If "NO," provide an explanation).
5/22/24 – Application and preliminary concept presented to Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee. Project was supported.

B. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? Yes☐ No☒ If "NO," provide expected date: 5/28/2024
C. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? Yes☐ No☒ (If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page)
D. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria Yes☐ No☐ pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? E. 1. Is the project categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CCR Section 15301(c), Yes☒ No☐ Project Phase TDA 3 Other Funds Total Cost Estimated Completion (month/year)
Bike/Ped Plan
ENV
PA&ED
PS&E 1,000 8/1/2024
ROW
CON 50,000 10/1/2024
Total Cost 50,000 1,000
Location 1: 360 S Crane Ave – This is the location of the entrance to the largest City Park, Primary School, and serves as a major rural/urban interface. The quick build will encourage traffic calming and provide pedestrian passage from street parking to the park which is currently nonexistent. This will serve as a pilot in anticipation of permanent improvements.

Location 2: Intersection of N Crane Ave and Spring Street – This location serves as a significant pedestrian and vehicular cross-town corridor for normal access to the High School, Primary School and Parks. At this intersection sidewalks are discontinuous, with normal pedestrian crossing occurring without any facilities. This project will address the sidewalk discontinuity and integrate pedestrian crossing facilities.

Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 447 of 697 ends

November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 3
Existing Facility?

2. If “NO” above, is the project is exempt from CEQA for another reason? Yes☒ No☐ Cite the basis for the exemption. Minor / Temporary Alteration N/A☐ If the project is not exempt, please check “NO,” and provide environmental documentation, as appropriate.

F. Estimated Completion Date of project (month and year): 10/30/2024 G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has Yes☒ No☐ the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility, please identify below and provide the agreement.

H. Is a Complete Streets Checklist required for this project ? Yes☐ No☒ If the amount requested is over $250,000 or if the total project phase or construction phase is over $250,000, a Complete Streets checklist is likely required. Please attach the Complete Streets checklist or record of review, as applicable. More information and the form may be found here: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 448 of 697 ends

November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 4
Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 449 of 697 ends

Page 450 of 697 ends

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

1. The City of St Helena declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code; and

3. That the City of St Helena attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and

Page 451 of 697 ends

association of governments, as the case may be, of Napa County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 28, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall: __________
Councilmember Chouteau: __________
Councilmember Kenealy: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 452 of 697 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

ATTACHMENT A
Approving a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of fiscal year FY-2024 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian / Bicycle project funding.

B. That the City of St. Helena has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B.

E. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).

F. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).

Page 453 of 697 ends

2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.) or responds to an immediate community need, such as a quick-build project.

J. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed in the allocated time (fiscal year of allocation plus two additional fiscal years).

K. That the City of St. Helena agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.

Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 454 of 697 ends

Page 455 of 697 ends

Page 456 of 697 ends

MTC, November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024 –

ATTACHMENT B
TDA ARTICLE 3 PROJECT APPLICATION FORM

1. Agency City of St Helena

2. Primary Contact Mario Traverso

3. Mailing Address 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, CA, 94574

4. Email Address [email protected] 5. Phone Number 1(707)204-9084

6. Secondary Contact
(in the event primary
is not available)
Jose Calderon
1(707)312-1280
[email protected]

7. Mailing address (if
different) N/A☒

8. Email Address [email protected] 9. Phone Number 1(707)312-1280

10. Send allocation
instructions to (if
different from
above):

11. Project Title Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Quick Build

12. Amount requested $50,000 13. Fiscal Year of
Claim
2024

14. Description of Overall Project:

Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 457 of 697 ends

November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 2

16. Project Location: A map of the project location is attached or a link to a online map of the project location is provided below:

Project Relation to Regional Policies (for information only)

17. Is the project in an Equity Priority Community? Yes☐ No☒

18. Is this project in a Priority Development Area or a Transit-Oriented Community? Yes☐ No☒

If "NO," provide an explanation).
5/22/24 – Application and preliminary concept presented to Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee. Project was supported.

Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 458 of 697 ends

November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 3
Existing Facility?

Page 459 of 697 ends

November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 4
Agenda Item #12.9.

Page 460 of 697 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Administration
DATE: May 28, 2024
FROM: Andrew Bradley, Asst. to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution authorizing a ceremonial flag recognizing LGBTQ+ Pride
Month during the month of June 2024.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve a resolution authorizing the Progress Pride flag to be flown on the City's ceremonial flag pole during the
month of June 2024.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

LGBTQ+ Pride Month has been celebrated with the flag
raising for many years in St. Helena, most recently the flag was flown in June 2023.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose is to show the City of St. Helena's support for its LGBTQ+ community.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council adopted policy P-CC-0001 Outdoor Display of Governmental and NonGovernmental Flags on City Property, which authorizes the display of non-governmental flags on City property (https://sthelena.civicweb.net/document/12211/).

DISCUSSION:

Per Policy P-CC-0001, Mayor Dohring made a request to the City Manager to fly a Ceremonial Flag in the month of June. The flag to be flown is the LGBTQ+ Pride Month Progress flag. The flying of the flag will be done in conjunction with the LGBTQ+ Pride Month Proclamation that will be heard at the May 28, 2024, City Council meeting. All requests for Ceremonial Flags are to be approved by City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
GOAL:

Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

PRIDE Month Resolution 2024
Agenda Item #12.10.

Page 461 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Authorizing the Progress Pride Flag and Transgender
Flag to be Flown on the City’s Ceremonial Flagpole

RECITALS
A. On June 13, 2017, the St. Helena City Council adopted policy P-CC0001 Outdoor Display of Governmental and Non-Governmental Flags on City Property, which authorizes the display of non-governmental flags on City property.

B. Per City Council adopted policy Mayor Dohring formally requested in writing to the City Manager for the LGBTQ+ Pride Progress flag be flown on the City's ceremonial flagpole during the month of June 2024.

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

1. Authorizes the LGBTQ+ Progress Pride Flag to be flown during the month of June 2024.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 28, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: ____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: ____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: ____
Council Member Lester Hardy: ____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: ____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ______________________
Paul Jaminson Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #12.10.

Page 462 of 697 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 28, 2024
FROM: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
SUBJECT: April 2024 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Receive and file.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Monthly Receive and File reports to City Council.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To provide monthly updates of the amount of water
produced at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant, the Stonebridge Potable Water Wells, and potable water
delivered from the City of Napa.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

The City of St. Helena publishes a monthly water report on the City website (www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/water-reports). The report includes the amount of water produced at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant and the Stonebridge Potable Water Wells, and potable water delivered from the City of Napa. In addition to presenting data on the amount delivered monthly, the report includes yearto-date information and prior year data. Water elevation and capacity at the Bell Canyon Reservoir is included as well as information on rain and temperatures.

At the City Council meeting of May 9, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023- 46 adopting City Council goals for FY 2023-24. Five new City Council Goals for FY 2023-24 which include Goal 1: Financial Sustainability, Goal 2: Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability, Goal 3: Water Security, Goal 4: Community Information and Engagement, and Goal 5: Quality of Life. City Council has the responsibility of establishing broad goals and the City's leadership has the responsibility to develop a work plan to achieve them.

DISCUSSION:

In connection with City Council Goal 2, City staff has developed a forecasting tool to facilitate its ability to optimize water use and track water availability. Included as Attachment 1 is the Monthly Water Report for April 2024. The water produced for April 2024 is down by -8% when compared to April 2023 and is down by -40% compared to the average of April 2018-2020. Below is a chart summarizing the water produced per source:

Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 463 of 697 ends

Water Produced per Source
Source
Average (2018 -
2020)
(Acre-Feet)
April 2023
(Acre-Feet)
April 2024
(Acre-Feet)
Bell Canyon 46 17 4.70
Stonebridge Wells 15 13 30.77
Napa Water 48 46 34.07
Total 110 77 69.54
 Percent change from April 2023: -8%
 Percent change from average of April 2018 - 2020: -40% Bell Canyon Reservoir
The City is no longer in water emergency conditions based upon the Phase I Water Emergency measures being terminated by City Council adopting Resolution No. 2023- 94 on July 25, 2023. Bell Canyon Reservoir has adequate water to support the City's needs through this calendar year. The storage in Bell Canyon graph (Attachment 2) has been revised to include historic reservoir supply levels since July 2021. It also shows the water availability forecast through June 2026 based on the highest water usage during a non-drought year (FY 2019/20) and 10 inches of rainfall (lowest recorded).

As of May 1, 2024, Bell Canyon Reservoir elevation was at 422 feet representing approximately 2,383.69 acre feet (AF) and 100% capacity. Bell Canyon spillway level is 422 feet representing 2,383.69 acre feet in water supply volume. Below is a chart comparing Bell Canyon elevation levels, water supply availability in acre feet, and percent capacity of the reservoir on May 1st in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

Year 2022 2023 2024
Bell Canyon Elevation Level 417.69 Ft. 421.96 Ft. 422 Ft.

Acre Feet 2,061 AF 2,380 AF 2,383 AF
Percent Capacity 86.5% 99.87% 100%
As a follow up to the May 24, 2022, City Council meeting, staff developed a graph (Attachment 3) highlighting the relationship between the reservoir elevation level and water supply availability in acre feet. The graph shows the current status of the reservoir. Furthermore, the graph also displays the points where City Council decided to declare Phase I and Phase II Water Emergencies in 2020.

Continued Water Conservation
California experienced two consecutive dry years 2020 and 2021. Due to the combination of warmer-than-average temperatures and minimal precipitation in the state, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) declared 2021 as the fourth-driest year on record statewide. The record-breaking dry period in January and February 2022, and the absence of significant rains in March 2022, required DWR to reduce anticipated deliveries from the State Water Project (SWP). However, the reduction at Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 464 of 697 ends

the time did not affect St. Helena as the City has multiple robust water sources not affected by the executive order. Water availability from the Bell Canyon reservoir is based on the City's State Water Rights permit and not the SWP. The City has not received any curtailment order from DWR nor does the City anticipate receiving one.

It should be noted that on July 25, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- 94 to formally end the Phase I Water Emergency. The projected demand on the system versus the anticipated rainfall over the next year reflects an available supply in Bell Canyon approximately 1,895 acre-feet, significantly above the 1,481 acre-feet standard for declaration of a Phase I Water Emergency. Staff will monitor State-wide and local drought conditions, weather conditions, and provide updates on a monthly basis. The corresponding staff report provided a variety of data to reflect the disposition of the water supply at that time in relation to the Council-adopted Safe Yield Policy.

City of Napa Water Supply
Normal operations continue at Rutherford Pump Station (RPS) and the City is taking delivery of the allotment purchased from City of Napa. During the month of April 2024, Rutherford Pump Station was producing an average of 0.37 MG/day for a total of 34.07 acre feet (AF) for the month.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not applicable.

GOAL:

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 3 - Bell Canyon Reservoir Storage Phase I II MWR April 1-30 2024
Attachment 2 - Bell Canyon Water Storage Forecast
Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 465 of 697 ends

Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 466 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA

MONTHLY WATER REPORT
CC: CC __X__ PC__X__ FILE _____
RECEIVED: _____ BY: __

LOUIS STRALLA

WATER PLANT
TK #1 & #2
ADJUST

4.70 1.53 -0.14

6.8% -0.6%

22.65 MG MG
n/a MG MG
n/a MG MG

0.75 MG MG
% %
233.46 AF 19.2% 366.38 AF 35.7%

76.05 MG 119.34 MG
502.66 AF 41.3% 460.62 AF 44.9%
163.73 MG 150.04 MG
480.09 AF 39.5% 198.55 AF 19.4%
156.38 MG 64.67 MG
TOTAL WATER PRODUCED 1216.21 AF 100.0% 1025.55 AF 100.0%

DELIVERY (ALL)

0.03 0.02
422.00 FT. FT.

0.00 FT. FT.
2383.69 AF AF
100.0 % %

0.97 IN IN

22.34 IN IN
DISCLAIMER: The data presented in this report is approximate and for informational purposes only. -0.44

April 1-30, 2024

STONEBRIDGE

POTABLE
WELLS
SBW

IRRIGATION
WATER

NAPA WATER

THIS YEAR LAST YEAR
AMOUNT PRODUCED in AF 30.77 0.15 34.07
AMOUNT PRODUCED in MG 10.02 0.05 11.10
PERCENT 44.5% 49.3%

WATER PRODUCED DELIVERY (AGGREGATE)
TOTAL PRODUCED THIS PERIOD 25.15
MAXIMUM DAILY PRODUCED 1.71
MINIMUM DAILY PRODUCED 0.47
AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCED 0.81

WATER YEAR TOTALS

THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR

LOUIS STRALLA WATER PLANT

NAPA WATER

STONEBRIDGE POTABLE WELLS

SBW IRRIGATION WATER
THIS MONTH THIS MONTH, LAST YR.

ELEVATION BELL CANYON RESERVOIR 421.96
STONEBRIDGE APARTMENTS MG/Apr. 1 -30 0.00 MG/Apr. 1-30

WATER ELEVATION, CAPACITY & RAINFALL

THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR
NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE MG/Apr. 1 -30 0.00 MG/Apr. 1-30

TEMPERATURES
MONTHLY RISE OR DROP -0.34
CAPACITY AT END OF PERIOD 2380.00
PERCENT OF FULL CAPACITY 99.9
RAINFALL IN THIS PERIOD 0.45
TOTAL RAINFALL SEASON TO DATE 40.46
THIS MONTH, THIS YEAR THIS MONTH, LAST YR.

DEGREES IN FAHRENHEIT 39.9-84 39-88
Updates will be provided if any errors are identified.

AVERAGE 61.95 63.5

REMARKS
City of Napa Water Delivery: RPS producing an average of 0.37 MG/day during April 2024.

Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 467 of 697 ends

Supply Level (Acre Feet)
BellCanyon Water Storage Forecast
Assumes: (1) Highest usage during non-drought year (FY2019/20) (2) 10" of Rainfall (Lowest Recorded)
2500
2383 2383 2383 2383
2232
2250
2004 2,149
2066
2002 2050
1945
2000 L952
1853 L885 1910
L861 L823 L888
L809
1727 1750
L628
L530 L493 L511 L498
L463
1500 L438 L401 L431 L436
Entered Phase 1 - 1,431 Acre Ft.
1357 1250
Historic PrOJected
1000
Entered Phase 2 - 939 Acre Ft.
750
500 596 Acre Feet*
250
o
. 25A reserve for fire
0 w,5 5 o 5 u v v v v v v v v v v u a a a a a a o a a 9 8 a e e e e e e r» 5» , d, 0/ 0/ a, 0/ n, n, n, a, n, I» '1 r» a, 0/ 0, q, n, n, 0’ 1» 1» , 0/ n, d, n, 1, '1 (OQ’Q06} $04 QQ/(J\’b ((91 grbk vQ‘Q’D?\OQ \\)\ VOQO(OQIQ06} $04 09/ \Q} ((610g» va g'bA\OQ \& VOQO(3Q? 06’"$04 09/0{D Qéo Q?) vQ‘@QA\OO Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 468 of 697 ends

Water Audit California

A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
952 SCHOOL STREET #316 NAPA CA 94559
VOICE: (707) 681-5111
EMAIL: [email protected]
May 28, 2024
City of St. Helena City Council
Sent via email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Re: City of St. Helena City Council Meeting May 28, 2024; Agenda Items 5.1, 12.1,

12.6, and 12.11
Agenda Item 5.1
City Council Resolution approving: (1) installment sale financing to provide financing of water system improvements, and (2) financing documents and related official actions.

St. Helena Financing Authority Resolution approving: (1) installment sale financing to provide financing of water system improvements, and (2) financing documents and related official actions.

Agenda Item 12.1
Review of the 2023 St. Helena Annual Housing Element Progress Report (APR).

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project. Prepared By: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review, consider, and file this report recognizing that staff submitted the information to HCD and OPR in keeping with the April 1, 2024 mandate.

Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 469 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 2 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item 12.6
Approve a resolution: (1) establishing Capital Improvement Project W24-11 Bell Canyon Dam DSOD Analysis/Improvements with a budget of $860,000; (2) allocating $860,000 from the 2024 Water Bonds Issuance; (3) authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Haley Aldrich Inc for engineering and project management services to provide a high-quality geotechnical exploration of Bell Canyon Dam for a not-to-exceed total of $781,900; and (4) authorize the Public Works Director to approve amendments to the Agreement to increase the not-to-exceed amount by up to 10% of the original PSA amount.

CEQA Determination: Categorically Exempt, Section 15323 Prepared By: Lesley Milton, Interim Assistant Director of Public Works – Operations Recommendation: Approve the attached Resolution.

Agenda Item 12.11
April 2024 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech.

Recommendation: Receive and file.
____________________________________________________
To all it may concern:

Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 470 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 3 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
Water Audit California (Water Audit) hereby comments on the above four agenda items, each of which is based upon gross fraud and misrepresentation. Each of the following comments is to be read as pertaining to each agenda item.

In addition to the following comments which apply generally, Water Audit notes the false statement in Agenda Item 12.1 that the Hunter project contains low income housing, which requirement was removed from the project subsequent to approval by the Planning Commission, the omission of mention of ongoing litigation to misstate the schedule of the Hunter project, and the ongoing controversy of whether the Stonebridge wells can be operated so as to cause continuing and increasing environmental injury.

Setting aside the tangible reality that the City of St. Helena (City) has inadequate water for its existing beneficial uses, the overt misrepresentations contained in the Agenda Report preclude any rational examination of the recommended decisions by the public. The misrepresentations in these agenda items put the lives and property of the City’s residents in unnecessary danger. The purpose of this comment is to put the burden of potential loss of life clearly on the shoulder of the City’s elected representatives.

To be clear, in the event of a catastrophe, Water Audit promises to send this comment to every news organization in the nation together with names of all complicit.

As a public interest organization, we want no part of the responsibility for a disaster while we are on watch.

1. All representations that assign the contents of Agenda Report Exhibit 1 to the Bell Canyon Reservoir are false.

The forgoing agenda items are accompanied by a staff prepared Agenda Report to the City Council. The staff reports at page 333:
“The Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) provided notice to the City of St.

Helena on July 5, 2023 of outstanding compliance for the Bell Canyon Dam (BCD) (Attachment 1).”
Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 471 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 4 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
That statement and all like following are false. Staff has taken comments pertaining to one dam, the St Helena Lower Dam (aka the Lower York Reservoir) and attributed them to another dam built nearly a century later, the Bell Canyon Dam. This can be confirmed by comparing the excerpts of the DSOD listing of jurisdiction dams exhibited below.

The Department of Water Rights letter exhibited as Exhibit 1 pertains to “St.

Helena Lower Dam, No. 16-2,” which in the DSOD database is expressed as 16-002, California jurisdictional dam CA-00148. Note in the DODS records that the “year built” is 1878, and the condition as “fair.” Both comments are correct and appropriate for the Lower York Reservoir, which was built by horse and wagon, not by modern heavy equipment.

Compare and contrast with the record for Bell Canyon Dam, dam no. 16.003 (aka 16-3), California jurisdictional dam CA-00149, the Bell Canyon Dam, built in 1958 with modern methods and rated in satisfactory condition.

The City Council and staff know the difference between the two dams, which implies that the staff’s misrepresentation was as the result of calculation, not incompetence. The January 20, 2017, Geotechnical Investigation Report by Kleinfelder engineering referenced in Exhibit 1, but not attached as an exhibit, clearly concerned the St. Helena Lower Dam, not the Bell Canyon Dam. Although the report is strangely Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 472 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 5 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
not attached and is unavailable in publicly posted records, the 2016 resolution that authorized Kleinfelder’s employment reads in part:

The Lower York Creek Reservoir was constructed in 1878. The dam at the Lower York Creek Reservoir, known as the St. Helena Lower Dam … The St. Helena Lower Dam, like all municipally owned dams in the state, is regulated under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Divisions of Safety of Dam (DSOD).

DSOD regularly inspects St. Helena Lower Dam as well as Bell Canyon Dam and keeps extensive records on both facilities. Under the regulatory program, DSOD has presented a number of concerns to the City of St. Helena for approximately over the last 10 years. Concerns include the stability of the St. Helena Lower Dam during a seismic event. DSOD believes that under a seismic event, the St. Helena Lower Dam could be subject to liquefaction and experience a catastrophic failure. As such the DSOD has restricted the amount of water storage capacity the City is permitted to store in the Lower York Creek Reservoir and directed the city to perform a geotechnical analysis. If the city continues to , not address DSOD's concerns, they can further restrict storage capacity and levy other requirements on the City if necessary. (Emphasis added.) An additional July 2016 staff report in support of a $150,000 addition to the Kleinfelder contact which emphasized the danger of the dam and uncertainty of the present condition:

DSOD believes that under a seismic event, the St. Helena Lower Dam could be subject to liquefaction and experience a catastrophic failure. … The contingencies provide insurance to the Project that will allow staff to navigate changing conditions if unpredicted field conditions or other issues arise during the project. Not having a contingency budget could cause the Project drilling to be halted if changing conditions arise in the field … Postponing or not addressing the required work will result in restrictions to the capacity of the City's reservoir, and possible fines from regulators. For these reasons, City Staff recommends City Council approve the First Amendment augmenting Kleinfelder Incorporated's Professional Services Agreement. (Emphasis added)
In short, the representation that the Bell Canyon Dam is in dire need of structural repair to prevent failure is prima facie false. There is no such evidence. The St. Helena Lower Dam is in a potentially catastrophic condition, but nothing is being done or proposed to remediate it.

While the City has represented to the Department of Water Resources that it is operating the St. Helena Lower Dam at reduced capacity until sufficient funds can be Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 473 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 6 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
secured for removal, that representation is also false. The maximum storage may have been reduced1, but there are no present plans for the removal of this potentially deadly dam, only deferred plans for its maintenance.

The council cannot shelter behind its usual shield of ignorance. On June 13, 2023, council deferred any rehabilitation of the Lower Reservoir in 2026/27, and even then, it assigned a budget of only $50,000. (See City of St. Helena, Agenda 12.1, Water 5 Year Capital improvements Program) This is a trivial sum considering the problem and risks, and completely contradictory to the concurrent representation to the Water Board that the City is seeking funds to remove the dam.

The 2017 Kleinfelder report was last seen by the City Council in May 2023, when a decision was made to ignore public trust impacts of the dam’s operation and enter into a five-year water contract with Spring Mountain Vineyards to supply water at a fraction of the cost paid by City residents. There is no public record of any efforts made to secure funds for dam removal.

In short, staff has misrepresented the Bell Canyon Dam to be in the dangerous condition of the St. Helena Lower dam so as to obtain funds for the benefit of the Bell Canyon dam which is in satisfactory condition, and as a consequence, leave the dangerous Lower York dam unfunded and unrepaired. This is a shocking disregard of the duty of candor on the part of a public employees, and a callous disregard of the potential risk to human life. By this series of misrepresentations, the City Council is intentionally putting its residents’ lives at risk.

2. Staff has misrepresented the contribution of Bell Canyon Reservoir to the City’s water supply.

Staff has grossly misrepresented the contribution of the Bell Canyon Reservoir to the City’s water needs. “The Bell Canyon Dam is part of the City's critical infrastructure, as it provides 80% of the supplied potable water for the City of St. Helena.” This statement is 1 The City’s ability to control the water level in the Lower Dam have on occasion been overwhelmed by heavy rain events that have exceeded the ability to discharge flows downstream.

Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 474 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 7 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
false, contradicted both by other statements both within and external to the Agenda Report.

In November 2021 the City wrote to the State Water Resources Control Board seeking permission to store early rain. Although obviously intending to emphasize the importance of the reservoir to the total water supply, the City’s report of the contribution of Bell Canyon is 30% less than asserted in the Agenda Report:

The City submits these petitions due to severe drought conditions and low storage levels. As of September 31, 2021, Bell Canyon Reservoir, which has historical served nearly 50% of the City's water demand, had depleted to 28% capacity. With 25% of the reservoir's capacity reserved for fire suppression support, only 3% of its capacity, or less than 100 acre-feet of water, remained for municipal use in the City's service area.

Further, at Agenda Report page 137, again contradicting the 80% representation, it is reported that the historical contributions of the different sources of the city’s water supply have been:

The actual contribution of Bell Canyon reservoir to the total has been:
2022-23 - 32%; 2021-22 – 31%; 2020-21 – 36%; 2019-20 – 41%; 2018-19 – 49%, or on average one half of the assertion of staff.

Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 475 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 8 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]

3. Staff representations of the relative costs of water production are unsupported by facts and prima facie unbelievable.

At page 136 of the Agenda Report representation is made of the relative costs of production of water from the three sources available to the City of St. Helena:

Use of the surface water from its Bell Canyon Reservoir is by far the least expensive to supply (averaging approximately $0.46/hundred cubic feet (HCF) in Fiscal Year 2023-24), while the groundwater wells ($6.00/HCF in Fiscal Year 2023-24) and City of Napa water ($6.86/HCF in Fiscal Year 2023-24) are considerably higher. The three supply costs are factored into the City’s new rate structure for the Water System, as described herein.

While the staff report is bulked with numerous estimates of future capital expenditures and anticipated revenues, there is no statement of the actual historical costs of operating the Bell Canyon Reservoir and Louis Stella water treatment facility.

The reader is asked to accept on faith the summary representations made by staff, which considering the foregoing is much more than should be asked.

The public deserves to know the economic and other consequences of years of outside contractor operation of the Louis Stralla treatment plant, and of thoughtless operations and maintenance, which has resulted in payroll costs approximately three times greater than market rate for staff. Clearly the cost of operation has changed during the subject five-year window, but there is no evidence of how, or by how much.

Finally, it is represented by the city that critical operating data is not available to the public as it is retained within a proprietary data base owned and controlled by a private contractor. In essence, the city has intentionally circumvented the Public Records Act by hiding its data in private hands, and now it seeks funding to continue this unlawful conduct. This cannot be tolerated.

Conclusion
The above captioned agenda items are based on inadequate and false data and must be rejected without hesitation. That is not to deny the potential needs of the Bell Canyon reservoir, or the City of St. Helena water system in general, but it is axiomatic that falsehoods multiply and require further falsehoods to sustain them, leading to a Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 476 of 697 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter to City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 9 of 9 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
complete loss of trust and credibility. Consider the implication of continuing down this path.

Further, we urge the City of St. Helena to recognize and plan immediate remediation of the serious risk to its citizens from the St. Helena Lower Dam. Finally, Water Audit respectfully submits that the City of St. Helena call to account all staff persons responsible for this disgraceful presentation.

Respectfully,
William McKinnon
General Counsel
Direct Dial: 530.575.5335
Agenda Item #12.11.

Page 477 of 697 ends

Page 478 of 697 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: May 28, 2024
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution directing staff to prepare a report to the City Council pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212
analyzing the impacts and effects of the Noble House
proposal titled, "St. Helena Agritourism Initiative."

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Direct City staff to prepare a report on the proposed
initiative analyzing the impacts enumerated in Elections Code Section 9212 and return to Council with the report at the June 25 Council meeting.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 9, 2024 - City Council discussion of 9212 Report

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To direct City staff to prepare an Elections Code Section 9212 Report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of the report preparation will be influenced largely by the breadth and complexity of the topics that City
Council wants included. Preparation of the report is
expected to include staff time, which will impact other work priorities, and the use of consultants, which will result in hard costs, which is estimated to be less than $100,000.

Based on the City Council's direction, staff will determine the costs for the preparation of the report and return to City Council to approve an allocation of funds, as determined necessary and appropriate.

BACKGROUND:

On March 12, 2024, Initiative proponents ("Noble House") filed with the City a Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition and a request that the City Attorney prepare a ballot title and summary. The City Attorney Office title and summary is an unbiased and neutral description that is to be used on the official ballot and other election materials, such as the petition that is currently being circulated for signatures.

The Initiative is included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report. Noble House proponents have called the petition, St. Helena Agritourism Initiative (the "Initiative"). This Initiative seeks to adopt a new Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay ("WPA Overlay"). The WPA Overlay can only be applied on up to 11 acres of large parcels in excess of 110- acres, located within City limits but outside the City's Urban Limit Line, with existing active agriculture and a winery, and served by an existing railroad line. If adopted, the Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 479 of 697 ends

newly adopted WPA Overlay would apply to 11 acres of real property along the existing rail line located at 2800 Main Street, with mostly open, fallow acreage bordered by Deer Park Road.

The Noble House proposed Initiative would facilitate the development of an up to 56- room agritourism resort hotel, with a variety of public and visitor-serving amenities including meeting and event spaces, and an on-site spa and restaurant open to the public, including residents of St. Helena. The Initiative states it includes specific policies, development standards, and required environmental design features to ensure that the actions approved in the Initiative will require the project to proceed in an environmentally responsible manner and only as approved by the voters.

The proposed Initiative indicates project requirements include, but are not limited to:
responsible water and wastewater plans, with a reliance on recycled water for nonpotable and landscaping needs; ensuring that public access to the site is via Deer Park Road, in addition to the rail line, which will substantially minimize traffic related impacts; and a substantial commitment to the construction of new affordable workforce housing in the City of St. Helena.

Once sufficient valid signatures are gathered during the period of time prescribed by State law (as has been done in this instance), the Initiative is either placed on the ballot for consideration by voters, or the City Council approves the measure, as described in the Discussion section.

DISCUSSION:

On May 2, 2024, proponents filed the Initiative petition, consisting of 96 sections, bearing a total of 775 signatures to the City. The City Clerk has thirty (30) business days to examine the petition and determine if sufficient valid signatures have been collected to enable the petition to move forward.

On May 3, 2024, the City submitted to the Napa County Registrar of Voters the 775 signatures for signature verification.

On May 21, 2024, the Napa County Registrar of Voters certified a sufficient number of signatures has been obtained, qualifying the Initiative for the November 2024 ballot. A Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition is attached to this report as a receive, file, and accept the Certificate as valid in all respects (Attachment 2).

Since the Initiative has obtained the required number of signatures, today, the Council's options under California Elections Code sections 1405 and 9215 are as follows:

1. Adopt the Measure, without alteration, at this meeting, or within 10 days after.

Under this scenario this Initiative will not be taken to the voters.

2. Submit the Measure to the voters at the "next regular municipal election" occurring at least 88 days later. For St. Helena, this is November 5, 2024.

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 480 of 697 ends

3. Direct staff to prepare an impartial and informational report analyzing the impact of the Measure as noted below ("9212 Report" or "Report"). Staff must present the Report not later than 30 days after the City Clerk certifies to the Council that the petition is sufficient (by June 27, 2024). After receiving the report, the Council must select one of the three options above.

Elections Code 9212(a) authorizes the City Council to refer the Initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report regarding the Initiative's impact and effects ("Report") before the City Council either adopts the Initiative or orders an election.

Election Code Section 9212 sets broad parameters for what the report may address, and provides that the report may examine the following items:

1. Its fiscal impact.

2. Its effects on the internal consistency of the City's General and Specific Plans, the consistency between Planning and Zoning, and the limitations on City actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.

3. Its effects on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.

4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.

5. Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain businesses and employment.

6. Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.

7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.

8. Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report.

Based on staff's preliminary review of the Initiative and City Council feedback on April 9, 2024, staff recommends further consideration of the effects of the Initiative on all seven items listed in Elections Code Section 9212.

As Council is aware, the proponents of the Initiative has prepared an "Environmental Assessment" of the development proposed under the Initiative, which includes analysis of many of the items listed above. As part of the City's report, the City plans to conduct a peer review of the proponent's analysis, to consider whether the impacts are adequately addressed in the proponent's Environmental Assessment.

The Report must be presented to the City Council at a date set by the Council, no later than thirty (30) days after the City Clerk certifies the sufficiency of the petition. The attached Resolution allows presentation of the Report to the Council any time within the parameters set by state law.

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 481 of 697 ends

It is anticipated the report will be presented to City Council on June 25, 2024 where at that time Council must either: (1) adopt the petition without alteration or (2) order an election.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The preparation of the 9212 Report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - The St. Helena Agritourism Initiative - Proponent Kristine Raymond Attachment 2 - City Clerk Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition Attachment 3 - Resolution
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 482 of 697 ends

March 13, 2024

VIAHANDDELIVERY
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA94574
Re: The St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
Dear Ms. Tzafopoulos:

For your immediate attention, enclosed please ?nd the following documents relating to an initiative titled the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative (the "lnitiative"):

Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition (Elections Code § 9202]; Text ofthe Initiative (Elections Code § 9202);
Certi?cations regarding use ofsignatures (Elections Code § 9608); Initiative proponent's authorization for the Nielsen Merksamer law ?rm to handle the ?ling ofthe Initiative petition, as well as any related actions and/or correspondence with elections of?cials relating to the Initiative (Elections Code § 9210); and
A check in the amount of$200 (Elections Code § 9202].

Pursuant to Elections Code section 9203(a), this letter shall serve as formal written request that a ballot title and summary of the measure be prepared by the City Attorney.

The name and address ofthe person proposing this measure (the "proponent") is Kristine ("Krisi") Raymond, 1985 Vineyard Ave., St. Helena, CA94574.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Hilary Gibson ofmy ?rm should you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance.
ry trul yours,

NIELSEN MERKSAM

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
2350 KERNERBLVD, SUITE 250
SAN RAFAEL,CA9490!

PARRINELLO GROSS & LEONI LL

SACRAMENTO
1415 LSTREE .S
SACRAMENTO, CA 5814
16446!) 06

POLITICAL &
LAW
ADVOCA
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 483 of 697 ends

Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of her intentionto circulate a petition withinthe City of St. Helena for the purpose of qualifyingand enactingthe St. Helena AgritourismInitiative (the “Initiative”). A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:

A ?scal analysis conunissionedby the City of St. Helena and presentedto the City Council in 2023 determinedthat the City has limited ?nancial resources to provideneeded services and upgradesto meet community expectations.The City’s Financing Civic Infrastructure Task Force previouslyconcludedthat new hotelswithin St. Helena City limits are essentialto create new revenue streams to addressthe City’s budgetary challenges and ?nance the City’s many infrastructure needs, including new and improved City facilities,streets, and sidewalks.

The City’s 2040 General Plan contemplatesthe possibility of developing hotel and other touristorienteduses in close proximityto the existing rail line running roughly parallel to Highway 29, which would further the City’s goal of reducing the tourismindustry’s relianceon cars. It would also bring substantialnew annualrevenue to the City in the form of hotel and other taxes paid by visitors.

To facilitate these needs and goals in a responsiblemanner that protects our community, this Initiative adopts a new Winery and PlannedAgritourismOverlay (“WPA Overlay"). The WPA Overlay can only be applied on up to l 1 acres of large parcels in excess of l lO-acres, located withinCity limitsbut outsideof the City’s Urban Limit Line,with existing active agriculture and a winery, and served by an existing railroad line. Along with conforming amendments to the City‘s GeneralPlan, Zoning Map, and Municipal Code, the Initiative appliesthe newly adopted WPA Overlay to 11 acres of real property along the existing rail line locatedat 2800 Main Street , withinmostly open, fallow acreage borderedby Deer Park Road.

The Initiativethereby facilitates the development of an up to 56-room agritourismresort hotel, with a variety of public and visitor-serving amenitiesincluding meeting and event spaces, and an on-site spa and restaurant open to the public, including residentsof St. Helena.The Initiative also includesspeci?c policies, development standards, and required environmentaldesign features to ensure that the actions approved by thisInitiative will requirethe project to proceed in an environmentally responsible manner and only as approved by the voters.

These project requirements include, but are not limited to: responsiblewater and wastewater plans, with a reliance on recycled water for non-potable and landscaping needs; ensuring that public access to the site is via Deer Park Road, in additionto the rail line, whichwill substantially minimizetraf?c related impacts; and a substantialcommitmentto the construction of new affordable workforce hous' ' the City.

Kris 'ne (“Krisi”) Raymo
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 484 of 697 ends

AUTHORIZATION FOR COUNSEL TO HANDLE PETITION FILING
(Elec. Code § 9210)
I, Kristine (“Krisi”) Raymond, as the proponent of the St. HelenaAgn'tourism Initiative (the “Initiative"), hereby authorizemy legal counsel, Sean P. Welch and Hilary J. Gibson of the Nielsen Merksarnerlaw ?rm, to handle the ?ling of the Initiative for title and summary, ?ling of the Initiative petition, and any other actions and/or correspondence th your of?ce, or any other elections officials, relating to e Initiative. (Si ature of Proponen
Dated this day of March, 2024.

SIGNED STATEMENT OF PROPONENT
(Elec. Code § 9608)
I, Kristine (“Krisi”) Raymond, acknowledge that it is a misdemeanorunder state law (Section 18650 of the Elections Code) to knowingly or willfully allow the signatures on an initiative petition to be used for any purpose other than quali?cation of the proposed measure for the ballot. I certify that I will not knowingly or willfully allow th gnatures for this initiative to be used for any purpose other than uali?cati of the e for the ballot. (Signature of Proponent)
Dated this day of March, 2024
, IAgenda Item #14.1.

Page 485 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS The people of the City of St. Helena do ordain as follows:

SECTION I. Title.

This initiative measure shall be known and may be cited as the “St. Helena Agritourism Initiative” (“Initiative”).

SECTION 2. Findings and Purpose.

A. Findings. The people of the City of St. Helena (“City”) ?nd and declare the following:

1. Located in the center ofNapa Valley, the City has served from its inception as a rural agricultural center. It is also a hub for tourism, and hosts visitors from all over the world who come to experience the scenic vistas, world class wineries, and farm to table restaurants in Napa Valley’s wine country.

2. Revenue generated by the tourism industry is essential to ensure that the City has suf?cient general fund revenue to pay for critical City services and infrastructure projects, including new and improved City facilities, streets, and sidewalks.

3. A fiscal analysis commissioned by the City and provided to the City Council in 2023 determined that the City has “several unfunded or underfunded needs" and that the City is “currently struggling to provide services and meeting the expectations ofthe community.” The report concluded that “The magnitude of the costs associated with the City’s underfunded needs ... will not be affordable without additional financial resources in other words, the City will need some form of revenue enhancement in order to continue providing the levels of service the community expects while also addressing deteriorating capital assets."

4. The City’s Financing Civic Infrastruclm'eTask Force had previously determined that two new hotels within St. Helena city limits were essential to create new revenue streams to address the City’s budgetary challenges and finance the City’s many infrastructure needs.

5. The City’s 2040 General Plan contemplates the possibility of developing hotel and other tourist-oriented uses in close proximity to the existing rail line running roughly parallel to Highway 29, which would further the City's goal of reducing the tourism industry‘s reliance on the automobile.

6. Accordingly, the people of the City of St. Helena desire to amend the City’s General Plan, Zoning Map, and Municipal Code to facilitate the development ofa 56- room maximum, world-classresort hotel and agrotourism facility on the existing rail line , subject to the limitations, policies, and standards set forth in this Initiative.

7. The new reson hotel will be located within a newly adopted Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (“WPA Overlay"), which can only be applied on up to l 1 acres of large parcels in excess of l I0-acres located within City limits but outside ofthe City’s Urban Limit Line with existing active agriculture and a winery, and served by an existing railroad line.

8. Specifically, the new WPA Overlay will be applied to l 1 acres of real property located at 2800 Main Street, with the resort located within mostly open, fallow acreage along Deer Park Road (the “WPA Property“). The larger approximately l40-acre winery site is bounded by Deer Park Road to the northwest, the Napa River to the northeast, and York Creek and an existing winery production facility to the southeast (the “Winery Property”). A map depicting the property subject to this Initiative is attached hereto for informational purposes as Exhibit A.

9. The Initiative would thereby facilitate the development of approximately 10.5 acres ofcurrently mostly fallow ground on the Winery Property, including a one-acre landscape buffer. On-site facilities would include a maximumof 56 permitted guest Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 486 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS rooms, as well as a variety of public and visitor-serving amenitiesincluding meeting and event spaces, swimming pools, and an on-site spa and restaurant open to the public, including residents ofSt. Helena (the “Project").

10. The rail line running through the Winery Property would remain the northern terminus of the existing tourist train route and provide ease of access for both hotel and winery visitors and other passengers upon the resort’s completion. Public access to the site will come from a future access drive offDeer Park Road, and from the existing train, which is intended to substantially minimize traf?c related impacts. In addition, the Project will provide a minimum 8 foot wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail open to the public, located along the existing rail line on the Winery Property, subject to approva l by applicable agencies.
1l. This Initiative also makes confonning amendmentsto the City’s General Plan an d Zoning Code to facilitate the development of the Project and secure the fiscal and other bene?ts described herein for the City’s residents.The policies, development standards, and required environmentaldesign features in this Initiative, as set forth in the new Winery and Planned AgritourismOverlay applied to the WPA Property, are intended to ensure that the actions approved by this Initiative will require the Project to proceed responsibly and only in the manner approved by the voters. l2. These Project requirements include, but are not limited to, responsible water and wastewater plans, with a reliance on recycled water for non-potable and landscaping needs, as well as a substantial commitment to the construction of new affordable workforce housing in the City.
l3. Implementationof this Initiative will protect the public health, safety and welfare, and the quality oflife for the people ofthe City of St. Helena.

Pumose.The people ofthe City of St. Helena declare that our purpose and intent in enacting this Initiative is to make amendments to the City’s General Plan, Zoning Map, and Municipal Code to facilitate the development ofa resort and agritourism facility on the WPA Property at the northem terminus of the existing Napa Valley train route.

SECTION 3. Amendments to the General Plan of the City of St. Helena The General Plan of the City ofSt. Helena (General Plan Update 2040 (June 2019)) is hereby amended as follows (new language to be inserted into the General Plan is shown as underlined text and deletionsshown in st-Fiket-hreugh;text in regular type or bold type reflects the existing General Plan text and is provided for intbrrnational/reference purposes):

A. Land Use and Growth Management Element, Section 2.2, Community Development Framework, Community and Natural Resource Areas at Page 2-15 is hereby amended as follows:

Agriculture (AG). The AG land use designation includes agricultural and winery uses with restricted single family residential and public/quasi-publicuses. This designation applies to large areas of the valley floor that surround the city’s urban core. With the exception of hillside areas designated WW, all lands outside the Urban Limit Line are designated AG regardless of their size or actual use.

Minimum parcel sizes for new parcels in AG areas range from 20 to 40 acres.

However, wineries in AG land may utilize a small portion of onsite land for provision ofaffordable employee housing thus alleviating some of the low and moderate housing needs in the city, while simultaneously reducing commute traffic.

Large parcels in excess of l IO-acres with existing active agriculture and a wineg located within the City limits but outside of the Urban Limit Line that are served by an existing railroad line may be designated with an agritourism overlay district allowing the parcel to utilize up to l 1 acres for agritourism facilities with ovemight accommodations(“Large Parcel Agritourism Facility”).

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 487 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS Land Use and Growth Management Element, Section 2.5, Policies and Implementing Actions, Topic Area Growth Management at Page 2-30 is hereby amended as follows:

LUI.2 Allow urban development to occur only within the Urban Limit Line.

Consider an exception for on-site employee housing on Agricultural lands. Urban services, such as sewer, water, and storm drainage, will only be extended to development within the Urban Limit Line. The Urban Limit Line may only expand when the amount ofdevelopable landwithin the Urban Limit Line isinsufficient to implement the General Plan policies or when logical to include developed lands receiving urban services from the City. Expansion outside the Urban Limit Line should first be considered in Urban Reserve Areas. Expansion into other areas outside the Urban Limit Line should be considered only when the proposed land use is found to further the goals and long-term objectives of the City and does not result in adverse impacts to adjacent uses in either the urban or rural areas.

Development of a Lame Parcel Agritourism Facility in an agritourism overlav district of up to 11 acres shall not be considered “urban development" for the pumose of this General Plan.

Land Use and Growth Management Element, Section 2.5, Policies and Implementin g Actions, Topic Area Agricultural Uses at Page 2-42 is hereby amended as follows:

LU5.3 Strictly limit development on propenies existing at the time ofthe adoption ofthis General Plan that are designatedas agricultural land, except for Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities as permitted bv an agritourism overlavdistrict.

LUS.6 Permit wineries and other agricultural-relatedindustries, including Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities, to locate in the city if their location does not adversely impact surroundings, uses, or city services (water, traf?c, etc.) or the quality and character of the community.

Public Facilities and Services Element, Section 4.5, Policies and Implementing Actions, Topic Area Sewer at Pages 4-28 and 4-29 is hereby amended as follows:

PF2.2 Require the extension of the City sewer to areas that are dependent upon septic systems prior to approval of future growth in these areas.

Large ParcelAgritourismFacilities, as permitted by an yritourism overlav district, are not considered urban development, as further described in Policv LU l.2 and Implementing Action PF2.C. Such development does not contemplate or require the extension of urban sewer services.

PF2.C Urban services such as sewer, water, and storm drainage will only be extended to development within the Urban Limit Line. Exceptions will be permitted when undue hardship can be demonstrated and when proposed improvements are not found to induce growth.

Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities, as permitted bv an agritourismoverlay district, are not considered urban develo ment a contem lated b this General Plan and therefore such development does not contemplate or require the extension of municipal urban services such as sewer, water. and storm drainage. provided that wastewater treatment is provided bv an on-propertv package water reclamation system sized for project sewing flows in the form of a membrane bioreactor or similar system that is capable of providing tertia? level water Quality treatment, and there is adequate water from existing on site wells to provide potable water; emergency systems water and irrigation water shall be supplied by recycled water an spp needed
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 488 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS SECTION 4. Amendments to the City of St. Helena Zoning Map.

The voters hereby amend the City of St. Helena Zoning Map as follows:

I. To include a new Winery and PlannedAgritourism Overlay (WPA) designation in the list ofCity ofSt. Helena Zoning Districts, as depicted in Exhibit B hereto; and l"
Adopt the Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA) zoning overlay on the WPA Property subject to this Initiative, as depicted in Exhibit B hereto.

SECTION 5. Amendments and Additions to the City of St. Helena Municipal Code.

Title [7 (“Zoning Code"), Chapter l7.l9 (“Community Agricultural and Natural Resource Zoning Districts”), Section l7.19.020 (“Use Regulations”),“Commercial Uses” subsection of “Table 17.19.020.A: Use Regulations Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts," of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows to add Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay uses as a Permitted use in the Winery (W) Zone within the Winery and Planned AgritourismOverlay (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in stFi-kethreugh;text in regular type, italics, or bold type re?ects the existing Municipal Code text and is provided for informational reference purposes):

Table l7.l9.020.A: Use R ulations — Communi ‘culture and Natural Resource Zonin 'stricts Use Classi?cation A-20 W W Addltionnl Re ulntions
“P" = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit' “CUP" = Conditional Use Permit; “-" = Use Not Allowed Commercial Uses
Animal Care and service
Animal lumrdiligjilcilihV/tenud CUP -
Velerimujv clinic CUP -
Winegy and Planned Agritourism ; E Only within the Winery Overlay uses (1 Pl ed A yntourlsm
Overlay, see 7.2 I.060,
Winemand Planned
Agrltourism Overlay
A copy ol'St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.19is attached hereto as informational purposes only.

Title 17 (“Zoning Code”), Chapter 17.21 (“Overlay Zoning Districts”) of tie Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown In st-Fileethreugh;text in regular type or bold type reflects the existing Municipal Code text and is provided for infbnnational/referencepurposes):

Chapter 17.21 Overlay Zoning Districts
Sections:

17.21.010 Flood Plain Overlay (FP)
1721020 Mobile Home Park Overlay (MHP)

17.21.030 Parking Exemption District (PED)

17.21.040 Historic PreservationOverlay (HP)

17.21.050 Planned Development Overlay (PD)
cg WAS“
nnn
Exhibit D tor
'
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 489 of 697 ends

l7.2l.060 Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA)
Overlay zoning districts are intended to provide for the regulation of properties with special or unique conditions and establish regulations which shall be in addition to those ofthe base zoning district. The Overlay designations set forth in this Title are as follows:

Table 17.21A: Overlay Zoning Districts
Abbreviation Name
FP Flood Plain Overlay
MHP Mobile Home Park Overlay
PED Parking Exemption District
HP Historic Preservation Overlay
PD Planned Development Overlay
WPA Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay
A new Section, 17.21.060, titled “Winery and Planned AgritourismOverlay (WPA),” is hereby added to Chapter 17.21 as follows:

17.21.060 Wine and Planned A yritourism Overla WPA
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA) _, when combinedwith an underlying Winery (W) Zoning District, to encourage high quality, innovative and creative agricultural based tourism development in the City outside of th e Urban Limit Line. The WPA Overlayprovides for the attraction ofvisitors with overnight accommodations on parcels within the agriculture general plan land use designation an Wine? d (W) Zoning designation in conjunction with agricultural, wineg and wine related uses. Large parcels in excess of llO-acres with existing active m- agriculture and a winery locatedwithin the City but outside ofthe Urban Limit Line and that are served by an existing railroad line may be designated with a WPA Overlay allowing the parcel to utilize up to l 1 acres for agritourism with overnight accommodations.The WPA Overlay is intended to provide for the approval of develppment plans which serve public objectives more fully than development permitted under conventional zoning regulations. The WPA Overlay is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, as amended by the St. Helen a Agritourism Initiative.

B. Permitted uses. The following are the permitted uses in the Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay lWPA):

1. All uses permitted in the property’s base zoning district; 7 Hotel, resort. or similar uses with transient ovemight accommodations with no more than 56 guest rooms.served by an active railway line and located on a development site no larger than 1l acres on parcels 110 acres or larger in size with active winery or vineyard uses.

3. Uses accessory to hotel, reson, includipg but not limited to spa. restaurant. bar. up to

11.000square feet for meeting rooms or related spaces, or similar uses. with transien t ovemight accommodations.

4. Train station or depot up to 2.500square feet for passenger and guest use, if associate with d a hotel or resort.

C. Conditional uses. Conditional uses ps_§pecified in the proper_t_y‘sbase zoning district require approval ofa use permit as regulated by Section 17.05.020. Approval ofa use permit is subject to finding the use consistent with the policies ofthe meny’s General Plan land use designation and the purpose ofthe WPA OverlaL

TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 490 of 697 ends

Ilall

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS D. Design Review. Design Review shall not be required for uses permitted outright pursuant to Sections 17.21.0603 and E. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Design Review, conducted pursuant to Chapter 17.05, shall be required for new structures. buildings or exterior revisions (not including change in exterior color) to any existing structures or buildings that also rmuirea conditional use permit pursuant to Section 17.21.060.Cin the WPA Overlay. provided that no decision-making bodies or of?cials may use Desigp Review intentionally or inadvenently to prohibit, unduly restrict, or reduce uses, building types, number of maximum allowed units, density, or height of structures allowed in the WPA Overlay, or to reguire changes from or impose any conditions inconsistent with standards in this Chapter. All applications for Design Review for permitted uses in the WPA Overlay shall be limited to conformity with the standardsin this Chapter. Desigp Review shall not be required for adiacentnew construction meeting the requirements of Section l7.2].06010u6).

E. Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures. The following are types of accessory uses, buildings, and structures permitted in the WPA Overlay:

1. Restaurants, spas, meeting spaces, recreation areas, employee of?ces, equipment and maintenance areas. employee facilities, garages, camons,workshops, pools, pool houses, gazebos, patio covers, and other accessory building; structures. and similar uses associated with resorts and hotels;

2. Signs subject to the generally applicable provisions ofChapter 17.27;

3. Other uses and structures which are customarily incidental and clearly subordinate to permitted and conditional uses pursuant to the generally applicable provisions of Chapter 17.24.

F. Development Standards. Standards for lot area_,_building_coveragp,_buildi_ng height _, setback reguirements, minimum open space area, sign placement and design, off- street parking, landscaping, and screening for the proposed development within the WPA Overlay shall prevail over the development standards of the base district zoning of the property. No structure or improvement shall be constructed within the WPA Overlay except in compliance with the WPA Overlay. Each structure or improvement shall be constructed and maintained in substantial compliance with the WPA Overlay. The requirements in Table l7.2].060.F shall be observed in the WPA Overlay, except as otherwise provided in this Section.

Table 17.2] .060.F Develo ment Standards
Maximum Standards.

L Disity 0.3 FAR
b. Height ofbuildings structures 45 feet
c. Budding coverage 50 percent
d, Buildin Area conditioned 105 000 sf
Minimum Standards.

A Lot width 300_feet
Q Front setback M
& Side setback 10 feet
Rear setback 10 feet

1. Design. The design ofthe building and site shall substan ‘ v confonn to all app development standards, reguirements and Environmental Design Features in this Section; naterials and colors shall be used in a manner that creates a visuall cohesive desi n'‘ roof Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 491 of 697 ends

,1:
_._
.:,-
.
--_..
--—
II—
.—

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS desi In buildin ' massin r and buildin articulationtreatments shall be a lied on are all sides of the buildings; and shall be compatible with the character. including any histori c
considerations, of the site.
7 Landscaping. All setbacks must be landscaped with plant materials, adequatel y maintained in accordance with the generally applicable provisions of Chapter 17.25.

3. Parking. Parking for hotel use shall be a minimum of77 parking spaces and may be rovidcd on site or off—siteon an ad'oinin v arcel sub'ect to a lon -tenn 'oint-use arkin r agreement. Parking and loading shall comply with the generally applicable Parking Area and Access Design Standards in Section 17.26.050. Electric vehicle charging stations and EV-capable parking shall conform to Section 17.26.090.as required.

C. Other Uses, Standards, and Reguirements.
l. Wastewater. Wastewater treatment provided by an on-property package water reclamation system sized for WPA proiect serving ?ows in the form of a membrane bioreactor or similar system that is capable of providing tertiary treated water quality treatment shall be allowed. Alternatively, wastewater services may be provided by municipal wastewater systems if permitted by the City.

2. Water. Potable water will be provided by existing on-site wells. EmeLgency systems water and irrigation water will be supplied by recycled water and supplemented by on site wells as needed. Altemativelv, such water may be provided by municipal water systems if permitted by the City. The use of existing water wells within the City, including the maintenance, modi?cation, or reconstruction thereof, for potable water, emergency systems water, and irrigation water not supplied through treated wastewater shall be allowed and shall not retmirea permit under Section 13.16.060.

3. Retail. Retail sales and food and drink facilities must be integrated with the overnight accommodationsor winery visitor center, and no advertising or other exterior evidence of such use shall be visible from any public right-of—way.

4. Other Uses, Capacity. No use authorized under the provisions of this Chapter shall be permitted where use, occupancy, or patronage will exceed the capability of the site to provide off-street parking, waste disposal systems, and reasonable provisions for public safety consistent with the St. Helena Municipal Code.

5. Workforce Housing. An Applicant under this Section shall apply to the City for a permit to develop a minimumof?ftv (50) units ofrental workforce housing made available to rent at an affordable rent, adjusted for household size, to moderate income households on a separate legal parcel within the City Limits (“Workforce Housing Obligation”l. lfthe City approves any of the Applicant’s proposed Workforce Housing Obligation, the City shall not apply any otherwise applicable affordable housing impact fee to the Proiectin accordancewith applicable City regulations as contained inChapter 17.30 of the St. Helena Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time. lfthe City approves the Workforce Housing Obligation prior to the certi?cate of occupancy on the Project, Applicant shall cause construction of its Workforce Housing Obligation within 24 months of the City’s approval of the Workforce Housing Obligation. If the City fails to approve the Workforce Housing Obligation prior to the certificate of occupancy on the Proiect, Applicant shall make a payment for the pumose of furthering the City's affordable housing goals pursuant to the requirements ofSt. Helena Municipal Code Section l7.30.020, as may be amended from time to time, to be paid to the City_priorto issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project as the Project’s sole obligation to provide affordable or workforce housing.

6. Environmental Design Features.
a. In addition to the re?nementsofthe WPA Overlay and the St. Helena Municipal Code, an approved WPA Overlay must include and incorporate Environmental Design Features Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 492 of 697 ends

. __'__-:....i 'I' - I
.,_

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS (“EDFs”) to ensure that development in the overlay area avoids or minimize s environmentaleffects with appropriate sensitivity to the land. its resources. and adiace nt property, and remainsin compliance with the Califomia BuildimzCode and other generall y
applicable state laws. The Project Applicantts! or designeets) under this Section shal l
implement all EDFs and the City shall implement a monitoring and enforcement mgram to ensure compliance. The monitoring and enforcement program shall be administeredby the Community Development Director or their designee.
b. The EDFs required for the WPA Overlay adopted on the WPA Property subject to the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative (“Initiative”) are set forth in Appendix 1. which is incorporated by reference herein; Appendix 1 attached to the Initiative as Exhibit C.

7. WPA Overlay Controls. 1n the event that any other provision of this Chapter 17. 21 (“Overlay Zoning Districts”) ofTitle l7 (“Zoning Code“) or any other provisions of the St.

Helena Municipal Code con?ict with this Section 17.21.060, the provisions ofthis Section shall govem.

8. Modi?cations. Modi?cations to the standardsof this Section may be approved pursuant to the generally applicableQrovisions of Section 17.11.010 (“Minor Modi?cations to Development Standards”), as may be amended from time to time.

H. Building Permits.

1. Building Permit Reguired. No person shall commeng, authorize. or cause to be commenced any erecting, constructing, enlarging, altering, repairing, improvising, moving, or demolishing of any building or structure in the WPA Overlay without first obtaining a building permit for buildings or structures from the ChiefBuilding Official.

2. Height. Height shall be measured from finished grade to midpoint of roo?ine.

Maximum height limitsspecified in this Chapter shall not apply to rooftop features for the housing of elevators, other roof eguipment used to operate and maintaina building, screens for such equipment, other features, such as spires, belfries, domes, chimneys and cupolas, ?agpoles, water tanks and towers. aids to navigation, communication s
antenna and satellite dishes, and other structures or features which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director.are similar to the above types of features.

1. Required Application. Applications for development in the WPA Overl_a_yshall be filed by the Project Applicant and must include the following to determine substantia l conformance with this Section:

1. A map or maps showing:
a. Topography of the land, contour intervals as required bv the City; b. Proposed circulation system,-
c. Areas for pLoposedstructures, uses. recreation areas. commercial uses, and other such areaS'
d. Off-street parking; and
e. The location of the Workforce Housing Obligation;

2. General elevations or perspective drawingofall proposed buildings and structures;

3. lnfonnation demonstrating that:
meets of this Section'
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 493 of 697 ends

b. The development is a high quality design;
c. Each phase (if any) of the development, as well as the development as a whole, can exist as an independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustaine d desirability and stability;
d. The development is planned in coordination and substantial compatibilitv with th e WPA Overlay; and
e. That development has been designed to implement features consistent with thi s Section, including the required EDFs, to address potential impacts, including from traf?c. wastewater treatment, water usage, and employee housing.

SECTION 6. Internal Consistency.

It is the intent ofthe people ofthe City of St. Helena that the amendments contained in Sections 3-5 of this Initiative be read and construed in full harmony with the rest of the General Plan of the City of St. Helena. To the extent that any other provisions of the St. Helena Municipal Code, or any other ordinances ofthe City may be inconsistentwith this Initiative, the provisions ofthis Initiative shall govern.

SECTION 7. Implementation of this Initiative.

A. This Initiative is considered adopted and effective upon the earliest date legally possible after the elections official certifies the vote on the Initiative by the voters of the City of St.

Helena. Upon the effective date of this Initiative, the City is directed to promptly take all appropriate actions needed to implement this Initiative, including but not limited to taking any administrative steps necessary to update any City maps, figures, and any other documents maintained by the City so they conform to the legislative policies set forth in this Initiative.

B. Upon the effective date of this Initiative, the General Plan provisions ofSection 3 ofthis Initiative are hereby inserted into the General Plan; except that if the four amendments of any mandatory element of the General Plan permitted by state law for any calendar year have already been utilized in the year in which this Initiative becomes effective, the General Plan amendments set forth in this Initiative shall be the ?rst amendmentsinserted into the General Plan on January I of the next year. The City may reorganize, renumber, and/or reformat the General Plan provisions included in Section 3 ofthis Initiative, provided that the full text is inserted into the General Plan without alteration.The City may also reorganize, renumber, and/or reformat the Municipal Code provisions included in Section 5 ofthis Initiative, provided that the full text is inserted into the Municipal Code without alteration.

C. The General Plan in effect on the date of filing of the Notice of Intent to Circulate this Initiative (“Filing Date"), and the General Plan as amended by this Initiative, comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City. To ensure that the City’s General Plan remains an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City, any provision of any element of the General Plan that is adopted between the Filing Date and the effective date of the General Plan amendments adopted by this Initiative shall, to the extent that such interim-enactedprovision is inconsistentwith or would diminish, render invalid, defeat, or impair the General Plan amendments adopted by this Initiative, be amended as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by state law to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other elements of the General Plan.

SECTION 8. Effect of Other Measures on the Same Ballot.

To ensure that the intent of the voters is not frustrated, this Initiative is presented to the voters as an alternative to, and with the express intent that it will compete with or take precedence over, any and all voter initiatives or City-sponsored measures placed on the same ballot as this Initiative and which, if approved, would regulate the use or development of propertiessubject to

TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 494 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS this Initiative in any manner whatsoever that would frustrate the purpose and intent of this Initiative (each, a “Con?icting Initiative”). In the event that this Initiative and one or more Con?icting Initiatives are adopted by the voters at the same election, then it is the voters’ intent that only the measure which receives the greatest number ofaf?nnative votes shall control in its entirety with respect to the future use and development of propertiessubject to this Initiative and said other measure or measures shall be rendered void and without any legal effect with respect to such properties. If this Initiative is prevented from going into effect by a Con?icting Initiative approved by the voters at the same election, and such Con?icting Initiative is later held invalid, this Initiative shall be self-executing and given full force of law. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section, in the event that both this Initiative and another measure(s) are adopted by the voters at the same election, but the two measures can be harmonized in a manner that permits this Initiative to be implemented upon its adoption without imposing any additional or inconsistentrequirement(s) to propertiessubject to this Initiative (e.g., the other measure impacts only propertiesthat are not subject to this Initiative because of their land use designation and/or zoning), then it is the voters’ intent that both the other measure and this Initiative shall be given full force and effect regardless of which measure receives the greatest number of affinnative votes.

SECTION 9. Interpretation and Severability.

A. This Initiative must be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of thi s
Initiative is held to be invalid or unconstitutionalby a ?nal judgment ofa court ofcompetent jurisdiction, such decision does not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions ofthis Initiative.

The voters declare that this Initiative, and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof, would have been adopted or passed iITespectiveof the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, part, or portion is found to be invalid. lfany provision ofthis Initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity does not affect any application ofthis Initiative that can be given effect without the invalid application.

B. lfany portion of this Initiative is held by a court of competentjurisdictionto be invalid, we the People of the City of St. Helena indicate our strong desire that: (i) the City Council use its best efforts to sustain and re-enact that portion, and (ii) the City Council implement this Initiative by taking all steps possible to cure any inadequacies or deficiencies identi?ed by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent ofthis Initiative, including adopting or reenacting any such portion in a manner consistent with this Initiative.

C. This Initiative must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated above.

It is the intent of the voters that the provisions of this Initiative be interpreted or implementedby the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purpose set forth in this Initiative.

SECTION 10. Amendment.

The amendmentsto the St. Helena General Plan, Zoning Map, and Municipal Code set forth in Sections 3-5 of this Initiative may be amended or repealed only by a majority ofthe voters of the City voting in a regular election held in accordance with state law.

SECTION I]. Exhibit List.

Exhibit A: Map ofthe Property Subject to this Initiative (for informational purposes only) Exhibit B: Amendments to City of St. Helena Zoning Map
Exhibit C: Appendix I to Section l7.2l.060 ofthe St. Helena Municipal Code Environmental Design Features (“EDFs”) for the WPA Property Subject to this Initiative
Exhibit D: Copy of St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter |7.l9 (for informational purposes only)
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 495 of 697 ends

Legend
:__.WineryProperty D-WPAProperly

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS W
1VII”) A depicts (In: proper!) subject In this Initiative. Specilicull), this Rhihit A depicts Ihc location of l ) the approximately HO-ucrc winery SI c, \ ' c1
IS‘houndedh) Deer ParkRum! t0 the nonhucst. the Nupu Riu:r to the nonhcast.and York Creek and un Misting \\ incr) productionl’ucilil) lo the southeast (the "V\ Incr) I’rupcru"), and 2) the lucnliun \ulhin the Writer} l’mpcrt) ol'thc l l ucrcs ul‘rcul prupcrl). locatedat 2800 Mum Slrccl. lu “hich the new \AP A
0\ crlu) \VIIIhc uppIch pursuant In this lnitlatnc (the "\\ I’A Fromm“). llua L\Iub|t IS ulmchcdIor Inl‘ommlmnulpurposesonly 21:

EXHIBIT
1,000 500 ,000
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 496 of 697 ends

S III IIII’IIWSU

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS w
The Zoning Map nl‘lhc Cil) nI‘SL llclcnn is hcrch) amended as dcpiclcdherein to I) include a nun Wine!) and PlannedAgrilonrism Ovurlu) (WI’A) dcsignulinn in Illc lisl ul‘Cil} of 91. Ilclcnu Znning Dislricls:and Z) ndnpl lln: \\ inL-r)and I’Iunncd \griluurism Ovcrlu) (VIPA) mning mcrlu) on lhu WI’A l’rnpcm suhjccl In Ihis‘lniliulivc.
..
\\
\.\
‘
\
\
\
\
\
\\ .
\ .
‘
\.
\
_ -_‘_ _
\ '1
\\ Iu
ugag—$.32;
1922-:
sneak
55 52: 25»: .m

2.8: :6 58.02 .m
535 28.8.33 25;: was 585m 9.2.;

5.26 {an 25: in:
5E 2.3% am5.59:

SEE: .5 9.0 .353»: .535 is E4. _-_Euuaux 3.23 .3:
«Hum 3.35 :36»... xx itouaox ring .3:
:53. 25525 a .2583
.2. E52
6:. 93.554 c3553
Gm..«niecbo 820m
60% gaming a 935 95 5.3.5. 2: 2; Go 33m :80 3:. _83.35:
.599: 53 325.5 :58 Sam. 8.5 538.3 8. 323m
3 E as a

EXHIBIT
.aom
So,” So _
X
/ \ /
/
‘
\u-
/'// \ /_
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 497 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

EXHIBIT C
Appendix 1 to Section 17.21.060 of the St. Helena Municipal Code - Environmental Design Features for the WPA Property Subject to this Initiative The following Environmental Design Features (“EDFs”) are incorporated into the WPA Overlay added to the WPA Property pursuant to the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative (the “Initiative") to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan and this WPA Overlay. The applicant(s) or designee(s) (referred to herein as “Applicant") for any hotel.resort or similar uses developed in the WPA Overlay (referred to herein as “Project") shall implement the following EDFs as described below.

Environmental Design Feature Timing
General

1. A website shall be maintained to provide information on upcoming events at Prior to Issuance of the Project. Certi?cate of
Occupancy

2. The Project shall be in conformance with all applicable City ordinances. Prior to Issuance of rules.regulations and policies in effect at the time of issuance of a building Building Permit permit.

3. Allrequired fees. including planning fees. development impact fees. Prior to Issuance of building fees. and St. Helena Uni?ed School District fees for the Project Building Permit shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit except as expressly provided herein. Fees shall be those in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permit.

4. Compliance with all EDFs shall occur in accordance with speci?c Prior to issuance of regulations but in all cases no later than prior to Project occupancy or Certi?cate of initiation of use unless another time is set by law or by Section 17.21.060. Occupancy Occupancy or ?nal inspection of a Project may be withheld if all conditions. including payment of fees for services rendered by the City. are not met.

5. The Project shall be subject to the generally applicable requirements of. Prior to Issuance of and all improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance Certi?cate of with, the most current version of legal requirements at the time of building Occupancy or grading permit. such as the Caltrans Standards and Speci?cations. the City of St. Helena Municipal Code. the St. Helena Water and Sewer Standards. the St. Helena Street. Storm Drain and Sidewalk Standards. and all applicable current federal.state and county codes governing such improvements.

6. The Applicant shall comply with the generally applicable building codes in Prior to Issuance of effect at the time the Applicant applies for a building permit. and shall Building Permit include all documentation listed on the City's building permit application checklist.as may be amended from time to time.

7. The plans for Project construction shall include a checklist for compliance Prior to Issuance of with the mandatory, generally applicable measures of the California Green Building Permit Buildings Standards Code, as may be amended from time to time, with a reference on the checklist indicating where the mandatory measures can be found on the plans.

8. Building permit application materials and plans shall include any Prior to Issuance of documentation pertaining to special loads applicable to the design and the Building Permit speci?ed section of the code that addresses the condition; special inspections for any systems or components requiring special inspection; requirements for seismic resistance; and a complete list of deferred submittals at time of application. provided that deferral of ?re sprinkler design is not allowed.

Aesthetics

9. After completion of site grading. the slopes along Deer Park Road and the Prior to issuance of St. Helena Highway (CA-128 W/CA-29 N) shall be vegetated with a plant Certi?cate of palette that is selected and planted appropriately based upon adaptability to Occupancy the Project’s climatic, geologic. environmental.and topographic conditions.

Alllandscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant in good condition.

EXHIBIT C
__"’_| _'_1.

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 498 of 697 ends

. Planted areas shall be irrigated with recycled water to the extent available and feasible.

Prior to issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

11. Accessory Project facilities such as trash bins. storage areas, etc., shall be screened from view from adjacent off-site residences to the extent feasible.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

12. A minimum of 20% of the Property must remain maintained landscaping and shall be kept in a weed-free condition.

Prior to issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

13. Exteriorlighting shall be directed or shielded to prevent glare onto the public roadway or adjacent properties.

Prior to issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

14. The Applicant shall provide details of all proposed fencing, walls.and gates on all plans submitted.which shall comply with any applicable building standards.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit
Air Quality

15. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for a Project, the Applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Planning Division.

The following speci?cations shall be included in a Construction Management Plan with the permit application(s) to reduce short-term air quality impacts attributable to the on—siteand off-site construction activities:
a. During all construction activities, all architectural coatings applied shall contain a low content of volatile organic compounds; b. Allconstruction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers' speci?cations. Equipment maintenance records shall be kept onsite and made available upon request by the City
c. Allmaterial excavated.stockpiled. or graded (including unpaved areas and roads) shall be suf?ciently watered to prevent fugitive dust from leaving property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard;
d. Allonsite vehicles shall be limited to a speed of 25 miles per hour on unpaved roads;
e. A" land clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities on the Project site shall be suspended when sustained winds are expected to exceed 25 miles per hour;
f. All trucks hauling dirt, sand. soil.or loose material shall be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e.. minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the trailer) in accordance with the generally applicable requirements of the California Vehicle Code:

9. Fossil fuel based off-road construction equipment and all construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling for periods longer than 5 minutes when not in use;
h. During Project construction.all construction equipment shall conform to applicable required state and federal emission standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than applicable required state and federal emission standards;
i. During Project construction.electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent feasible:
j. The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for Project construction. Project construction contracts shall require compliance with the CMP. The CMP shall include, without limitation contractor contact information and responsibilities, typical construction hours, material storage and construction trailer locations, construction waste recycling program, construction equipment emissions requirements. dust control requirements. haul routes, any off-site construction parking plans. and construction traf?c management plan (e.g.. ?ag persons, signs);
k. During Project construction, contractors shall implement fugitive dust control measures consistent with applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulations, as may be amended from time to time;

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS Prior to Issuance o
Building Permit f

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 499 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS I. Project Construction contractors shall be required to implement a recycling program for waste generated by demolition and construction activities to the extent feasible;
m. Project construction deliveries shall be scheduled, to the extent feasible, during off-peak traf?c periods to encourage the reduction of trips during the most congested periods.

16. The Project shall incorporate various sustainable design elements and guidelines to promote energy ef?ciency and other conservation measures.

The Project‘s sustainable design elements shall include, but are not limited I02
a. Landscaping consistent with the generally applicable provisions of St Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.25 xeriscape principles and site-speci?c plant materials. Alllandscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant in good condition;
b. Irrigation with recycled water to the extent available and feasible; Recycling programs for construction-generated waste;
Use of energy ef?cient lighting for streetlights, path lights, and other similar uses.

9.0 Prior to issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

17. The Applicant shall provide a tree protection plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit that shall include on the site plan the location of trees within the Project area and include a tree protection plan which shall be coordinated with any civil grading/drainage/improvement plans.

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit
Biological Resources

18. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for Project work in or discharges to any federal and/or state jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of St. Helena that any applicable resource agency withjurisdiction has issued any required permits; such agencies may include US. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or any other applicable agency (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)).

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit

19. Project construction activities shall prevent the unpermitted discharge of sediment and/or muddy, turbid, or sill-laden waters into any on-site wetlands and/or other receiving water bodies, including off-site adjacent drainage ditches located immediately to the north and east of the Project.

Project construction shall comply with the following:
a, A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared to address best management practices (BMPs) that willbe used to prevent erosion and sediment loss within the Project site. BMPs such as silt fence, mulching and seeding, and straw wattles willbe placed where needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site during construction. Permanent stormwater management in the form of planting, mulching, and paving willbe placed to address erosion after construction. Once construction is complete, the SWPPP willno longer be in effect;
b. Appropriate sediment control measures (e.g., silt fences, straw wattles) shall be in place prior to the onset of construction activities within waters of the United States and/or State and in areas where there is a potential for surface runoff to drain into adjacent aquatic features and as required by the SWPPP;
c. Sediment control measures shall be monitored and maintained until construction activities have ceased;
d. Temporary stockpiling of excavated or imported material shall be placed as far away from any waters of the United States and/or State as practicable. Excess soil shall be used on site or disposed of at a regional land?ll or other appropriate facility. Slockpiles that are to remain on the site through the wet season shall be protected to prevent erosion (e.g., siltfences, straw bales) as required in the SWPPP; e. Allwaters of the United States and/or State temporarily impacted by construction activities shall be restored and revegetated. as close as practicable. to preconstruclion contours and conditions; f. Construction fencing shall be installed along the edges of the work zone adjacent to waters of the United States and/or State outside the construction area. Allwork and stockpiling of materials shall be con?ned to the Project disturbance area.

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 500 of 697 ends

20. Birds.including but not limited to raptors such as white-tailed kite: If feasible, vegetation removal and/or construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. Ifvegetation removal and/or construction activities is to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a quali?ed biologist shall conduct a preconstruction ' survey no more than seven days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If an active nest is found.a non-disturbance buffer shall be established for a distance of 500 feet around the nest unless a smaller buffer zone is approved by CDFW. Construction may resume once the young birds have left the nest or as approved by the quali?ed biologist.

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit

21. Bats. including pallid bats: Iffeasible, vegetation removal and/or constructionshall be conducted between August 16 and March 31. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities is to occur during the roosting season (April 1 through August 15), a quali?ed biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than seven days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. Ifan active roost is found, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established for a distance of 500 feet around the nest unless a smaller buffer zone is approved by CDFW.

Construction may resume once the young have left the nest or as approved by the quali?ed biologist.

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit
Cultural Resources

22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall have a quali?ed architectural historian conduct and prepare viewshed and site analysis to demonstrate the Project design compatibility of the new adjacent and/or related new construction to any properties listed and/or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. California Register of Historical Resources, and/or potentially eligible as a State Historical Landmark and Point of Historical Interest. That analysis shall demonstrate that:
a. New adjacent or related new construction by the Project to any properties listed and/or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or potentially eligible as a State Historical Landmark and Point of Historical Interest will be undertaken in such a manner that, ifremoved in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired;
b. The Project willavoid excavations or regrading of land adjacent to any historic building which could cause the historic foundation to settle, shift, or fail, or which could destroy signi?cant archeological resources;
c. Design of the Project's adjacent new construction to historic buildings willbe compatible with the historic character of the site and preserves the historic relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape;
d. New construction on or near the historic building site willavoid being visually incompatible in terms of size. scale, design, material, or color, which destroys historic relationships on the site, or which damages or destroys important landscape features, but willbe differentiated from the historic building or buildings; e. Adjacent new buildings on a historic property or on an adjacent site willavoid being much larger than a historic building in close proximity, and avoid new buildings or groups of buildings that are not compatible with the character of the historic building; f. For development or redevelopment on a site that contains any structures over 45 years old, require a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to determine the presence of historic resources. As warranted by the results of the records search, the Applicant shall also provide a historical signi?cance assessment of structures over 45 years.

23. Any applicable California State Department of Parks and Recreation forms for historic resources shall be produced and submitted to the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to document current conditions of any historical resource prior to removal of any rows of the vineyard from the historic era.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

24. The Project shall rehabilitate any sections of existing rail for the adjacent train track that has fallen into disrepair on the Project site and applicable California State Department of Parks and Recreation forms for historic Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS Prior to issuance of
Building Permit
EXHIBIT c
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 501 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS resources shall be produced and submitted to the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to document the condition of the existing rail for the train resource before any Project construction begins.

25. Applicant shall send letters of information about the Project to local historicalsocieties that may have an interest in the history of the Project property, as appropriate.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit. a quali?ed archeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Testing, and Curation Plan to assess of the potential presence of archaeological, paleontological and tribal cultural resources.including a site survey and a records search of the California HistoricalResources Information System at the Northwest Information Center (NWlC). Ifwarranted by the results of the assessment, the quali?ed archeologist shall then prepare a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) in consultation with a Tribal Representative that willinclude protocols. as appropriate. for Workers Environmental Awareness training. on site cultural resources monitoring. Tribal monitoring. and procedures for treatment of additional cultural resources identi?ed during ground disturbing activities associated with the Project. The CRMP shall include.at minimum. a plan the following items to be implemented before ground-disturbing or construction activities can resume for any resources found to be historical resources:
a. A determination of the approximate volumetric quantity of archaeological deposit disturbed by all construction related earthmoving activities including grading. foundations.utility trenching and excavation for pools;
b. Provisions for recovery of a minimum of ten percent (10%) sample of the intact cultural deposit within the area of the archaeological site impacted by the proposed Project. The actual quantity of the three percent sample of the cultural deposit shall be determined based upon the engineering data regarding volumetric quantity to native soils. Location of the mitigation excavation units shall be determined by an archeologist based upon ?nal construction plans as well as consultation with the Project representatives; Monitoring of grading and excavations by a quali?ed archeologist; Provision for recovery for any signi?cant cultural materials unearthed during construction excavation;
e. Preparation of a ?nal archaeological report at the completion of construction.describing all signi?cant ?ndings and submittal to the City. including whether these resources may require assessment for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; f. Preparation and submittal of an update to the existing site records and any applicable California State Department of Parks and Recreation forms for historic resources forms:

9. Consultation with the local tribes (the Mishewal-Wappo Tribe and other tribes as appropriate based on consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission) regarding this Project.
99 Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit

27. Ifhuman remains are discovered, all work within 100 feet of the remains shall immediately cease, and the Napa County Coroner's of?ce shall be noti?ed. Ifthe coroner determines that the remains are Native American. the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to identify the most likely descendant. The Project Applicant. under the direction of the City. and in consideration of recommendations from the most likelydescendant.shall prepare a plan for treatment and reinternment of the remains. In the event that the most likely descendant cannot reach an agreement with the property owner for these activities even after mediation by the NAHC.the Applicant shall reinter the remains where they willnot be subject to further disturbance. record the location with the NAHC and the Northeast Information Center, and work with the City to establish a zoning designation or easement at the location to protect the remains against future discovery or damage. Per the conditions in the CRMP.work shall halt within the vicinity of the ?nd until the appropriate treatment measures have been completed.

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit and
during construction

28. Should any paleontological resources be encountered during ground disturbing activities, all such activities shall halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery, a quali?ed paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the nature of the ?nd. evaluate its signi?cance. and if necessary. implement preservation or removal methods.

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit and
during construction

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 502 of 697 ends

7;"
_;_ .J. _.
-_—
I...
.u. _
__-’__
.;__ ; u —
._ .u _
__;n__._ _- —
_ _. .. .__ _
.J.__- _ _—.._
..-—--u —-
—
I
..\_ _ _. .
_ __
'u—'
-
._—.-.---
- —'
_ .__-.— — - -—-
_.—=..L- .I..— —-
_ _ ~—..— _ —-- -
_ _|_ _— - --

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS Energy

29. Prior to issuance of a ?nal occupancy permit. the Applicant shall demonstrate the Project's compliance with the following measures to the City Planning Division:
a. Parking lot lights mounted and arranged ef?ciently to minimize energy compared to a greater number of ?xtures at lower heights without increasing impacts on adjacent properties The use of LED lamps to provide a higher level of perceived brightness with less energy than other lamps;
b. The implementation of re?ective cool roof material(SRI of 16 or greater);
High ef?ciency HVAC units with high-ef?ciency ducted systems; Photo sensor and time clock-controlledparking lot and exterior lights.
e. The use of high-ef?ciency light source and ballasts (LED) and bilevel switching for ?uorescent ?xtures are used; Energy ef?cient Transformers;

9. The use of variable speed motors make-up air units, booster pumps and air side and/or water side economizers;
h. Allelectric utility service meters shall be a smart meter or equivalent advanced metering device. if allowed by the utility provider;
i. Alltoilets, urinals, sinks. showers and other water ?xtures installed on-site shall be as required by California's Green Building Code, as may be amended from time to time.

9.0 .-»
Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

30. The Applicant shall implement the following emissions reduction measures:
a. Utilize energy-ef?cient appliances, such as Energy Star-certi?ed (or equivalent) water heaters. to reduce energy consumption and emissions;
b. Utilize automated controls for air conditioners and lighting to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

31. Serving or packaging to-go food materials in non-biodegradable polystyrene (i.e. Styrofoam/plastic foam) materials shall be prohibited.

Prior to operation of
the Resort
Floodplain

32. No new structures or ?ll that results in any increase in ?ood levels during the occurrence of the base ?ood discharge shall be developed within the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) Floodway.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

33. In accordance with the City of St Helena Municipal Code Section

15.52.150, the Project shall accommodate a Design Flood Elevation (DFE) of 18 inches above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE).

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

34. Any building structure below the Design Flood Elevation (DFE) shall be watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, having structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. and be certi?ed by a registered civil engineer.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit
Geology and Soils

35. The Applicant shall comply with site-speci?c recommendations set forth in site-speci?c engineering geology and soils investigationlgeotechnical reports. The geology and geotechnical reports shall include site-speci?c studies and analyses for potential geologic and/or geotechnical hazards at the site. Geolechnical reports shall address the design of pilings. foundations, walls below grade. retaining walls, shoring. subgrade preparation for ?oor slab support, paving. earthwork methodologies, and dewatering. where applicable. Geology and geotechnical reports may be prepared separately or together and signed and stamped by a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer licensed in the State of California.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

36. During Project construction earthwork and grading activities, geotechnical observation shall be performed by the Project geotechnical engineer.

During construction

37. The grading plans provided by the Applicant for review shall include the existing topography shown with contour lines labeled at one-foot intervals and extending a minimum of 100-feet beyond the limits of the site. or suf?cient distance to indicate impacts on adjacent properties.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 503 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

38. The Applicant shall construct all on and offsite improvements in accordance with the improvement plans and supporting calculations that are prepared by a registered civil engineer and reviewed by the City of St. Helena Public Works Department. The improvement plans and supporting calculations shall include detailed designs for all utilities, water, grading, drainage. erosion control and paving.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
Hazardous Materials

39. Prior to issuance of grading permits, shallow soils samples shall be taken on-sile to determine the location of any contaminated soils on the site with concentrations above generally established applicable worker safety thresholds.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit

40. Any soils with residual agricultural chemicals exceeding the generally applicable screening levels for commercial uses, or hazardous waste limits shall be characterized, removed, and disposed of off-site at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit

41. Allhazardous materials measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit

42. Ifcontaminated soils are found in concentrations above established thresholds. a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared and implemented by the Applicant (as outlined below) and any contaminated soils found in concentrations above established thresholds shall be removed and disposed of according to applicable requirements and regulations. The SMP shall be prepared by a quali?ed hazardous materials consultant and provided to the City with grading permit applications. The SMP shall include:
a. Management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials if encountered during construction or cleanup activities and measures to minimize dust generation, stormwater runoff, and tracking of soil off-site;
b. Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for environmental contaminants of concern to evaluate the site conditions following SMP implementation;
c. A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for each contractor working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site operations that includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP willalso outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimizeworker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit

43. Cleanup and remediation activities on the site prior to building construction shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit

44. Allmeasures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts. and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit

45. Project construction activities shall comply with all generally applicable federal Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationSafety (OSHA) and California General Industry Safety Orders and Health Standards.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

46. Hazardous materials.if any, associated with Project construction shall be located and stored in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Response procedures for spills and leaks of hazardous materials, if any, shall be established in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local reqwrements.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit
Noise

47. PrOJectconstruction contractors shall be reqUIred to prowde a N0ise Management Plan to reduce construction noise at any offstte residences to the extent feaSIbIe and shall implement the Neise Management Plan for construction actIVIties.

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit
48 The noise management plan shall include the followmg requwements:
a. Outdoor parking lot sweeping actiVIties assomated with the Project generally shall be limitedto the daytime hours between 7:00 am. and 10:00 pm;
Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 504 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS b. Construction activity, including all outdoor loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes. crates, containers, building materials, or similar objects in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance to residential uses shall be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 am. and 10:00 pm;
c. Noise-generating equipment operated at the Property shall be equipped with noise control devices to the extent reasonably available (i.e., muf?ers, intake silencers. lagging, and/or engine enclosures). All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise. due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. Pile drivers used within 1,500 feet of offsite residences shall be equipped with noise control measures to reduce sound energy emissions associated with pile driving (e.g.. use of noise attenuation shields or shrouds). Holes for piles willbe pre-drilled to the extent feasible;
d. Haul routes shall avoid noise-sensitive land uses to the extent feasible;
e. Staging areas and construction material storage areas shall be located away from adjacent residences.

Population and Housing

49. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall apply to the City for a permit to develop a minimumof ?fty (50) units of rental workforce housing made available to rent at an affordable rent, adjusted for household size, to moderate income households on a separate legal parcel withinthe City Limits (Workforce Housing Obligation). Ifthe City approves any of the Applicant’s proposed Workforce Housing Obligation, the City shall not apply any otherwise applicable affordable housing impact fee to the Project in accordance with applicable City regulations as contained in Chapter 17.30 of the St. Helena Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time. If the City approves the workforce rental housing prior to the certi?cate of occupancy on the Project. Applicant shall cause construction of its Workforce Housing Obligation within 24 months of the City‘s approval of the Workforce Housing Obligation. Ifthe City fails to approve the Workforce Housing Obligation prior to the certi?cate of occupancy on the Project.

Applicant shall make a payment for the purpose of furthering the City‘s affordable housing goals pursuant to the requirements of St. Helena MunicipalCode Section 17.30.020, as may be amended from time to time, for the Project to be paid to the City prior to issuance of the certi?cate of occupancy for the Project as the Project’s sole obligation to provide affordable or workforce housing.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit; Prior
to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy
Public Services

50. Project water lines and hydrants shall be sized and located so as to meet the ?re ?ow requirements established by the Fire Department.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

51. Prior to construction, building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review. Based on such review, any additional ?re safety requirements shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

52. During construction, adequate ingress/egress access points shall be provided for emergency response in compliance with the requirements of the Fire Department.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

53. Clearly marked, durable, source sorted recycling bins shall be conveniently located within the Property unless the Property is under contract with a vendor to sort waste.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

54. The Applicant or its designee shall be responsible for meeting with the Building Of?cial, Fire Inspector and/or Public Works Department to review compliance with Building Codes. Fire Codes. and applicable Public Works Standards.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit

55. No construction may commence until adequate access to ?re water supply is available to building sites as approved by the Fire Chief.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit

56. Prior to issuance of a certi?cate of occupancy. trash areas, dumpsters and recycling containers shall be enclosed and roofed per applicable standards to prevent water run-on to the trash area and water runoff from the area, to contain litter and trash so that it is not dispersed by the wind or run-off Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 505 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS during waste removal. In the event that wine or food is disposed in these areas. the enclosed trash area shall drain to the sanitary sewer system or alternative treatment system. An area drain connected to the sanitary sewer or alternative treatment system shall be installed in the enclosure area and a structural control such as an oil/water separator or sand ?lter shall be included. No other area shall drain into the trash enclosure. A sign shall be posted prohibiting the dumping of hazardous materials into the sanitary sewer.

57. Prior to Certi?cate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall repair all public improvements that are damaged by the construction process in accordance with the City's generally applicable Water/SewerIStreetIStorm Drain/Sidewalk Standards. as may be amended from time to time.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

58. Plans submitted for building permit shall exhibit compliance with the then current St. Helena Fire Code, as required bySt. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36. as may be amended from time to time.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

59. Fire sprinklers and ?re hydrants shall be installed as required by Fire Code and the Fire Department.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

60. One hour minimum ?re-resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10‘ of prOperty boundary is required. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
Transportation

61. To encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, the Applicant Prior to Issuance of shall provide employee bicycle racks for no less than six bicycles. Certi?cate of Occupancy

62. To encourage the use of alternative fueled transportation. the Applicant Prior to Issuance of shall install electric vehicle recharging stations at the Project site as Certi?cate of required by St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.26.090. as may be Occupancy amended from time to time.

63. Preferential parking spaces shall be provided for low emission vehicles. including alternative-fuel vehicles, hybrid vehicles that qualify for freeway carpool lanes, and van pools.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

64. During construction.a Construction Traf?c Management Plan (CTMP) shall be prepared and implemented so as to reduce traf?c impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods, or pedestrian and vehicular impediment or interference due to construction traf?c. The CTMP shall be attached to all construction contracts and shall include:
procedures for roadway closures or traf?c detours;
haul routes;
required protective devices and warning signs;
locations of construction worker parking lots;
construction vehicle staging shall be con?gured to reduce traf?c interference and the need for lane closures.

EDP-PF!“
Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit

65. At the Applicant’s expense. the southbound approach at Deer Park Road and entrance to the Project shall be improved to include a left-turn lane and a through lane, within the existing right-of-way.

Prior to operation of
the Resort

65. A Transportation Demand Management program shall be prepared and implemented by the Applicant to encourage Project employees and patrons to reduce vehicular traf?c on the street and freeway system during the most congested time periods of the day and to further reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and to support the City‘s trip reduction and climate policies.

The Transportation Demand Management program may include but not be limited to the following:
a. Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly environment (i.e.. established and clear pedestrian networks.intersections, and built environments); b. Bicycle amenities, including bicycle parking (4 long-term spaces and 6 short term spaces minimum);
c. Rideshare/carpooI/vanpool promotion and support;
d. Education and information on alternative transportation modes, including railway as available, via the Resort operator website; e. Discounted employee transit passes;
Prior to operation of
the Resort

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 506 of 697 ends

Designate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
coordinator to establish programs to ensure VMTby guests and employees are reduced, including, but not limited to, employee car and vanpooling, employer-sponsored transit passes, bicyclesharing, showers, lockers, secure bike storage, and winery tours for guests with pickup and drop-off at the lodge.

67. Prior to issuance of a Certi?cate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall provide no fewer than 25 courtesy bicycles for guests.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

68. To preserve existing sight lines, any new signage, monuments, or other structures to be placed near the Project entrance shall be positioned outside of the vision triangles of a driver waiting on the Project access drive.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

69. To minimize left turns onto SR 29 from Deer Park Road, Project signage shall be installed on the driveway directing drivers to use SR 29 to go north and Silverado Trail to go south.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

70. In the event the City of St. Helena installs a traf?c signal at SR 29/Deer Park Road, the Project Applicant shall pay its proportional share of the cost of the signal at the time the signal is constructed by the City.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

71. Prior to Issuance of In the event the County of Napa converts the existing traf?c signal at Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road from ?ashing red operation to normal signal Certi?cate of operation and changing the geometry on the westbound approach to a left- Occupancy turn and through/right-turn lanes, the Applicant shall deposit funds with the County to cover the cost of the striping improvements to allow the County to implement this change at such time as it becomes necessary.

72. The Project shall cooperate, including by way of agreements, with the Prior to Issuance of adjacent winery operator to ensure there is an adequate parking supply. Certi?cate of Occupancy

73. Prior to issuance of a Certi?cate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall pay Prior to Issuance of traf?c impact fees based on the City's Master Fee Schedule, and the fee Certi?cate of willassume all square footage calculated at the lodging rate. Occupancy

74. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall be required to Prior to Issuance of obtain a City or other applicable encroachment permit for improvements on Building Permit any public right-of-way.

75. Prior to occupancy, Applicant shall construct, to the extent not previously Prior to Issuance of constructed, a minimum 8—footwide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, Certi?cate of which shall be open to the public, along the railway and within the property Occupancy rights of the railway operator, between the Project site and Fulton Lane, provided that such obligation to construct is subject to issuance of any required permits, with reasonable and feasible conditions, from any federal and/or state agency withjurisdiction over construction affecting jurisdictional waters.

Utilities, Water, Water Quality and Wastewater

76. Prior to the issuance of a Certi?cate of Occupancy. the Applicant shall underground on-site utility lines per the applicable requirements of the St.

Helena Municipal Code. The cost of undergrounding shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Due to the economic and engineering infeasibility of undergrounding any regional serving overhead power lines, any such existing lines may remain on overhead power poles.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

77. Any new and modi?ed existing water laterals, meters and back?ow prevention devices shall be constructed in accordance with the generally applicable requirements of the City of St. Helena. Any new laterals shall be located perpendicular to the water main.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

78. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be ?led with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to comply with the statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities(General Permit) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented for construction activities on the Property in accordance with applicable State requirements.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 507 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

79. Potable water willbe provided by existing on-site wells. Emergency systems water and irrigation water willbe supplied by recycled water and supplemented by on site wells as needed. Alternatively, such water may be provided by municipal water systems if permitted by the City. The use of existing water wells within the City. including the maintenance, modi?cation. or reconstruction thereof, for potable water, emergency systems water and irrigation water not supplied through recycled water shall be allowed and not require a permit under St. Helena Municipal Code Section 13.16.060.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

80. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall have a quali?ed hydrogeologist prepare a groundwater report describing how the Project's use of existing groundwater well(s) on the Winery Property willnot have a material adverse impact on the water production capability of the City. The groundwater report shall demonstrate:
a. The Project well(s) are more than 1500 feet on average from the City wells for potable water;
b. The Project well(s) are more than 500 feet from the Napa River; c. The Project with existing groundwater uses on the Winery Property willnot annually exceed 0.3 acre-ft/acre of groundwater extraction from the Project well(s);
d. Recycled water willbe generated through onsite water reclamation to maximize supply of non-potable water;
e. Project groundwater demands do not exceed the capacity of on-site well(s);
f. Well water extracted for use in the proposed development will.after initial use, be captured, treated. and reused for non-potable demands on the Winery Property, and will contribute to
groundwater recharge.

81. The Project shall incorporate best practices for water conservation, which shall include the metering the water production/extraction and well water levels.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy; ongoing

82. Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from local and state agencies for the nontransient community water system.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy, ongoing

83. Ifthe City provides a municipal water system connection and Applicant elects to connect to the municipal water system in lieu of the groundwater well(s) prior to Grading Permit. the Applicant shall execute prior to Building Permit a Water Agreement with the City, and shall comply with all applicable policies, codes, and other requirements for the municipal water system connection.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

84. A grading and drainage plan shall be prepared for the Project that includes a design that allows for a 100-year overland release. All graded building pads shall be above the 100—year overland release elevation.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

85. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (whichever occurs ?rst) a detailed Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that identi?es and sizes all permanent post-construction stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) shall be prepared by the Applicant's engineer and submitted for review approval by the City Engineer.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit or
Building Permit

86. Prior to the issuance of a Certi?cate of Occupancy, a Post Construction Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan that provides a color-coded plan sheet showing all storm drain and water quality infrastructure that is to be maintained, along with detailed instructions and schedules for the ongomg maintenance and operation of all post-construction stormwater BMPs shall be submitted by the Applicant‘s engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer. Once approved, the property owner shall comply With the Post Construction Stormwater Operations Maintenance Plan BMPs.

Prior to Issuance of
Certi?cate of
Occupancy

87. Ifproposed/new landscaping involves an area greater than 500 square feet or rehabilitation of more than 2,500 square feet, the proposed landscaping shall comply Withwater ef?CIent landscape best practices that are at least as effective as the State's Model Water Ef?cient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), to the extent MWELO does not generally apply to the Project.

Compliance shall be demonstrated as part of the building permit submittal.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 508 of 697 ends

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

88. Proposed separations between public water facilities and other utilities shall meet the minimum separations as speci?ed by the generally applicable Department of Health and City of St. Helena Public Works Standards. as may be amended from time to time.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

89. Wastewater treatment provided by an on-property package water reclamation system sized for WPA project sewing ?ows in the form of a membrane bioreactor or similar system that is capable of providing tertiary treated water quality treatment shall be allowed. Alternatively. wastewater services may be provided by municipal wastewater systems if permitted by the City.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

90. Ifthe City provides a municipal wastewater system connection and Applicant elects to connect to the wastewater system in lieu of an onproperty package water reclamation system prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Project. the Applicant shall comply with all applicable policies. codes, and other requirements for the municipal wastewater system connection.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit

91. Prior to the issuance of building permit, Applicant shall provide a Wastewater Treatment Plant Plan and Design that contains the following information:
a. Design of the treatment system that is compliant with applicable State and County code standards for domestic wastewater generated onsite from sinks.showers, toilet ?ushing. and winery process water that willbe treated to high quality, tertiary standards onsite with a packaged treatment system operated by the Project. b. The Project shall provide a new package plant sized for both Project and the adjacent winery wastewater flows, providing tertiary level water quality treatment.
c. The reclaimed water yielded from the treatment process shall be reused for non—potabledemands within the Project. consisting of outdoor drip or spray irrigation and indoor ?ush ?xtures. d. Excess treated water shall be available for the adjacent winery, which may use reclaimed water for washdown and tank cleaning or application to vineyards. and subject to all applicable State and County requirements and standards.

Prior to issuance of
Building Permit

92. Where applicable, the Applicant shall be required to submit to the requirements for annual inspections of food/beverage service establishments and businesses that handle hazardous wastes for illicit stormwater discharges as required by the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges. The annual stormwater illicitdischarge inspections are performed and invoiced by Napa County Department of Environmental Management.

Annually

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 509 of 697 ends

IR
It s’d
‘es
This Chapter protects existing resources while providing for a range 0 agricu ural, re I entia, and community uses within the City's agricultural and natural resource areas. This Chapter establishes use regulations. development standards, and design standards for the Twenty-Acre Agriculture, Winery, and Woodlands and Watershed Zoning Districts as follows:

Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20). The A-ZOZone is intended to provide for agricultural and residential uses. The purpose of the A-20 District is to preserve agricultural land uses and provide for future orderly development as the urban limit line is adjusted to accommodate urban growth. This Zone restricts the density of residential use and stipulates the location and area of residential development to promote preservation of agricultural land use and reduce impacts to the provision of infrastructure as the urban area of the City expands. This Zone implements the Agriculture General Plan Land Use Designation.

Vl?nery (W). The W Zone is intended to provide for winery and winery-related uses within the agriculture general plan land use designation. This Zone implements the Agriculture General Plan Land Use Designation.

Woodlands and Watershed (WW). The WW Zone is intended to allow residential development that is sensitive to the land and its varying capability for development. Development in the WWZone carefully considers the community-wide implications of natural conditions and minimizes impacts on natural conditions. This Zone implements the Woodlands and Watershed General Plan Land Use Designation.

Eons-Community Agriculture and Natura esource oning istricts ists t e uses permitte (“P"), permitted With a Minor Use Permit ("MUP”), and permitted With a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") granted at a public hearing The right-hand column prowd references to additional regulations beyond those of the base zoning district development and deSIgn

INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS E\IIIBIT D
Sections:

17.19.010 Purpose an p

17.19.020 Use Regulations

17.19.030 Development Standards

17.19.040 Supplemental Standards

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
CommunityAgriculturalnd NaturalResourceZoni
ng
Any projects that qualify for ministerial approval under state law will be processed ministerially as required by that state law.

17.19.020 Use Regulations
Community Agricu urn and Natural Resource Zoning Districts 1719 010 Purpose and Applicabilit
.020.A: Use Regula
Chapter17.

Part III.Page 54 | St. Helena omng
Table 17.
| 19
d A p Icablllt
|7.l9.0|0
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 510 of 697 ends

5U
s”
/ 1
—
,nd
[i
l
2 Z 2
.c _
_ 3 _
F I
n‘ h n P/CU 4 — 5
Co n P
S (y
Culi ‘ t ICU 5
/UP6 /U 6
o c on CU CU —
_ CU _
lk P P P
P P P
Sr. Helena Zoning Code | Part III.Page 55
Use Classi?cation A-Zo
"P"= Permitted; "MUP"= Minor Use Permit:"CUP" ‘ Con i iona se ermi ResidentialUses
Agriculturalemployee housmg P/CUP ‘ P/CUP
Single-familydwelling P P
Commercial Uses
Animal care and erv ce
Animal board/ng facility kenne
Veterinary c in
Industrial Uses
Manufacturing. packaging a
processmg
Tanks associated WithWinery
uses
Warehousmg. Wholesale, and
Distribution
Wine warehousmg CUP
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
Public services, minor MUP MUP MUP
Solar energy systems Sec. 17.22.240, Solar Energy Systems Telecommunication Sec. 17.22.270, Wireless Telecommunications aci I es Agricultural and Extractive Uses
A imal usba dry P p
_ ec. 17.22.100, Communi
mmunity garde p p Garden
tvated agricul ure P P P C P C P
Processnng of agricultural
products primarily pr du ed P P
the premises
Wineries. large P
Accessory Uses - See also Sec. 17.22.020, Accessory U55 Accessory dwelling unit Sec. 17.22.030, Accessory Dwelling Units Sec. 17.22.060, Animal
Anima eeping Keeping
Beekeeping Sec. 17.22.070, Beekeeping

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Community Agricultural and Natural Resource Zoning Districts DIR
5 Community Agriculture and Natural Resource on n t
'
WW AddltionalRegula?ons
" "
Table 17.19A020.A:Use Regulation -
CU
P
CUP
I; ~ =Use ot 0W
Z igDier
CU
P
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 511 of 697 ends

5,:

P P P
P P P
CUP
CUP P/CUP B —
P P P
CUP
— CUP —
CUP CUP —
CUP
Use Classi?cation A-Zo w W AdditionalRegulations
"P" = Permitted:“MUP”— Minor Use Permit:"CUP"= Conditional Use Permit; "——" Use Not Allowed Sec. 17.22.110, Cottage
Cottage food operation P P P Food Operations
Garage arports,workshop
pool houses gazebo pati P P CUP
covers, and otheracce ory
budding and tructure
Sec. 17.24.030, Accessory
BUiIdingsand Structures
Fam ly day care large
Family day care mal
H P
Sec. 17.22.130, Home ome occupat on — Occupations
ROBdSldestands
SWImming pools
Tasting room affiliated With small CUP CUP
Winery
Winery event center
w. II
Sec. 17,22,230, Small
inery sma Wineries
Winery Vi5itor center
Uses accessory to a Winery
enclosed Within a budding (e.g.,
of?ces, laboratories, equment
maintenance shops, employees — P
eating facilities, cooperage repair
shops, wine storage tanks, scales,
and boiler rooms)
Uses and eqmpment accessory to CUP
a winery located outdoors
End Notes:

Up to 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units or spaces de5igned for use by a single-family or household pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §§ 17021.6 are permitted. Otherwise, 3 CUP is required.

On parcels over two acres in Size, the Single-family dwelling must be accessory to an agricultural use.

Ifthe new tanks Increase Wine production volume beyond what is established in an existing CUP or Certi?cate of Legal Non-Conforming Use, a new CUPis required. Ifthere is no increase in wine production as a result ofthe proposed new tanks, no CUPis required. DeSIgn reVIew is not required for new tanks placed indoors.
‘ Hog farms, dairies, commerCIaI poultry farms, and egg ranches reqUire 3 CUP.

Horses and cattle are not permitted.

CUP required for new uses within 30 feet of Napa River, York Creek, Sulphur Springs Creek and for new uses Within Flood Plain Overlay (see Sec. 17.21.010, Flood Plain Overlay) Plumbing and cooking facilities are not permitted.

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Community Agriculture and Natural Resource
Community Agricultura an atural Resource Zoning Districts

20.A: Use Regulations -
ge 6 | SL Helena Zoning Code
Zoning Districts
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 512 of 697 ends

:5
m
z
Table 17.19.0308: Development Standards - Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts Max. 1 unit/5 Max. 1 unit/5 Max.1 unit per Max.1 unit per acres 2 acres 2 parcel 2 parcel Z
Use Classi?cation 11-20 W W AdditionalRegulations
"P" — Permitted; "MUP"= Minor Use Permit; "CUP" = ConditionalUse Permit; "—" = Use Not Allowed 5 CUP is required where the roadside stand exceeds 200 square feet. 9 Any outdoor winery equipment or improvements proposed to be located within 400 feet of any RZone or Within 200 feet of State HI hway 29.the Silverado Trail or Deer Park Road requires a CUP. . 9.0303: Deve opment Standards — Community Agriculture and Natura eso rlcts establl h the development standards for the Twenty-Acre Agrlculture Winery an Woodlands and Watershed Zoning DiStl’lCtS.The numbers In each lustratlon refer to correspondlng regulations In the table.

STREETSIDE
_. —— “wary um
—'— CuvaIM
-— — -- Saudi Line
Bubldlbk Marin!

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

TO THE VOTERS

17.19.030 Deve opment Standards
Community Agricultural and Natura e
Community Agriculture and Natura esource
I R source Zoning Districts
Density
Lot Size
LotArea
A-ZDlots 2 - s 5
7 | R urce Zoning
ena omng Code | Part III.Page 5

20.A:Use Regulations -
A-Za lots > 5
Table 171
'
Z ning Districts
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 513 of 697 ends

I R rce Zoning
10% or 20,000 sq
ft, whichever is
less
4,500 sq ft 5,000 sq ft
35% of the 20% of the
ground ?oor area ground ?oor area
Max. 35 ft above
natural grade
20-50 ft or 10%
of lot depth.

Min. 50 ft,
measured from
the centerline of,
abutting street
Min. 50 ft,
measured from
the centerline of
abutting street
whichever is
lesser
Min. 50 ft,
measured from
the centerline of
abutting street
Min. 50 ft,
measured from
the centerline of
abutting street
2050 ft or 10%
of lot width,
whichever Is
lesser
20-50 ft or 10%
of lot depth.
whichever is
lesser
Min. 50 ft from top of bank of Napa River
Min. 20 ft from top of bank of all other waterways
Max. Lot Coverage
(Includes accessory
structures)
Max. Ground Level
Floor Area (excludes
accessory structures)
Max. Second Story
Floor Area
Height
PrincipalStructure
Accessory
Structure 4
Setbacks
Front Setback
Street Side Setback
Interior Side
9,000 sf
Max. 30 ft
Max. 20 ft;
except for ADUs,
refer to Section

17.22.030.E.9,
Min. 20 ft
10,000 Sf
Max. 20 ft;
except for ADUs,
refer to Section

17.22.030 5.9
Min. 20 ft
50%
none
none
Min. 100 f
t
Min. 50 ft
Min. 50 ft

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
20-50 ft or 10%
of lot width,
whichever is
lesser
.030.B: Deve opment Standards - Community Agriculture and Natura esou Min.Setback/
Abumng Waterway
Community Agricu um and Na tural Resource Zoning Districts Part III.Page 53 | 5!. Helena Zoning Code
Landscape and Open Space
none
A-ZDlots 2 - s 5
7 A-20 lots > 5
Districts
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 514 of 697 ends

m
Table 17.19.030.52Development Standards — Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts ' --_
Standard
Max. Pave
Hardscaped Area
End Notes:
‘ For all lots less than 2 acres In area refer to the development standards for the LR-lA zoning istrict in Table 17.16.0303: Development Standards - Residential Zoning Districts.

Density excludes agriculture employee housing.

No more than 0.25 acres of any one parcels 5 acres (or 0.5 acres for parcels 2 5 acres) may be removed from potential. historical, or active agricultural use. Allstructures, driveways (except for a 16-foot Wide driveway no greater than 2/3 the length of the parcel), parking areas, patios. pools, lawn areas, or other nonagricultural uses are included in the 0.25 acre or 0.5 acre respectively, maXImum standard per parcel . “The habitable space in accessory structures may not exceed 25% of the gross ?oor area of the primary A. General Standards. Alldevelopment is subject to the provisions of Part IV,Citywide Standards.

B. Design In the A—ZODistricts.

1. Residential Design Standards. Allresidential development is subject to the standards of Section 17.16.040.A.

Accessory Buildings in the A-20 District. Barns, stables, chicken houses and simila r accessory buildings must be placed not less than 50 feet from a street. nor less than 50 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent parcel or R District boundary line.

Figure 17.19.040.A.Accessory Buildingsin the A—ZODistrict wnmannamum u
~1— Mln‘40'—>,
Mln,50' 1 Mln. 50'
. ..._.._.._‘.._...-..._..._.._..._... .._.. _.._.........‘_.._...._..

FRONTSWEET
— — nap-«uln- ummysnuum
(uhllm WW"'°“"“

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS

17.19.040 Supplemental Standards
Itura and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
SL HeIena Zoning Code | Part III,Page 59
C Development in t e
Community Agricu
A-ZDlots 2 - s 5
’ A-20 lots > 5
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 515 of 697 ends

A” wine storage tanks and surface Winery waste treatment facilities shall be subject to the standards in Table 17.19.0303: Development Standards - Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Districts.

No use authorized under the provisuons of this Chapter shall be permitted where use, occupancy or patronage Will exceed the capability of the Site to provide off-street parking. waste disposal system and reasonable prov15ions for public safety.

Retail sales and food and drink facilities must be integrated With a VISItor center, and no advertismg or other exterior evidence of such use shall be viSIble from any publi c
right-of-way.

Winery operations shall generate sound levels no greater than 55 decibels at any property line more than 10 percent of the time (L 10). "L 10" is the n0ise level at the property line that Is exceeded 10 percent ofthe operating time.

Winery operations shall generate no discernible odors of sewerage or putrefying organic material origin. other than normal fermentation odors, at the property lines.

Bottling, warehousing and retail sales activities shall be conducted within structures speci?cally designated for such uses.

Development in the WWDistrict.

1. Allclearing and earthmoving must be conducted in compliance with an er05ion control plan as prepared by a registered CivilEngineer and approved by the City Engineer.

No disturbance of de?nite or suspected landslides or soil creep areas is permitted, as identi?ed on maps produced by United States Geological Survey (USGS) or on any other more detailed study prepared by properly credentialed professmnals and reviewed by the City’sGeotechnical Consultant.

No disturbance of, or development within. riparian areas Within 100 feet of intermittent or perennial streams noted on USGS maps is permitted.

No earth movement on slopes in excess of 30 percent is permitted. An exception may be granted by the City Engineer for minor trenching and back?lling for the installation of utilities and for temporary, nongraded access for construction purposes where no trees or substantial vegetation will be removed and Where the surface Will be recontoured to previous condition and revegetated according to the erosion control plan. Applications for an exception must include submittal of a construction plan for the equipment to be installed, a plan for the maintenance of that equipment, a soils and slope stability analysis prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer, an erosion control plan pursuant to subsection D1, and a revegetation plan, utilizing native plant species. for the area that will be disturbed by the earth movement. Prior to granting an exception, the City Engineer must ?nd that the project does not have potential for creating signi?cant erosion problems. A performance bond must be required and held by the City for one year after completion of the project to ensure that the recontouring and revegetation were properly installed.

No buildings (other than water tanks, which must be screened) may be constructed within 100 feet of the primary ridgeline on any parcel. The intent of this Section is to

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

TO BE DIRECTLY SUBM
Community Agricu ura and Natural Resource Zoning Districts Part III.Page 60 | Sr. Helena Zoning o e
|
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 516 of 697 ends

10. reduce the visual impact of buildings that would obscure public views of the most prominent ridgeline on each property, without precluding the opportunity of the property owner to site a building that could attain a view. In implementing this Section . the Planning Commission must adopt a ?nding that the approved plan balances the owner's interest in attaining a view against the City‘s interest in preventing the obstruction of scenic views.

Water and sewer systems will be constructed and maintained, at the applicant's expense, to meet such standard as may be adopted by ordinance ofthe City Council, or in the absence of such to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Ifindividual and/or private water and/or sewage systems are proposed, prior approval must be obtained from the Napa County department of environmental management.

The fuel loading within 50 feet of the building or building envelope must be maintained at a level not to exceed such standard as may be adopted by the City Council.

New roads/common drives/driveways must be maintained so as to guarantee all of the following:
a. Safe two-way year-round passage of emergency vehicles, as de?ned in St.

Helena Access Road Standards, as adopted by the City Council. b. Erosion from road cuts/?lls must not exceed such standard as speci?ed in an erosion control plan approved by Napa County Resource Conservation District, pursuant to ordinance adopted by the City Council, or in the absence of such, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Dust creation must be minimized and must not exceed such standard as may be adopted by ordinance of the City Council.
d. Earth movement must not obstruct or obliterate circulation improvements. e. Grading must occur between April 15‘ and October 15m unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer.

Emergency vehicle access must be constructed and maintained, at the applicant's expense, to allow interconnection with nearby roads.

Roofing materials must be noncombustible. See the Fire Code for sprinkler and water supply requirements.

EXHIBIT D

ATTACHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
grlcultura and Natural Resource Zoning Districts
SK.Helena Zoning Code | Fan III,Page 6|
Community A
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 517 of 697 ends

CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION
I, Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk of the City of St. Helena, County of Napa, State of California, hereby certify that:

The petition entitled "St. Helena Agritourisim Initiative" was filed with the City Clerk Department on May 2, 2024.

That said petition consists of 96 sections;
That each section contains signatures purporting to be signatures of qualified electors of the City of St. Helena, California;
That attached to this petition at the time it was filed, was an affidavit purporting to be the affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between which the purported qualified electors signed this petition; That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the signatures upon that Section, that all of the signatures were made in his or her presence, and that to the best of his or her own information and belief, each signature to that section was the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be; That after the proponents filed this petition and based on the County of Napa Registrar of Voters' Signature Verification Certificate I have determined the following facts regarding this petition:

1. Total number of signatures filed by proponent raw count: 775

2. Total number of signatures verified: 500

3. Number of signatures found sufficient: 408

4. Number of signatures found insufficient: 91

5. Number of signatures insufficient because of Duplication: 1

6. Total number of signatures required: 344
Based on the above, the petition is deemed to be sufficient.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of St. Helena this 28th day of May, 2024.

City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 518 of 697 ends

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 519 of 697 ends

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 520 of 697 ends

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 521 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ST. HELENA DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO PREPARE A

REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED NOBLE
HOUSE INITIATIVE ENTITLED, “ST. HELENA
AGRITOURISM INITIATIVE” AND TO APPROPRIATE

FUNDS AND STAFF TIME FOR THE PREPARATION OF
THE REPORT.

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2024, the City Clerk for the City of St. Helena (“City”) received a Notice of Intent to circulate an initiative petition (“Initiative”) and a request for the City Attorney to prepare the official ballot title and summary; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney prepared the official title and summary for the Initiative will provide it to the Initiative proponents; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2024, proponents filed the Initiative petition, consisting of 96 sections, bearing a total of 775 signatures to the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2024, the City submitted to the Napa County Registrar of Voters the 775 signatures for signature verification; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, the Napa County Registrar of Voters certified that a sufficient number of signatures has been obtained, qualifying the Initiative for the November 2024 ballot; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 9212 authorizes the City Council to direct City staff to prepare a report on the impacts of the Initiative (“Report”), including seven specified types of impacts as well as on “any other matter” that the City Council requests to be included in the Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that such a Report would provide valuable information about the Initiative to the Council and to all interested residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, the preparation of a Report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) in that this is an administrative action which does not involve a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the physical environment.

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 522 of 697 ends

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AS FOLLOWS:

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

SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of St. Helena directs staff to:
a. Prepare a Report on the effects of the Initiative pursuant to Elections Code section 9212, addressing each of the impacts specific in subsection (a)(1)- (7), to the extent applicable, as well as any other items identified by the City Council at its meeting on May 28, 2024; and
b. Retain, at the direction of the City Manager, any consultants that the City Manager determines are necessary or appropriate to complete the Report; and
c. Authorize the City Manager to execute any agreement(s) necessary for the retention of consultants for the Report, including agreements which exceed the City Manager authority designated in the SHMC. Agreements exceeding City Manager authority will be ratified at a later Council Meeting date; and
d. Present the Report to the City Council no later than the latest date authorized by Elections Code section 9212(b), scheduled for June 25, 2024.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 28, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: ____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: ____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: ____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: ____
Council Member Billy Summers: ____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 523 of 697 ends

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 524 of 697 ends

St. Helena Agritourism
Initiative
May 28, 2024
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 525 of 697 ends

St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
City Council Options

1. Adopt the Measure, without alteration, at this meeting, or within 10 days after

2. Submit the Measure to the voters in November 2024

3. Direct staff to prepare a 9212 Report
• Will be brought back to City Council on June 25, 2024 Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 526 of 697 ends

St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
Process
• March 12, 2024 – Initiative proponents (“Noble House”) filed with the City an Intent to Circulate Petition
• May 2, 2024 – Noble House filed Petition
• May 21, 2024 – Napa County Register of Voters certified the initiative qualifies for the November 2024 ballot
• May 28, 2024 – City Council provides direction on 3 options Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 527 of 697 ends

St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
9212 Report Contents
• Fiscal Impact
• Effects on the consistency of the City’s General Plan and Specific Plans, Planning and Zoning
• Effects on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing • Impact on funding for infrastructure
• Impact on the ability to attract and retain businesses & employment • Impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designed for revitalization • Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 528 of 697 ends

St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
Documents Provided by Noble House
Available on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/705/St-Helena-Agritourism-Initiative Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 529 of 697 ends

St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
Documents Provided by Noble House
Available on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/705/St-Helena-Agritourism-Initiative Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 530 of 697 ends

St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
City Council Options

1. Adopt the Measure, without alteration, at this meeting, or within 10 days after.

2. Submit the Measure to the voters in November 2024

3. Direct staff to prepare a 9212 Report
• Will be brought back to City Council on June 25, 2024 • At that point City Council will choose Option 1 or Option 2 Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 531 of 697 ends

Page 532 of 697 ends

May 28, 2024
By Email
Members of the City Council
City of St. Helena
c/o City Clerk
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA. 94574
[email protected]
Re: Preparation of Elections Code section 9212 report analyzing the impacts and effects of Noble House “St. Helena Agritourism Initiative” -- Agenda Item 14.1, May 28, 2024 Regular Meeting Dear Members of the St. Helena City Council:

As you may recall, on April 8, 2024, we sent a letter to the City Council on behalf of Citizens for the General Plan (“CGP”) requesting that the Council direct staff to prepare a report of the impacts and effects of the above-referenced Noble House-sponsored initiative measure, as authorized by Elections Code Section 9212 (“Section 9212 Report”), and to ensure that the Report included additional topics beyond those enumerated in the statute. A copy of our earlier letter is attached for reference. Specifically, we asked that the Section 9212 Report include a thorough examination of the following:

1. Applicability of Municipal Code prohibitions on using groundwater extracted for agricultural purposes for non-agricultural uses (SHMC § 13.16.080).

2. Whether as a matter of law the Initiative constitutes impermissible “spot zoning” that bestows superior development rights on one parcel than its surrounding properties.

3. Whether the resort proposed by the Initiative Measure constitutes “new development” as that term is defined and understood in the General Plan.

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 533 of 697 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

We respectfully reiterate this request and urge the Council to direct staff to include these additional topics in any forthcoming Report.

In addition, we note that the current staff report states that the proponents of the Initiative have themselves prepared an “Environmental Assessment” of their own, and that the City plans to conduct a “peer review” of this Assessment as part of the Section 9212 Report. While a peer review of the proponents’ self-interested assessment is clearly advisable, CGP is concerned that without proactive, independent analysis, the true nature and scope of the Initiative’s environmental impacts will evade disclosure and scrutiny by both the Council and the electorate.

For this reason, CGP further urges the Council to direct staff to (1) identify and disclose in the Section 9212 Report any topics or resource categories that would otherwise be evaluated as part of a CEQA analysis but that have not been adequately addressed in the proponents’ Assessment, and (2) include in the Report a thorough disclosure and evaluation of any environmental impacts that the Assessment omitted or failed to examine with sufficient detail.

As we have explained, this Report may be the City’s only opportunity to gather and examine critical information about the significant and potentially serious consequences of this Initiative effort. It is therefore imperative that the Report be as comprehensive in scope, and as probing in depth, as is feasible.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

Most sincerely,

M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of Citizens for the General Plan
MRW:
attachment
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 534 of 697 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 535 of 697 ends

April 8, 2024
By Email
Members of the City Council
City of St. Helena
c/o City Clerk
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA. 94574
[email protected]
Re: Preparation of report analyzing the impacts and effects of Noble House “St. Helena Agritourism Initiative” -- Agenda Item 13.2, April 9, 2024 Regular Meeting
Dear Members of the St. Helena City Council:

On behalf of Citizens for the General Plan (“CGP”), an unincorporated association of St. Helena residents, property owners, and electors, this is to respectfully request that the City Council authorize staff to prepare a report of the impacts and effects of the above-referenced Noble House-sponsored initiative measure, as authorized by Elections Code Section 9212 (“Section 9212 Report”) and as described further in the staff report for this agenda item. CGP further requests that the Council direct staff to evaluate additional topics in the Report beyond those enumerated in the statute, as discussed further below.

A Section 9212 Report may very well be the City’s best – and only – opportunity to gather and examine critical information about the significant and potentially serious consequences of this Initiative effort. As you know, pursuing a nominally “citizen-sponsored” ballot measure enables Noble House to evade meaningful and thorough public review of its resort’s impacts on the City. By invoking (some might say cynically exploiting) a notorious loophole in the law, Noble House will not have to fund a study of the resort’s environmental and land use planning impacts. It will not have to circulate that study for public review and comment. It will not have to consider or implement public concerns and Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 536 of 697 ends

St. Helena City Council
April 8, 2024

Page 2 ends

recommendations for improving the project or minimizing or avoiding its deleterious effects on the city and its resources. Worse still, the City Council itself will be all but powerless to influence the design and operation of the resort, or to impose conditions of approval or mitigation measures to ensure the community is adequately protected.

Under these circumstances, it is imperative that the City Council not only order a Section 9212 Report as authorized by law, but that it direct staff and any consultants it retains to ensure the study is as probing and comprehensive in scope as possible. This means that in addition to the topics specified in the Elections Code and described in the Staff Report, the study should include a thorough examination of the following:

1. Applicability of Municipal Code prohibitions on using groundwater extracted for agricultural purposes for non-agricultural uses (SHMC § 13.16.080).

2. Whether as a matter of law the Initiative constitutes impermissible “spot zoning” that bestows development rights on one parcel that are superior to those on surrounding properties.

3. Whether the resort proposed by the Initiative Measure constitutes “new development” as that term is defined and understood in the General Plan.

We accordingly ask the Council to direct staff to prepare the Section 9212 as recommended, and to include these topics in its scope. Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

Most sincerely,

M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Mark R. Wolfe
On behalf of Citizens for the General Plan
MRW:

Agenda Item #14.1.

Page 537 of 697 ends

Page 538 of 697 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 28, 2024
FROM: Eric Janzen, Assistant Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider and Adopt a Resolution Identifying Sidewalk Segments for which Maintenance is the Responsibility of the City of St. Helena.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

On February 13, 2024, the City Council approved
Ordinance 2024-002 amending Section 12.08 of Municipal
Code requiring property owners to maintain, replace, and repair sidewalks fronting their property.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Identify by Resolution certain sidewalk segments that the City Council finds are the responsibility of the City or where City-maintained street trees are responsible for
sidewalk damage and regardless of ownership of the
adjoining private parcel.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. All sidewalk segments listed in the attached Resolution are already maintained by the City. Future
additions to the list, if approved by Council, shall result in additional expenditures of Public Works Staff time to
inspect and maintain.

BACKGROUND:

On February 13, 2024, the City Council approved Ordinance 2024-002 Amending Section 12.08 of Municipal Code requiring property owners to maintain, replace, and repair sidewalks fronting their property. This clarified maintenance responsibility throughout the City, brought the Chapter into closer conformance with the State Code on which it is based, clarified the responsible parties to implement the Chapter, and provided for a more robust process by which maintenance responsibility can be defined.

The new ordinance has also granted the City Council authority to memorialize by Resolution a list of certain sidewalk segments that the City Council finds are the responsibility of the City to maintain.

DISCUSSION:

Public Works Staff have traditionally inspected and maintained certain segments of sidewalks where the City owned the adjacent parcel and/or had made improvements using grant funding. These improvements included the installation of pavers, planters, Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 539 of 697 ends

street trees and street furnishings at various locations. The majority of these improvements were within the Downtown area.

Public Works Staff reviewed past inspection and repair records to identify the sidewalk segments the City has historically maintained. These segments were then memorialized in the attached Resolution which Public Works now presents to Council for consideration and adoption.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Exempt from CEQA review under Section 15323.

GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution.sidewalk responsibility v1
Attachment A - Sidewalk List
Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 540 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena Identifying Sidewalk Segments for which Maintenance is the Responsibility of the City of St. Helena

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Council has identified certain sidewalk segments for which there is a public benefit for future maintenance to be conducted by the City; and WHEREAS, these locations are identified herein by the parcel number and address of the adjoining parcel fronted by the sidewalk segment.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AS FOLLOWS:

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

SECTION 2. the sidewalk segments listed in this resolution are the responsibility of the City for the purposes of future maintenance.

SECTION 3. The sidewalk segments to be maintained by the City are identified in the list contained herein. Sidewalk segment shall extend for the full frontage of the listed parcel as noted in Attachment A.

SECTION 4. City Council reserves the right to rescind public responsibility for maintenance of any sidewalk, curb or gutter within the City limit and within the public right of way previously assumed by resolution of the City Council if the City Council finds that the public benefit cited in the aforementioned resolution no longer exists, never existed or was adopted in error.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 28, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 541 of 697 ends

Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 542 of 697 ends

ATTACHMENT A
Adjoining Parcel
Ownership Parcel No.

Street
Address Street Zip
private 009212003000 1360 MAIN 94574
private 009212007000 1308 MAIN 94574
private 009212009000 1314 MAIN 94574
private 009223003000 1461 MAIN 94574
private 009240002000 1367 MAIN 94574
private 009240008000 1339 MAIN 94574
private 009250006000 1205 MAIN 94574
private 009250015000 1269 MAIN 94574
private 009250016000 1235 MAIN 94574
private 009261001000 1153 MAIN 94574
private 009261006000 1107 MAIN 94574
private 009261007000 1077 MAIN 94574
private 009083013000 1156 MAIN 94574
private 009083018000 1228 MAIN 94574
private 009083019000 1234 MAIN 94574
private 009083016000 1218 MAIN 94574
private 009083017000 1226 MAIN 94574
private 009083009000 1108 MAIN 94574
private 009083014000 1200 MAIN 94574
private 009090001000 1080 MAIN 94574
private 009083010000 1132 MAIN 94574
private 009083021000 1136 MAIN 94574
private 009090043000 1080 MAIN 94574
private 009212004000 1350 MAIN 94574
private 009212010000 1320 MAIN 94574
private 009212011000 1328 MAIN 94574
private 009223001000 1485 MAIN 94574
private 009223006000 1421 MAIN 94574
private 009240005000 1351 MAIN 94574
private 009240011000 1317 MAIN 94574
private 009240022000 1371 MAIN 94574
private 009250003000 1227 MAIN 94574
private 009250004000 1223 MAIN 94574
private 009211004000 1461 RAILROAD (MAIN ST FRONTAGE) 94574 private 009211005000 1420 MAIN 94574
private 009211010000 1414 MAIN 94574
city 009211016000 1500 MAIN (FIRE DEPT RAILROAD FRONTAGE) 94574 The City Council of St. Helena has found that there is a public benefit for the City to maintain the sidewalks adjoining the following parcels.

Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 543 of 697 ends

private 009212001000 1380 MAIN 94574
private 009212012000 1332 MAIN 94574
private 009223002000 1475 MAIN 94574
private 009223023000 1451 MAIN 94574
private 009240004000 1355 MAIN 94574
private 009240006000 1347 MAIN 94574
private 009240010000 1321 MAIN 94574
private 009240021000 1381 MAIN 94574
private 009250002000 1231 MAIN 94574
private 009250005000 1219 MAIN 94574
private 009263012000 1065 MAIN 94574
private 009164003000 1207 ALEXANDER (MAIN ST FRONTAGE) 94574 private 009164006000 1629 MAIN 94574
city 009070032000 J. MEILY PARK (POPE ST & CHILES AVE FRONTAGE) 94574 city 009211003000 1498 MAIN ST (LYMAN PARK, RAILROAD AVE FRONTAGE) 94574 city 009600003000 SPRING ST (BALDWIN PARK) 94574
city 009591001000 1300 MITCHELL DR. (MARY FRYER PARK) 94574 city 009350033000 360 CRANE AVE. (CRANE PARK) 94574
city 009602010000 1649 VOORHEES CIR (MENNEN PARK) 94574 private 009401020000 S.MCCULLAGH PARK 94574
city 009070026000 201 POPE (WAPPO PARK POPE ST FRONTAGE) 94574 city 009240019000 1360 OAK AVE (CARNEGIE BLDG, ADAMS ST FRONTAGE) 94574 private 009193002000 1527 RAILROAD (PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS) 94574 private 009192009000 1515 RAILROAD 94574
city 009150004000 1492 LIBRARY LN (LIBRARY FRONTAGE) 94574 city 009150006000 LIBRARY LN (VACANT PARCEL FRONTAGE) 94574 private 009211009000 1400 MAIN 94574
private 009212008000 1316 MAIN 94574
private 009212015000 1346 MAIN 94574
private 009223020000 1407 MAIN 94574
private 009240003000 1361 MAIN 94574
private 009240007000 1343 MAIN 94574
private 009240009000 1335 MAIN 94574
private 009240012000 1309 MAIN 94574
private 009250014000 1201 MAIN 94574
private 009261014000 1111 MAIN 94574
private 009261016000 1115 MAIN 94574
Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 544 of 697 ends

Sidewalk Maintenance
Responsibility
Select Locations
City Council Agenda
Item 15.1
By: Joe Leach, PE
Director of Public Works
Public Works Department May 28, 2024 1
Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 545 of 697 ends

Background
• February 13, 2024 – 2nd Reading of SHMC updates to codify adjacent property ownership responsibilities related to sidewalk maintenance and liability.
• Directed by Council to address select locations wherein City maintains sidewalk (e.g. Main Street).
2 Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 546 of 697 ends

Scope/Requested Action
• Main Street: between Pine Street and Mitchell Drive.
• Additional sites: adjacent to City-owned properties/facilities. • Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena Identifying Sidewalk Segments for which Maintenance is the Responsibility of the City of St. Helena
3 Agenda Item #15.1.

Page 547 of 697 ends

Page 548 of 697 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Finance
DATE: May 28, 2024
FROM: Yosselyn Valencia, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation of analysis for the updated Cost Allocation Plan to allocate personnel costs to various funds as
appropriate including Water and Wastewater funds.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose is to provide an updated Cost Allocation Plan analysis and recommendations made by MGT of America
Consulting, LLC.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: FY 2024-2025:

1. Approve and authorize an increase of $220,868 in
budget appropriation from the Water Fund 561 to be
allocated to the General Fund 101.

2. Approve and authorize a decrease of $97,875 in
budget appropriation from the Wastewater Fund
571 and the General Fund 101 to reverse the
funding from the Wastewater Fund 571.

3. Approve and authorize an increase of $97,875 from
the General Fund Reserves to supplement the
decrease from the Wastewater fund appropriation to
the General Fund 101.

The Financial impact will be included in the Mid-Cycle
Budget update.

BACKGROUND:

The City contracted with MGT of America Consulting, LLC. to conduct a Cost Allocation Plan for the City. MGT has extensive experience in preparing cost allocation plans for various cities nationwide and understands the fair share costs involved.

The Full Cost Allocation Plan for FY 2025 (Attachment 1) aims to approximate the level of effort that certain functions support at the organizational level, treating each supporting function separately and determining specific allocation methods for each department/division function. The plan also identifies administrative costs incurred to support various city functions and determines a distribution of central service costs to receiving departments. Additionally, the plan calculates the department and divisional Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 549 of 697 ends

overhead costs incurred by the city, using expenditure data, federal cost principles, staff input, and department organization charts to develop a percentage rate of salaries, benefits, and other allowable costs.

MGT has analyzed the City's financial data and provided recommendations on the overhead costs incurred by the general fund for the services provided to the Water and Wastewater Enterprise funds.

MGT has used the following cost centers as measurable metrics to include as part of their calculation:
 General insurance - Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) Per Department  City Hall Square Footage Per Department
 Budget support - Total Operating Budget Per Department  General City Support - City Council Agenda Items Per Department  Accounts Payable Transactions Per Department
 Accounts Receivable Transactions Per Department
 Utility Billing Transactions Per Enterprise Funds
 IT Work Order Requests and Device Support
 Direct Allocation to Water Enterprise
 Direct Allocation to Wastewater Enterprise
MGT completed the analysis in May 2024 and made a recommendation to the City as to how much Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds should contribute to the General Fund for City services provided for those enterprises. The Cost Allocation Plan analysis utilized the FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget for the analysis instead of FY 2022-23 actuals based on a recommendation from the consultant to incorporate several vacancies that occurred in the FY 2022-23.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of the cost allocation plan is to have an external consultant analyze the City's financial data and make recommendations on the cost share from water and wastewater. The recommended cost allocation plan defines measurable metrics that support the costs that the enterprise funds should contribute to the General Fund for the support services the General Fund is providing to the Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds. The City may deposit ratepayer revenues in its general fund to the extent the general fund incurs costs to provide the water or wastewater service. This shift not only ensures a fair and accurate cost allocation but also enhances transparency and accountability in our financial operations.

Indirect costs are chargeable to Water and Wastewater Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds because they are part of the City's cost of providing the services.

Enterprise funds are meant to be self-supporting, and only by transferring the support costs incurred by the General Fund to the enterprise fund can all the costs associated Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 550 of 697 ends

with enterprise operations be accurately reflected. These transfers ensure that the City's general taxpayer base are not subsidizing enterprise operations.

The City currently uses a formula to allocate the cost of staff time spent supporting Water and Wastewater Enterprise functions, and directly charged the Water and Wastewater Funds. The new cost allocation plan now defines measurable metrics that support the costs which the Enterprise Funds should contribute to the General Fund for the support services provided by the General Fund to the Enterprise Funds.

The following data compares the FY 2024-25 budgeted direct cost to water and wastewater by department in comparison to MGT's recommendation:

Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 551 of 697 ends

The Full Cost Allocation Plan uses a methodology that recognizes the cross support provided between central service divisions and departments. This is done by identifying allowable costs from central service divisions and allocating them in sequence to the selected divisions, departments and funds based on measurable and auditable allocation statistics that match the service provided to the service received. Overall, for FY 2024-25 the Water Enterprise Fund will under contribute to the General Fund by $220,868 or -9.69% and the Wastewater Enterprise Fund will over contribute by $97,875 or 5.13% for the support services related to the Enterprise Funds.

Staff is recommending implementation of the updated cost allocation plan to FY 2024- 25 Operating Budget during the FY 2024-25 Mid-Cycle Budget Update to ensure each department bears a fair share of costs through appropriate allocation recommendations from MGT. This plan will defensibly represent the City's true and reasonable costs of the general fund providing services to the Water and Wastewater Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution- Cost Allocation Plan
Attachment 1 - City of St Helena Full Cost Allocation Plan for FY25 Budget Attachment 2 - CAP Financial Impact- Presentation
Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 552 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

AUTHORIZING THE NEW COST ALLOCATION PLAN STRUCTURE THAT ENSURES EACH

DEPARTMENT BEARS A FAIR SHARE OF COSTS THROUGH APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING, LLC.

RECITALS
A. The City of St. Helena has entered into agreement with MGT of America Consulting, LLC on March 11, 2024, to conduct a comprehensive cost allocation plan for the City; and
B. MGT has analyzed the City's financial data and provided recommendations on the overhead costs incurred by the General Fund for the services provided to the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds; and
C. The recommendation from MGT is to implement the new structure treating each supporting function separately and determining specific allocation methods for each department/division function; and
D. Allocates centrally provided services to departments in a fair and equitable manner; and
E. The plan is replacing the former formula based on staff time spent supporting water and wastewater functions; and
F. The new structure not only ensures a fair and accurate cost allocation but also enhances transparency and accountability in our financial operations; and G. The plan defensibly represents the City's true and reasonable costs of the General Fund providing services to the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds; and H. Staff is requesting the implementation of the new Cost Allocation Plan structure with the FY 2024-2025.

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

Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 553 of 697 ends

1. The City Council approves the Cost Allocation Plan recommendations from MGT of America Consulting, LLC, and authorizes the implementation of the new plan structure for FY 2024-2025.

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Council Member Chouteau: _____
Council Member Kenealy: _____
Council Member Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_______________________ _______________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 554 of 697 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA, CA

FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN
For Use In FY 2025
Based on Budgeted Expenditures from FY 2024
© 2024 MGT Consulting Group
mgtconsulting.com
Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 555 of 697 ends

Table of Contents
Section 1 - Introduction
Section 2 - Reading a Cost Allocation Plan
Section 3 - Central Services Cost Allocation Plan Detail Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 556 of 697 ends

Section 1
Introduction
Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 557 of 697 ends

Introduction
The enclosed Indirect Cost Allocation Plan identifies the costs of indirect services provided by central service departments of the City of St. Helena (the City) based on budgeted expenditures from the fiscal year 2024. MGT prepared these documents at the request of the City.

The Cost Allocation Plan is used by the City to claim indirect costs as charges against enterprise and special revenue funds. These documents are prepared in compliance full cost accounting best practices. City personnel provided the expenditure and allocation data to MGT consultants. MGT consultants then prepared the Cost Allocation Plan utilizing multiple allocation basis method with a double step-down calculation methodology.

Indirect costs are chargeable to City enterprise and special revenue funds because they are part of the City’s cost of providing the services. Enterprise funds are meant to be self-supporting, and only by transferring the support costs incurred by the General Fund to the enterprise fund can all the costs associated with enterprise operations be accurately reflected. These transfers ensure that the City’s general taxpayer base aren’t subsidizing enterprise operations – which may be supporting individuals and businesses that aren’t within the City’s boundaries.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 558 of 697 ends

Section 2
Reading a Cost Allocation Plan
Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 559 of 697 ends

Reading the Cost Allocation Plan
Overview
The Full Cost Allocation Plan is a document that distributes, or allocates, City indirect costs.

Indirect costs are those costs incurred by City divisions and departments that benefit other City divisions and departments. Examples of City indirect costs are personnel, purchasing, human resources and the finance services.

The primary purpose for preparing the Cost Allocation Plan is to identify the appropriate division and department indirect costs to enable reimbursement of those costs back to the General Fund.

The significant steps involved in preparing the Cost Allocation Plan include the following:
• Identify the City divisions and departments that provide support to other City divisions and departments. These divisions and departments are referred to as central service or allocating departments.
• Identify the City divisions and departments that receive support from other City divisions and departments. These departments are referred to as grantee or receiving departments.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 560 of 697 ends

• Accumulate the allowable actual expenditures of the City divisions and departments that provide support to other City divisions and departments. • Distribute, or allocate, the allowable expenditures of the City divisions and departments that provide support to other City divisions and departments based on available, meaningful, measurable and auditable allocation statistics that match the service provided to the service received.

Process
A double-step down allocation methodology is used to allocate the allowable costs of the central service divisions and departments. This methodology recognizes the cross support provided between central service divisions and departments.

The double-step down methodology requires an initial sequencing of allocating divisions and departments. In the first step of the double-step methodology, allowable costs from central service divisions and departments are allocated in the sequence selected to all City divisions, departments and funds; including to other central service divisions and departments. The second step in the double-step down methodology is made to fully account for the cross support provided between central service divisions and departments. Central service divisions and departments are closed after the second step in the double-step down allocation methodology.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 561 of 697 ends

Sections
Table of Contents
The first few pages of the Cost Allocation Plan are the Table of Contents. The column on the left side of the pages lists the central service, or allocating, divisions and departments. Each central service division and department is broken down into functions. Functions are the specific services provided by a particular division and department. The middle column lists the allocation base for each corresponding function. The column on the right side of the pages is the applicable page number.

Summary Schedule
The next few pages of the Cost Allocation Plan are the Summary Schedule. The Summary Schedule identifies the total dollar amount allocated from every City allocating division and department to every City receiving division and department. Allocating divisions and departments are listed down the left column and receiving divisions, departments and funds are listed across the top of each page.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 562 of 697 ends

Detail Schedules
The remaining pages of the Cost Allocation Plan are the detail schedules for every central service division and department. The detail schedules for each central service division and department are structured in the following format.

Narrative - Lists the division and department name, provides a brief description of the activities performed, along with identifying the functions and the corresponding allocation base.

Departmental Costs (A) – Lists the actual expenditures for that division and department.

Incoming Costs (B) – Represents the support costs coming into the division and department from other allocating divisions and departments.

Total Allocated (C) - The total amount allocated for that division and department. This amount is found at the end of the Incoming Costs schedule.

Function Allocations - The distribution, or allocation, of the Total Allocated costs by function.

Allocation Summary – Shows the summary of allocated costs by function.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 563 of 697 ends

Section 3
Central Services Cost Allocation Plan
Agenda Item #15.2.

Page 564 of 697 ends

St. Helena City CouncilMay 28, 2024

St. Helena City Council
May 28, 2024