Agenda, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, June 25, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 13 ends

Table 17.19.020.A: Use Regulations — Community Agriculture and Natural Resource Zoning Use Classification A-20 W WW Additional
"P" = Permitted; "MUP" = Minor Use Permit; "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit; "-" = Use . . .

Commercial Uses
Animal Care and service
Animal boarding facility/kennel CUP - -
Veterinary clinic CUP - -
Winery and Planned Agritourism
Overlay uses -
_ P -
_
Only within the
Winery and Planned
Agritourism
Overlay, see

17.21.060,
Winery and Planned
Agritourism Overlay
A copy of St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.19 is attached hereto as Exhibit D for informational purposes only.

Title 17 ("Zoning Code"), Chapter 17.21 ("Overlay Zoning Districts") of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough; text in regular type or bold type reflects the existing Municipal Code text and is provided for informational/reference purposes):

Chapter 17.21 Overlay Zoning Districts
Sections:

17.21.010 Flood Plain Overlay (FP)

17.21.020 Mobile Home Park Overlay (MHP)

17.21.030 Parking Exemption District (PED)

17.21.040 Historic Preservation Overlay (HP)

17.21.050 Planned Development Overlay (PD)

17.21.060 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 of the base zoning district. The Overlay designations set forth in this Title are as follows:

Table 17.21A: Overlay Zoning Districts
Abbreviation Name
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 257 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 14 ends

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 Agritourism Overlay (WPA)," is hereby added to Chapter 17.21 as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough; text in regular type or bold type reflects the existing Municipal Code text and is provided for informational/reference purposes):

17.21.060 Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA)
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA), when combined with an underlying Winery (W) Zoning District, to encourage high quality, innovative and creative agricultural based tourism development in the City outside of the Urban Limit Line. The WPA Overlay provides for the attraction of visitors with overnight accommodations on parcels within the agriculture general plan land use designation and Winery (W) Zoning designation in conjunction with agricultural, winery and winery-related uses. Large parcels in excess of 110-acres with existing active agriculture and a winery located within the City but outside of the 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 11 acres for agritourism with overnight accommodations. The WPA Overlay is intended to provide for the approval of development 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. Helena Agritourism Initiative.

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

1. All uses permitted in the property's base zoning district;

2. Hotel, resort, or similar uses with transient overnight accommodations with no more than 56 guest rooms, served by an active railway line and located on a development site no larger than 11 acres on parcels 110 acres or larger in size with active winery or vineyard uses.

3. Uses accessory to hotel, resort, including but not limited to spa, restaurant, bar, up to 11,000 square feet for meeting rooms or related spaces, or similar uses, with transient overnight accommodations.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 258 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 15 ends

4. Train station or depot up to 2,500 square feet for passenger and guest use, if associated with a hotel or resort.

C. Conditional uses. Conditional uses as specified in the property's base zoning district require approval of a use permit as regulated by Section 17.05.020.

Approval of a use permit is subject to finding the use consistent with the policies of the property's General Plan land use designation and the purpose of the WPA Overlay.

D. Design Review. Design Review shall not be required for uses permitted outright pursuant to Sections 17.21.060.B 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 require a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 17.21.060.C in the WPA Overlay, provided that no decisionmaking bodies or officials may use Design Review intentionally or inadvertently 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 require 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 standards in this Chapter. Design Review shall not be required for adjacent new construction meeting the requirements of Section 17.21.060(G)(6).

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 offices, equipment and maintenance areas, employee facilities, garages, carports, workshops, pools, pool houses, gazebos, patio covers, and other accessory buildings, structures, and similar uses associated with resorts and hotels;

2. Signs subject to the generally applicable provisions of Chapter 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 coverage, building height, setback requirements, 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 259 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 16 ends

17.21.060.F shall be observed in the WPA Overlay, except as otherwise provided in this Section.

Table 17.21.060.F Development Standards
Maximum Standards.
a. Density 0.3 FAR
b. Height of buildings/ structures 45 feet
c. Building coverage 50 percent
d. Building Area (conditioned) 105,000 sf
Minimum Standards.
a. Lot width 300 feet
b. Front setback 100 feet
c. Side setback 10 feet
d. Rear setback 10 feet

1. Design. The design of the building and site shall substantially conform to all applicable development standards, requirements and Environmental Design Features in this Section; materials and colors shall be used in a manner that creates a visually cohesive design; roof design, building massing, and building articulation treatments shall be applied on are all sides of the buildings; and shall be compatible with the character, including any historic considerations, of the site.

2. Landscaping. All setbacks must be landscaped with plant materials, adequately maintained in accordance with the generally applicable provisions of Chapter 17.25.

3. Parking. Parking for hotel use shall be a minimum of 77 parking spaces and may be provided on site or off-site on an adjoining parcel subject to a long-term joint-use parking 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.

G. Other Uses, Standards, and Requirements.

1. Wastewater. Wastewater treatment provided by an on-property package water reclamation system sized for WPA project serving flows 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 260 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 17 ends

2. Water. Potable water will be provided by existing on-site wells. Emergency systems water and irrigation water will be 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, modification, or reconstruction thereof; for potable water, emergency systems water, and irrigation water not supplied through treated wastewater shall be allowed and shall not require a permit under Section 13.16.060.

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

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 minimum of fifty (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 within the City Limits ("Workforce Housing Obligation"). If the 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 Housing Obligation prior to the certificate 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 Project, Applicant shall make a payment for the purpose of furthering the City's affordable housing goals pursuant to the requirements of St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.30.020, as may be amended from time to time, to be paid to the City prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project as the Project's sole obligation to provide affordable or workforce housing.

Page 261 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 18 ends

Building Code and other generally applicable state laws. The Project Applicant(s) or designee(s) under this Section shall implement all EDFs and the City shall implement a monitoring and enforcement program to ensure compliance. The monitoring and enforcement program shall be administered by 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. In the event that anv other provision of this Chapter 17.21 ("Overlay Zoning Districts") of Title 17 ("Zoning Code') or any other provisions of the St. Helena Municipal Code conflict with this Section

17.21.060, the provisions of this Section shall govern.

8. Modifications. Modifications to the standards of this Section may be approved pursuant to the generally applicable provisions of Section 17.11.010 ("Minor Modifications to Development Standards"), as may be amended from time to time.

H. Building Permits.

1. Building Permit Required. No person shall commence, 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 Chief Building Official.

2. Height. Height shall be measured from finished grade to midpoint of roofline. Maximum height limits specified in this Chapter shall not apply to rooftop features for the housing of elevators, other roof equipment used to operate and maintain a building, screens for such equipment, other features, such as spires, belfries, domes, chimneys and cupolas, flagpoles, water tanks and towers, aids to navigation, communications 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.

I. Required Application. Applications for development in the WPA Overlay shall be filed by the Project Applicant and must include the following to determine substantial conformance with this Section:

1. A map or maps showing:
a. Topography of the land, contour intervals as required by the City; Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 262 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 19 ends

b. Proposed circulation system;
c. Areas for proposed structures, 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 drawing of all proposed buildings and structures;

3. Information demonstrating that:
a. The development meets the standards of this Section; 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 sustained desirability and stability;
d. The development is planned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the WPA Overlay; and
e. That development has been designed to implement features consistent with this Section, including the required EDFs, to address potential impacts, including from traffic, wastewater treatment, water usage, and employee housing.

SECTION 6. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY. It is the intent of the people of the 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 of the City may be inconsistent with this Initiative, the provisions of this 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, Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 263 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 20 ends

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 of Section 3 of this 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 first amendments inserted 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 of this 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 of this 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-enacted provision is inconsistent with 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.

In the event that this Initiative and one or more Conflicting 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 of affirmative votes shall control in its entirety with respect to the future use and development of properties subject 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 Conflicting Initiative approved by the voters at the same election, and such Conflicting 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 264 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 21 ends

the two measures can be harmonized in a manner that permits this Initiative to be implemented upon its adoption without imposing any additional or inconsistent requirement(s) to properties subject to this Initiative (e.g., the other measure impacts only properties that 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 affirmative 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 this Initiative is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision does not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this 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 irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, part, or portion is found to be invalid. If any provision of this Initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity does not affect any application of this Initiative that can be given effect without the invalid application.

B. If any portion of this Initiative is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to 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 identified by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent of this 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 implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purpose set forth in this Initiative.

SECTION 10. AMENDMENT. The amendments to 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 of the voters of the City voting in a regular election held in accordance with state law.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 265 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 22 ends

SECTION 11. ATTESTATION OF ORDINANCE. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by the people of St. Helena by signing where indicated below.

SECTION 12. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines that adoption of this Measure is not a discretionary action of the City Council within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA review. See, Tuolumne Jobs and Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 1029.

SECTION 13. EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit A: Map of the Property Subject to this Initiative (for informational purposes only)
Exhibit B: Amendments to City of St. Helena Zoning Map
Exhibit C: Appendix 1 to Section 17.21.060 of the 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 17.19 (for informational purposes only)
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of June _____, 2024. ________________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
Ethan Walsh, City AttorneyCERTIFICATION
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 266 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Resolution No. 2024-___

Page 23 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF NAPA ) ss
CITY OF ST. HELENA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this resolution was ADOPTED and PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Helena held on the _____ day of June, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 267 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 268 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 269 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 270 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 271 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 272 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 273 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 274 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 275 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 276 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 277 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 278 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 279 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 280 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 281 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 282 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 283 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 284 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 285 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 286 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 287 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 288 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 289 of 623 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 2024-____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ST. HELENA GENERAL
PLAN 2040, ST. HELENA ZONING MAP, AND THE ST. HELENA

MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A WINERY AND PLANNED

AGRITOURISM OVERLAY TO ALLOW RESORT HOTEL

DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN LARGE WINERY PROPERTY WITHIN

THE CITY, AS AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9215(a).

WHEREAS, pursuant to authority provided by the California Elections Code, a petition has been filed with the City Council of the City of St. Helena, seeking to enact an initiative measure/ordinance which would amend the St. Helena General Plan 2040, St.

Helena Zoning Map, and the St. Helena Municipal Code to create a Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay to allow resort hotel development on certain large winery property within the City, (the “Measure” or “Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code section 9215, an initiative petition must be filed with the City in valid form and signed by not less than ten percent (10%) of the registered voters of the City in order to qualify a local initiative measure for the ballot; and
WHEREAS, according to Napa County voter records, the minimum signature requirement in order to qualify this Measure for the ballot is 344 registered City voters; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, through the Napa County Registrar of Voters, has certified that the form of the petition complies with California law and, based upon an examination of voter registration records, has ascertained that the petition is signed by the requisite number of voters to qualify this Measure/Ordinance for the ballot under the Elections Code; and
WHEREAS, this Measure’s/Ordinance’s proponents have completed all other necessary prerequisite steps qualify and place it on the ballot; and WHEREAS, since this Ordinance has qualified for placement on the ballot, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215, the City Council is legally required to either (i) adopt this Ordinance without alteration, or (ii) submit it to the voters at its next regularly scheduled election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election or at a special election pursuant to Elections Code Section 1405; and WHEREAS, in lieu of placing the Measure/Ordinance on the ballot, the City Council has voted to adopt it without alteration.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 290 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215(a), the City Council hereby adopts the following ordinance as an initiative ordinance, to read as follows:

SECTION 1. TITLE. This initiative measure will be known as the “City of St. Helena Agritourism Initiative.” It will sometimes be referred to as the “Initiative.” SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

A. The people of the City of St. Helena ("City") find and declare the following:

1. Located in the center of Napa 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 sufficient 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 of the 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 infrastructure Task 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 291 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 3 ends

development of a 56-room maximum, world-class resort hotel and agrotourism facility on the existing rail line, subject to the limitations, policies, and standards set forth in this Initiative.

7. The new resort hotel will be located within a newly adopted Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay ("WPA Overlay"), which can only be applied on up to 11 acres of large parcels in excess of 110-acres located within City limits but outside of the 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 11 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 140-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 of currently mostly fallow ground on the Winery Property, including a one-acre landscape buffer. On-site facilities would include a maximum of 56 permitted guest rooms, as well as a variety of public and visitor-serving amenities including meeting and event spaces, swimming pools, and an on-site spa and restaurant open to the public, including residents of St. 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 off Deer Park Road, and from the existing train, which is intended to substantially minimize traffic 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 approval by applicable agencies.

11. This Initiative also makes conforming amendments to the City's General Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate the development of the Project and secure the fiscal and other benefits described herein for the City's residents. The policies, development standards, and required environmental design features in this Initiative, as set forth in the new Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 292 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 4 ends

12. 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.

13. Implementation of this Initiative will protect the public health, safety and welfare, and the quality of life for the people of the City of St. Helena.

B. Purpose. The people of the 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 of a resort and agritourism facility on the WPA Property at the northern 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 of St. 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 deletions shown in strikethrough; text in regular type or bold type reflects the existing General Plan text and is provided for informational/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-public uses. 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 of affordable 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 110-acres with existing active agriculture and a winery 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 11 acres for agritourism facilities with overnight accommodations ("Large Parcel Agritourism Facility").

B. 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:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 293 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 5 ends

LU1.2 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 of developable land within the Urban Limit Line is insufficient 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 Large Parcel Agritourism Facility in an agritourism overlay district of up to 11 acres shall not be considered "urban development" for the purpose of this General Plan.

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

LU5.3 Strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan that are designated as agricultural land, except for Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities as permitted by an agritourism overlay district.

LU5.6 Permit wineries and other agricultural-related industries, including Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities, to locate in the city if their location does not adversely impact surroundings, uses, or city services (water, traffic, etc.) or the quality and character of the community.

D. 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 Parcel Agritourism Facilities, as permitted by an agritourism overlay district, are not considered urban development, as further described in Policy LU 1.2 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 294 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 6 ends

Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities, as permitted by an agritourism overlay district, are not considered urban development as contemplated by 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 by an onproperty package water reclamation system sized for project serving flows in the form of a membrane bioreactor or similar system that is capable of providing tertiary 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 and supplemented by on site wells as needed.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ST. HELENA ZONING MAP.

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

1. To include a new Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA) designation in the list of City of St. Helena Zoning Districts, as depicted in Exhibit B hereto; and

2. 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 17 ("Zoning Code"), Chapter 17.19 ("Community Agricultural and Natural Resource Zoning Districts"), Section 17.19.020 ("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 Agritourism Overlay (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough; text in regular type, italics, or bold type reflects the existing Municipal Code text and is provided for informational/reference purposes):

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 295 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 7 ends

17.21.060,
Winery and Planned
Agritourism Overlay
A copy of St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.19 is attached hereto as Exhibit D for informational purposes only.

Chapter 17.21 Overlay Zoning Districts
Sections:

17.21.010 Flood Plain Overlay (FP)

17.21.020 Mobile Home Park Overlay (MHP)

17.21.030 Parking Exemption District (PED)

17.21.040 Historic Preservation Overlay (HP)

17.21.050 Planned Development Overlay (PD)

Table 17.21A: Overlay Zoning Districts
Abbreviation Name
FP Flood Plain Overlay
MHP Mobile Home Park Overlay
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 296 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 8 ends

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 Agritourism Overlay (WPA)," is hereby added to Chapter 17.21 as follows (additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough; text in regular type or bold type reflects the existing Municipal Code text and is provided for informational/reference purposes):

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

1. All uses permitted in the property's base zoning district;

4. Train station or depot up to 2,500 square feet for passenger and guest use, if associated with a hotel or resort.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 297 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 9 ends

C. Conditional uses. Conditional uses as specified in the property's base zoning district require approval of a use permit as regulated by Section 17.05.020.

Approval of a use permit is subject to finding the use consistent with the policies of the property's General Plan land use designation and the purpose of the WPA Overlay.

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

2. Signs subject to the generally applicable provisions of Chapter 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.

17.21.060.F shall be observed in the WPA Overlay, except as otherwise provided in this Section.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 298 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 10 ends

2. Landscaping. All setbacks must be landscaped with plant materials, adequately maintained in accordance with the generally applicable provisions of Chapter 17.25.

Electric vehicle charging stations and EV-capable parking shall conform to Section 17.26.090, as required.

G. Other Uses, Standards, and Requirements.

Page 299 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 11 ends

provided by municipal water systems if permitted by the City. The use of existing water wells within the City, including the maintenance, modification, or reconstruction thereof; for potable water, emergency systems water, and irrigation water not supplied through treated wastewater shall be allowed and shall not require a permit under Section 13.16.060.

6. Environmental Design Features.
a. In addition to the requirements of the WPA Overlay and the St. Helena Municipal Code, an approved WPA Overlay must include and incorporate Environmental Design Features ("EDFs") to ensure that development in the overlay area avoids or minimizes environmental effects with appropriate sensitivity to the land, its resources, and adjacent property, and remains in compliance with the California Building Code and other generally applicable state laws. The Project Applicant(s) or designee(s) under this Section shall implement all EDFs and the City shall implement a monitoring and enforcement program to ensure compliance. The Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 300 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 12 ends

monitoring and enforcement program shall be administered by 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.

17.21.060, the provisions of this Section shall govern.

H. Building Permits.

I. Required Application. Applications for development in the WPA Overlay shall be filed by the Project Applicant and must include the following to determine substantial conformance with this Section:

1. A map or maps showing:
a. Topography of the land, contour intervals as required by the City; b. Proposed circulation system;
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 301 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 13 ends

c. Areas for proposed structures, 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 drawing of all proposed buildings and structures;

SECTION 6. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY. It is the intent of the people of the City of St.

SECTION 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS INITIATIVE.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 302 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 14 ends

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 properties subject to this Initiative in any manner whatsoever that would frustrate the purpose and intent of this Initiative (each, a "Conflicting Initiative"). In the event that this Initiative and one or more Conflicting 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 of affirmative votes shall control in its entirety with respect to the future use and development of properties subject 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 Conflicting Initiative approved by the voters at the same election, and such Conflicting 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 inconsistent requirement(s) to properties subject to this Initiative (e.g., the other Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 303 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 15 ends

measure impacts only properties that 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 affirmative votes.

SECTION 9. INTERPRETATION AND SEVERABILITY.

SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Initiative shall be binding and effective as of the earliest date allowed by law (the “Effective Date”). Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9215(a), the City Council hereby adopts this initiative Ordinance and it shall go into effect thirty (30) days after adoption.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 304 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 16 ends

SECTION 12. ATTESTATION OF ORDINANCE. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council by signing where indicated below.

SECTION 13. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines that adoption of this Measure is not a discretionary action of the City Council within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA review. See, Tuolumne Jobs and Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 1029.

SECTION 20. EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit A: Map of the Property Subject to this Initiative (for informational purposes only)
Exhibit B: Amendments to City of St. Helena Zoning Map
Exhibit C: Appendix 1 to Section 17.21.060 of the 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 17.19 (for informational purposes only)
SECTION 21. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause publication to occur in a newspaper of general circulation which is published and circulated in the City in a manner permitted under State law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of June _____, 2024. ________________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 305 of 623 ends

City of St. Helena
Ordinance No. 2024-___

Page 17 ends

CERTIFICATION

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 306 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 307 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 308 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 309 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 310 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 311 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 312 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 313 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 314 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 315 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 316 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 317 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 318 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 319 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 320 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 321 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 322 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 323 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 324 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 325 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 326 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 327 of 623 ends

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 328 of 623 ends

Elections Code Section 9212 Report
Evaluation of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
Reviewed by the City Council on June 25, 2024
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 329 of 623 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
..........................................................................................................................................................1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................4 A. OVERVIEW OF ST. HELENA AGRITOURISM INITIATIVE....................................................................................... 4 B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF 9212 REPORT................................................................................................... 4 II. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................7 A. BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................... 7 B. PURPOSE OF THIS 9212 REPORT .............................................................................................................. 7 C. OVERVIEW OF ST. HELENA RESORT PROJECT............................................................................................... 8 D. SUMMARY OF AGRITOURISM INITIATIVE....................................................................................................... 9 III. PLANNING ANALYSIS OF AGRITOURISM INITIATIVE ................................................................10 A. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ST. HELENA 2040 GENERAL PLAN....................................................................... 10

1. Summary of General Plan Amendments included in the Initiative ................................................... 10

2. General Plan Policies and Implementing Actions Addressed by the Initiative................................... 11

3. Potential Inconsistencies with General Plan Policies and Implementing Actions ............................. 12 B. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ST. HELENA ZONING CODE................................................................................ 14 C. EFFECTS OF INITIATIVE ON THE LIMITATIONS ON CITY ACTIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65008 AND CHAPTER 4.2 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 65913) AND CHAPTER 4.3 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 65915) OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 7 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE ..................................................................................................... 16 D. EFFECT OF INITIATIVE ON THE USE OF LAND, USES OF VACANT PARCELS OF LAND, THE IMPACTS ON THE AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF HOUSING, AND THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO MEET ITS REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS.................................... 17 E. IMPACT OF INITIATIVE ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS, OPEN SPACE, TRAFFIC CONGESTION, EXISTING BUSINESS DISTRICTS, AND DEVELOPED AREA DESIGNATED FOR REVITALIZATION................................................................................... 18 F. IMPACTS OF INITIATIVE ON THE COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYMENT......... 19 G. IMPACTS OF INITIATIVE ON FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE OF ALL TYPES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND OPEN SPACE.................................................................................... 19 IV. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ......................................20 A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 20 B. AESTHETICS................................................................................................................................... 20

1. Summary of Aesthetics Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report ..................................... 20

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 20

3. Analysis of Aesthetics Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative ....................................... 21 C. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................. 21

1. Summary of Air Quality Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report...................................... 21

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 22

3. Conclusions of Air Quality Peer Review Report ............................................................................. 23 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................. 24

1. Summary of Biological Resources in the Environmental Assessment Report .................................. 24

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 24

3. Conclusions of Biological Resources Peer Review Report.............................................................. 25 E. HISTORIC &CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 27

1. Summary of Historic & Cultural Resources Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report........ 27

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 27

3. Conclusions of Historic Resources Peer Review Report ................................................................ 30

4. Conclusions of Archaeological Resources Peer Review Report...................................................... 31 F. ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 330 of 623 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Summary of Energy Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report .......................................... 31

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 32

3. Analysis of Energy Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative ............................................ 33 G. GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY............................................................................................................ 33

1. Summary of Geology & Hydrogeology Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report................ 33

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 33

3. Analysis of Geology & Hydrogeology Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative .................. 34 H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS........................................................................................................... 34

1. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report............ 34

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 34

3. Conclusions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Peer Review Report ................................................... 35 I. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................... 35

1. Summary of Hazards & Hazardous Materials Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report ..... 35

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 36

3. Analysis of Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative........ 37 J. NOISE.......................................................................................................................................... 37

1. Summary of Noise Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report............................................ 37

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 38

3. Conclusions of Noise Peer Review Report.................................................................................... 38 K. PUBLIC SERVICES (SCHOOLS, POLICE, FIRE, OPEN SPACE/PARKS) ............................................................. 39

1. Summary of Public Services Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report ............................. 39

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 39

3. Analysis of Public Services Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative ................................ 40 L. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................................... 40

1. Summary of Transportation Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report .............................. 40

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 41

3. Conclusions of Transportation Impact Study Peer Review Report .................................................. 43 M. UTILITIES (WATER, GROUNDWATER AND WASTEWATER)........................................................................ 44

1. Summary of Utilities Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report......................................... 44

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative................... 44

3. Conclusions of Utilities (Water, Groundwater and Wastewater) Peer Review Reports ..................... 47 V. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S WORKFORCE HOUSING OBLIGATION & PROPOSAL ...........................50 A. WORKFORCE HOUSING OBLIGATION IN INITIATIVE ....................................................................................... 50 B. FULTON LANE WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 51 C. FULTON LANE WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT -ISSUES.............................................................................. 52

1. Site Constraints.......................................................................................................................... 52

2. Necessary General Plan and Zoning Amendments........................................................................ 52

3. Issues Related to Consistency with Development Standards......................................................... 52

4. Affordable Housing Related Issues .............................................................................................. 54 VI. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................57 A.COMPARISON OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES (REGIONAL VS. ST. HELENA-FOCUSED).............................. 58 B. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO ST. HELENA COMMUNITY............................................................................. 59

1. Nightly Hotel Occupancy and Average Daily Rates ........................................................................ 59

2. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Estimates .................................................................................... 59

3. Best- and Worst-Case Scenario Occupancy/Rates – City Council Request..................................... 60

4. Property Taxes............................................................................................................................ 60

5. Sales Taxes ................................................................................................................................ 62

6. Other Miscellaneous Items ......................................................................................................... 63 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................65 A. ST. HELENA AGRITOURISM INITIATIVE....................................................................................................... 65 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 331 of 623 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
B. PROPONENT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT................................................................................ 65 C. PROPONENT’S WORKFORCE HOUSING CONCEPT PLAN............................................................................... 65 D. PROPONENT’S ECONOMIC &FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................................ 65 E. PEER REVIEW REPORTS........................................................................................................................ 65

1. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................. 65

2. Biological Resources............................................................................................................... 65

3. Historic Resources ................................................................................................................. 65

4. Archaeological Resources (CONFIDENTIAL/NOT ATTACHED).................................................... 65

5. Noise...................................................................................................................................... 65

6. Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 65

7. Water/Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 65 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 332 of 623 ends

4 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Overview of St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
On May 28, 2024, the St. Helena City Council requested that City staff and consultants prepare an analysis of a proposed ballot initiative, the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative ("Initiative"), which seeks to amend the City of St. Helena’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code to facilitate development of a proposed 56-key resort on an 11-acre portion of the Charles Krug winery property ("St. Helena Resort") located at 2800 Main Street in St. Helena, California. As authorized under California Elections Code Section 9212, this report contains an analysis of the potential effects of the Initiative.

If approved, the Initiative would facilitate development of the proposed St. Helena Resort by direct voter approval rather than engaging in the environmental review process per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the legislative process for City Council approval of General Plan and Zoning amendments, and the development review and design review processes overseen by the Planning Commission. The Initiative includes specific policies, development standards, and "Environmental Design Features" (EDFs) that, if the Initiative is adopted, would be applied to development of the St. Helena Resort project and/or other development projects on the 11-acre site.

The Initiative, the full language of which is included in Appendix A of this report, and which is summarized below, would change the St. Helena General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code in the following ways:
• It amends the Land Use and Growth Management Elements of the General Plan to add a Winery & Planned Agritourism Overlay district ("WPA Overlay") and to allow "Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities" within the WPA Overlay.
• It amends the Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan to establish that "Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities" are not urban development and therefore do not require the extension of urban utility services.
• It amends the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to assign the new WPA Overlay designation to 11 acres on the Charles Krug winery property (i.e., the proposed St. Helena Resort project site).
• It amends the Zoning Code to add the WPA Overlay; define its purpose; define permitted uses and conditional uses; exempt certain development from the City’s design review process; establish development standards; specify requirements for wastewater, water, retail and other uses; establish a Workforce Housing Obligation; and define Environmental Design Features (EDFs) that must be implemented within the WPA Overlay.

This report analyzes the topics described in Elections Code Section 9212(a) and other topics as requested by the City Council, as a means of identifying and disclosing potentially significant effects of the Initiative, prior to adoption by the City Council or action by the voters.

B. Summary of Findings of 9212 Report
• The Initiative is consistent with General Plan policies relating to Economic Sustainability and Circulation Element policies relating to bicycle and pedestrian amenities, car-free tourism, and transportation demand management programs for major employers. • If the project were proposed through the normal entitlement process, it may present inconsistencies with General Plan policies relating to preservation of agricultural land and extension of urban development outside of the Urban Limit Line that would have to be addressed Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 333 of 623 ends

5 in order for the project to move forward. However, the proponents are seeking to make an exception to these General Plan policies through the electoral process, which is allowed under California law.
• Additional hydrogeological analysis and information regarding measures that would be taken to reduce water usage would be needed to determine the extent to which the use of on-site wells for the project would impact the groundwater basin.
• The Initiative would exempt the resort project from the requirement to go through a formal design review and conditional use permit process. Instead, the Project would be subject to development standards included in the Initiative.
• The project would not affect the City's ability to provide housing to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. If the Initiative is approved and a resort project is pursued, it would either result in construction of a minimum of 50 moderate-income rental units or payment of an Affordable Housing fee in accordance with Section 17.30.020 of the City of St. Helena Zoning Code. • The project would contribute to increased congestion and a degradation of Level of Service (LOS) at the westbound approach of Deer Park Road/SR 29 and at the Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road intersection. The Initiative includes Environmental Design Features (EDFs) that would require the project to contribute to future intersection improvements at both locations. • The project is expected to have a positive impact on both the local and regional economies. • The peer review of the proponent's Air Quality analysis concurred with the conclusions that the project, with implementation of the Air Quality EDFs, would not result in significant, adverse impacts.
• The peer review of the proponent's Biological Resources analysis concurred with the need for additional studies and, possibly, permits from resource agencies to ensure that there are no impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources.
• The peer review of the proponent's Historic and Cultural Resources analysis recommends that a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the Charles Krug Winery Property should be completed prior to construction; that a qualified architectural historian complete a Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties review. • The peer review of the proponent's Historic and Cultural Resources analysis found that EDF 26 does not follow State law standards that would apply if this project were subject to CEQA and, as written, is not sufficient to reduce Project-related impacts on archaeological resources or Tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. The peer review notes that the CRMP outlined in EDF 26 should be prepared because the property contains a Native American resource and is a State Historical Landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). • The peer review of the proponent's Green House Gas (GHG) emissions report raised some questions regarding the inputs in the modeling and noted that the project did not include a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis that demonstrates it is exempt or below the BAAQMD/SB 743 target or the City of St. Helena's recently-adopted VMT thresholds. • The peer review of the proponent's Noise analysis generally concurs with its conclusions. • The peer review of the proponent's Traffic Analysis presented questions regarding the methodology and assumptions and recommends that additional traffic signal warrant analysis be conducted at the SR 29/Deer Park Road intersection.
• The peer review of the proponent's Civil Engineering/Utilities analysis found that the project has not demonstrated the feasibility of using on-site wells, and that in the event that water was to be provided by the City, the project would have to comply with all City requirements related to new Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 334 of 623 ends

6 water connections, including but not limited to compliance with the City's water neutrality requirements.
• City staff review of the proponent's Workforce Housing Obligation and Proposal noted that site constraints pose serious challenges for the proponent's workforce housing concept (65 units on a

1.9-acre parcel at Fulton Lane and Railroad Avenue that is bisected by the railroad tracks). The review notes that Initiative provides no incentives for the proponent to pursue approval of a workforce housing project in a timely manner, thus making the default option of "making a payment for the purpose of furthering the City's affordable housing goals" rather than constructing workforce housing readily available. If the $7/per square foot Affordable Housing Fee that is currently under review by the City is passed, it would yield an Affordable Housing Payment of approximately $735,000.
• The City's review of the proponent's Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis does not dispute the numbers or analysis in the report but presents refined revenue estimates that are specific to the City of St. Helena rather than regional. The analysis estimates that the project would generate revenue increases to the City's General Fund of nearly $1.8 million per year on average for the first five years of operations as a result of increased property taxes, sales taxes, and transient occupancy taxes (TOT).

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 335 of 623 ends

7 II. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
On March 13, 2024, the proponents of a ballot initiative (Noble House Hotels & Resorts) filed with the City of St. Helena, a Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition and a request for the City Attorney to prepare the official ballot title and summary for the proposed ballot initiative, pursuant to Section 9200, et. seq. of the Election Code. The proponents are seeking City Council or voter approval of General Plan, Zoning and Municipal Code amendments to facilitate development of a 56-key luxury resort facility to be located on up to 11 acres of the Charles Krug Winery property located at 2800 Main Street in St. Helena, California.

On March 28, 2024, the ballot title and summary for the "St. Helena Agritourism Initiative" ("Initiative") were transmitted to the proponents. Subsequently, the proponents collected and submitted a sufficient number of signatures to qualify the Initiative for the ballot.

On May 28, 2024, the City Council accepted the City Clerk's certification of the sufficiency of the Initiative Petition and ordered the preparation of a study in accordance with Section 9212(a) of the Elections Code ("9212 Report"). Within 30 days of the certification of the petition and after reviewing this report, the City Council must either adopt the Initiative without any amendments or schedule an election for consideration of the Initiative by City voters.

B. Purpose of this 9212 Report
Elections Code 9212(a) authorizes the City Council to refer an initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report to evaluate the initiative's impact and effects prior to the Council's action to either adopt the Initiative or to order an election. The 9212 Report may examine the following effects of an initiative:

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, potable water demand/usage, 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.

As a voter-sponsored ballot measure, the Initiative is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council's actions to either approve the Initiative as proposed, or to place the measure on the ballot are considered to be ministerial actions. Similarly, if the Initiative is approved by the voters, the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code are considered to be Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 336 of 623 ends

8 ministerial actions and, therefore, not subject to CEQA. In order to provide public information regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the Initiative and the St. Helena Resort Project, the proponents prepared an Environmental Assessment Report (Appendix B).

As requested by the City Council, this 9212 Report addresses the topics identified in Election Code Section 9212(a) and provides a peer review of the analysis presented in the Environmental Assessment Report prepared by the project proponents. It also provides a peer review of the Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis (Appendix D) and the Workforce Housing Proposal (Appendix C) that were submitted to the City by the project proponents. This Report is organized in the following Chapters:

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II. INTRODUCTION
III. PLANNING ANALYSIS OF AGRITOURISM INITIATIVE
IV. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT V. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S WORKFORCE HOUSING OBLIGATION AND PROPOSAL VI. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. Overview of St. Helena Resort Project
The Initiative proponents are seeking City Council or voter approval of amendments to City of St. Helena laws governing new development to facilitate development of a 56-key luxury resort facility on 11 acres of the Charles Krug Winery property at 2800 Main Street in St. Helena, California. The St. Helena Agritourism Initiative would amend the St. Helena 2040 General Plan and the City of St. Helena Municipal Code, Title 17 (“Zoning Code”) to create a Winery & Planned Agritourism Overlay Zone ("WPA Overlay") which would be applied to the project site. The new WPA Overlay would designate hotel and resort uses as permitted uses and would exempt them from any discretionary City development review processes (such as design review and/or conditional use permits). Instead, a hotel/resort project would be subject to compliance with the Zoning Code amendments and Environmental Design Features ("EDFs") included in the Initiative.

The proposed St. Helena Resort Project, as presented on the Initiative proponent’s website (https://sthelenaresort.com/overview.php) would include up to 56 guest rooms spread across 12 singlestory villas/bungalows and six two-story villas/bungalows, with two of the guest rooms to be located in refurbished, historic train cars facing the Napa Valley Wine Train tracks that bisect the larger winery property. Proposed resort amenities include meeting and event spaces, a spa, swimming pools, and a restaurant. The project would also include a train station or depot for the Napa Valley Wine Train. The WPA Overlay regulations limit the train station/depot to a maximum of 2,500 sq. ft. The project proponents have indicated that, per the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the Wine Train operations are limited to a maximum of six trains per day, though under current operations “the number of trips per day is 3, comprising 2 daytime and 1 evening train.” As proposed, the project would not connect to City utilities, but rather would utilize existing on-site wells for potable and emergency water supplies and an on-site package wastewater treatment system would be installed to serve the project.

The Initiative addresses affordable housing demand generated by the resort's estimated 100 employees by requiring that, prior to issuance of building permits for the resort, the applicant must submit an application to the City for development of a minimum of 50 rental housing units targeted to moderateincome households. The Initiative does not identify a site for the workforce housing and the housing project would be subject to a separate environmental and development review process. The Initiative establishes that, if the workforce housing project does not receive City approvals prior to the certificate Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 337 of 623 ends

9 of occupancy for the St. Helena Resort project, the applicant would not be required to construct the housing units but rather, would make an in-lieu payment pursuant to the requirements of Section

17.30.020, “Affordable Housing Program” of the Zoning Code. If the workforce housing project is approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Resort project, the applicant would be required to construct the workforce housing within 24 months of the City's approval.

While the Initiative establishes the Workforce Housing Obligation and does not identify a specific project or site, the proponents submitted an affordable housing concept to the City on June 3, 2024. Appendix C includes the narrative description and Concept Plan for a potential 64-unit moderate-income rental housing project on a 1.9-acre site located south of Fulton Lane on both sides of the Napa Valley Wine Train right-of-way.

D. Summary of Agritourism Initiative
The St. Helena Agritourism Initiative is presented in Appendix A. The Initiative seeks to establish a new WPA Overlay in the City's General Plan and Zoning Code which can only be applied on up to 11 acres of large parcels that are more than 110 acres in size, located within City limits but outside the City's Urban Limit Line, are located in the Winery (W) zoning district; have existing active agriculture and winery uses, and are served by an existing railroad line. If the Initiative is adopted, the WPA Overlay would be applied to 11 acres of the Charles Krug winery property at 2800 Main Street. The project site is located along the existing rail line and comprised of mostly open, fallow acreage bordered by Deer Park Road on the north and the winery access road on the south.

As discussed in Chapter III of this report, the Initiative would amend the City of St. Helena’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to:
• Modify several General Plan policies to address "Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities as permitted by an agritourism overlay district."
• Establish the Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA Overlay), which can only be applied on up to 11 acres of large parcels in excess of 110 acres located within city limits but outside of the City’s Urban Limit Line (ULL) with existing active agriculture and a winery and served by an existing railroad line.
• The WPA Overlay would be applied to the property known as the Charles Krug Winery located at 2800 Main Street in the City of St. Helena certain property to facilitate the development of up to a 56-room resort with meeting rooms, event spaces, swimming pools, an on-site spa, and a restaurant.
• The Initiative includes 92 specific Environmental Design Features (EDFs) that address potential environmental issues, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and historic resources, energy efficiency, flooding, geology, contamination, noise, public services, traffic, utilities, water, water quality, and wastewater. The Initiative requires the proposed project to adhere to and implement the EDFs.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 338 of 623 ends

10 III. PLANNING ANALYSIS OF AGRITOURISM INITIATIVE
A. Consistency with the St. Helena 2040 General Plan

1. Summary of General Plan Amendments included in the Initiative The St. Helena 2040 General Plan is the City's long-term planning "blueprint" that sets forth the City's goals and policies upon which its land use decisions are based. It has both broad general goals, as well as specific policies and implementing actions (i.e., programs). Generally, a city may not approve a zoning change or a development project unless it is consistent with its general plan. California law requires there to be consistency between the various elements making up a general plan and between the general plan and the zoning code. The Initiative includes both General Plan amendments and Zoning Code amendments.

The Initiative includes six specific General Plan amendments as follows:
● The definition for the Agriculture (AG) land use designation in the Land Use and Growth Management Element, Section 2.2, Community Development Framework, Community and Natural Resource Areas (p. 2-15) would be amended to add the following verbiage:

Large parcels in excess of 110 acres with existing active agriculture and a winery 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 11 acres for agritourism facilities with overnight accommodations ("Large Parcel Agritourism Facility"). ● Three policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element, Section 2.5 would be modified as follows:
○ Policy LU 1.2 would be amended to specify that development of a Large Parcel Agritourism Facility in an agritourism overlay district of up to 11 acres outside of the Urban Limit Line shall not be considered "urban development."
○ Policy LU 5.3 would be amended to exempt Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities as permitted by an agritourism overlay district from strict limitations on development on properties that are designated as agricultural land.
○ Policy LU 5.6 would be amended to allow Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities to locate in the city if their location does not adversely impact surroundings, uses, or city services or the quality and character of the community.
● One policy and one implementing actions in Public Facilities and Services Element, Section 4.5 would be modified as follows:
○ Policy PF 2.2 would be amended to clarify that extension of City sewer services is not required for Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities.
○ Implementing Action PF 2.C would be amended to clarify that Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities are not urban development and do not require extension of municipal urban services, provided that wastewater treatment is provided by an on-property package water reclamation system sized for project serving flows in the form of a membrane bioreactor or similar system that is capable of providing tertiary 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 and supplemented by on site wells as needed.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 339 of 623 ends

11 2. General Plan Policies and Implementing Actions Addressed by the Initiative General Plan Policies & Implementing Actions Analysis of Consistencies Policy ES 1.4 Encourage the creation of workforce
housing to support the local employment base in
keeping with small town smart growth.

The WPA Overlay includes a Workforce Housing
Obligation requiring either construction of at least
50 units of rental affordable housing targeted to
moderate income households or payment of the
otherwise applicable affordable housing impact
fee in accordance with the requirements of St.

Helena Municipal Code Section 17.30.020.

Policy ES 2.1 Support the development of
responsible, visitor-serving components to the
City’s economy as a valuable source of jobs, tax
revenues, and cultural amenities. Promote
policies that facilitate and encourage this type of
sustainable economic development.

The proposed St. Helena Resort project is a visitorserving facility that would provide jobs, tax revenues and other contributions to the local
economy.

Policy ES 2.2 Encourage visitor-serving uses
oriented toward an upscale market, consistent
with the Valley’s reputation as a producer of
world-class wines. Discourage the introduction of
uses that are dependent upon a mass tourist
market.

The proposed St. Helena Resort project is a luxury
resort targeted to an upscale tourism market.

Policy CR 1.7 Explore the use of the rail corridor to
reduce traffic, including working with the owners
of the Wine Train to consider the possibility of
developing hospitality and other tourist-oriented
uses that are primarily accessed by passengers
riding on the Wine Train Corridor.

The St. Helena Resort project presents an
opportunity for the rail corridor to provide an
alternative mode of transportation for visitors.

Implementing Action CR 3.D Work with the wine
and hospitality industries, including the Wine
Train, to manage congestion and create and
promote car-free tourism services.

The St. Helena Resort project presents an
opportunity for the Napa Valley Wine Train and
the resort to promote car-free tourism services by
providing shuttle service between the train depot
at the resort, downtown St. Helena, and other
tourist destinations.

Implementing Action CR 2.C Require any new
development and modifications to existing
projects to provide bicycle and pedestrian
The Initiative includes several EDFs relating to
bicycle and pedestrian amenities and
improvements, including EDF 75 which requires
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 340 of 623 ends

12 General Plan Policies & Implementing Actions Analysis of Consistencies improvements and amenities, consistent with
adopted Engineering Standards and the St. Helena
Bicycle Plan.
the developer to construct an 8’ wide paved
bicycle and pedestrian trail within the railroad
right-of-way between the resort site and Fulton
Lane.

Policy CR 3.1 Provide incentives and encourage
existing major employers to develop and
implement transportation demand management
(TDM) programs to increase the number of people
who bike, walk, and take transit to work and
reduce peak- period trip generation.

The Initiative includes EDF 66 which required
preparation and implementation of a TDM Plan to
encourage reduced reliance on single occupant
vehicles.

3. Potential Inconsistencies with General Plan Policies and Implementing Actions The following table identifies General Plan Policies and Implementing Actions that would pertain to the project if it were proposed through the normal entitlement process and may present potential inconsistencies if that were the case.

General Plan Policies & Implementing Actions Analysis of Potential Inconsistencies Policy LU 1.1 - Require new development to occur
within well-defined boundaries and be consistent
with the ability to provide urban services. New
development should mitigate infrastructure
impacts by using sustainable, best management
practices in green building and stormwater
management and paying its share of development
impacts fees, while minimizing impacts on sewer,
water, energy and natural resources.

The Initiative modifies Policy LU 1.2 (see above) to
allow "Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities" (such as
the proposed St. Helena Resort) to occur outside
the Urban Limit Line.

Policy LU 5.1 - Discourage conversion of existing
farmland to non-agricultural uses.

The project would convert up to 11 acres of land
that is designated "Prime Farmland" to visitorserving uses. The Initiative modifies Policy LU 5.3 (see above) to allow Large Parcel Agritourism
Facilities as permitted by an agritourism overlay
district on lands that are designated for
agricultural uses.

Implementing Action LU 5.F - Where proposed
residential, commercial, or industrial
The Agritourism Overlay District regulations and
the EDFs do not establish requirements for a
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 341 of 623 ends

13 General Plan Policies & Implementing Actions Analysis of Potential Inconsistencies development abuts lands devoted to agricultural
use, require the non-agricultural uses to
incorporate buffer areas to mitigate potential land
use conflicts as a condition of approval for
subdivisions or use permits. The type and width of
buffer areas shall be determined by the City based
on the character, intensity, and sensitivity of the
abutting land uses. Prepare and adopt guidelines
and regulations to assist in the determination of
the appropriate type and scope of agricultural
buffer areas needed in circumstances that warrant
the creation of such buffer areas.
buffer area between Large Parcel Agritourism
Facilities and adjoining agricultural uses.

Implementing Action LU 5.G - Evaluate all
discretionary land use applications, rezonings,
and/or General Plan amendments, including those
outside the Urban Limit Line, to determine their
potential for impacts on Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
mapped by the State Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program and avoid converting these
farmlands where feasible. Where conversion of
farmlands mapped by the state cannot be
avoided, require long-term preservation of at least
one acre of existing farmland of equal or higher
quality for each acre of state-designated farmland
that would be rezoned or redesignated to nonagricultural uses. This protection may consist of establishment of farmland easements or other
similar mechanism, and the farmland to be
preserved shall be located within the city and
preserved prior to approval of the proposed
discretionary land use application rezoning, or
General Plan amendment.

The Initiative would establish an Agritourism
Overlay District on approximately 11 acres of the
Charles Krug winery property that are designated
as Prime Farmland by the State Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program, and it would allow for
development of a resort within that area.

If this project were required to secure
discretionary entitlements under this policy, the
proponents would need to provide for the longterm preservation of at least 11 acres of Prime Farmland through the establishment of farmland
easements or other similar mechanism.

The Initiative does not address farmland
easements.

Implementing Action LU 5.I Establish a Farmland
Mitigation Program for future development that
requires the permanent protection of farmland at
a 1:1 ratio of the amount of farmland converted.

The program should include provisions for the
acquisition of agricultural conservation easements
and payment of in-lieu fees as potential methods
of farmland mitigation, where eligible agricultural
As discussed under LU 5.G, above, the Initiative
does not provide for the permanent protection of
farmland at a 1:1 ratio of the amount of farmland
converted.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 342 of 623 ends

14 General Plan Policies & Implementing Actions Analysis of Potential Inconsistencies mitigation lands must be located within the State
of California and be of comparable or better soil
quality than the land being converted, and in-lieu
fees are to be used for the acquisition of a
conservation easement, including costs associated
with the transaction and long-term maintenance.

Implementing Action PF 1.E Permit no new
development relying on groundwater unless and
until it is determined that the incremental
production of ground water to support the
development will not adversely impact the water
production capability of the aquifer supporting the
City wells.

The Initiative (EDF 79) establishes that potable
water for the resort would be provided by existing
on-site wells and specifically exempts the
maintenance, modification or reconstruction of
such wells from the requirement to obtain a
permit under St. Helena Municipal Code Section

13.16.060. EDF 80 requires that a hydrogeological
report be prepared prior to issuance of a building
permit to demonstrate that the use of existing
groundwater well(s) will not adversely impact the
water production capability of the City. This issue
is addressed in more detail in Chapter IV, M of this
9212 Report.

Implementing Action CR 1.G Subject all rail
corridor uses to use permit review; locate
passenger facilities within zoning districts which
minimize impacts to established and proposed
land uses.

The Initiative identifies “a train station or depot up
to 2,500 sq. ft. for passenger and guest use, if
associated with a hotel or resort” as a permitted
use. No conditional use permit would be required.

B. Consistency with the St. Helena Zoning Code
The Agritourism Initiative amends the City of St. Helena Zoning Code to establish a Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA Overlay) which can be applied to up to 11 acres on parcels that are within the Winery (W) zoning designation that are "in excess of 110-acres with existing active agriculture and a winery located within the City but outside of the Urban Limit Line and that are served by an existing railroad line." The Charles Krug Winery parcel is the only property within the City of St. Helena that meets these requirements.

Permitted and Conditional Uses in the WPA Overlay. The WPA Overlay allows the following uses that are not currently permitted in the Winery zoning district:
● Hotel and resort uses with no more than 56 guest rooms; ● Uses accessory to hotel, resort, including but not limited to spa, restaurant, bar, up to 11,000 square feet for meeting rooms or related spaces, or similar uses, with transient overnight accommodations.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 343 of 623 ends

15 ● Train station or depot up to 2,500 square feet for passenger and guest use, if associated with a hotel or resort.

These uses are designated as Permitted Uses in the WPA Overlay which means that they would be allowed by-right without the need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City zoning administrator or planning commission.

The Initiative notes that uses that are defined as Conditional Uses in the Winery zoning district (such as warehouses, wineries, tasting rooms, winery event centers and winery visitor centers) would still be required to obtain a CUP when located within the WPA Overlay.

Design Review Exemption. The Initiative exempts the Permitted Uses (i.e., hotel/resort and related uses, as listed above) in the WPA Overlay from the City's design review requirements and procedures. It states that design review would be required for buildings that also require a CUP, with the following caveat:
"...no decision-making bodies or officials may use Design Review intentionally or inadvertently 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 require changes from or impose any conditions inconsistent with standards in this Chapter." Section 17.21.060.D of the new WPA Overlay regulations also states:

Design Review shall not be required for adjacent new construction meeting the requirements of Section 17.21.060(G)(6).

It is unclear what "adjacent new construction" means. Section 17.21.060(G)(6) is reference to the EDFs that are established in the Initiative.

Design Standards for the WPA Overlay. The WPA Overlay establishes Development Standards, including a 45' height limit; 50% building coverage limit, 0.3 FAR (floor area ratio); and a building area limit of 105,000 sq. ft. The new WPA Overlay regulations (Section 17.21.060.F.1) establish the following design standard:
"The design of the building and site shall substantially conform to all applicable development standards, requirements and Environmental Design Features in this Section; materials and colors shall be used in a manner that creates a visually cohesive design; roof design; building massing, and building articulation treatments shall be applied on are [sic] all sides of the buildings; and shall be compatible with the character, including any historic considerations, of the site." The EDFs for Aesthetics are:
9) After completion of site grading, the slopes along Deer Park Road and the St. Helena Highway (CA128 W/CA-29 N) shall be vegetated with a plant palette that is selected and planted appropriately based upon adaptability to the Project’s climatic, geologic, environmental, and topographic conditions. All landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant in good condition. 10) Planted areas shall be irrigated with recycled water to the extent available and feasible. 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 344 of 623 ends

16 12) A minimum of 20% of the Property must remain maintained landscaping and shall be kept in a weedfree condition. 13) Exterior lighting shall be directed or shielded to prevent glare onto the public roadway or adjacent properties.
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.

Landscaping. The WPA Overlay requires landscaped setbacks in accordance with "generally applicable provisions of Chapter 17.25" which is the Landscaping chapter of the Zoning Code.

Parking. The WPA Overlay states:

Parking for hotel use shall be a minimum of 77 parking spaces and may be provided on site or offsite on an adjoining parcel subject to a long-term joint-use parking 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.

Section 17.26.040.A of the Zoning Code establishes the minimum number of off-street parking spaces for each use type. Hotels are required to provide a minimum of one space per guest room plus one space for each three employees. Based on 56 guest rooms and an estimated 100 employees, this would yield a requirement for 89 parking spaces. The proposed minimum of 77 parking spaces would not meet the parking standards in the Code.

Additionally, restaurants and bars are required to provide one space for every four seats. Without more information regarding the size of proposed restaurants and bars and an analysis of the potential for "shared parking" reductions in demand, it is not possible to determine how many parking spaces would be sufficient.

Affordable Housing. An analysis of the Initiative proponent's Affordable Housing proposal and its consistency with zoning requirements is presented in Chapter V of this 9212 Report - Review of Proponent’s Workforce Housing Obligation and Proposal.

C. Effects of Initiative on the limitations on City actions under Government Code Section 65008 and Chapter 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code Government Code Section 65008. Government Code Section 65008 prohibits a city from discriminating against a residential development or emergency shelter for various reasons. Based on City staff's reading of the proposed Initiative, Government Code Section 65008 is inapplicable.

Government Code, Division 1, Title 7, Chapters 4.2 and 4.3. Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) encourage the development of new housing by allowing or requiring local agencies to enact ordinances that expedite the residential development process, ensure Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 345 of 623 ends

17 sufficient land is zoned at densities high enough for the production of affordable housing, and assure diligence in providing density bonuses, concessions and incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing.

The Initiative and its associated General Plan and Zoning amendments would not impact the potential for residential development within the City of St. Helena. The WPA Overlay would allow all uses permitted by the underlying zoning district. The 11-acre portion of the Charles Krug Winery property that would be assigned the WPA Overlay does not have any existing or planned future housing on it and its potential for new housing is limited. The Winery (W) zoning designation allows a single-family dwelling as a use accessory to an agricultural use and agricultural employee housing. The St. Helena Resort project would not preclude these uses.

The Initiative establishes a Workforce Housing Obligation that is linked to issuance of a building permit for a resort/hotel project within the WPA Overlay. If the Initiative is approved and a resort project is pursued, it would either result in construction of a minimum of 50 moderate-income rental units or payment of an Affordable Housing fee in accordance with Section 17.30.020 of the City of St. Helena Zoning Code.

As explained in Chapter VI, Analysis of Proponent’s Workforce Housing Obligation and Proposal, the workforce housing concept plans submitted by the proponent (for a 65-unit moderate-income rental project on a 1.9-acre site on Fulton Lane) would require General Plan and Zoning amendments and would not be eligible for a density bonus, incentives or concessions.

D. Effect of Initiative on the use of land, uses of vacant parcels of land, the impacts on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs
Existing Conditions and Land Uses. The 11-acre portion of the Charles Krug Winery parcel, which is the subject of the Initiative and the site of the proposed St. Helena Resort project, is currently relatively level, mostly open, fallow land. It is located immediately north of the existing winery and is bordered by Deer Park Road on the north. It encompasses several rows of an existing vineyard and is part of a 140-acre agricultural parcel that includes vineyards and a winery.

Under the existing Agriculture (AG) General Plan classification and Winery (W) zoning designation, the uses of the property are restricted to agricultural and winery-related uses. The Initiative and the WPA Overlay would allow “Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities” which includes hotel/resort and other tourismrelated uses. While this change in use would not directly impact the availability and location of housing since residential uses on lands designated AG and W are limited to those directly related to agricultural uses, the proponents of the Initiative have indicated that the proposed St. Helena Resort project would have approximately 100 employees. To the extent that many of these employees likely do not currently reside within St. Helena, the project would indirectly impact the demand for housing in the community.

The Initiative includes a Workforce Housing Obligation which would either result in construction of at least 50 moderate-income rental housing units or payment of an Affordable Housing fee. Please see Chapter VI, Analysis of Proponent’s Workforce Housing Obligation and Proposal for more information regarding fulfillment of the Workforce Housing Obligation.

The Charles Krug Winery property is not designated in the City’s Housing Element as a site to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation (“RHNA”) and the Initiative would not affect the City’s ability to meet its regional housing needs.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 346 of 623 ends

18 E. Impact of Initiative on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed area designated for revitalization Impacts on agricultural lands and open space. If the Initiative is approved, future development of a resort on a portion of the Charles Krug Winery property, which is outside of the City’s Urban Limit Line and designated “Prime Farmland,” would convert 11 acres from current agricultural and open space uses to visitor-serving uses.

It should be noted that there are provisions in the Initiative related to open space. EDF 12 requires that at least 20% of the resort site be used for landscaping. EDF 75 requires the developer to construct an 8’ wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail along the rail line from the project site to Fulton Lane. While there are references to “a one-acre landscape buffer” in the Environmental Assessment Report, the requirement for a buffer is not included in the Initiative.

Chapter III, Section A of this report, Consistency with the St. Helena 2040 General Plan, addresses the project’s consistency with the City’s land use policies aimed at preserving agricultural lands.

In this case, the proponent’s justification for conversion of agricultural land is economic - the City of St.

Helena’s Financing Civic Infrastructure Task Force concluded (in May 2020) that two new hotels within the city limits are essential to the creation of new revenue streams to address on-going budgetary challenges and to help finance the City’s many infrastructure needs.

Impacts on traffic congestion. The proponent prepared a traffic study for the Environmental Assessment Report (WTrans, March 2024) which indicates that under existing conditions, the westbound Deer Park Road approach to SR 29 operates unacceptably at Level of Service (LOS) F. Under future and future + project scenarios, it would continue to operate unacceptably, and the Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS F during the weekday peak hour. The Initiative includes EDF 70 that requires the applicant to pay its proportional share of the cost of a signal at the SR 29/Deer Park Road intersection at the time that the City constructs a signal. EDF 71 states that if the County of Napa changes the existing signal at Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road from flashing red operation to normal signal operation, the Applicant is required to cover the cost of striping improvements necessary to implement the change.

The EDFs include a number of transportation demand management and other measures to minimize traffic-related impacts. A discussion of traffic impacts is included in the proponent’s Environmental Assessment Report (EAR). Chapter IV (L) of this report summarizes the EAR and the findings of a peer review of the traffic analysis.

Impacts on existing business districts and developed areas designated for revitalization. The Initiative proponents submitted an Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis (Economic Forensics & Associates; April 2024) for the proposed St. Helena Resort project. Chapter VI of this 9212 Report provides an overview of the proponents’ Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis and an independent peer review that was commissioned by the City.

The project is expected to have a positive economic impact on existing businesses in St. Helena. There are no areas designated for revitalization in St. Helena. During the construction phase, the local economy will benefit from worker spending and materials, equipment and services sourced from local merchants as needed. The estimated project cost assigned to St. Helena based on estimated spending in St. Helena is $71.1 million with an estimated 339 full-time equivalent construction-related workers paid approximately $23.6 million in wages. The spending and jobs on-site support another five jobs and over $977,500 in additional incomes earned throughout St. Helena, including another $459,400 in wages and salaries for St. Helena residents.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 347 of 623 ends

19 Daily operations also have “multiplier” or additional effects on St. Helena’s economy, as visitors come to the resort and subsequently spend time and money at other local restaurants, wineries, retailers, and merchants while in St. Helena.

F. Impacts of Initiative on the community's ability to attract and retain businesses and employment
As discussed above, the Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis indicates that the proposed resort would result in visitors and overnight guests spending money at other businesses in the City, supporting the local economy and helping to attract and retain local retail and restaurant businesses.

The proponent estimates that the proposed resort would employ approximately 100 persons which is a sizable addition to the City’s employment base.

G. Impacts of Initiative on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space
The project would be required to pay development impact fees in accordance with the City’s adopted fee schedule as well as school impact fees to the St. Helena Unified School District. Perhaps more importantly, the increased transient occupancy tax, sales tax and property tax revenues generated by the project would contribute to the City’s General Fund and could be used to support a variety of infrastructure maintenance, repair and upgrade projects. As noted in the proponent’s Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis, total tax revenues from the resort for the City of St. Helena range from $3.02 million in year 1 to over $4.48 million in year 5 based on room revenue, spending at the resort and throughout St. Helena.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 348 of 623 ends

20 IV. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT A. Introduction
In assembling this 9212 Report, the City of St. Helena consulted with a number of qualified specialists to provide peer review analysis of various topics addressed in the proponent’s Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) within the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative. Each section below consists of the following three parts:

1. A summary of the EAR’s findings on a given issue area. This summary is excerpted directly from the EAR, and as such was prepared by the project proponents. Details regarding the methodology and findings of this analysis can be found in the EAR itself (Appendix B).

2. A list of relevant EDFs that relate to each topic area. The St. Helena Agritourism Initiative, if passed into law, will not be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, these EDFs are meant to account for environmental concerns that would otherwise be identified and mitigated through the environmental review process. The full list of EDFs in their original context can be found in the Initiative (Appendix A).

3. A summary of the conclusions reached in the peer review report. Note that these summaries are not exhaustive and may be paraphrased or lightly edited for content. Furthermore, the views expressed in the peer reviews represent the opinions of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the position of the City of St. Helena. The full peer review reports are attached to this report (Appendix E).

B. Aesthetics

1. Summary of Aesthetics Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

The Agritourism Initiative would amend the Municipal Code to include a new Winery and Planned Agritourism (WPA) Overlay, which would contain development standards pertaining to aesthetic resources. The WPA would require the design of the building and site to be visually cohesive and compatible with the character of the site. The development standards would minimize the aesthetic impacts associated with development under the Agritourism Initiative. Furthermore, the Agritourism Initiative includes 6 Environmental Design Features (EDFs), which are specifically intended to preserve the aesthetic quality of the project site and surrounding area.

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 9) After completion of site grading, the slopes along Deer Park Road and the St. Helena Highway (CA128 W/CA-29 N) shall be vegetated with a plant palette that is selected and planted appropriately based upon adaptability to the Project’s climatic, geologic, environmental, and topographic conditions. All landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant in good condition. 10) Planted areas shall be irrigated with recycled water to the extent available and feasible.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 349 of 623 ends

21 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.
12) A minimum of 20% of the Property must remain maintained landscaping and shall be kept in a weedfree condition. 13) Exterior lighting shall be directed or shielded to prevent glare onto the public roadway or adjacent properties.
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.

3. Analysis of Aesthetics Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative A peer review analysis of the Aesthetic associated with the Initiative was not prepared for this 9212 Report. The analysis of the Initiative’s consistency with the City’s Zoning Code that is presented in Chapter III(B) of this 9212 Report explains that the proposed St. Helena Resort project would be exempted from the City’s normal development review and design review processes. Under the Initiative, the project would be subject only to the development standards and EDFs included in the Initiative.

C. Air Quality

1. Summary of Air Quality Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

The air quality analysis indicates that the construction emissions from all construction activities would be below the recommended thresholds of significance for reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and exhaust particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) and 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). However, to further reduce any potential construction emission impacts, the Agritourism Initiative would require development to implement EDF 15, which includes restrictions on construction vehicle idling, requiring various fugitive dust control measures, and conforming to applicable State and federal emission standards for construction equipment.

Operational emissions would include area, energy, and mobile sources. Operation of the proposed project would be well under the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) daily threshold for operation emissions. The Agritourism Initiative would require development to implement EDF 16, which would incorporate various sustainable design elements and guidelines to promote energy efficiency and other conservation measures. (Appendix B, p. 3) Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 350 of 623 ends

22 2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 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 specifications shall be included in a Construction Management Plan with the permit application(s) to reduce short-term air quality impacts attributable to the on-site and off-site construction activities:
a. During all construction activities, all architectural coatings applied shall contain a low content of volatile organic compounds;
b. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Equipment maintenance records shall be kept onsite and made available upon request by the City
c. All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded (including unpaved areas and roads) shall be sufficiently watered to prevent fugitive dust from leaving property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard; d. All onsite vehicles shall be limited to a speed of 25 miles per hour on unpaved roads; e. All 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; g. 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 traffic management plan (e.g., flag 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;
l. Project Construction contractors shall be required to implement a recycling program for waste generated by demolition and construction activities to the extent feasible; Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 351 of 623 ends

23 m. Project construction deliveries shall be scheduled, to the extent feasible, during off-peak traffic 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 efficiency and other conservation measures. The Project’s sustainable design elements shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Landscaping consistent with the generally applicable provisions of St Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.25 xeriscape principles and site-specific plant materials. All landscaping shall be maintained by the Applicant in good condition;
b. Irrigation with recycled water to the extent available and feasible; c. Recycling programs for construction-generated waste; d. Use of energy
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.

3. Conclusions of Air Quality Peer Review Report
A peer review of the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of air quality and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and is included as Appendix E-1. The conclusions of the peer review analysis are as follows:
● Methodology: The air quality analysis in the EAR was based on use of the CalEEMod model recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in their latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. This is the appropriate model to use for this type of land use. The CalEEMod construction modeling was appropriately based on default conditions, given that construction details are not available.
● Construction Materials: It appears that emissions associated with the hauling of 16,700 cubic yards (CY) of import material were not included in the modeling. However, this would add only a small amount of emissions that would not affect the results of the analysis that found emissions to be less than significant.
● Energy Emissions: Page 68 of the EAR states that the “project would be all electric design,” however, the CalEEMod modeling shows 192 metric tons are associated with natural gas usage. If the project is committed to “all electric” with no natural gas infrastructure, then this is simply a slight overestimate in project emissions. Otherwise, this influences the findings for GHG (further discussion below, under Greenhouse Gas Emissions).
● Vehicle Emissions: The modeling used the traffic study for mobile emissions, with daily trip generation as input representing all days of the week. The traffic study only provided weekday average daily trips but predicted peak hour trips for both weekday and weekend. Weekend peakhour trips were much greater than weekday peak-hour trips. For this reason, the operational traffic emissions may be slightly underestimated if weekend daily trip generation is greater. This should be checked, however, the effect one way or another would not alter the conclusions.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 352 of 623 ends

24 ● Health Risk Assessment: The analysis did not include a quantified health risk assessment and we would agree that one is not necessary.
● Odor: The air quality analysis in the EAR did not address odors. The project would include on-site wastewater treatment and reuse of reclaimed wastewater (page 83 of the EAR). There is no description of the treatment equipment or process. This potential source of odors should be identified and assessed in the air quality analysis. We do not anticipate the odor assessment to lead to any significant impacts.

D. Biological Resources

1. Summary of Biological Resources in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

The project site’s ruderal and disturbed/developed land coverage types do not offer suitable habitat for most species. However, several California live oak trees are located within disturbance distance of the western and northern portions of the project site.

The oak trees and adjacent agricultural fields provide potential nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for several species of birds and bats. The Agritourism Initiative includes 5 EDFs specifically intended to reduce impacts to jurisdictional waters, nesting birds, and roosting bats. (Appendix B, p. 3)

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 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 with jurisdiction has issued any required permits; such agencies may include U.S. 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)).
19) Project construction activities shall prevent the unpermitted discharge of sediment and/or muddy, turbid, or silt-laden waters into any on-site wetlands and/or other receiving water bodies, including offsite 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 will be used to prevent erosion and sediment loss within the Project site. BMPs such as silt fence, mulching and seeding, and straw wattles will be placed where needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site during construction. Permanent stormwater management in the form of planting, mulching, and paving will be placed to address erosion after construction. Once construction is complete, the SWPPP will no 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 353 of 623 ends

25 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 landfill or other appropriate facility. Stockpiles that are to remain on the site through the wet season shall be protected to prevent erosion (e.g., silt fences, straw bales) as required in the SWPPP;
e. All waters of the United States and/or State temporarily impacted by construction activities shall be restored and revegetated, as close as practicable, to preconstruction 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. All work and stockpiling of materials shall be confined to the Project disturbance area. 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. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities is to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified 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 qualified biologist.
21) Bats, including pallid bats: If feasible, vegetation removal and/or construction shall 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 qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than seven days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If an 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 qualified biologist.
31) Serving or packaging to-go food materials in non-biodegradable polystyrene (i.e. Styrofoam/plastic foam) materials shall be prohibited.

3. Conclusions of Biological Resources Peer Review Report A peer review of the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of biological resources and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by WRA Environmental Consultants and is included as Appendix E-2. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the peer review analysis:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 354 of 623 ends

26 ● Site Conditions: The Project Area has been graded and/or otherwise disturbed multiple times, with the bulk of its area hosting a gravel (artificial) substrate or otherwise subject to substrate and vegetation maintenance. This history of modification precludes the potential for sensitive vegetation communities and special-status plants to occur on-site. Adjacent land covers are also disturbed and modified, and include vineyard blocks, roads, and the Charles Krug Winery facility to the east and southeast.

Aquatic Resources
● Potential Wetland: The EAR references a “potential wetland…within ruderal vegetation toward the northern end of the site” (p. 56) but provides no mapping and few details, other than the observation of standing water and some associated facultative plant species (those likely to occur in wetlands). The EAR concludes that a formal wetland delineation should be performed within the Project Area to determine if any features potentially jurisdictional to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and/or state Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) are present. If any such features would be necessarily impacted to accommodate the Project, regulatory permits would be needed from the Corps and/or RWQCB. The peer review concurs with the EAR regarding the need for an aquatic resources delineation, and stresses that the delineation should consider the history of modification in the Project Area and how this may affect a jurisdictional determination if any potential wetland features are present. ● Drainage Ditch: The EAR states that “the adjacent drainage ditches appear to have a direct hydrological connection to the Napa River”. As per aerial photography, a linear drainage ditch is present along the northwestern boundary of the Project Area adjacent to Deer Park Road, and hydrologically connected to a ditch along Highway 128 (Main Street). Aerial photography suggests that the subject ditch connects directly to (drains into) the Napa River, approximately 0.24 mile to the northeast of the Project Area, although the ditch’s alignment is partially obscured by trees/vegetation and thus this connectivity is speculative. The ditch, including the section adjacent to the Project Area, also hosts associated oaks and other trees and shrubbery. As described in the EAR and shown in visual renderings, the Project will avoid the ditch system; the renderings also suggest that associated trees/vegetation along the ditch will be left intact. However, the EAR notes that the ditch may be subject to indirect and temporary impacts during construction, which could impact the Napa River (e.g., sediment discharges during construction), and references EDF 31 as the means to address such impacts. The peer review recommends assessing the ditch system and its associated vegetation as a component of the aquatic resources delineation, including how to best preclude any adverse impacts if such is relevant. Furthermore, it recommends complete avoidance of the ditch and its immediate vicinity via the largest feasible setback. Avoidance should be clearly specified in the final description and plans for the Project. ● York Creek: Also discussed in the EAR is York Creek, a tributary to the Napa River present along the southern boundary of a portion of the greater Charles Krug Winery property. Along the Napa River, York Creek supports a run of federal listed steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; central California coast ESU [evolutionary significant unit]; CDFW 2024, other sources) and is otherwise considered sensitive. York Creek is located approximately 1,090 feet (0.2 mile) from the Project Area at its closest point. This setback is more than sufficient to preclude both construction and operational impacts to the creek.

Special Status Species
● Plants: The Project Area has been used for agricultural and other purposes and subject to disturbance for decades. The peer review concludes that, although special-status plants are not Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 355 of 623 ends

27 referenced in the EAR, the disturbed nature of the Project site indicates that such species are highly unlikely or have no potential to occur there or otherwise be impacted by the Project. ● White-Tailed Kite: EAR references EDF 20 (Nesting Birds) to address any potential impacts to this species. The peer review agrees with the EAR regarding potential impacts to white-tailed kites and finds that EDF 20 would sufficiently address potential impacts to this species. ● Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat: This species roosts in caves, mines or secluded portions of buildings (also those abandoned or otherwise underutilized) and is unlikely to use trees on the Project site for roosting. Other bat species do have some potential to roost in the trees if suitable cavities/hollows are present, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; state Species of Special Concern) as well as some non-status species. While EDF 21 is nonetheless generally suitable to avoid or otherwise minimize any potential impacts to bat roosts (if such are present), the stipulated default buffer of 500 feet is larger than what is typically recommended in such situations (e.g., CEQA mitigation measures). The peer review report comments that a non-disturbance buffer of 150 feet would be sufficient.
● Summary Table: While other special-status wildlife species are unlikely to occur within or adjacent to the Project Area, a summary table outlining which habitat elements are absent or other factors specific to each species known from the vicinity should be created. ● Bird Nesting: As implied in the EAR, native bird species with baseline legal protections under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code have the potential to nest within or adjacent to the Project Area. Primary nesting substrates would be in trees and larger shrubs, though nesting on the ground or low in ruderal vegetation cannot be ruled out if the site is left generally undisturbed. As such, the peer review suggests that EDF 20 could be improved by including specific buffer sizes for different types of birds and the possibility of reducing the buffer size based on biologist observations.

E. Historic & Cultural Resources

1. Summary of Historic & Cultural Resources Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

Development under the Agritourism Initiative would result in the following potential impacts to cultural resources: (1) The removal of a minimal number of historic vineyard rows associated with the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed Charles Krug Winery; (2) Potential viewshed impacts to the Charles Krug Winery; (3) Modifications to the Napa Valley Wine Train/Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks on the project site; (4) Potential impacts to an Indigenous archaeological resource. The Agritourism Initiative includes seven EDFs which are specifically intended to protect historic, cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) and requires the preparation of an Archaeological Treatment, Testing, and Curation Plan to assess the potential for presence of archaeological, paleontological and TCRs. (Appendix B, p. 3)

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 22) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall have a qualified 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 356 of 623 ends

28 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, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired; b. The Project will avoid 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 significant archeological resources;
c. Design of the Project’s adjacent new construction to historic buildings will be 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 will avoid 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 will be differentiated from the historic building or buildings;
e. Adjacent new buildings on a historic property or on an adjacent site will avoid 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 significance 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.
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 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 historical societies that may have an interest in the history of the Project property, as appropriate.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 357 of 623 ends

29 26) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified 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 Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). If warranted by the results of the assessment, the qualified archeologist shall then prepare a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP) in consultation with a Tribal Representative that will include protocols, as appropriate, for Workers Environmental Awareness training, on site cultural resources monitoring, Tribal monitoring, and procedures for treatment of additional cultural resources identified 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 final construction plans as well as consultation with the Project representatives;
c. Monitoring of grading and excavations by a qualified archeologist; d. Provision for recovery for any significant cultural materials unearthed during construction excavation;
e. Preparation of a final archaeological report at the completion of construction, describing all significant findings 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; g. 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. 27) If human remains are discovered, all work within 100 feet of the remains shall immediately cease, and the Napa County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If the 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 likely descendant, shall prepare a plan for treatment and reinterment 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 will not 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 358 of 623 ends

30 conditions in the CRMP, work shall halt within the vicinity of the find until the appropriate treatment measures have been completed.
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 qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the nature of the find, evaluate its significance, and if necessary, implement preservation or removal methods.

3. Conclusions of Historic Resources Peer Review Report A peer review of the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of historical resources and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by Evans & De Shazo, Inc. and is included as Appendix E-3. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the peer review analysis:
● Designations on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR): The 1874 Winery Building (Redwood Cellar) and the 1881 Stable Building (also known as the Oak House or Carriage House) within the Charles Krug Winery Property are listed on the NRHP and the CRHR for association with Charles Krug; however, the other current built environment resources have not been documented or evaluated for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. The peer review suggests that the Property may also be eligible for its association with the Mondavi family. The peer review further suggests that the Napa Valley Railroad/Southern Pacific Railroad section within the Property may be eligible for its association with the Charles Krug Winery or the Mondavi Family as part of a potential district. ● Historic Vineyards: The EAR states the “vineyard has been surveyed and documented.” The peer reviewers examined the provided documentation and could not find that the term “historic vineyards” or any existing or previously existing vineyards within the Property had been surveyed or documented as part of a survey by a qualified architectural historian. Neither the National Register documentation nor any other documentation of the Property provides any evidence that an architectural historian recently surveyed the built environment resources within the Property.

For this reason, impacts as a result of the Agritourism Initiative cannot be assessed based on the current documentation within the EAR. The possible demolition of “historic vineyards” or a reduction of the vineyard within the Property could significantly impact its integrity, including its feeling, setting, and association. As such, the peer reviewers recommend that an Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the Charles Krug Winery Property be completed prior to construction. ● Winery Viewshed: It appears that the term “viewshed” within the EAR refers to the setting of the Property, which is the larger area or environment in which the National Register-listed Charles Krug Winery Property is located. Changes to the setting of the Property, including changes to roads, setbacks, fencing, and views, and the introduction of new buildings can significantly affect the integrity of the historic property/historical resource. This concern reinforces the peer reviewers' recommendation that a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the Charles Krug Winery Property should be completed prior to construction.
● Completion of a Standards Review: In addition, the peer reviewers recommend that a qualified architectural historian complete a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) review to provide guidance to all stakeholders prior to the beginning of any work within the National Register-listed Property.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 359 of 623 ends

31 4. Conclusions of Archaeological Resources Peer Review Report A peer review of the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of archaeological, paleontological and tribal cultural resources and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by Evans & De Shazo, Inc. The report is not included in the appendices due to its confidential nature. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the peer review analysis:
• Assessing the Potential Presence of Archaeological, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources: The peer review analysis found that EDF 26 does not follow State law standards that would apply if this project were subject to CEQA and, as written, is not sufficient to reduce Projectrelated impacts on archaeological resources or Tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. Specifically:
○ The “Archaeological Treatment, Testing, and Curation Plan” called for by EDF 26 is not the appropriate type of document to “assess the potential presence of archaeological, paleontological and Tribal cultural resources.” The appropriate type of document would be an inventory/identification report.
○ Tribal cultural resources can only be identified through consultation with a California Native American Tribe(s), and paleontological resources need to be identified by a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVR) qualification standards; neither of which appears to have happened as part of the proponent’s environmental assessment.
○ EDF 26 does not provide for evaluative testing of the known archaeological resources or those discovered during construction, which is a State law standard for archaeological resources that could be impacted by a project.
○ EDF 26 does not provide specific measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts to known archaeological resources or newly identified archaeological resources, as warranted based on evaluative testing.
• Discovery of Human Remains: The peer review report found that EDF 27 follows State law standards pertaining to the discovery of human remains. • Paleontological Resources: The peer review report found that EDF 28 follows State law standards pertaining to the discovery of paleontological resources in terms of the language used; however, it does not appear that the standard procedures for paleontological resource impact assessment and mitigation were followed or prepared by a paleontologist who meets the SVR qualification standards.
• Preparation of a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (CRMP): The CRMP outlined in EDF 26 should be prepared because the property contains a Native American resource and is a State Historical Landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The CRMP should include a specific provision for evaluative testing of any archaeological resources discovered during construction that cannot be avoided and preserved in place.

F. Energy

1. Summary of Energy Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 360 of 623 ends

32 Construction under the Agritourism Initiative would result in energy expenditures from diesel and gasoline utilized to fuel off-road construction equipment and construction vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Off-road construction equipment associated with the proposed project would consume an estimated 49,188 gallons of diesel. Vehicles used by workers, vendors, and haul trucks would consume an estimated 21,763 gallons of diesel and gasoline combined. The proposed project would consume an estimated 999,773 kilowatt-hour per year (kWh/yr) of electricity and 3,599,946 Million Metric British Thermal Units per year (MMBTU/yr) of natural gas from the proposed hotel and associated uses. Mobile source energy consumption for vehicle trips to the site are an estimated 71,302 gallons per year (gal/year) of fossil fuel combined and 31,044 kWh of electricity for electric vehicles. The Agritourism Initiative includes two EDFs which are specifically intended to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency.

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 29) Prior to issuance of a final 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 efficiently to minimize energy compared to a greater number of fixtures 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 reflective cool roof material (SRI of 16 or greater); c. High efficiency HVAC units with high-efficiency ducted systems; d. Photo sensor and time clock-controlled parking lot and exterior lights. e. The use of high-efficiency light source and ballasts (LED) and bilevel switching for fluorescent fixtures are used;
f. Energy efficient Transformers;
g. The use of variable speed motors make-up air units, booster pumps and air side and/or water side economizers;
h. All electric utility service meters shall be a smart meter or equivalent advanced metering device, if allowed by the utility provider;
i. All toilets, urinals, sinks, showers and other water fixtures installed on-site shall be as required by California’s Green Building Code, as may be amended from time to time. 30) The Applicant shall implement the following emissions reduction measures:
a. Utilize energy-efficient appliances, such as Energy Star-certified (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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 361 of 623 ends

33 3. Analysis of Energy Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative A peer review analysis of the Energy Impacts associated with the Initiative was not prepared for this 9212 Report.

G. Geology & Hydrogeology

1. Summary of Geology & Hydrogeology Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

The project site is partially within Zone AE (within the 100-year flood area) of the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) floodplain mapping. Stormwater management for the site would be provided in accordance with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) requirements. A minimum of 4 percent of the site’s impervious areas would be required as bioretention facilities. These engineered landscape interventions accept stormwater runoff and percolate water through their soil, removing contaminants and allowing runoff to return to the water table. The Agritourism Initiative includes 14 EDFs which address flood risks and protecting the project and public from such risks.

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 32) No new structures or fill that results in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge shall be developed within the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) Floodway.
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). 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 certified by a registered civil engineer.
35) The Applicant shall comply with site-specific recommendations set forth in site-specific engineering geology and soils investigation/geotechnical reports. The geology and geotechnical reports shall include site-specific studies and analyses for potential geologic and/or geotechnical hazards at the site.

Geotechnical reports shall address the design of pilings, foundations, walls below grade, retaining walls, shoring, subgrade preparation for floor 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 362 of 623 ends

34 36) During Project construction earthwork and grading activities, geotechnical observation shall be performed by the Project geotechnical engineer.
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 sufficient distance to indicate impacts on adjacent properties. 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.

3. Analysis of Geology & Hydrogeology Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative A peer review analysis of the Geology & Hydrogeology Impacts associated with the Initiative was not prepared for this 9212 Report, however the following information was included in the groundwater peer review prepared by Coastland I DCCM:
● Development of the FEMA Floodplain: The EAR acknowledges that a small wedge of land at the northern corner of the resort site falls within a Regulatory Floodway as shown on the FEMA Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and goes on to state that Project development will remain outside of the floodway. However, the peer review indicates that two new access driveways north of the Project site will cross through the Floodway.

H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

The proposed project would generate approximately 699 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) during construction. During operations, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,693.3 MT CO2e per year after the inclusion of 23.3 MT CO2e per year from project construction. There are no quantified thresholds used to judge the significance of these emissions. In an effort to reduce GHG emissions, the proposed project has been designed to be all electric and energy efficient. The assessment finds that the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the region would unlikely change as a result of the proposed project.

The Agritourism Initiative includes two EDFs related to air quality and two EDFs related to energy which would indirectly reduce the effects of GHGs. Note that most emissions are the result of traffic, followed by energy use. (Appendix B, p. 4)

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 30) The Applicant shall implement the following emissions reduction measures:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 363 of 623 ends

35 a. Utilize energy-efficient appliances, such as Energy Star-certified (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.

Note: Implementation of the Transportation-related EDFs in the Initiative (See Transportation section, below) would contribute to reduced GHG emissions.

3. Conclusions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Peer Review Report A peer review of the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and is included as Appendix E-1. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the peer review analysis:
● Methodology: The prediction of GHG emissions was based on CalEEMod modeling. The EAR uses the latest project GHG thresholds recommended in the 2022 Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which are qualitative in general. ● All Electric Design: To meet BAAQMD thresholds, the project must not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). As discussed above (see Air Quality), the CalEEMod modeling indicates natural gas usage. ● Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact: BAAQMD thresholds require that a project will achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target that reflects the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory. Projects that are exempt from the VMT analysis generally meet this requirement. It appears that no such VMT analysis has been conducted to demonstrate that the VMT requirement is exempt or is below the BAAQMD/SB 743 target. Furthermore, the proponent’s traffic analysis does not address the City of St. Helena’s recently-adopted VMT thresholds.
● Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking: The BAAQMD GHG thresholds require that projects achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. The Environmental Assessment states that the proposed project is only required to comply with CALGreen’s mandatory level of EV charging infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with this element. During the building permit phase, the City will impose appropriate EV charging requirements upon the Project that are consistent with CALGreen Tier 2.
● Transportation: Please note that there is additional discussion of transportation issues that relate to GHG emissions, including analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), in the Transportation section below.

I. Hazards & Hazardous Materials

1. Summary of Hazards & Hazardous Materials Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 364 of 623 ends

36 The project site’s history has been primarily agricultural in the form of vineyards cultivated intermittently throughout the project site’s history. There are currently no known Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs), or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) in relation to the project site.

Development under the Agritourism Initiative would be subject to applicable plans, policies, and regulations pertaining to the use, handling, storage, and disposal of hazards and hazardous materials. Furthermore, the Agritourism Initiative includes nine EDFs which are specifically intended to test for and remediate any possible contaminated soils.

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 39) Prior to issuance of grading permits, shallow soils samples shall be taken on-site to determine the location of any contaminated soils on the site with concentrations above generally established applicable worker safety thresholds.
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.
41) All hazardous materials measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.
42) If contaminated 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 qualified 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 will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
43) Cleanup and remediation activities on the site prior to building construction shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 365 of 623 ends

37 44) All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.
45) Project construction activities shall comply with all generally applicable federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Safety (OSHA) and California General Industry Safety Orders and Health Standards.
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 requirements.

3. Analysis of Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative A peer review analysis of the Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts associated with the Initiative was not prepared for this 9212 Report.

J. Noise

1. Summary of Noise Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

The loudest phase of construction is typically the site preparation and grading phase, as that is when the loudest pieces of heavy construction equipment would operate. The nearest noisesensitive receptor to the construction footprint of the proposed project would be the single-family residential homes located approximately 750 feet west of the project site, across SR-29.

Reasonable worst-case interior noise levels, from construction activities, measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA), would range up to 36 dBA maximum noise level (Lmax) and 26 dBA equivalent noise level (Leq).

During operations, mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as 770 feet from the nearest off-site residential receptor. At this distance, noise generated by multiple mechanical ventilation units operating simultaneously would attenuate to less than 24 dBA Leq at the nearest residential receptor. Parking lot areas would be located approximately 1,470 feet from the nearest off-site residential receptor. At this distance, noise generated by parking lot activity would attenuate to less than 15 dBA Leq at the nearest residential receptor.

The traffic volumes generated by the proposed project would not result in even a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels and would be considered a “less than perceptible” increase. (Appendix B, p. 3-4)
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 366 of 623 ends

38 2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 47) Project construction contractors shall be required to provide a Noise Management Plan to reduce construction noise at any offsite residences to the extent feasible, and shall implement the Noise Management Plan for construction activities.
48) The noise management plan shall include the following requirements:
a. Outdoor parking lot sweeping activities associated with the Project generally shall be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
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 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
c. Noise-generating equipment operated at the Property shall be equipped with noise control devices to the extent reasonably available (i.e., mufflers, 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 will be 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.

3. Conclusions of Noise Peer Review Report
A peer review of the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of noise and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and is included as Appendix E-5. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the peer review analysis:
● Methodology: It appears that calculations are made using the Federal Highway Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). If that is the case, it should be clearly stated. ● General Comments: Throughout the Noise section, many noise levels are cited without any references. Proper references should be cited.
● Construction Noise: In the example on page 71, it appears that the five multiple pieces of equipment were one of each type yielding the Leq value of 51 dB overall. It might be helpful to cite these as a range: five graders would produce 53 dBA, while five front end loaders or backhoes would produce 46 dBA. However, this would not affect the conclusion. ● Interior Noises: In regard to interior noise for the residences on the southwest side of the project area, it could be noted that State Route 29 (SR 29) lies in between the project site and the residences. A simple calculation of the daytime roadway traffic noise levels could help to reinforce that the construction noise is not expected to be an issue in the interior of these dwellings. ● Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts: It appears that the stated expected interior noise due to mechanical equipment is based approximately on an average of the 45 to 60 dBA source Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 367 of 623 ends

39 levels. Based on our experience, assuming a 25 dB exterior to interior noise reduction is typical.

With that amount of noise reduction, the interior levels would be expected to range from about 15 dBA to 30 dBA. If this were compared to SR 29 traffic noise levels, the conclusion of the mechanical equipment being “less than perceptible” may be further supported.

K. Public Services (Schools, Police, Fire, Open Space/Parks)

1. Summary of Public Services Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative:

The operations of the proposed project would likely necessitate additional public services such as police, fire protection, and emergency medical response. However, all required fees, including planning fees, development impact fees, building fees, and St. Helena Unified School District (SHUSD) fees for the proposed project are required to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Furthermore, the Agritourism Initiative includes nine EDFs to ensure compliance with Fire Code and Fire Department requirements and three EDFs related to landscaping and creating a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly environment.

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 50) Project water lines and hydrants shall be sized and located so as to meet the fire flow requirements established by the Fire Department.
51) Prior to construction, building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review. Based on such review, any additional fire safety requirements shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
52) During construction, adequate ingress/egress access points shall be provided for emergency response in compliance with the requirements of the Fire Department. 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. 54) The Applicant or its designee shall be responsible for meeting with the Building Official, Fire Inspector and/or Public Works Department to review compliance with Building Codes, Fire Codes, and applicable Public Works Standards.
55) No construction may commence until adequate access to fire water supply is available to building sites as approved by the Fire Chief.
56) Prior to issuance of a certificate 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 368 of 623 ends

40 runoff from the area, to contain litter and trash so that it is not dispersed by the wind or run-off 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 filter 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 Certificate 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/Sewer/Street/Storm Drain/Sidewalk Standards, as may be amended from time to time. 58) Plans submitted for building permit shall exhibit compliance with the then current St. Helena Fire Code, as required by St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36, as may be amended from time to time. 59) Fire sprinklers and fire hydrants shall be installed as required by Fire Code and the Fire Department. 60) One hour minimum fire-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.

3. Analysis of Public Services Impacts Associated with the Agritourism Initiative A peer review analysis of the Public Services Impacts associated with the Initiative was not prepared for this 9212 Report.

L. Transportation

1. Summary of Transportation Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report A Transportation Impact Study for the St. Helena Resort Project was prepared for the proponents of the Initiative by W-Trans (March 2024) and is included as Appendix I to the Initiative. The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St.

Helena Agritourism Initiative based on the W-Trans Transportation Impact Study:

The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 576 trips per weekday, including 55 trips during the AM peak-hour and 78 trips during the PM peak-hour. The Agritourism Initiative would require the proposed project to complete roadway improvements and sidewalk replacements. Pursuant to the EDFs, development under the Agritourism Initiative would be required to improve site access and provide traffic directional signs in accordance with City and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards, and would be required to construct a minimum 8-foot-wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, which would be open to the public, along the railway and within the property rights of the railway operator, between the project site and Fulton Lane. The EDFs would also require payment into the proposed signal fund for SR-29 and Deer Park Road; the Silverado Trail and Deer Park signal lane realignment; and all City traffic Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 369 of 623 ends

41 impact fees. Additionally, the existing railroad would be rehabilitated. Furthermore, the Agritourism Initiative includes 16 EDFs that address transportation impacts. (Appendix B, p. 5)

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 61) To encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, the Applicant shall provide employee bicycle racks for no less than six bicycles.
62) To encourage the use of alternative fueled transportation, the Applicant shall install electric vehicle recharging stations at the Project site as required by St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.26.090, as may be 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. 64) During construction, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be prepared and implemented so as to reduce traffic impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods, or pedestrian and vehicular impediment or interference due to construction traffic. The CTMP shall be attached to all construction contracts and shall include:
a. procedures for roadway closures or traffic detours;
b. haul routes;
c. required protective devices and warning signs;
d. locations of construction worker parking lots;
e. construction vehicle staging shall be configured to reduce traffic interference and the need for lane closures.
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. 66) A Transportation Demand Management program shall be prepared and implemented by the Applicant to encourage Project employees and patrons to reduce vehicular traffic 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);
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 370 of 623 ends

42 c. Rideshare/carpool/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; Designate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
coordinator to establish programs to ensure VMT by guests and employees are reduced, including, but not limited to, employee car and vanpooling, employer-sponsored transit passes, bicycle sharing, showers, lockers, secure bike storage, and winery tours for guests with pickup and drop-off at the lodge.
67) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall provide no fewer than 25 courtesy bicycles for guests.
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.
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. 70) In the event the City of St. Helena installs a traffic 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.
71) In the event the County of Napa converts the existing traffic signal at Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road from flashing red operation to normal signal operation and changing the geometry on the westbound approach to a left 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 adjacent winery operator to ensure there is an adequate parking supply.
73) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall pay traffic impact fees based on the City’s Master Fee Schedule, and the fee will assume all square footage calculated at the lodging rate.
74) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a City or other applicable encroachment permit for improvements on any public right-of-way.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 371 of 623 ends

43 75) Prior to occupancy, Applicant shall construct, to the extent not previously constructed, a minimum 8–foot wide paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, which shall be open to the public, along the railway and within the property 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 with jurisdiction over construction affecting jurisdictional waters.

3. Conclusions of Transportation Impact Study Peer Review Report A peer review of the proponent's Transportation Impact Study, the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of transportation, and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St.

Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by Kittleson & Associates and is included as Appendix E-6 to this 9212 Report. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the peer review analysis:
● Traffic Study Methodology: The EAR notes that traffic counts were collected on Friday, January 26th and Saturday, January 27th between 4 and 6 PM. Typically, traffic counts are collected for a midweek day between 4-6 PM and on weekends sometime during the midday period. The text provides no documentation for why a Friday was collected between 4-6 PM rather than a typical midweek day or why Saturday 4-6 PM was collected rather than midday. The peer review suggests that additional documentation be provided explaining these decisions, and why the results represent peak conditions in St. Helena as compared to more typical data collection protocols. ● Collision History at SR 29/Deer Park Road: The peer review suggests that this section makes a number of unsupported claims and assumptions, including that there is a “lack of similarity between the collisions” and that the incidence rate is “within normal safety parameters.” The peer review suggests that the section be rewritten to focus on the known facts and whether there are enough collisions to trigger the safety warrant. If not, simply state that the number of collisions is not sufficient to meet safety warrants for the installation of a traffic signal per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
● Trip Generation: The peer review indicates that insufficient evidence is provided to support the assumption that 25% of restaurant patrons will come from the hotel. ● Trip Distribution: The peer review indicates that insufficient evidence is provided to support the assumption that most visitors will drive via Silverado Trail instead of SR 29. ● Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): The peer reviewer disagrees with the method used to screen out the Hotel and Restaurant Customer VMT. The point of the retail screenings is that retail less than 50,000 square feet is normally serving locals in the vicinity of the project. Hotel guests by definition are non-locals. The peer review suggests removing the section on Hotel and Restaurant customer VMT and only including the calculations for employee VMT. ● Additional Signal Warrant Analysis: LOS for two-way stop-controlled intersections is traditionally reported for the worst approach. Since the westbound approach is failing today and the project makes it worse, the City of St. Helena’s criteria for looking at whether signalization is warranted should be performed. The peer review suggests that a peak hour signal warrant analysis be conducted both with and without the project under existing and future conditions to determine whether the signal warrants are met.
● Parking: The peer review notes that the proponent should submit a copy of the project’s parking agreement with Charles Krug Winery to provide up to 50 off-site parking spaces.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 372 of 623 ends

44 M. Utilities (Water, Groundwater and Wastewater)

1. Summary of Utilities Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report A Civil Engineering Report for the St. Helena Resort Project was prepared for the proponents of the Initiative by Sherwood Design Engineers (May 2024) and is included as Appendix F to the Initiative. The following summary is an excerpt from the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) prepared by the proponents of the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative based on the Civil Engineering Report:

The Agritourism Initiative minimizes impacts on the City’s infrastructure because the development does not contemplate or require the extension of municipal urban services such as sewer and water, provided that wastewater treatment is provided by an on-property package water reclamation system sized for project-serving flows in the form of a membrane bioreactor or similar system that is capable of providing tertiary-level water quality treatment and there is adequate water from existing on-site wells to provide potable water; emergency systems water and irrigation water would be supplied by recycled water and supplemented by on-site wells as needed. However, if the City and the project Applicant decide to connect the proposed project to the system, then all applicable connections and fees would be required. In addition, the Applicant would be required to pay all development impact and building fees and design to all applicable City Standards. There are 15 EDFs specific to infrastructure that address development under the Agritourism Initiative’s responsibility for fees, costs, repairs and not impacting City infrastructure. (Appendix B, p. 5)
With regard to groundwater extraction, the Civil Engineering Report, upon which the EAR is based, provides the following information:

Section 3.0 states, in part:

The Project is located in a California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) High Priority Basin which requires a local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). Napa County's Groundwater Management Ordinance (GMO) implements these GSA requirements, which generally cover approval of water supply systems, wells, and conservation. In accordance with the GMO, the Project will be a steward of local water resources by demonstrating a water use scheme with no net impact on the aquifer.

Section 3.2 states, in part:

The Project is located in the Napa Valley Floor groundwater area which is allocated 0.3 acre-foot per acre per year of new groundwater withdrawals. One acre-foot is equivalent to 325,851 gallons. Because the Noble House Hotel will repurpose previously permitted groundwater extraction, the 140-acre parcel will demonstrate a net water usage not exceeding 13.7 MGY (37,500 GPD) for no net increase in groundwater use.

2. Proposed Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from St. Helena Agritourism Initiative 76) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 373 of 623 ends

45 77) Any new and modified existing water laterals, meters and backflow 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. 78) A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed 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.
79) Potable water will be provided by existing on-site wells. Emergency systems water and irrigation water will be 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, modification, 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. 80) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall have a qualified hydrogeologist prepare a groundwater report describing how the Project’s use of existing groundwater well(s) on the Winery Property will not 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 will not annually exceed

0.3 acre-ft of groundwater extraction from the Project well(s); d. Recycled water will be 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.
82) Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from local and state agencies for the nontransient community water system.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 374 of 623 ends

46 83) If the 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. 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.
85) Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (whichever occurs first) a detailed Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that identifies 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.
86) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate 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 ongoing 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. 87) If proposed/new landscaping involves an area greater than 500 square feet or rehabilitation of more than 2,500 square feet, the proposed landscaping shall comply with water efficient landscape best practices that are at least as effective as the State's Model Water Efficient 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.
88) Proposed separations between public water facilities and other utilities shall meet the minimum separations as specified by the generally applicable Department of Health and City of St. Helena Public Works Standards, as may be amended from time to time.
89) Wastewater treatment provided by an on-property package water reclamation system sized for WPA project serving flows 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. 90) If the City provides a municipal wastewater system connection and Applicant elects to connect to the wastewater system in lieu of an on-property 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 375 of 623 ends

47 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 flushing, and winery process water that will be 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-potable demands within the Project, consisting of outdoor drip or spray irrigation and indoor flush fixtures.
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.
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 illicit discharge inspections are performed and invoiced by Napa County Department of Environmental Management.

3. Conclusions of Utilities (Water, Groundwater and Wastewater) Peer Review Reports A peer review of the proponent's Civil Engineering Report, the Environmental Assessment Report’s (EAR) analysis of utilities, and the associated Environmental Design Features (EDFs) in the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative was performed by Coastland | DCCM and is included as Appendix E-7 to this 9212 Report. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the peer review analysis:
● Increased Groundwater Usage: While the EAR claims that there will be “no net increase in groundwater use,” the report seems to misconstrue the maximum annual allowance for new groundwater withdrawals with the concept of no net increase. The existing Charles Krug Winery extraction rates total 11,921 GPD or 4.35 MGY (Table 3; process plus vineyard irrigation; domestic is supplied by a City service). The proposed increased extraction rate is 30,300 GPD or 11.06 MGY.

While this is less than the 0.3 acre-foot per year allocated for new groundwater withdrawals, it is clearly an increase in groundwater use. In the event that the project is unable to utilize groundwater and applies for connection to the City's municipal water system, it would be subject to the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 13.12, Water Use Efficiency and New Development, that are in effect at the time of application. Chapter 13.12 is commonly referred to as the City's "Water Neutrality Ordinance." The interpretation of the County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance needs to be carefully reviewed as it relates to this proposed increased groundwater use. ● Potential Subdivision: The project proponents have indicated that “a subdivision is not currently planned under the structure contemplated by the landowner and resort operator. However, if the parties desire, a lot line adjustment or simple parcel map could be examined in the future.” If the resort site is separated from the greater 140-acre winery site through a land division, this raises the question of whether the groundwater allocation from the remaining larger winery parcel can Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 376 of 623 ends

48 be shared with the resort property. If a subdivision is contemplated in the future, the County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure that a shared groundwater allocation can be accommodated.
● Monitoring & Enforcement: There is no mention in the EAR of how groundwater use will be monitored or enforced. However, if a new well is developed or an existing well is expanded, it would be subject to St. Helena Municipal Code 13.16 which requires metering of the well production, monthly groundwater level monitoring and annual reporting to the City.

The following note relating to groundwater was added by WRA Environmental Consultants who conducted the Biological Resources peer review (Appendix E-2):
● Groundwater Wells: York Creek is located approximately 1,090 feet (0.2 mile) from the Project Area at its closest point, a setback more than sufficient to preclude both construction and operational impacts to the creek. The Project will also rely on water withdrawal from wells located within the greater winery property, but as per the EAR all such wells will be greater than 500 feet from both the Napa River and York Creek, which will avoid impacts to the hydrology and aquatic habitat of both streams. While assessing this conclusion is beyond the scope of this peer review, EDF 80 requires preparation of a groundwater report by a qualified hydrologist prior to issuance of a grading permit. The groundwater report and analysis should address the use of on-site wells and how such may affect the hydrology of York Creek and the Napa River, providing measures to ensure that no adverse impacts to the hydrology of these streams occurs as a result of the Project.

This section was additionally reviewed by Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers, a firm that works with Napa County on Water Availability Analysis issues, and the following additional comments (lightly edited for clarity) were provided:

The “Project” is described as the development of 8.5 acres plus an additional acre for a landscape buffer, which suggests a total of 9.5 acres. Yet, the Civil Engineering Report (upon which the analysis in the EAR is based) relates the proposed water use to the 140-acre parcel. The Project acreage needs clarifying along with significantly more information if the 140-acre parcel size is the working acreage. The original peer review prepared by Coastland noted the resort site may be separated from the larger parcel area, in which case this would have very significant implications for the proposed water use on the 9.5-acre Project site.

Although there is some narrative provided in the Civil Engineering Report about the use of an existing well and its location, it is difficult to discern exactly where that well is located. The Sherwood Report describes that the Project “intends to leverage one of three existing groundwater wells onsite for water supply”. The Report goes on to describe the approximate location of Well #1, although the Report is not clear that Well #1 is definitively the well that would supply the Project. If it is near the location suggested in the Utility Plan, that location may be within 1,500 feet of York Creek and would require a Tier 3 analysis. This analysis is especially significant with the proposed increase in groundwater pumping at the existing well. If the Project is determined to be appropriately within the 140-acre parcel, then the locations of all the wells on the parcel, their operation, water use, etc. would also need to be discussed and addressed.

The following comments are provided by City staff:
• The Initiative amends Policy PF 2.C of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the St. Helena 2040 General Plan to exempt the project from the requirement to connect to municipal urban services such as sewer, water, and storm drainage. It allows the project to use existing groundwater well(s) to meet the water demands of the proposed resort project provided "there is adequate water from existing on-site wells to provide potable water; emergency systems water Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 377 of 623 ends

49 and irrigation water shall be supplied by recycled water and supplemented by on-site wells as needed. The WAP Overlay regulations established by the Initiative states that "Alternatively, such water may be provided by municipal water systems if permitted by the City (Section

17.21.060(G)(2))." In the event that water was to be provided by the City, the Project would have to comply with all City requirements related to new water connections, including but not limited to compliance with the City's water neutrality requirements.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 378 of 623 ends

50 V. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S WORKFORCE HOUSING OBLIGATION &

PROPOSAL
This section of the 9212 Report evaluates the Workforce Housing Obligation as presented in the Initiative and it provides a high-level critique of preliminary conceptual plans for a workforce housing project that were submitted to the City by the Initiative proponent on June 3, 2024.

A. Workforce Housing Obligation in Initiative
The Initiative establishes a new Overlay Zoning District in Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning Code entitled Section 17.21.060, "Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (WPA)." Subsection G "Other Uses, Standards, and Requirements" of the WPA Overlay regulations establishes a requirement for Workforce Housing, as follows:

5. Workforce Housing. An Applicant under this Section shall apply to the City for a permit to develop a minimum of fifty (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 within the City Limits ("Workforce Housing Obligation"). If the 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 Housing Obligation prior to the certificate 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 Project, Applicant shall make a payment for the purpose of furthering the City's affordable housing goals pursuant to the requirements of St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.30.020, as may be amended from time to time, to be paid to the City prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project as the Project's sole obligation to provide affordable or workforce housing.

The Initiative also includes EDF (#49) which restates the Workforce Housing Obligation and establishes that the application for Workforce Housing must be made prior to issuance of a building permit for a project in the WPA Overlay.

While the resort will not need local planning approvals if the Initiative passes, the workforce housing component would be required to go through the planning approval process. The Initiative establishes an obligation for the proponent to submit an application for planning approvals for a workforce housing project of at least 50 units prior to receiving a building permit for the resort. It also includes an important caveat:
● If the application is not approved by the City by the time at which the resort obtains its certificate of occupancy (COO) - the proponent would not be required to construct the housing and, instead, can fulfill the Workforce Housing Obligation by paying a Housing Impact Fee in accordance with Section 17.30.020 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

If, however, the housing project receives the required City approvals prior to issuance of the COO for the resort, then the Initiative requires that the housing project be constructed within 24 months of the City's approval.

The Initiative does not require:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 379 of 623 ends

51 ● that the application that is submitted for the workforce housing project be deemed complete prior to issuance of the building permit for the resort.
● that the workforce housing project be located on a site that has General Plan and Zoning designations that allow multi-family residential uses.
● that the workforce housing project be designed in compliance with City development standards. ● that the proponent work diligently and expeditiously to address feedback received during the development review process.

The Initiative provides no incentives for the proponent to pursue approval of a workforce housing project in a timely manner, thus making the default option of "making a payment for the purpose of furthering the City's affordable housing goals" rather than constructing workforce housing readily available.

The City's 2023 fee schedule establishes Housing Impact fees of $3.80/sq. ft. for Lodging uses. The proposed WPA Overlay establishes a maximum building area of 105,000 sq. ft. of conditioned space which, if fully utilized, would yield an Affordable Housing Payment of $399,000. An updated fee of $7.00/sq. ft. is currently under review and would yield an Affordable Housing Payment of $735,000.

B. Fulton Lane Workforce Housing Project Description
On June 3, 2024, the Initiative proponent submitted a narrative description and concept plan for the proposed Fulton Lane Workforce Housing Project (Appendix C) to the City. The narrative states:
"The Fulton Lane Middle-Income Workforce Housing Project (“Project”) is located on the south side of Fulton Lane at the railroad tracks. The entrance will start at the west side of the railroad tracks on Fulton Lane, enter a parking area, and continue through the parking area over the tracks to the east side between the two apartment buildings which will be located on the east side of the tracks.

The Project will consist of middle-income workforce housing units to support the labor force of the proposed St. Helena Resort, currently on the November ballot as the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative.

The Project is to be comprised of two (2) 2-story buildings totaling sixty-five (65) units, which shall consist of forty-nine (49) studio units, twelve (12) 1-bedroom units, and four (4) 4-bedroom units." The Fulton Lane housing project site is owned by the Napa Valley Wine Train. It is on the southeast side of Fulton Lane (APN 009-193-006) and is bisected by the railroad tracks. The property encompasses approximately 1.9 acres including the railroad right-of-way. (Note: The concept plan and the County Assessor's records indicate that the site area is 2.54 acres, however, that is inaccurate.) The General Plan land use classification for the property is "Office and the Zoning map designates it "Business and Professional Office" (BPO).

As shown on the Site Plan (Appendix C), one vehicular access would be provided to the site off of Fulton Lane, to the west of the railroad tracks. The Fulton Lane driveway immediately accesses a double-loaded parking lot with 49 parking spaces. At the end of the parking lot, an internal driveway would cross the railroad tracks to access the two apartment buildings and additional parking on the east side of the tracks.

The two buildings are separated by a single-loaded parking lot with 16 spaces. Building A is a two-story corridor building with 38 studio units, two four-bedroom "co-living" units; and eight one-bedroom units (total of 48 units). Building B would have 11 studio units, four one-bedroom units, and two four-bedroom co-living units (total of 17 units). In total, the plans include 65 units and 65 parking spaces. The studio units have a net floor area of 309 sq. ft.; the one-bedroom units are 485 sq. ft., and the four-bedroom co-living units are 1,240 sq. ft.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 380 of 623 ends

52 C. Fulton Lane Workforce Housing Project - Issues

1. Site Constraints
The Fulton Lane housing project site is constrained by its size and parcel configuration as well as the railroad tracks that bisect it longitudinally. Issues included in locating residential development in close proximity to rail lines include:
● keeping pedestrians off of the railroad tracks
● ensuring that the at-grade driveway crossing is safe
● noise levels related to trains, bells/whistles, signals, etc. ● vibration related to trains
● air quality impacts related to trains.

The Site Plan indicates that the apartment buildings would be setback 5 ft. from the edge of the rail corridor.

2. Necessary General Plan and Zoning Amendments
Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the BPO zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit, however, the residential uses are restricted to upper floors only (Section 17.18.020.A). If the project were an affordable housing project containing low- and/or very low-income units, the City would be required to grant a density bonus and the project would be eligible for a concession (such as a waiver of the requirement that units only occur on the upper floors). However, the affordability level specified in the Initiative is for "moderate-income households" and moderate-income rental housing is not eligible for a density bonus, concessions, and/or incentives. Therefore, the project site would need to be reclassified in the General Plan and on the Zoning map to High Density Residential (HR) in order for the project to proceed.

3. Issues Related to Consistency with Development Standards The following table summarizes Development Standards for multi-family uses in the HR zoning district.

Development Standard High Density Residential (HR) Zone Density Max 28 du/ac
Min. Lot Area 7,000
Min. Lot Width 45 ft
Lot Coverage 55%
Max. Height 42 ft/3 stories
Min. Front Setback 15 ft
Min. Street Side Setback 15 ft
Min. Interior Side Setback 10 ft
Min. Rear Setback 10 ft
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 381 of 623 ends

53 Development Standard High Density Residential (HR) Zone Private Open Space for Multi-Family Development Min. 60 sq ft per unit Min. dimension for Private Open Space 6 ft
Common Usable Open Space for Multi-family
Development
Min. 150 sq ft/lot
Min. dimension for Common Usable Open Space 15 ft
Max. paved/Hardscaped Area 30% of a front setback area
Landscaped Area 25% of lot area
Required Buffer Abutting Agricultural Use and
Residential Uses
A landscaped buffer - minimum 15' width,
with street trees at 30 ft on center
Required Play Areas for multi-family development
with 15 or more dwelling units
Minimum 600 sq ft; visible from dwelling
units; play equipment; fencing
Parking Requirements- Multi-family dwellings Studio and 1 BR units - 1 space per unit 2 BR or more - 1.5 spaces per unit
Guest parking - 25% of total required spaces
when 15 or more units constructed
Density. If the 1.9-acre parcel is rezoned to HR, the maximum allowable density of 28 dwelling units/acre would yield a maximum of 53 units. This is sufficient to meet the minimum of 50 units required by the Initiative but falls short of the 65 units shown on the Site Plan submitted by the proponents.

Setbacks. As shown on the Site Plan, the side setback along the vineyards is 10' which complies with the Interior Side Setback requirement but does not comply with the 15' setback required for a buffer between agricultural and residential uses.

Usable Open Space. The Site Plan does not address the requirement for 60 sq. ft. per unit of Private Open Space. The four co-living units each have a 50 sq. ft. balcony and a couple of the studio units have 50 sq. ft. balconies, none of which meet the Private Open Space requirements.

Required Play Area. A play area of at least 600 square feet would be required. Based on the Site Plan, the only possible locations are on the Fulton Avenue frontage or between the east parking lot and the adjacent vineyard. It would be challenging to define Common Outdoor Recreation Space which is visible from the primary living space of at least 50% of the units, but it may be possible to make findings to support a variance to the visibility requirement due to the configuration of the property.

Parking. As shown on the Site Plan, 65 parking spaces are proposed. The parking requirement for the proposed unit mix is 84 spaces (67 spaces for residents plus 17 spaces for guests).

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 382 of 623 ends

54 At-Grade Rail Crossing. Crossings and setbacks from rail corridors are regulated by the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). A new private crossing such as that proposed within the Workforce Housing project would be assigned a federal crossing identification number. At a minimum, stop signs and pavement striping would be required for the at-grade crossing.

Emergency Access Requirements. The workforce housing project on the Fulton Lane site would need to have emergency access from Fulton Lane adjacent to Building A. The length of the building exceeds the maximum 150' standards for Fire Department access. The Fire Chief also noted concerns about conflicts between the emergency vehicle access and the ad-grade rail crossing.

Sewer Infrastructure. The sanitary sewer in Fulton Lane is prone to sanitary sewer overflows. Capacity to serve the workforce housing project could be an issue and upgrades to existing facilities may be needed.

Stormwater Management. An application for an affordable housing project on this site would need to demonstrate compliance with the City's requirements for onsite stormwater management. The Site Plan shows a landscaped area to the west of the parking lot which is situated on the adjacent property that is owned by the City. This is not an acceptable location- stormwater must be managed on-site.

4. Affordable Housing Related Issues
Compliance with City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements. The City requires that at least 20 percent of all new dwelling units in a residential development project shall be "affordable units." The Code does not address whether or not the inclusionary requirements would apply to a "moderate-income" housing project. If it were to be applied, the inclusionary housing requirement would only apply to the four coliving units which are 1,240 sq. ft. in size (since units up to 850 sq. ft. in size are exempted). This would yield a requirement for a fraction (0.8) of a unit. Per the City code, the developer may elect to construct one unit which is affordable to a very low-income household, perform an alternative equivalent action, or pay a housing in-lieu fee.

Ineligible for Density Bonus, Incentives and Concessions. State Density Bonus law requires jurisdictions to provide a density bonus for housing projects which provide affordable housing. The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale, based on the percentage of affordable housing units and the level of affordability. For moderate-income housing, the density bonus only applies to for sale units, not to rental units. Therefore, the housing project, as proposed, would not be eligible for a density bonus.

Further, since it is not eligible for a density bonus, it is not eligible for any concessions or waivers of development standards.

Marketability of the Product Type. The following table presents the rent limits for moderate-income households based on household size (based on 2024 HCD Income Limits).

Household size 1 person
household
2-person
household
3-person
household
4-person
household
Moderate income
cap
$108,850 $124,400 $139,950 $155,500
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 383 of 623 ends

55 Household size 1 person
household
2-person
household
3-person
household
4-person
household
Affordable
moderate-income
rent (30% of
household
income)
$2,720/mo. $3,100/mo. $3,498/mo. $3,885/mo.

Housing unit type studio 1 bedroom apt 2-bedroom apt 2-3 bedroom apt Unit Sizes in
Fulton Lane
Project
309 sq. ft. 485 sq. ft. none proposed none proposed

One potential issue is that moderate-income renters in St. Helena can afford larger units with more amenities than those proposed in the Fulton Lane project. As designed, the units may be more appropriately targeted to low- and very low-income households. In order to serve moderate-income renters, the project should be redesigned with larger units, fewer studio units, more 1- and 2-bedroom units, and site amenities. It is questionable whether there is a market at the moderate-income level for the co-living units.

As a point of comparison, June 10, 2024 rental listings (Trulia; Zillow) for apartments in St. Helena include the following:
• Studio; 420 sq. ft.; $1,645/mo (470 Bella Vista Ct. #C; St. Helena) • 2 bd/1.5 ba; N/A sq. ft; $3,000/mo (1141 Oak Avenue; St. Helena) • 2 bd/2.5 ba; 1,250 SF; $2,750/mo (204 Rosebud Ln. #A; St. Helena) • 2 bd/2 ba; 980 sq. ft.; $2,750/mo (632 McCorkle Ave. #F; St. Helena) • 3 bd/2 ba; 1,240 sq. ft; $3,100/mo (632 McCorkle Ave. #B; St. Helena) An affordable housing complex in Calistoga that is under construction and includes on-site amenities is advertising rents for low-income households as follows:
• 1 bd/1ba/ 550 sq. ft.; $2,127/mo. (Lincoln Avenue Apartments; Calistoga) • 2 bd/1ba/ 750 sq. ft.; $2,539/mo. (Lincoln Avenue Apartments; Calistoga) • 3 bd/2ba/ 900 sq. ft.; $2,919/mo. (Lincoln Avenue Apartments; Calistoga) Regulatory Agreements/Ensuring Long-term Affordability of the Units. The application for the project would be required to include an Inclusionary Housing Plan. An Affordable Housing Agreement for the entire project would be needed to ensure its long-term affordability in accordance with the Initiative.

Use of Housing by Resort Employees. The Initiative proponents have indicated that the Workforce Housing Obligation would help offset the housing demands of resort staff. The Narrative Description of the Fulton Lane Housing Project states:

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 384 of 623 ends

56 The project website notes that an 8' wide public bicycle and pedestrian pathway would be constructed adjacent to the Napa Valley Wine Train tracks between the Charles Krug Winery property and Fulton Lane "to encourage alternative transportation to and from the workplace for future employees." It should be noted that, despite these assertions, there is nothing in the Initiative that restricts the workforce housing units to resort employees. It is not clear from the proposal whether the workforce housing units are intended to be restricted to resort employees or intended to offset the housing demand created by the Project more generally. If the workforce housing units are restricted solely to resort employees, it would likely be subject to the State Employee Housing Act (Health & Safety Code Sec. 17000 et seq.), which requires additional oversight from HCD. Additionally, restricting the units to resort employees could raise fair housing issues that would need to be analyzed based on the specifics of the proposal.

Comments from Housing Authority, City of Napa. The proponent’s workforce housing proposal was additionally reviewed by staff at the City of Napa Housing Authority. (The following comments have been lightly edited for clarity.)
● If this project is hoping to achieve the outcome of serving those that work for the proposed resort/hotel, the concept of moderate-income single occupancy units does not pair with the hospitality industry wages. We have rarely seen single individuals working in hospitality that are in the moderate-income range. When we see moderate-income households working in the hospitality sector, it is often in dual income households. More often than not this is a household of three or more individuals, which is not congruent with the studio/single bedroom concept. The recent Generation Housing report presented to the Napa County Board of Supervisors showed the biggest opportunity in rental housing is in the 3-bedroom, 4-bedroom, and larger size rentals. ● The proposed 4-bedroom co-living design has not been implemented in any housing projects that the City of Napa or Housing Authority has regulation authority over, so challenges with managing this kind of lease situation should be considered by the owner/property manager.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 385 of 623 ends

57 VI. REVIEW OF PROPONENT’S ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The St. Helena Resort Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis ("Economic Report," see Appendix D) considers the economic and fiscal impacts of a proposed new resort project in St. Helena, California, and was prepared in April 2024 for Noble House Hotels & Resorts by Economic Forensics & Analytics, Inc. (EFA) located in Petaluma, CA. EFA is an independent research and consulting firm located in Sonoma County.

EFA provides economic forecasting and economic impact analysis using the latest data available. EFA’s president, Robert Eyler, holds a doctorate in economics from the University of California at Davis and is a known and respected local economist with a thorough understanding of Sonoma and Napa counties.

For the purposes of this summary “Economic Report” and parenthetical page number reference refers to the report provided by EFA and “City Comments” refers to the comments provided by the City of St.

Helena and its consultant, Regional Governmental Services (RGS).

Table 4, pg. 19 and Table 6, pg. 21 of the Economic Report provides estimated State and Local Tax Revenues from Construction and Operations and Total Economic Impacts data utilizing a blend of sources including: IMPLAN, Noble House Hotels & Resorts, and City of St. Helena documents. The economic tool used for part of the analysis, IMPLAN (“Impact analysis for PLANning”), is a PC-based computer software package that automates the process of developing input-output models for regions within the United Staes. The IMPLAN model is well-respected as the industry standard for projecting economic impacts resulting from current or further economic activities often called “events.” Upon review of the Economic Report, staff did not encounter any known mathematical errors; however, the financial impact analysis addresses very broad economic impacts of the resort and does not identify the ongoing increased General Fund revenue streams for St. Helena alone.

The Noble House Project (“Project”) contains two phases of economic impact: (1) the construction phase, and (2) the operations phase. The Economic Report assumes the construction phase will take an estimated 15-18 months from groundbreaking and that the operations phase will start two months after the construction phase concludes.

While there will be positive economic impacts during the construction phase and value-added impacts because of the resort, the focus of this review of the Economic Report will be on the ongoing direct revenue attributed to the operations phase as it relates to the City of St. Helena, specifically in: Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and Property Tax. The areas specifically analyzed for comparison are found in Table 4 of the Economic Report (pg. 19), are noted as “(Resort)”. All other categories in Table 4 have not been analyzed due to time constraints. A copy of Table 4 of the Economic Report is provided below for reference with the Resort estimated revenue highlighted in light blue.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 386 of 623 ends

58 Figure 1: Table 4 from Economic Report
A. Comparison of General Fund Revenue Estimates (Regional vs. St. Helena-focused) Table 1, below, provides a summary comparing EFA’s estimated operations revenues to the City’s estimated operations revenues that would flow directly to the City’s General Fund through the resort as compared to Figure 1 above. It is important to note, the calculations provided by EFA are not incorrect, but represent the broader economic impact and do not narrowly focus on the City’s General Fund.

Table 1: Summary of EFA and City of St. Helena Direct General Fund Revenue Estimates Overall, the resort will bring in additional local revenues for the City. The estimated direct cash flow to the City’s General Fund in the first five years of operations is noted in the green line.

Operations Operations Operations Operations Operations Operations Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Average
ECONOMIC REPORT ESTIMATES*
Property Taxes 745,000 759,900 775,100 790,600 806,400 775,400 Sales Taxes 321,600 497,500 690,900 802,400 848,200 632,120 TOT Escalator 1,425,900 1,883,800 2,268,100 2,671,400 2,882,600 2,226,360 ECONOMIC REPORT ESTIMATES 2,492,500 3,141,200 3,734,100 4,264,400 4,537,200 3,633,880

CITY ESTIMATES
Business License Tax 623 623 623 623 623 623
Property Taxes 114,616 116,908 119,246 121,631 127,713 120,023 Sales Taxes 204,671 214,905 225,650 236,932 248,779 226,187 TOT 1,368,667 1,409,727 1,452,019 1,495,579 1,540,447 1,453,288 CITY ESTIMATES (General Fund) 1,688,577 1,742,163 1,797,538 1,854,766 1,917,562 1,800,121 DIFFERENCE (803,923) (1,399,037) (1,936,562) (2,409,634) (2,619,638) (1,833,759) * Calculations are not incorrect, but represent a broader economic impact not narrowly focused on the City's General Fund Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 387 of 623 ends

59 B. Direct Economic Impacts to St. Helena Community
As stated above, the Economic Report presented a much broader picture of the economic impacts of the project; however, there are areas which the City and its consultant felt the need to show the direct and practical impacts to the St. Helena community, in contrast to regional benefits, and to provide some clarifying points to the Economic Report narrative. These are addressed through the following sections contained in this report:

1. Nightly Hotel Occupancy and Average Daily Rates

2. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Estimates

3. Best- and Worst-Case Scenario Occupancy/Rates

4. Property Taxes

5. Sales Taxes

6. Other Miscellaneous Items

1. Nightly Hotel Occupancy and Average Daily Rates
The Economic Impact Report states the resort will be composed of 52 rooms (with the ability to create 56 rooms) and operations beginning in 2027. The Average Daily Room Rate (ADR) is estimated to be $1,716 per night and the projected Occupancy Rate is 53.3%. While the City cannot speak to the room rate of the proposed development, as a comparison, the City and consultant utilized the following: (1) City of St.

Helena FY 2023 Hotel/B&B actual Occupancy Percentage and ADR and (2) analytics from the 2020 Financing Civic Infrastructure Task Force final report (with CPI escalators applied to the ADR). Table 2 provides a comparison between the City’s FY 2023 actuals, projections contained in the Financing Infrastructure Task Force Final Report, and the EFA reported 5-year average.

Table 2: Comparison of Actual and Estimated Occupancy and ADR

2. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Estimates
The Economic Report estimates TOT will be collected at a total rate of 15% which includes:
• TOT – 12%
• Measure E – 1%
• TID – 2%
Out of the 15% collected, the City retains 13% as noted in the Economic Report (pg.20). Of this amount 12% is for general governmental purposes (General Fund) and 1% is restricted to Affordable and Occupancy ADR
City FY 2023 Actuals 56% 525 $
Option 1* 80% 648 $
Option 2* 70% 1,415 $
Vineland Station* 70% 914 $
Farmstead* 75% 825 $
Vine Resort* 70% 1,031 $
EFA Economic Report 5-Year Avg. 53% 1,716 $
*From the Financing Infrastructure Task Force Final Report 2020 with CPI adjusted Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 388 of 623 ends

60 Workforce Housing. The Economic Report reflects the entire 13% not recognizing 1% is restricted and projects the following in TOT revenues:
• $1.42 million in Year 1 growing to $2.8 million in Year 5 (p.3 and p.19) • Average of $2.57 million (p. 3 and p.6)
Table 3 provides the City’s estimated annual revenues based on the information provided by EFA. Overall, the City’s estimates for TOT are similar to the Economic Report; however, Table 3 breaks out the portion going to the City’s General Fund and the portion reserved for affordable and workforce housing.

Table 3: City of St. Helena Estimated TOT based on EFA's Occupancy and ADR

3. Best- and Worst-Case Scenario Occupancy/Rates – City Council Request On May 28, 2024, City Council requested to have best- and worst-case scenarios included as part of the 9212 Report based on occupancy and ADR. While there were not best- and worst-case scenarios provided in the Economic Report, Table 4 provides a summary of ranges based on estimated TOT (12%) utilizing the five-year average ADR and occupancy rates provided by Noble House compared to various low/high scenarios based on the City’s past 5-year average occupancy rate for hotels and B&Bs and a range of ADR from $600 to $1,200. Based on this table, TOT receipts could range from $693,985 to $2.2 million depending on the ADR and assuming a 50.8% average occupancy rate.

Table 4: Summary of TOT Revenue Rates
*Based on the City’s five-year average

4. Property Taxes
Property taxes will increase based on the change in Assessed Valuation (AV) of the property as determined by the County Assessor. This determination will generally be related to the square footage, the quality of the construction, and the construction costs. The Economic Report assumes the following regarding an increase in property taxes for the Resort:
# of Rooms Total Avail.

Rooms Occupancy Rooms Rented
ADR
Annual Room
Income
TOT
12%
Measure E
1%
Year 1 52 18,980 32.5% 6,169 1,849 $ 11,405,557 1,368,667$ $ 114,056 Year 5 52 18,980 71.5% 13,571 1,700 $ 23,070,190 2,768,423$ $ 230,702 5-Year Average 52 18,980 55.3% 10,496 1,716 $ 18,011,033 $ 2,161,324 $ 180,110 General Fund - Unrestricted
Affordable Housing Trust Fund - Restricted, City Controls # of Rooms Total Avail.

Rooms Occupancy Rooms Rented
ADR
Annual Room
Income
TOT
12%
Measure E
1%
Economic Impact Report
5-Year Average 52 18,980 55.3% 10,496 1,716 $ 18,011,033 2,161,324$ $ 180,110 Updated Occupancy* 52 18,980 50.8% 9,639 1,716 $ 16,539,969 1,984,796$ $ 165,400 Updated Occupancy/ADR Low 52 18,980 50.8% 9,639 600 $ 5,783,206 $ 693,985 $ 57,832 Updated Occupancy/ADR High 52 18,980 50.8% 9,639 1,200 $ 11,566,412 1,387,969$ $ 115,664 Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 389 of 623 ends

61 • Property Tax Rate = 1.18%
• AV increase (post-construction) = $61.9 million
• Subsequent AV increase in years one through five = 2% Based on these assumptions, the Economic Report anticipates an increase in property taxes beginning in Year 2 of construction of $730,400.

While, based on these assumptions, the amount projected to be collected is mathematically correct, it does not represent the amount that will be remitted by the County to the City’s General Fund, which is estimated to be approximately $114,600.

Property taxes are collected by the Napa County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office and remitted to the City by the Auditor-Controller’s Office. The exact amount of the property taxes collected will vary each year based on many factors such as special district assessments or the amounts needed to pay for bonded indebtedness. The City’s consultant reached out to the County of Napa, who confirmed the following tax rates for 2800 Main Street:

Table 5: FY 2024 Property Tax Rate for 2800 Main Street As noted in Table 5 above, the County levies an ad valorem property tax rate equal to one percent (1%) of the full assessed value. This base levy is combined with other levies collected for repayment of various bonds authorized by voters in Napa County. The County General 1% Tax is, after collection from tax payers, divided among several property tax participating local public agencies. The City of St. Helena receives

0.185163% of the one percent property tax levy, as noted in Table 6.

Table 6: County General 1% Tax Breakdown
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 390 of 623 ends

62 The Economic Report states that $730,400 in additional revenues will be collected because of the increased Assessed Valuation of the project (pg.10, Table 4 – Property Taxes (Resort)). The Economic Report reached this number through the following calculations:

Construction Value = $61.9 million x 1.18% = $730,420
The number provided by EFA appears to illustrate the total amount collected by the County for property taxes and does not show the direct impact to the City’s General Fund. The direct impact increase to the City’s General Fund is illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7: Property Tax Direct Impact to the General Fund It should also be noted that it typically takes several months to have the new Assessed Valuation added to the County’s Property Tax Roll, and it is unlikely the City will receive any benefit until Year 1 of its operation.

5. Sales Taxes
The Economic Report (pg. 3) estimates $38,500 to $84,000 in new sales tax revenues over the first five years. This amount is consistent with information found on pg. 19 of the Economic Report under the section, “Sales Taxes (IMPLAN)”, but does not include “Sales Taxes (Resort)” which lists Operations Year 1 at $321,600 in additional revenues, increasing to $848,200 by Year 5 (pg. 19).

As noted earlier, the City is focusing on the Sales Tax (Resort) estimates. It is unclear from the Economic Report what estimated annual on- and off-premise spending per occupied room was used in their analysis.

For a comparison estimate, the City utilized the 2020 Financing Infrastructure Task Force Analysis located on pg. 14 of their Final Report for an estimated sales tax calculation. Specifically, the City used the assumptions for Option 2 based on the ADR of $1,200, which is the closest estimate to the project. Option 2 provided for the following assumptions and is summarized in Table 8:
• Estimated on-premises purchase per occupied rooms night = $900 • Estimated off-premises purchase per occupied room night = $400 • City’s sales tax rate = 1.5%
Construction Costs Napa County
General
Napa County
General $
City of St.

Helena
St. Helena
General Fund
Increase
61,900,000 1% 619,000 0.185163% 114,616
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 391 of 623 ends

63 Table 8: St. Helena Projected Sales Tax Revenue
The City’s analysis estimates $204,671 in additional sales tax annually for the City of St. Helena, which is lower than the range of $321,600 to $848,200 provided in the Economic Report; however, it is possible the Economic Report may have utilized the total sales tax rate collected (6.0% State + 0.75% County +

1.5% City = 8.25%) where only 1.5% goes directly to the City’s General Fund.

On May 28, 2024, City Council requested an estimate of how the project may affect downtown businesses.

The specific impacts to the downtown area are unknown and are difficult to project with certainty; however, as noted in Table 8, it is estimated there would be $400 per occupied room night for offpremises purchases, which equates to approximately $4.2 million per year in spending. It is assumed this would occur locally in St. Helena but may not be spent solely in the downtown area. Furthermore, the $4.2 million estimate does not include any indirect economic impacts from the resort that may be the result of the estimated 70 full-time equivalent workers employed at the resort.

6. Other Miscellaneous Items
In addition to the direct fiscal analysis, the following are points of clarification on various comments made in the Economic Report.

1. TOT Revenues as collateral
a. p.3 of the Economic Report – States that TOT revenues can act as collateral to finance borrowing for infrastructure and other needs that may support this project and pay the principal and interest payments.
b. p.20 of the Economic Report – States the City has increased borrowing capacity and can use TOT as collateral.

City Comments: TOT revenues, like all General Fund tax revenues, may be used to pay debts including bonded indebtedness; however, it cannot be used as collateral as stated in the Economic Report.

2. Page 13 of the Economic Report states that Figure 10 (FY 2022-23) shows more expenditures towards public safety in FY 2022-23 as the budget expands with Measure E funds and sales tax revenues.

Rooms 52
Total Nights Available 365
Total Rooms Available 18,980
Occupancy 55.3%
Average Room Occupancy (# of rooms) 10,496
Estimated Purchases Per Occupied Room
Night (on- and off-premise) $ 1,300
Sales Tax 1.50%
TOTAL ESTIMATED SALES TAX ANNUALLY $ 204,671
Total Annual Purchases $ 13,644,722
On-premise - $900 / Off-premise - $400
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 392 of 623 ends

64 City Comments: The increase in Public Safety costs is not due to expanding Measure Eand sales tax revenues but was a result of the Fire Department expanding to a full-service department. Additionally, the TOT revenue expansion referenced as Measure E, is restricted for Affordable and Workforce Housing and is not included in the City’s General Fund budget for any general purposes.

3. Property Taxes - Pages 14 and 15: Figure 11 and Figure 12. The Economic Report states that Property taxes are the most significant revenue contributor in FY 2022-23 (Figure 11), but notes that they are, “somewhat encumbered for local education and initiatives that involve parcel taxes”.

City Comments:
a. The statement is correct that property taxes are the most significant revenue contributor in FY 2022-23 at 28%, with sales tax following at 26%.
b. The statement that property taxes are, “somewhat encumbered for local education and initiatives that involve parcel taxes” is also correct as it relates to the total amount of property taxes collected by Napa County Tax Collector (See Table 7); however, the percentages noted in Figures 11 and 12 of the Economic Report reference the actual amount of property taxes received by the City, none of which is encumbered for local education and initiatives.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 393 of 623 ends

65 APPENDICES
A. St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
B. Proponent’s Environmental Assessment Report
C. Proponent’s Workforce Housing Concept Plan
D. Proponent’s Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
E. Peer Review Reports

1. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2. Biological Resources

3. Historic Resources

4. Archaeological Resources (CONFIDENTIAL/NOT ATTACHED)

5. Noise

6. Transportation

7. Water/Groundwater
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 394 of 623 ends

66 Appendix A. St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
See below for Link to St. Helena Resort Agritourism Initiative Agritourism Initiative
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 395 of 623 ends

67 Appendix B. Proponent’s Environmental Assessment Report See below for links to Proponent’s Environmental Assessment Report and related appendices.

St. Helena Resort Environmental Assessment – May 2024
Appendix A – Agritourism Initiative
Appendix B – Fiscal Analysis
Appendix C – AQ Modeling Outputs
Appendix D – Biological Database Searches
Appendix E – Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Appendix F – Civil Engineering Report
Appendix G – Phase I ESA
Appendix H – Noise Calculation Sheets
Appendix I – Transportation Impact Study
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 396 of 623 ends

68 Appendix C. Proponent’s Workforce Housing Concept Plan Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 397 of 623 ends

ST. HELENA RESORT
FULTON LANE SITE, ST. HELENA, CA
Middle-Income Workforce Housing Project
The Fulton Lane Middle-Income Workforce Housing Project (“Project”) is located on the south side of Fulton Lane at the railroad tracks. The entrance will start at the west side of the railroad tracks on Fulton Lane, enter a parking area, and continue through the parking area over the tracks to the east side between the two apartment buildings which will be located on the east side of the tracks.

Attachments included:

1. Fulton Lane Site Concept Package

2. Income-Limits-2023
Appendix C - Proponent's Workforce Housing Concept Plan Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 398 of 623 ends

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1096.014

03.21.2024
JOB NO.

DATE
A1
FULTON LANE SITE | ST. HELENA, CA

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN
ARCHITECTURAL:

A1 TITLE SHEET
A2 SITE PLAN
A3 BUILDING PLANS
A4 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS
SHEET INDEX:

APN: 009-193-006-000
SITE AREA: 2.54 AC
PROPOSED DENSITY: 18.90 DUA

UNIT MIX
BUILDING A (2 STORIES):

STUDIO UNITS 38
1-BED UNITS 8
4-BED UNITS 2
TOTAL 48
BUILDING B (2 STORIES):

STUDIO UNITS 11
1-BED UNITS 4
4-BED UNITS 2
TOTAL 17
TOTAL:

STUDIO UNITS 49
1-BED UNITS 12
4-BED UNITS 4
TOTAL 65

PARKING
SPACES PROVIDED: 65
PROJECT DATA:

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN - FULTON LANE SITE ST. HELENA, CA VICINITY MAP: PROJECT LOCATION
NORTH

TITLE SHEET

FULTON LN

RAILROAD AVE

ST HELENA HWY

LIBRARY LN
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 399 of 623 ends

N
244'-4"
56'-3"
132'-4"
56'-3"
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1096.014

03.21.2024
JOB NO.

DATE
A2
FULTON LANE SITE | ST. HELENA, CA

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN
0 8 16 32
0 16 32 64
0 32 64 128
0 10 20 40
0 20 40 80
0 30 60 120
0 40 80 160
0 50 100 200
0 100 200 400
0 4 8 16

SITE PLAN

RAILROAD AVE

FULTON LN

BUILDING B

BUILDING A
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 400 of 623 ends

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1096.014

03.21.2024
JOB NO.

DATE
A3
0 8 16 32
0 16 32 64
0 32 64 128
0 10 20 40
0 20 40 80
0 30 60 120
0 40 80 160
0 50 100 200
0 4 8 16
FULTON LANE SITE | ST. HELENA, CA

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN

BUILDING PLANS
2 BUILDING B - GROUND FLOOR PLAN
1 BUILDING A - GROUND FLOOR PLAN
COLOR KEY:

STUDIO UNIT
1-BEDROOM UNIT
4-BEDROOM UNIT
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 401 of 623 ends

5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1096.014

03.21.2024
JOB NO.

DATE
A4
FULTON LANE SITE | ST. HELENA, CA

NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN
0 8 16 32
0 16 32 64
0 32 64 128
0 10 20 40
0 20 40 80
0 30 60 120
0 40 80 160
0 4 8 16

TYPICAL UNIT
PLANS
BATHROOM 1
7'-1"x9'-6"
1 BEDROOM & 1 BATHROOM
19' X 28'
532 GROSS SQ FT
485 NET SQ FT
10 SQ FT JULIET BALCONY WHERE OCCURS PER BUILDING
PLANS

KITCHEN
9'-8"x10'-5"
LIVING
9'-8"x10'-5"
BEDROOM 1
9'-8"x10'-5"
19'-0"
11'-5"
28'-0"
8'-3" 5'-5 1/2" 4'-3" 10'-0 1/2"
19'-0"
8'-1 1/2" 10'-10 1/2"
28'-0"
11'-2 1/2" 2'-9 1/2" 14'-0"
7'-7"
4 BEDROOMS & 4 BATHROOMS
24' X 55'
1320 GROSS SQ FT
1240 NET SQ FT
50 SQ FT BALCONY
24'-0"
55'-0"
LIVING
13'-1" x 9'-6"

KITCHEN
9'-5" x 9'-0"
BATHROOM 4
9'-1 1/2" x 7'-2"
BEDROOM 4
13'-1" x 10'-0"
BEDROOM 3
9'-3" x 14'-10"
BATHROOM 3
9'-3" x 6'-2"
BEDROOM 2
9'-2" x 14'-10"
BEDROOM 1
13'-1" x 10'-0"
BATHROOM 1
9'-1" x 6'-2"
24'-0"
13'-10" 10'-2"
13'-10"
15'-7" 6'-7 1/2" 8'-7"
2'-3 1/2"
6'-7 1/2" 15'-3 1/2"
55'-0"
10'-9" 7'-7 1/2" 19'-6 1/2" 6'-7 1/2" 10'-5 1/2"

BALCONY
5'-1 1/2" x 9'-8"
10'-2"
BATHROOM 2
9'-1" x 6'-2"
25'-0"
9'-11 1/2" 15'-0 1/2"
25'-0"
14'-0"
6'-1 1/2" 7'-10 1/2"
3'-5 1/2" 6'-0" 8'-0" 7'-6 1/2"
3'-4 1/2"

BATHROOM
7'-2x10'-0"
QUEEN SIZE MURPHY BED & 1 BATH
14' X 25'
348 GROSS SQ FT
309 NET SQ FT
50 SF BALCONY WHERE OCCURS PER

BUILDING PLANS

KITCHEN

LIVING/

SLEEPING
14'-0"
7'-0" 7'-0"

STUDIO UNIT
SRO CLUSTER (4 SRO'S)

ONE BEDROOM UNIT
BATHROOM 1
7'-1"x9'-6"
1 BEDROOM & 1 BATHROOM
19' X 28'
532 GROSS SQ FT
485 NET SQ FT
10 SQ FT JULIET BALCONY WHERE OCCURS PER BUILDING
PLANS

BALCONY
5'-1 1/2" x 9'-8"
10'-2"
BATHROOM 2
9'-1" x 6'-2"
25'-0"
9'-11 1/2" 15'-0 1/2"
25'-0"
14'-0"
6'-1 1/2" 7'-10 1/2"
3'-5 1/2" 6'-0" 8'-0" 7'-6 1/2"
3'-4 1/2"

BATHROOM
7'-2x10'-0"
QUEEN SIZE MURPHY BED & 1 BATH
14' X 25'
348 GROSS SQ FT
309 NET SQ FT
50 SF BALCONY WHERE OCCURS PER

BUILDING PLANS

KITCHEN

LIVING/

SLEEPING
14'-0"
7'-0" 7'-0"

STUDIO UNIT
SRO CLUSTER (4 SRO'S)

ONE BEDROOM UNIT
BATHROOM 1
7'-1"x9'-6"
1 BEDROOM & 1 BATHROOM
19' X 28'
532 GROSS SQ FT
485 NET SQ FT
10 SQ FT JULIET BALCONY WHERE OCCURS PER BUILDING
PLANS

BALCONY
5'-1 1/2" x 9'-8"
10'-2"
BATHROOM 2
9'-1" x 6'-2"
25'-0"
9'-11 1/2" 15'-0 1/2"
25'-0"
14'-0"
6'-1 1/2" 7'-10 1/2"
3'-5 1/2" 6'-0" 8'-0" 7'-6 1/2"
3'-4 1/2"

BATHROOM
7'-2x10'-0"
QUEEN SIZE MURPHY BED & 1 BATH
14' X 25'
348 GROSS SQ FT
309 NET SQ FT
50 SF BALCONY WHERE OCCURS PER

BUILDING PLANS

KITCHEN

LIVING/

SLEEPING
14'-0"
7'-0" 7'-0"

UNIT PLANS
A3.1
0 4 8 16

STUDIO UNIT
SRO CLUSTER (4 SRO'S)

ONE BEDROOM UNIT
JOB NO. 1096.007
DATE 09-24-18
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200 NVWT PARTNERS, LLC

BELL SITE

TYPICAL STUDIO UNIT
QUEEN SIZE MURPHY BED & 1 BATH
GROSS AREA: 348 SQ. FT.

NET AREA: 309 SQ. FT.

BALCONY (WHERE OCCURS): 50 SQ. FT.

TYPICAL ONE BEDROOM UNIT
1 BEDROOM & 1 BATHROOM
GROSS AREA: 532 SQ. FT.

NET AREA: 485 SQ. FT.

NO BALCONY PROPOSED
TYPICAL SRO CLUSTER (4 SRO’S)
4 BEDROOM & 4 BATHROOM
GROSS AREA: 1320 SQ. FT.

NET AREA: 1240 SQ. FT.

BALCONY: 50 SQ. FT.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 402 of 623 ends

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 9, 2024
MEMORANDUM FOR: Interested Parties

FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
SUBJECT: 2024 State Income Limits
Attached are briefing materials and 2024 State Income Limits that are now in effect, replacing the previous 2023 State Income Limits. Income limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for acutely low -, extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households for California’s 58 counties. The 2024 State Income Limits are on the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-andfunding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-rent-and-loan-value-limits.

State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subject to a particular program’s definition of income, family, family size, effective dates, and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting in some programs using other income limits.

The attached briefing materials detail California’s 2024 State Income Limits and were updated based on: (1) changes to income limits the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released on April 1, 2024, for its Public Housing, Section 8, Section 202, and Section 811 programs; and (2) adjustments HCD made based on State statutory provisions and its 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy.

For questions concerning State Income Limits, please see the Questions and Answers on page 5 or contact [email protected].

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 403 of 623 ends

2024 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932

Page 2 of 5 ends

Overview
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 50093(c), must file updates to its State Income Limits with the Office of Administrative Law.

HCD annually updates these income limits based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revisions to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits that HUD most recently released on April 1, 2024.

HUD annually updates its Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits to reflect changes in median family income levels for different size households and income limits for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. HCD, pursuant to statutory provisions, makes the following additional revisions:
(1) if necessary, increases a county’s area median income to equal California’s non-metropolitan median income, (2) adjusts Area Median Income (AMI) and household income category levels to not result in any year-over-year decrease for any year after 2009 pursuant to HCD’s February 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy. (HCD’s HH Policy was implemented to replace HUD’s HH Policy, discontinued in 2009, to ensure income limits and area median income levels do not fall below a prior year’s highest level), and (3) determines income limits for California’s acutely low-income and moderate-income categories.

Following are brief summaries of technical methodologies used by HUD and HCD in updating income limits for different household income categories. For additional information, please refer to HUD’s briefing materials at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il//il24/IncomeLimitsMethodologyFY24.pdf.

HUD Methodology
HUD Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits begin with the production of median family incomes.

HUD uses the Section 8 program’s Fair Market Rent (FMR) area definitions in developing median incomes, which means developing median incomes for each metropolitan area, parts of some metropolitan areas, and each non-metropolitan county. The 2024 FMR area definitions for California are unchanged from last year. HUD calculates Income Limits for every FMR area with adjustments for family size and for areas with unusually high or low family income or housing-cost-to-income relationships.

Extremely Low-Income
In determining the extremely low-income limit, HUD uses the Federal Poverty Guidelines, published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Federal Poverty Guidelines are a simplified version of the Federal Poverty Thresholds used for administrative purposes — for instance, determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs. HUD compares the appropriate poverty guideline with 60% of the very low-income limit and chooses the greater of the two as the extremely low-income limit.

The value may not exceed the very low-income level.

Very Low-Income
The very low-income limits are the basis for the extremely low- and low-income limits. The very lowincome limit typically reflects 50 percent of median family income (MFI), and HUD's MFI figure generally equals two times HUD's 4-person very low-income limit. However, HUD may adjust the very low-income limit for an area or county to account for conditions that warrant special considerations. As such, the very low-income limit may not always equal 50% MFI.

Low-Income
In general, most low-income limits represent the higher level of: (1) 80 percent of MFI or, (2) 80 percent of state non-metropolitan median family income. However, due to adjustments that HUD sometimes makes to the very low-income limit, strictly calculating low-income limits as 80 percent of MFI could Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 404 of 623 ends

2024 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932

Page 3 of 5 ends

produce unintended anomalies inconsistent with statutory intent (e.g., very low-income limits being higher than low-income limits). Therefore, HUD’s briefing materials specify that, with some exceptions, the low-income limit reflect 160 percent of the very low-income limit. HUD may apply additional adjustments to areas with unusually high or low housing-costs-to-income relationships and for other reasons. This can result in low-income limits exceeding MFI in certain counties.

Median Family Income/Area Median Income
HUD references and estimates the MFI in calculating the income limits. California law and State Income Limits reference AMI that, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 50093(c), means the MFI of a geographic area of the State, as estimated annually by HUD for its Section 8 Program.

In estimating FY 2024 median family incomes, HUD uses median family income data (as opposed to median household income data) from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) as calculated by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau produces two types of ACS estimates: the “one-year” data, which represent estimates as of 2022; and the “five-year” data, which represent estimates as of 2018-2022 (but are inflated to 2022 dollars). HUD requires special tabulations of the ACS to match its custom HMFA definitions described above.

HUD uses the 2022 ACS median family income data (as opposed to household income data) as the basis of FY 2024 Income Limits for all areas of California. HUD uses an inflation forecast from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in updating ACS estimates. For FY 2024, CBO has produced a forecast CPI of 310.683, which divided by annual 2022 of 292.613 is 1.062 (an increase of 6.2 percent).

For additional information on MFI’s please see HUD’s briefing materials at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il24/Medians-Methodology-FY24.pdf.

Adjustment Calculations
HUD may apply adjustments to areas with unusually high or low family income, uneven housing-cost-toincome relationship, or other reasons. For example, HUD applies an increase if the four-person very low-income limit would otherwise be less than the amount at which 35 percent of it equals 85 percent of the annualized two-bedroom Section 8 FMR (or 40th percentile rent in 50th percentile FMR areas). The purpose is to increase the income limit for areas where rental-housing costs are unusually high in relation to the median income. In certain cases, HUD also applies an adjustment to the income limits based on the state non-metropolitan median family income level.

In addition, HUD restricts adjustments, so income limits do not increase more than five percent of the previous year's very low-income figure OR twice the increase in the national MFI as measured by the ACS with an absolute cap of 10 percent, whichever is greater. For 2024, the annualized change is measured by the ACS from 2021 to 2022. Twice this change is approximately 14.8 percent, which is greater than the 10 percent absolute cap. So, for FY 2024, the income limits “cap” is 10 percent. HUD first announced this methodology on January 10, 2024 in a Federal Register Notice. The cap and floor rules do not apply to the extremely low-income limits.

Please refer to HUD briefing materials for additional information on the adjustment calculations.

Income Limit Calculations for Household Sizes Other Than 4-Persons The income limit statute requires adjustments for family size. The legislative history and conference committee report indicates that Congress intended that income limits should be higher for larger families and lower for smaller families. The same family size adjustments apply to all income limits, except extremely low-income limits, which are set at the poverty income threshold. They are as follows:

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Adjustments: 70% 80% 90% Base 108% 116% 124% 132%
Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 405 of 623 ends

2024 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932

Page 4 of 5 ends

Income Limit Calculations for Household Sizes Greater Than 8-Persons For households of more than eight persons, refer to the formula at the end of the table for 2024 Income Limits. Due to the adjustments HUD can make to income limits in a given county, table data should be the only method used to determine program eligibility. Arithmetic calculations are applicable only when a household has more than eight members. New for FY 2024, family size-adjusted income limits are retested for compliance with the cap and floor rules. Please refer to HUD’s briefing material for additional information on family size adjustments.

HCD Methodology
State law (see, e.g., Health & Safety Code section 50093) prescribes the methodology HCD uses to update the State Income Limits. HCD utilizes HUD’s Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits.

HCD’s methodology involves: (1) if necessary, increasing a county’s median income established by HUD to equal California’s non-metropolitan county median income determined by HUD, (2) applying HCD’s HH Policy, in effect since 2013, to not allow decreases in AMI levels and household income category levels, (3) applying to the median income the same family size adjustments HUD applies to the income limits, (4) determining income limit levels applicable to California’s acutely low-income households defined by law as household income not exceeding 15 percent of county AMI, and (5) determining income limit levels applicable to California’s moderate-income households defined by law as household income not exceeding 120 percent of county AMI.

Area Median Income and Income Category Levels
HCD, pursuant to federal and State law, adjusts median income levels for all counties so they are not less than the non-metropolitan county median income established by HUD ($87,900 for 2024). Next, HCD applies its HH Policy to ensure AMI and income limits for all household income categories do not fall below any level achieved in the prior year. Health and Safety Code section 50093 requires HCD to adjust the AMI for family size in accordance with adjustment factors adopted by HUD and illustrated on the previous page. This establishes that the MFI published by HUD equals the four-person AMI for California counties.

Acutely low-Income Levels
Beginning in 2022, Health and Safety Code section 50063.5 established California’s acutely low-income household levels. After calculating the 4-person area median income (AMI) level as previously described, HCD sets the maximum acutely low-income limit to equal 15 percent of the county’s AMI, adjusted for family size.

Moderate-Income Levels
HCD is responsible for establishing California’s moderate-income limit levels. After calculating the 4- person AMI level as previously described, HCD sets the maximum moderate-income limit to equal 120 percent of the county’s AMI, adjusted for family size.

Applicability of California’s Official State Income Limits Applicability of the State Income Limits are subject to particular programs as program definitions of factors such as income, family, and household size vary. Some programs, such as Multifamily Tax Subsidy Projects (MTSPs), use different income limits. For MTSPs, separate income limits apply per provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-289). Income limits for MTSPs are used to determine qualification levels as well as set maximum rental rates for projects funded with tax credits authorized under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). In addition, MTSP income limits apply to projects financed with tax-exempt housing bonds issued to provide qualified residential rental development under Section 142 of the Code. These income limits are available at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/mtsp.html.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Page 406 of 623 ends

2024 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932

Page 5 of 5 ends

St. Helena City CouncilJune 25, 2024

St. Helena City Council
June 25, 2024