St. Helena City Council
June 25, 2024

Questions and Answers
In Los Angeles, as well as several other counties in the state, why does the very low-income limit not equal 50% of AMI (or the low-income limit not equal 80% of AMI)? There are many exceptions to the arithmetic calculation of income limits. These include adjustments for high housing cost relative to income, the application of state nonmetropolitan income limits in low-income areas, and national maximums in high-income areas. In Los Angeles County, as well as several others, the magnitude of these adjustments results in the low-income limit exceeding AMI. These exceptions are detailed in the FY 2024 Income Limits Methodology Document, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il24/Medians-Methodology-FY24.pdf.

For further information on the exact adjustments made to an individual area of the country, please see HUD’s FY 2024 Income Limits Documentation System. The documentation system is available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2024/select_Geography.odn. Once the area in question is selected, a summary of the area’s median income, Very Low-Income, Extremely Low-Income, and LowIncome Limits are displayed. Detailed calculations are obtained by selecting the relevant links.

Why don’t the income limits for my area reflect recent gains? Although HUD uses the most recent data available concerning local area incomes, there is still a lag between when the data are collected and when the data are available for use. For example, FY 2024 Income Limits are calculated using 2018-2022 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data, and oneyear 2022 data where possible. This is a two-year lag, so more current trends in median family income levels are not available.

HUD estimates Median Family Income (MFI) annually for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county. The basis for HUD’s median family incomes is data from the ACS, table B19113 - MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. A Consumer Price Index (CPI) forecast as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is used in the trend factor calculation to bring the 2021 ACS data forward to FY 2023.

For additional details concerning the use of the ACS in HUD’s calculations of MFI, please see HUD’s FY 2024 Median Family Income methodology document,
at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il23/Medians-Methodology-FY24.pdf Additionally, full documentation of all calculations for MFIs is available in the FY 2024 Median Family Income and the FY 2024 Income Limits Documentation System. These systems are available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2024/select_Geography.odn Why didn’t the income limits for my county change from last year? HCD’s 2013 Hold Harmless Policy likely prevented the income limits from decreasing from last year’s levels and has maintained them despite a decrease in median income and/or income limits published by HUD.

Why do the income limits or area median income for my county not match what was published by HUD?
HCD adjusts each county’s AMI to at least equal the state non-metropolitan county median income, as published by HUD. Further, HCD’s 2013 Hold Harmless Policy prevents any decrease in income limits or median family income published by HUD to be applied to State Income Limits.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Section 6932. 2024 Income Limits
Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last page instructs how to use income limits to determine applicant eligibility and calculate affordable housing cost and rent
Alameda County
Area Median Income:
$155,700
Acutely Low 16350 18700 21000 23350 25200 27100 28950 30800 Extremely Low 32700 37400 42050 46700 50450 54200 57950 61650 Very Low Income 54500 62300 70100 77850 84100 90350 96550 102800 Low Income 84600 96650 108750 120800 130500 140150 149800 159500 Median Income 109000 124550 140150 155700 168150 180600 193050 205500 Moderate Income 130800 149500 168150 186850 201800 216750 231700 246650 Alpine County
Area Median Income:
$119,300
Acutely Low 12550 14300 16100 17900 19350 20750 22200 23650 Extremely Low 22200 25400 28550 31700 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 37000 42250 47550 52850 57050 61300 65550 69750 Low Income 59200 67650 76100 84550 91350 98100 104850 111650 Median Income 83500 95450 107350 119300 128850 138400 147950 157500 Moderate Income 100200 114500 128850 143150 154600 166050 177500 188950 Amador County
Area Median Income:
$101,900
Acutely Low 10700 12250 13750 15300 16500 17750 18950 20200 Extremely Low 21200 24200 27250 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 35300 40350 45400 50400 54450 58500 62500 66550 Low Income 56450 64550 72600 80650 87150 93600 100050 106500 Median Income 71350 81500 91700 101900 110050 118200 126350 134500 Moderate Income 85600 97850 110050 122300 132100 141850 151650 161450 Butte County
Area Median Income:
$96,600
Acutely Low 10150 11600 13050 14500 15650 16800 18000 19150 Extremely Low 19050 21800 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 31750 36300 40850 45350 49000 52600 56250 59850 Low Income 50750 58000 65250 72500 78300 84100 89900 95700 Median Income 67600 77300 86950 96600 104350 112050 119800 127500 Moderate Income 81150 92700 104300 115900 125150 134450 143700 153000 Calaveras County
Area Median Income:
$96,200
Acutely Low 10100 11550 13000 14450 15600 16750 17900 19050 Extremely Low 20050 22900 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 33400 38150 42900 47650 51500 55300 59100 62900 Low Income 53400 61000 68650 76250 82350 88450 94550 100650 Median Income 67350 76950 86600 96200 103900 111600 119300 127000 Moderate Income 80800 92350 103900 115450 124700 133900 143150 152400 Colusa County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Contra Costa County
Area Median Income:
$155,700
Acutely Low 16350 18700 21000 23350 25200 27100 28950 30800 Extremely Low 32700 37400 42050 46700 50450 54200 57950 61650 Very Low Income 54500 62300 70100 77850 84100 90350 96550 102800 Low Income 84600 96650 108750 120800 130500 140150 149800 159500 Median Income 109000 124550 140150 155700 168150 180600 193050 205500 Moderate Income 130800 149500 168150 186850 201800 216750 231700 246650 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Del Norte County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 El Dorado County
Area Median Income:
$113,900
Acutely Low 11950 13700 15400 17100 18450 19850 21200 22550 Extremely Low 24750 28300 31850 35350 38200 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 41300 47150 53050 58950 63650 68400 73100 77850 Low Income 66050 75450 84900 94300 101850 109400 116950 124500 Median Income 79750 91100 102500 113900 123000 132100 141250 150350 Moderate Income 95700 109350 123050 136700 147650 158550 169500 180450 Fresno County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Glenn County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Humboldt County
Area Median Income:
$88,300
Acutely Low 9300 10600 11950 13250 14300 15350 16450 17500 Extremely Low 18550 21200 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30950 35350 39750 44150 47700 51250 54750 58300 Low Income 49500 56550 63600 70650 76350 82000 87650 93300 Median Income 61800 70650 79450 88300 95350 102450 109500 116550 Moderate Income 74150 84750 95350 105950 114450 122900 131400 139850 Imperial County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Inyo County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Kern County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Kings County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Lake County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Lassen County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Los Angeles County
Area Median Income:
$98,200
Acutely Low 10350 11800 13300 14750 15950 17100 18300 19450 Extremely Low 29150 33300 37450 41600 44950 48300 51600 54950 Very Low Income 48550 55450 62400 69350 74900 80450 86000 91550 Low Income 77700 88800 99900 110950 119850 128750 137600 146500 Median Income 68750 78550 88400 98200 106050 113900 121750 129600 Moderate Income 82500 94300 106050 117850 127300 136700 146150 155550 Madera County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Marin County
Area Median Income:
$186,600
Acutely Low 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 Extremely Low 41150 47000 52900 58750 63450 68150 72850 77550 Very Low Income 68550 78350 88150 97900 105750 113600 121400 129250 Low Income 109700 125350 141000 156650 169200 181750 194250 206800 Median Income 130600 149300 167950 186600 201550 216450 231400 246300 Moderate Income 156750 179100 201500 223900 241800 259700 277650 295550 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mariposa County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Mendocino County
Area Median Income:
$90,400
Acutely Low 9500 10850 12200 13550 14650 15700 16800 17900 Extremely Low 19000 21700 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 31650 36200 40700 45200 48850 52450 56050 59700 Low Income 50650 57850 65100 72300 78100 83900 89700 95450 Median Income 63300 72300 81350 90400 97650 104850 112100 119350 Moderate Income 75950 86800 97650 108500 117200 125850 134550 143200 Merced County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Modoc County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Mono County
Area Median Income:
$105,900
Acutely Low 11150 12700 14300 15900 17150 18450 19700 21000 Extremely Low 19650 22450 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 32700 37400 42050 46750 50450 54200 57950 61700 Low Income 52350 59800 67300 74800 80750 86750 92750 98750 Median Income 74150 84700 95300 105900 114350 122850 131300 139800 Moderate Income 88950 101700 114400 127100 137250 147450 157600 167750 Monterey County
Area Median Income:
$103,200
Acutely Low 10850 12400 13950 15500 16750 18000 19200 20450 Extremely Low 27800 31800 35750 39700 42900 46100 49250 52720 Very Low Income 46350 53000 59600 66200 71500 76800 82100 87400 Low Income 74150 84800 95400 105950 114450 122950 131400 139900 Median Income 72250 82550 92900 103200 111450 119700 127950 136200 Moderate Income 86700 99100 111450 123850 133750 143650 153550 163500 Napa County
Area Median Income:
$129,600
Acutely Low 13600 15550 17500 19450 21000 22550 24100 25650 Extremely Low 30850 35250 39650 44050 47600 51100 54650 58150 Very Low Income 51400 58700 66100 73400 79300 85150 91050 96900 Low Income 82150 93900 105650 117350 126750 136150 145550 154900 Median Income 90700 103700 116650 129600 139950 150350 160700 171050 Moderate Income 108850 124400 139950 155500 167950 180400 192800 205250 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Nevada County
Area Median Income:
$112,500
Acutely Low 11850 13500 15200 16900 18250 19600 20950 22300 Extremely Low 21900 25000 28150 31250 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 36500 41700 46900 52100 56300 60450 64650 68800 Low Income 58350 66700 75050 83350 90050 96700 103400 110050 Median Income 78750 90000 101250 112500 121500 130500 139500 148500 Moderate Income 94500 108000 121500 135000 145800 156600 167400 178200 Orange County
Area Median Income:
$129,000
Acutely Low 13550 15500 17400 19350 20900 22450 24000 25550 Extremely Low 33150 37900 42650 47350 51150 54950 58750 62550 Very Low Income 55250 63100 71050 78900 85250 91550 97850 104150 Low Income 88400 101000 113650 126250 136350 146450 156550 166650 Median Income 90300 103200 116100 129000 139300 149650 159950 170300 Moderate Income 108350 123850 139300 154800 167200 179550 191950 204350 Placer County
Area Median Income:
$113,900
Acutely Low 11950 13700 15400 17100 18450 19850 21200 22550 Extremely Low 24750 28300 31850 35350 38200 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 41300 47150 53050 58950 63650 68400 73100 77850 Low Income 66050 75450 84900 94300 101850 109400 116950 124500 Median Income 79750 91100 102500 113900 123000 132100 141250 150350 Moderate Income 95700 109350 123050 136700 147650 158550 169500 180450 Plumas County
Area Median Income:
$92,400
Acutely Low 9700 11100 12450 13850 14950 16050 17150 18300 Extremely Low 19400 22150 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 32250 36850 41450 46050 49750 53450 57150 60800 Low Income 51600 59000 66350 73700 79600 85500 91400 97300 Median Income 64700 73900 83150 92400 99800 107200 114600 121950 Moderate Income 77650 88700 99800 110900 119750 128650 137500 146400 Riverside County
Area Median Income:
$97,500
Acutely Low 10250 11700 13200 14650 15800 17000 18150 19350 Extremely Low 21550 24600 27700 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 35900 41000 46100 51250 55350 59450 63550 67650 Low Income 57400 65600 73800 82000 88600 95150 101650 108250 Median Income 68250 78000 87750 97500 105300 113100 120900 128700 Moderate Income 81900 93600 105300 117000 126350 135700 145100 154450 Sacramento County
Area Median Income:
$113,900
Acutely Low 11950 13700 15400 17100 18450 19850 21200 22550 Extremely Low 24750 28300 31850 35350 38200 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 41300 47150 53050 58950 63650 68400 73100 77850 Low Income 66050 75450 84900 94300 101850 109400 116950 124500 Median Income 79750 91100 102500 113900 123000 132100 141250 150350 Moderate Income 95700 109350 123050 136700 147650 158550 169500 180450 San Benito County
Area Median Income:
$140,200
Acutely Low 14750 16850 18950 21050 22750 24400 26100 27800 Extremely Low 25700 29400 33050 36700 39650 42600 47340 52720 Very Low Income 42850 49000 55100 61200 66100 71000 75900 80800 Low Income 68550 78350 88150 97950 105800 113600 121450 129300 Median Income 98150 112150 126200 140200 151400 162650 173850 185050 Moderate Income 117750 134600 151450 168250 181700 195150 208650 222100 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
San Bernardino
County
Area Median Income:
$97,500
Acutely Low 10250 11700 13200 14650 15800 17000 18150 19350 Extremely Low 21550 24600 27700 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 35900 41000 46100 51250 55350 59450 63550 67650 Low Income 57400 65600 73800 82000 88600 95150 101650 108250 Median Income 68250 78000 87750 97500 105300 113100 120900 128700 Moderate Income 81900 93600 105300 117000 126350 135700 145100 154450 San Diego County
Area Median Income:
$119,500
Acutely Low 12550 14350 16150 17950 19400 20800 22250 23700 Extremely Low 31850 36400 40950 45450 49100 52750 56400 60000 Very Low Income 53050 60600 68200 75750 81850 87900 93950 100000 Low Income 84900 97000 109150 121250 130950 140650 150350 160050 Median Income 83650 95600 107550 119500 129050 138600 148200 157750 Moderate Income 100400 114700 129050 143400 154850 166350 177800 189300 San Francisco County
Area Median Income:
$186,600
Acutely Low 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 Extremely Low 41150 47000 52900 58750 63450 68150 72850 77550 Very Low Income 68550 78350 88150 97900 105750 113600 121400 129250 Low Income 109700 125350 141000 156650 169200 181750 194250 206800 Median Income 130600 149300 167950 186600 201550 216450 231400 246300 Moderate Income 156750 179100 201500 223900 241800 259700 277650 295550 San Joaquin County
Area Median Income:
$103,800
Acutely Low 10900 12450 14000 15550 16800 18050 19300 20550 Extremely Low 20250 23150 26050 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 33750 38600 43400 48200 52100 55950 59800 63650 Low Income 54000 61700 69400 77100 83300 89450 95600 101800 Median Income 72650 83050 93400 103800 112100 120400 128700 137000 Moderate Income 87200 99650 112100 124550 134500 144500 154450 164400 San Luis Obispo
County
Area Median Income:
$125,600
Acutely Low 13200 15100 16950 18850 20350 21850 23350 24900 Extremely Low 26750 30600 34400 38200 41300 44350 47400 52720 Very Low Income 44600 50950 57300 63650 68750 73850 78950 84050 Low Income 71350 81550 91700 101900 110100 118250 126350 134500 Median Income 87900 100500 113050 125600 135650 145700 155750 165800 Moderate Income 105500 120550 135650 150700 162750 174800 186850 198900 San Mateo County
Area Median Income:
$186,600
Acutely Low 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 Extremely Low 41150 47000 52900 58750 63450 68150 72850 77550 Very Low Income 68550 78350 88150 97900 105750 113600 121400 129250 Low Income 109700 125350 141000 156650 169200 181750 194250 206800 Median Income 130600 149300 167950 186600 201550 216450 231400 246300 Moderate Income 156750 179100 201500 223900 241800 259700 277650 295550 Santa Barbara County
Area Median Income:
$119,100
Acutely Low 12500 14300 16050 17850 19300 20700 22150 23550 Extremely Low 34200 39050 43950 48800 52750 56650 60550 64450 Very Low Income 56950 65050 73200 81300 87850 94350 100850 107350 Low Income 91200 104250 117300 130350 140800 151250 161600 172050 Median Income 83350 95300 107200 119100 128650 138150 147700 157200 Moderate Income 100050 114300 128600 142900 154350 165750 177200 188650 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Santa Clara County
Area Median Income:
$184,300
Acutely Low 19350 22100 24900 27650 29850 32050 34300 36500 Extremely Low 38750 44250 49800 55300 59750 64150 68600 73000 Very Low Income 64550 73750 82950 92150 99550 106900 114300 121650 Low Income 102300 116900 131500 146100 157800 169500 181200 192900 Median Income 129000 147450 165850 184300 199050 213800 228550 243300 Moderate Income 154800 176900 199050 221150 238850 256550 274250 291900 Santa Cruz County
Area Median Income:
$132,800
Acutely Low 13950 15900 17900 19900 21500 23100 24700 26250 Extremely Low 38050 43500 48950 54350 58700 63050 67400 71750 Very Low Income 63400 72450 81500 90550 97800 105050 112300 119550 Low Income 101750 116250 130750 145300 156950 168550 180200 191800 Median Income 92950 106250 119500 132800 143400 154050 164650 175300 Moderate Income 111550 127500 143400 159350 172100 184850 197600 210350 Shasta County
Area Median Income:
$89,800
Acutely Low 9400 10750 12100 13450 14550 15600 16700 17750 Extremely Low 18750 21400 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 31200 35650 40100 44550 48150 51700 55250 58850 Low Income 49950 57050 64200 71300 77050 82750 88450 94150 Median Income 62850 71850 80800 89800 97000 104150 111350 118550 Moderate Income 75450 86200 97000 107750 116350 125000 133600 142250 Sierra County
Area Median Income:
$90,000
Acutely Low 9450 10800 12150 13500 14600 15650 16750 17800 Extremely Low 18900 21600 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 31500 36000 40500 45000 48600 52200 55800 59400 Low Income 50400 57600 64800 72000 77800 83550 89300 95050 Median Income 63000 72000 81000 90000 97200 104400 111600 118800 Moderate Income 75600 86400 97200 108000 116650 125300 133900 142550 Siskiyou County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Solano County
Area Median Income:
$113,200
Acutely Low 11900 13600 15300 17000 18350 19700 21100 22450 Extremely Low 26450 30200 34000 37750 40800 43800 47340 52720 Very Low Income 44050 50350 56650 62900 67950 73000 78000 83050 Low Income 70450 80500 90550 100650 108700 116750 124850 132850 Median Income 79250 90550 101900 113200 122250 131300 140350 149400 Moderate Income 95100 108700 122250 135850 146700 157600 168450 179300 Sonoma County
Area Median Income:
$128,400
Acutely Low 13500 15400 17350 19250 20800 22350 23850 25400 Extremely Low 29050 33200 37350 41500 44850 48150 51500 54800 Very Low Income 48450 55350 62250 69150 74700 80250 85750 91300 Low Income 77500 88600 99650 110700 119600 128450 137300 146150 Median Income 89900 102700 115550 128400 138650 148950 159200 169500 Moderate Income 107850 123300 138700 154100 166450 178750 191100 203400 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Stanislaus County
Area Median Income:
$92,600
Acutely Low 9750 11100 12500 13900 15000 16100 17250 18350 Extremely Low 19150 21900 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 31900 36450 41000 45550 49200 52850 56500 60150 Low Income 51050 58350 65650 72900 78750 84600 90400 96250 Median Income 64800 74100 83350 92600 100000 107400 114800 122250 Moderate Income 77750 88900 100000 111100 120000 128900 137750 146650 Sutter County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Tehama County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Trinity County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Tulare County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Tuolumne County
Area Median Income:
$97,700
Acutely Low 10250 11700 13200 14650 15800 17000 18150 19350 Extremely Low 20350 23250 26150 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 33900 38750 43600 48450 52350 56200 60100 63950 Low Income 54250 62000 69750 77450 83650 89850 96050 102250 Median Income 68400 78150 87950 97700 105500 113350 121150 128950 Moderate Income 82100 93800 105550 117250 126650 136000 145400 154750 Ventura County
Area Median Income:
$125,600
Acutely Low 13200 15100 16950 18850 20350 21850 23350 24900 Extremely Low 29550 33800 38000 42200 45600 49000 52350 55750 Very Low Income 49250 56300 63350 70350 76000 81650 87250 92900 Low Income 78800 90050 101300 112550 121600 130600 139600 148600 Median Income 87900 100500 113050 125600 135650 145700 155750 165800 Moderate Income 105500 120550 135650 150700 162750 174800 186850 198900 Agenda Item #12.1.

Number of Persons in Household: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Yolo County
Area Median Income:
$117,000
Acutely Low 12300 14050 15800 17550 18950 20350 21750 23150 Extremely Low 24250 27700 31150 34600 37400 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 40400 46150 51900 57650 62300 66900 71500 76100 Low Income 64600 73800 83050 92250 99650 107050 114400 121800 Median Income 81900 93600 105300 117000 126350 135700 145100 154450 Moderate Income 98300 112300 126350 140400 151650 162850 174100 185350 Yuba County
Area Median Income:
$87,900
Acutely Low 9250 10550 11900 13200 14250 15300 16350 17400 Extremely Low 18450 21100 25820 31200 36580 41960 47340 52720 Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 43950 47500 51000 54500 58050 Low Income 49250 56250 63300 70300 75950 81550 87200 92800 Median Income 61550 70300 79100 87900 94950 101950 109000 116050 Moderate Income 73850 84400 94950 105500 113950 122400 130800 139250 Instructions:

Eligibility Determination:

Use household size income category figures in this chart.

Determine eligibililty based on actual number of persons in household and total of gross income for all persons.

Determination of Income Limit for Households Larger than Eight Persons:

Per person (PP) adjustment above 8: (1) multiply 4-person income limit by eight percent (8%), (2) multiply result by number of persons in excess of eight, (3) add the amount to the 8-person income limit, and (4) round to the nearest $50.

Nine Person Calculation - Example County Ten Person Calculation - Example County E X A + 8 =10 E X A M P L E 4 persons 8% PP Adj persons =9 persons M P L 4 persons 8 person + 8% Adj x 2 persons Acutely Low Income 13,200 1056 17,400 18,450 13,200 17,400 2112 19,500 Extremely Low Income 31,200 2496 52,720 55,200 Extremely 31,200 52,720 4992 57,700 Very Low Income 43,950 3516 58,050 61,550 Very Low I 43,950 58,050 7032 65,100 Lower Income 70,300 5624 92,800 98,400 Lower Inco 70,300 92,800 11248 104,050 Moderate Income 105,500 8440 139,250 147,700 Moderate I 105,500 139,250 16880 156,150 Calculation of Housing Cost and Rent:

Refer to Heath & Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053. Use benchmark household size and multiply against applicable percentages defined in H&SC using Area Median Income identified in this chart.

Determination of Household Size:

For projects with no federal assistance, household size is set at number of bedrooms in unit plus one.

For projects with federal assistance, household size may be set by multiplying 1.5 by the number of bedrooms in unit.

HUD Income Limits release: 4/1/2024
HUD FY 2024 California median incomes:

State median income: $111,300
Metropolitan county median income: $111,900
Non-metropolitan county median income: $87,900
Note: Authority cited: Section 50093, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 50063.5, 50079.5, 50093, 50105 and 50106, Health and Safety Code.

Agenda Item #12.1.

69 Appendix D. Proponent’s Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis Agenda Item #12.1.

St. Helena Resort
Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
April 2024
Copyright ©2024 by
Economic Forensics and Analytics, Inc.

Petaluma, CA
[email protected]
Appendix D - Proponent's Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
1 Table of Contents
Table of Contents.................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary................................................................................................. 2 Introduction............................................................................................................ 3 Project Overview ......................................................................................................4 Construction Phase ......................................................................................................... 5 Operations Phase ............................................................................................................ 6 Methodology............................................................................................................7 St. Helena as a City Economy....................................................................................8 Recent Regional Performance of Overnight Stays: Napa County............................10 St. Helena’s Fiscal Budget: An Overview.................................................................13 Economic Impact Estimates................................................................................... 16 Fiscal Impact Estimates......................................................................................... 18 Borrowing Capacity from TOT ................................................................................20 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 21 Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
2 Executive Summary
This report considers the economic and fiscal impacts of a proposed new resort project in St.

Helena, California. This project has two phases: augmented property taxes are gains for the City of St. Helena that connect the construction phase to the operations phase. The property is located just north of St. Helena’s “downtown” area, providing easy access to shopping, restaurants, and other merchants in St. Helena and throughout Napa Valley. Sales tax, property tax, and transient occupancy tax revenues are critical fiscal impacts that increase revenues for the City of St. Helena once operations begin and are annual and ongoing.

The construction phase includes an estimated $71.1 million of onsite, hard-cost spending and administrative (soft-cost) expenses over 15 to 18 months. This spending brings materials into St. Helena, hires workers within and outside the city limits, and provides income to professional services firms and the city government. St. Helena’s economy gains primarily from worker spending and materials purchased from local merchants as needed. Some fixtures, furniture, and equipment may also be sourced from St. Helena-based businesses and professional services. Our estimates suggest that 339 full-time equivalent workers related to construction are 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. Those incomes, in sum, create approximately $570,000 in local tax revenues before the increase in the resort site’s assessed value. The increase in property taxes for the City of St. Helena is approximately $730,400 due to property improvements. The property tax revenue gains continue into the operations phase.

Once construction ends, 52 new resort rooms will open, and overnight stays begin. Daily operations also have “multiplier” or additional effects on St. Helena’s economy, as visitors come to the resort and then go to local restaurants, wineries, retailers, and other merchants as places to visit and to spend while in St. Helena. The estimated amount spent on overnight stays on the property drives our estimates of overall spending. Based on assumptions of an annual average of 55.3 percent occupancy and an average daily rate (ADR) of $1,716 over five years, the annual gains from years 1 to 5 are as follows in terms of core visitor spending based on overnight stays at the property and subsequent effects on the city economy:
• $10.7 million in value-added income in year 1 to over $23.4 million by year 5 for the resort and St. Helena merchants and employees;
• 100 jobs on site, another eight jobs in St. Helena supported once the resort has hired to full capacity and occupancy is at 55.3 percent occupancy;
• Of the value-added income, $5.6 million to $12.2 million in wages are paid to workers at the resort and beyond in St. Helena from years 1 to 5;
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
3 • Tax revenues 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:
o $208,000 to $454,000 annually in additional property taxes over the five years beyond the resort’s change in assessed value described above;
o These amounts do not include resort improvements to the property’s value; o $38,500 to $84,000 in new sales tax revenues over the first five years; and o Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues of $1.42 million and growing to $2.88 million per year over the five years as occupancy rates rise and the resort establishes its market, an average of $2,568,900 per year at the estimated occupancy rate and ADR.

The growth of TOT revenues provides additional flexibility to the City of St. Helena in two ways.

First, the extra revenues help increase the sources of funds available to city government directly (versus sales taxes or property taxes that are primarily for state, county, or other local uses). 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. This resort provides jobs and revenues for city residents and businesses. The fiscal impact estimates show the resort generates an average of $38,897 per year per annual equivalent resident at the resort for the City of St. Helena, over 10 times the estimated cost of one new resident of St.

Helena.

Introduction
Economic impact studies consider how a construction project, a new or growing business, or an industry may affect a regional economy. A “region” could be a small city, state, country, or group of countries. For this project, we look at the effects of a new resort being built and operated at 2800 Main Street in St. Helena, California. Noble House Hotels and Resorts commissioned this report.

The economic impact estimates herein focus on the business revenues (and the portion that remains in St. Helena, later referred to as “value-add” incomes), wages, and jobs supported by the project’s two phases: (1) construction and (2) operations. The construction phase provides income to St. Helena from workers' on-site spending their income within St. Helena’s economy and the hard construction costs and administrative (soft) expenses, providing more revenues to local vendors and city government. Gains for the City of St. Helena (city government), except for property-tax gains due to the site’s improvements after construction is completed, are also complete when construction ends. The operations phase has ongoing, annual economic and fiscal impacts. Workers on-site and visitors spending new to St. Helena from overnight stays at the resort drive daily economic gains due to operations. These gains become business revenues and value-added income after vendors are paid, wages are paid, and jobs are Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
4 supported within St. Helena. State and local tax revenues, including sales and transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues, are derived from resort operations and subsequent “ripple” or multiplier effects. Because such gains are ongoing, annual changes are estimated, including costs to St. Helena to support the resort’s operations.

The resort’s fiscal impacts include fees paid to St. Helena’s city government, property tax changes due to resort property being an improvement to the land (continuing gains from the construction phase), and gains from property transactions due to the resort’s economic activity creating income for workers, vendors and city government related to resort operations. Our results include only state and local tax impacts, with estimates for St. Helena distinct from state or county-level gains. 1 We also
consider ongoing municipal costs based on recent city budgets and new activity from this site. We start with an overview of the project, estimate assumptions, and report methodology. The economic and fiscal impact estimates are followed by a summary to conclude the report.

Project Overview
The project is known as St. Helena Resort as of March 2024. Noble House Hotels & Resorts is the developer. The property is planned for a specific portion of 2800 Main Street in St Helena, California (see map below). Access to the property would come from: (1) Deer Park Road, (2) from the Charles Krug Winery, and (3) from the Napa Valley Wine Train depot in St. Helena.

The resort would be constructed adjacent to the northern terminus of the Wine Train’s rail tracks. The proposal plans
to develop approximately 10
acres of unused ground on
the Charles Krug winery
property, including a oneacre landscape area. The
current design is for 52
rooms with the ability to
create 56 rooms within the
same building footprint.

These rooms are in a twostory estate house with 14
guest rooms and 38 guest
rooms spread out across 17
one-story villa buildings, two villa buildings with two stories each, and two rail car guest rooms.

Additional planned amenities include an organic culinary garden and olive tree grove, meeting 1 The resort has future plans to add 50 housing units for on-site workers and may include additional workers for other St.

Helena businesses to increase the local workforce available for job openings. To remain conservative we do not add the construction or occupancy impacts of these units to our analysis. 
N
Source: Google Maps
Downtown
St. Helena
N
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
5 and event spaces, swimming pools, and an on-site spa and restaurant. The final design ultimately dictates the actual project costs. The economic and fiscal impacts come from this project’s two phases: construction and resort operations.

Construction Phase
Once ground is broken, approximately 15 to 18 months are needed to complete the construction. This analysis assumes construction expenses are split between hard and soft costs. Hard costs relate to on-site project work, including what goes in each room and office (fixtures, furniture, equipment, or FF&E). Soft costs are administrative, design, and legal costs.

We remain conservative by recognizing only a subset of the total cost estimates, as some spending will occur outside St. Helena. We identify costs used in the final economic impact estimates by an asterisk (*) in the list below; not all the costs will be spent inside St. Helena. We include the entire contingency fund in our hard-cost estimates. • Hard Costs of $66.7 million over 16 months
o Construction = $58.2 million*
o Fixtures, Furniture and Equipment (FF&E) = $5.52 million o Other costs = $2.93 million
• Soft Costs of $15.53 million
o Permits and Legal Costs = $1.99 million*
o Design = $3.33 million
o Project Management = $1.0 million*
o Developer fees = $2.67 million*
o Marketing for opening = $4.0 million*
o Other Costs = $2.54 million
• Contingency costs for project = $3.33 million*
• Financing Costs = $9.09 million
• Totals = $103.76 million (as of March 2024)
o Total assigned to St. Helena for economic impact analysis based on estimated spending in St. Helena:
▪ $61.5 million for hard costs (including contingency); ▪ $9.66 million for soft costs.

The operations phase begins once construction is complete. Once operations begin, the resort welcomes guests and begins to generate income. We assume the two phases are sequential; within two months of construction ending, the operations phase begins.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
6 Operations Phase
Based on current forecasts for resort revenues, costs, and hiring levels, we use years 1 to 5 of operations to estimate the resort’s economic and fiscal impacts once visitors begin to stay overnight. The list below summarizes the assumptions used in the calculations. • Hiring will average 101 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff for years 1 to 5; • The expected annual occupancy rates on average for years 1 to 5 is 55.3%; o The assumed range is between 32.5% in year 1 to 71.5% in year 5; • The expected annual average daily room rate in current dollars is $1,716 for years 1 to 5; o The assumed range is between $1,849 in year 1 to $1,700 in year 5; • Number of available rooms = 52 (18,350 hotel nights added to the local/regional inventory); • Estimated operational expenses as a percentage of hotel revenues = 68.3% o Operational expenses suggest potential vendor revenues derived from the resort for St. Helena businesses;
• Expected transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues = $2,568,900 per year, using 15% as the TOT rate (with 13% as the core rate for the City of St. Helena, as discussed below); and • Year 1 is currently forecasted as 2027 to start operations.

The indirect and induced effects (the broader economic effects on the local economy, including additional taxable transactions) on St. Helena’s city economy are based on the city’s economic breadth and depth. As shown in the estimates below, the resort’s hiring of workers, wages paid to these workers, vendor payments, and broader spending by overnight guests are critical ways this resort affects St. Helena’s economy. These are the economic impacts.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
7 Methodology
The levels of spending, wages, and revenues above help determine the starting point of “direct” economic impacts, as described below and estimated by the IMPLAN® model.2 Figure 1: Economic Impacts
Direct effects come from a business or a construction project generating revenue or costs and then paying vendors and workers as costs of operations. Indirect effects come from worker and vendor spending on various merchants, vendors, and employees, creating a second round of supported business revenues, jobs, wages, and tax revenues. This round of spending creates further induced effects. As affected employees and businesses spend on purchasing or producing goods and services within St. Helena’s city limits (where taxable sales (including hotel stays that generate transient occupancy tax or TOT revenues) for the city government would apply), business revenues rise for grocery stores, marketing and public relations, personal services, restaurants, accountants, carpenters, and various other industries.

Estimated fiscal impacts come from various transactions and affect federal, state, county, and city finances. We show state and local tax revenues only to focus on those sources of funds directly related to city government. Costs to the City of St. Helena would be partially offset by fees paid during construction and ongoing revenues. Our analysis below considers the construction period and then five (5) years of operations.

An essential aspect of economic impact studies is what is retained in the local economy from 2 Please see http://www.implan.com for more information on IMPLAN® and also the “Economic Impact Estimation” section in this report.

Induced
Impacts
Indirect
Impacts
Direct
Impacts
Total
Economic
Impacts
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
8 each project phase and ongoing revenues, wages, and taxes. Value-added revenues are those gains “added” to the local economy and not leaked away based on purchases elsewhere from incomes made locally. As shown below, wages and salaries of workers on-site are vital expenses during both phases that provide income to local residents. By economic necessity or choice, it is essential to consider how many on-site workers would live in St. Helena versus some other place (such as Santa Rosa or the city of Napa). The breadth of the local economy, in terms of industry mix, helps retain local gains versus leaking away to other areas.

St. Helena as a City Economy
Northern Napa County employers are primarily in the wine industry (wineries and vineyards), restaurants, healthcare (St. Helena Hospital is a significant employer northeast of the city of St.

Helena), and an array of professional services businesses (legal, accounting, architecture, etc.).

In contrast to southern Napa Valley, “Up Valley” Napa County is more rural, with smaller towns (Calistoga, St. Helena, and Yountville). There are long-standing commute patterns into St.

Helena from other places to work at St. Helena employers. Gains from the resort’s daily operations partially remain in St. Helena versus other parts of Napa County and beyond based on where spending is done and vendor relationships exist. From 2010 to 2021 (the latest official data available on commute patterns), employers in St. Helena hired between 87 and 90 percent of local workers outside St. Helena. The more workers are local, the more their spending is retained at local merchants (grocery, medical and dental services, etc.).3 In the estimates below, the indirect and induced gains from both project phases are small compared to the direct gains because St. Helena’s economy is minuscule compared to the surrounding area.

In 2022, the latest data available and estimated for cities in California by the Census Bureau, the following data provide some perspectives. Figure 2 shows the mix of employers by their industry’s proportion of total city employment for St. Helena. For the income generated by local businesses that remain in St. Helena (value-added income or gross city product, an analog to the national-level gross domestic product or GDP), Figure 3 shows the industry breadth in St.

Helena. Notice that manufacturing, as related to the wine industry, dominates employment and value-added income in St. Helena. St. Helena employs approximately 6.75 percent of Napa County’s total employed workers.
3 See the Longitudinal Employment and Housing Database of the federal Census Bureau at http://lehd.ces.census.gov for more details and data.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
9 Figure 2: St. Helena Industry Mix, Employment Levels, 2022, % of City Total Sources: IMPLAN®, Census Bureau, and Author’s Calculations St. Helena’s economic mix is essential to reducing “leakage” as more visitors come to town to enjoy this resort or as more jobs on site are offered. Leakages are lost business or government revenues in other areas because of local economic activity, creating gains for other areas where vendors or workers live.

The housing construction associated with the resort will provide additional economic benefits, which are not analyzed in this report. The resort’s revenues are driven by visitors who stay overnight in St. Helena, a marketplace with voluminous regional competition.

Figure 3: St. Helena Industry Mix, Gross City Output, 2022 Dollars for 2022, % of City Total Sources: IMPLAN®, Census Bureau, and Author’s Calculations Ag

9.3%
Manufacturing

31.4%
Professional
Services

7.2%
Healthcare

9.2%
Hotels and
Restaurants

10.4%
Retail

5.3%
Construction

4.7%
All Others

22.6%
Ag

5.3%
Manufacturing

43.6%
Professional
Services

5.2%
Healthcare

9.6%
Hotels and
Restaurants

6.7%
Retail

3.8%
Construction

4.2%
All Others

21.6%
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
10 Recent Regional Performance of Overnight Stays: Napa County Napa County has become synonymous with food and wine, and adults come to California for a European-style experience. St. Helena’s location is close to many wineries in northern Napa County, including some along the Silverado Trail. St. Helena is a small center of restaurants, wineries, and retailers with a market focus on visitors. Visitors may come from points worldwide or surrounding counties throughout northern California.

Recent data on the larger overnight-stay market in Napa County is shown in Figure 4 below.

These properties are broad in breadth, from budget hotels (Motel 6) to luxury resorts (Stanly Ranch and Silverado) in Napa County. The data also show typical tourism seasonality when comparing Napa County, Sonoma County, and San Francisco. A primary indicator of market strength is the estimated occupancy rate of available rooms based on the current number of hotel properties. The average daily rate (ADR) is another indicator of demand; an increase in ADR, the price offered for a room by an overnight stay property on average every day, suggests that hotel demand is rising. The supply of hotel rooms evolves slowly across a region, so demand generally drives a regional market for overnight stays versus a significant change in the number of new rooms. When occupancy rates and ADR are multiplied, revenue per available room (RevPAR) is the basis for a city economy's transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues.

Figures 4 and 5 show occupancy rates and ADRs for Napa, Sonoma, and San Francisco counties.

As a central air travel hub, San Francisco (SFO) has acted as a regional portal for international and national visitors to the Bay Area and, ultimately, Napa County. Sonoma County Airport (STS) acts as another regional portal. In some cases, resort patrons will come by their transportation, from driving to being flown by private plane.

Figure 4: Occupancy Rates (%) and ADR (Current $), Napa County, April 2019 to December 2023 Source: Smith Travel Research and Author’s Calculations The volume of passengers and hotel choices in San Francisco create competition and

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
$-
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
ADR Occ Rate
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
11 partnerships based on visitor desires. Notice, in all cases, the pandemic’s effects on these counties' markets. Dean Runyan Associates provides data for all 58 counties in California in terms of economic impact from travel based on their estimates of overnight stays and perperson spending when on vacation.

For St. Helena, the city economy is driven by local wineries, restaurants, retail, vineyards, and health care. As a small city in a rural county, St. Helena provides a job market for residents in northern Napa County or adjacent counties (Lake or Sonoma counties). Tourism data shows that staying in St. Helena overnight has been tracked with Napa County overall (see Figure 8).

Traveling to St. Helena, especially from outside Napa County, means passing through either the city of Napa and points south within Napa County, Sonoma, or Marin counties.

The resort provides another relatively large employer (101 employees would imply almost two percent more jobs in St. Helena once the resort is operational) and 10 percent more transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues, as shown below. Sales tax and property tax revenue are additional tax gains from this resort’s construction and operations. A key component of how this resort affects a local economy is through additional transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues. The overnight stay revenues of city hoteliers in Figure 8 generate TOT revenues.

Figure 5: Occupancy Rates, Napa County, Sonoma County, and San Francisco, April 2019 to December 2023
Source: Smith Travel Research and Author’s Calculations

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
Apr-19
Jun-19
Aug-19
Oct-19
Dec-19
Feb-20
Apr-20
Jun-20
Aug-20
Oct-20
Dec-20
Feb-21
Apr-21
Jun-21
Aug-21
Oct-21
Dec-21
Feb-22
Apr-22
Jun-22
Aug-22
Oct-22
Dec-22
Feb-23
Apr-23
Jun-23
Aug-23
Oct-23
Dec-23
Napa County San Francisco Sonoma County
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
12 Figure 6: Average Daily Rates, Napa County, Sonoma County, and San Francisco, April 2019 to December 2023
Source: Smith Travel Research and Author’s Calculations Figure 7: Traveler Data for Overnight Stay Spending in Napa County, 2013 to 2023 (est.), Current Dollars Source: Dean Runyan Associates and Author’s Calculations Figure 8: Napa County and St. Helena Estimated Hotel Revenues in Current Dollars, 2013 to 2022, Index (2019 = 100)
Sources: City of St. Helena, Dean Runyan Associates, and author’s calculations $-
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
Apr-19
Jun-19
Aug-19
Oct-19
Dec-19
Feb-20
Apr-20
Jun-20
Aug-20
Oct-20
Dec-20
Feb-21
Apr-21
Jun-21
Aug-21
Oct-21
Dec-21
Feb-22
Apr-22
Jun-22
Aug-22
Oct-22
Dec-22
Feb-23
Apr-23
Jun-23
Aug-23
Oct-23
Dec-23
Napa County San Francisco Sonoma County
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Hotel, Motel, STVR Private Home Campground 2nd Home Total Spending

0.0 50.0
100.0
150.0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Napa County St. Helena
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
13 Table 1 shows the progression of TOT tax revenues for St. Helena from fiscal year 2013-14 to 2022-23. Using the projected growth of TOT revenues to 2027, we show the estimated jump in TOT revenues when this resort starts operations. In Table 5, we consider how additional TOT revenues from this resort provide both borrowing capacity and the ability to pay off borrowing for the city in terms of new infrastructure or improvements.

Table 1: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues, Various TOT Rates St. Helena, Fiscal Years 2012-13 to 2022-23, Current Dollars Fiscal
Year End
St. Helena
TOT History
2013 $1,610,039
2014 $1,731,740
2015 $1,848,419
2016 $1,980,116
2017 $2,212,455
2018 $2,806,658
2019 $3,296,741
2020 $2,485,353
2021 $3,762,794
2022 $4,421,435
2023 $4,066,538
Source: City of St. Helena, Author’s Calculations
St. Helena’s Fiscal Budget: An Overview
Figure 9 shows the mix of significant city expenses in the 2019-20 fiscal year as a pre-pandemic benchmark compared to the latest fiscal year (2022-23) shown in Figure 10. These data are nominal and not inflation-adjusted. Notice the larger expenditures are for public safety (police and fire), public works (city infrastructure), and general government administration. There will be more expenditures toward public safety in 2022-23 as the budget expands with Measure E funds (from TOT) and sales tax revenues.

Based on St. Helena’s population of 5,300 residents and recent budgets of approximately $20,000,000, we estimate the average municipal cost for the City of St. Helena to be $3,793 per resident or $8,723 per household (occupied housing unit). At full capacity (the most liberal estimate and not the basis of the financial projections below), the resort would have 52 rooms year-round that were occupied by approximately 104 equivalent “residents” (2 people per room night sold).

Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
14 Figure 9: St. Helena City Expenses, 2019-20, Current Dollars, % of Total Source: City of St. Helena, Author’s Calculations
Figure 10: St. Helena City Expenses, 2022-23, Current Dollars, % of Total Source: City of St. Helena, Author’s Calculations
Figures 11 and 12 examine city revenue sources in fiscal years 2019-20 and 2022-23. St.

Helena's revenues come primarily from sales and transient occupancy taxes (TOT), fees, intergovernmental transfers, and grants. Property taxes are the most significant revenue contributor in fiscal year 2022-23, but they are somewhat encumbered for local education and initiatives that involve parcel taxes. Sales taxes and TOT comprise approximately 46 percent of fund sources in the 2022-23 fiscal year.

General
Government

17.0%
Planning/Building

4.0%
Public Safety

23.0%
Public Works

14.0%
Library

6.0%
Parks and Rec

4.0%
Business-Type
Activities

32.0%
General
Government

15.0%
Planning/Building

6.0%
Public Safety
Public Works 30.0%

18.0%
Library

5.0%
Parks and Rec

5.0%
Business-Type
Activities

21.0%
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
15 Figure 11: St. Helena Sources of Funds, Fiscal Year 2022-23 Source: City of St. Helena, Author’s Calculations
In our fiscal impact estimates, we consider how daily employees and visitors to the resort may incur costs on the City of St. Helena as “new” to town. This is a conservative look at the cost of these additional people versus the current employment base or population to compare municipal costs to revenues generated by the resort’s operations.

Figure 12: St. Helena Sources of Funds, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Source: City of St. Helena, Author’s Calculations
As we see in the economic impact estimates, during the construction and operations phases, the resort generates property tax, sales tax, and TOT revenues that augment the City of St.

Helena's sources of funds. Some of those gains come from the broader spending impacts estimated from visitors coming to St. Helena and staying overnight that would not take place without this resort expanding the rooms and amenities in St. Helena to attract overnight visitors and create multiple days of visitor spending per room sold.

Property Tax

28.0%
Sales Tax

26.0%
TOT

20.0%
Operating
Grants and
Contributions

11.0%
Charges for
Services

8.0%
Other Revenues

7.0%
Property Tax

31.0%
Sales Tax

24.0%
TOT

15.0%
Capital Gains
and
Contributions

10.0%
Operating
Grants and
Contributions

9.0%
Charges for
Services

6.0%
Other Revenues

5.0%
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
16 Economic Impact Estimates
Based on the above assumptions, the economic impacts on St. Helena are shown in Tables 2 and 3 in summary form. Each table shows the amount of spending that remains in St. Helena, known as “value-add” income. For the construction phase, a certain amount of local hiring and use of local vendors across all project spending creates localized gains. Table 2 provides the “ripple” effects based on the methodology described above for the construction phase. The data in Tables 2 and 3 can also be seen as an algorithm if the assumptions change. For example, every $10 million in construction spending creates $8.4 million in local income for workers and St. Helena businesses, supporting 70 full-time equivalent workers.

Table 2: Construction Impacts
Incomes (Current Dollars) and Jobs (Number of Workers)
Hard Costs Soft Costs
Annual Average Annual Average
Construction Period
Applicable Spending
(Direct Impacts) $61,500,000 $9,660,000
Value Added $51,662,200 $5,402,400
Wages $20,845,000 $2,790,500
Jobs 316.0 23.0
Indirect Impacts
Value Added $398,100 $259,800
Wages $162,400 $136,300
Jobs 3 2
Induced Impacts
Value Added $255,400 $64,200
Wages $128,400 $32,300
Jobs 2 1
Totals
Value Added Income $52,315,700 $5,726,400
Wages $21,135,800 $2,959,100
Jobs 321.0 26.0
For operations, the first five years show rising demand for the resort as a place to stay overnight to long-term average levels. Operations cannot begin until the construction phase ends. A daily flow of overnight visitors to the resort increases spending in St. Helena. Such spending creates more demand for an array of vendors. Similarly to the construction impacts, Table 3 shows the effects of having visitors on property and in St. Helena daily and throughout Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
17 the year. The value-added incomes, including wages and vendor payments, are generated and kept in St. Helena for local businesses. Table 3 summarizes how revenues generated by resort operations have broader economic impacts in St. Helena.

Additional spending that comes to St. Helena due to visitors staying overnight becomes regional spending throughout Napa County. Vendors from the City of Napa, American Canyon, and other parts of Napa County indirectly gain income and job support from resort operations. In the next section, we consider the fiscal impacts on the City of St. Helena’s government and its sources of funds. Table 3 summarizes the estimated impacts of the first five years of resort operations.

Table 3: Operations Impacts
Incomes (Current Dollars) and Jobs (Number of Workers)
Year
1 2 3 4 5
Resort
Revenues $15,316,000 $21,124,000 $26,597,000 $31,129,000 $33,375,000 Value Add $10,749,800 $14,826,300 $18,667,600 $21,848,500 $23,424,900 Wages $5,636,000 $7,773,300 $9,787,200 $11,454,900 $12,281,400 Jobs 93 99 101 104 106
Indirect
Value Add $125,700 $173,400 $218,400 $255,600 $274,000
Wages $75,600 $104,300 $131,300 $153,700 $164,800
Jobs 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7
Induced
Value Add $15,000 $20,700 $26,000 $30,400 $32,600
Wages $7,500 $10,400 $13,100 $15,300 $16,500
Jobs 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Totals
Value Add $10,890,500 $15,020,400 $18,912,000 $22,134,500 $23,731,500 Wages $5,719,100 $7,888,000 $9,931,600 $11,623,900 $12,462,700 Jobs 94.6 100.7 102.7 105.7 107.8
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
18 Fiscal Impact Estimates
Our estimations of fiscal impacts are a blend of the IMPLAN® model’s calculations based on the construction and operations spending and revenues, assumptions for the number of rooms sold annually, the resort’s operations revenues beyond rooms sold (hotel stays are just one part of revenue and taxable sales generated), and the City of St. Helena data on its sources and uses of funds as a municipal government based on its financial reports. 4 Fiscal gains from the resort
come from three primary sources for St. Helena:
• Sales tax revenues;
• Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues; and
• Property tax revenues.

Sales tax revenues come from the spending during the construction project at all levels based on taxable transactions. There may also be some use taxes, but sales taxes will be how the construction project provides retail tax revenues. The resort itself will have taxable transactions on-site. Enhanced spending within St. Helena, from retail sales to restaurant meals to local residents spending more at home because they work on-site, drives more sales and tax revenues. Every year, sales tax revenues start at zero; we assume the sales tax rate for the City of St. Helena is 8.25 percent, whereas the City of St. Helena retains 0.5 percent from the 8.25 percent or 6.06 percent of sales tax revenues generated within the city limits. For example, $1 million of taxable sales in St. Helena would generate $82,500 in sales tax revenue, of which $5,000 (0.5 percent of the taxable sales amount) would go to the City of St. Helena.

Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues depend on overnight stays at the resort and what is paid for each room when occupied. To be conservative, we only estimate additional TOT revenues from the resort and not indirect effects on other properties or short-term rentals because of events supported by the property’s infrastructure. Some of that is captured as “Other Taxes and Fees” in Table 4. For example, corporate or other groups may have events centered on the resort, leading to additional hotel room demand beyond the resort.

TOT revenues depend on average daily rates (ADR) and occupancy rates; their product is revenue per available room or RevPAR. It is RevPAR that determines TOT. One difference between TOT and sales taxes is that the City of St. Helena keeps a more significant proportion of the TOT rate than sales taxes. The 15 percent TOT rate is 12 percent TOT for the City of St.

Helena, 1% local Measure E (to help finance affordable and workforce housing efforts in the City of St. Helena), and 2% for the Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District (TID), providing 4 See https://www.cityofsthelena.org/Archive.aspx?AMID=38 for several years of the City of St. Helena’s financial reports and city budgets.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
19 financing for the Visit Napa Valley organization to promote and market the entire region to potential visitors. In our summary, only 13% of the TOT is counted in the city-level fiscal impacts, which are those that stay in St. Helena directly; we assume no changes over the five years of operational estimates here. Every year, TOT revenues also start at zero.

Property tax revenues come from transactions related to property workers and vendors affected by the resort’s operations. Initial changes in property tax revenues for the City of St.

Helena come from the property’s construction and how the construction spending generates income gains and property transactions that provide an increase in the assessed value of properties in St. Helena. Once operations begin, annual incomes for workers and vendors related to the property allow real-estate transactions that augment property tax revenues each year. In our analysis below, we show those estimates. In contrast to sales and TOT revenues, property taxes, once augmented, remain in terms of an increase in the assessed property values in St. Helena.

This resident equivalent translates to an estimated municipal cost of roughly $394,472 per year for the resort or $3,792 per St. Helena resident. Our fiscal impact estimates show the resort generates approximately $4,045,300 per year from the resort in years 1 to 5; this equates to an average revenue of $38,897 per equivalent resident annually based on 104 equivalent residents in the 52 rooms at the resort for the City of St. Helena. This means the average per equivalent resident annual revenue is over 10 times the municipality’s annual cost per resident. Table 4 provides the estimates as a blend of the estimates from the IMPLAN® model and the construction and operational outcomes assumptions regarding taxable transactions. We show employment and other taxes and fees that construction and subsequent operations would generate at the local and state levels. To be conservative, we show only local fees and other taxes related to the resort.

Table 4: Estimated State and Local Tax Revenues from Construction (Const) and Operations Const Const Operations Operations Operations Operations Operations Year 1 Year 2 1 2 3 4 5
Property Taxes (IMPLAN) $248,400 $82,800 $208,500 $287,600 $362,100 $423,800 $454,400 Property Taxes (Resort) $- $730,400 $745,000 $759,900 $775,100 $790,600 $806,400 Sales Taxes (Resort) $- $- $321,600 $497,500 $690,900 $802,400 $848,200 Sales Taxes (IMPLAN) $179,100 $59,700 $38,500 $53,100 $66,900 $78,300 $84,000 TOT (Resort) $- $- $1,425,900 $1,883,800 $2,268,100 $2,671,400 $2,882,600 Subtotal $427,500 $872,900 $2,739,500 $3,481,900 $4,163,100 $4,766,500 $5,075,600 Employment Taxes $548,400 $182,800 $60,100 $82,900 $104,400 $122,100 $130,900 Other Taxes and Fees $540,700 $180,200 $506,700 $698,900 $880,000 $1,029,900 $1,104,200 Totals $1,516,600 $1,235,900 $3,306,400 $4,263,700 $5,147,500 $5,918,500 $6,310,700 Subtotal Per Hotel Room $- $- $52,700 $67,000 $80,100 $91,700 $97,600 Sources: IMPLAN®, City of St. Helena, Noble House Hotels and Resorts, Author’s Calculations Note: Property taxes are assumed to be 1.18% of the assessed value post-construction and increase by 2% per year over the years, as shown in Table 4. Additional TOT Revenues are estimated at 13% of room revenues. We assumed 52 rooms.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
20 Borrowing Capacity from TOT
Based on TOT revenues increasing, the City of St. Helena can borrow up to four (4) times the income to finance an additional infrastructure or municipal support needed for this resort. By Operations Year 4, this property will have over $10.0 million to the City of St. Helena’s borrowing capacity from TOT alone. Much like an enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD) does with property taxes, the additional TOT generated from this property could be used to pay for the principal and interest of infrastructure debt. The property’s existence acts as collateral for the TOT loan, where the projected revenues guide a lender on the ability to repay the loan. Table 5 shows the estimated change in TOT revenues as provided in Table 4 from 13 percent TOT and the amount of borrowing that could occur in years 1 to 5, with loan payments after year 5.

Table 5: Borrowing Capacity from Additional TOT Revenues from Resort Operations City Borrowing Using
Additional TOT Operations Operations Operations Operations Operations Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
TOT (resort operations) $1,425,900 $1,883,800 $2,268,100 $2,671,400 $2,882,600 Borrowing Capacity $5,703,500 $7,535,100 $9,072,400 $10,685,700 $11,530,400 Sources: Author’s Calculations using Table 4’s Data
Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
21 Conclusions
The economic effects of this resort’s two phases, construction and operations, provide the City of St. Helena with increased tax revenues from additional economic activity. The construction phase starts with workers coming to the site and spending income at St. Helena’s merchants.

The project spending creates an enhanced value for the current property. The hard construction costs create those gains as the resort comes to life. After 15 to 18 months of building, the economic effects of construction end, except for the augmented property tax revenues. Those include new transactions due to workers in St. Helena being paid for the project and the property improvements.

Operations bring overnight visitors to St. Helena, which means more revenue for local businesses daily. We estimate approximately 101 workers on the property by year 5 of operations. Some of these workers will be housed in St. Helena. The visitor spending on and off property creates more income for those workers and more taxable transactions, including transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues. Property and sales taxes are also increased based on the daily operations and broader economic activity throughout the city economy. Table 6 summarizes both phases' economic and fiscal impacts through year 5 of operations. The resort is estimated to generate revenue for the City of St. Helena 10 times the estimated cost.

Table 6: Total Economic Impacts, Current Dollars (Value-Added Income, Wages and Taxes) and Full-Time Equivalent Workers (Jobs)
Construction Construction Operations Operations Operations Operations Operations Year 1 2 1 2 3 4 5
Value Added Income $43,531,575 $1,594,975 $15,456,700 $21,318,100 $26,841,400 $31,415,000 $33,681,600 Jobs 344 115 95 101 103 106 108
Wages $18,071,175 $812,475 $5,719,100 $7,888,000 $9,931,600 $11,623,900 $12,462,700 Tax Revenues* $427,500 $872,900 $2,739,500 $3,481,900 $4,163,100 $4,766,500 $5,075,600 Sales $179,100 $59,700 $360,100 $550,600 $757,800 $880,700 $932,200 TOT $- $- $1,425,900 $1,883,800 $2,268,100 $2,671,400 $2,882,600 Property $248,400 $813,200 $953,500 $1,047,500 $1,137,200 $1,214,400 $1,260,800 Per new Resident** $26,341 $33,480 $40,030 $45,832 $48,804 Per new Household** $52,683 $66,960 $80,060 $91,663 $97,608 * These estimates of tax revenues are specific to St. Helena’s portion of Table 4’s estimates (“Subtotal”) ** We assume 104 equivalent residents and 52 resort rooms/household equivalents over years 1 to 5.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Economic Impact of St. Helena Resort
22 About Economic Forensics and Analytics, Inc. (EFA)
Economic Forensics and Analytics, Inc. (EFA) is an independent research and consulting firm located in Sonoma County, California. Since 2000, EFA has provided clients with customized economic analysis at reasonable costs compared to competitors. We have a wide range of clientele in the private and public sectors across the United States and Canada. For government and businesses alike, EFA provides economic forecasting and economic impact analysis using the latest data and a proven method of describing the effects of decisions.

EFA president Robert Eyler has a doctorate in economics from the University of California at Davis. See more at www.econforensics.com.

Appendix: Table A-1: Industry Detail for St. Helena
Industry in St. Helena Employment
Gross Regional
Product (GRP)
Agriculture 465 $35,561,800
Natural Resources 21 $2,656,900
Utilities 5 $4,195,700
Construction 235 $28,687,600
Food and Beverage Manu 1,433 $274,462,100
Light Manu 58 $8,105,900
Heavy/Advanced Manufacturing 90 $12,233,100
Wholesale 92 $28,130,600
Store Retail 152 $17,360,100
Non-Store Retail 114 $8,324,000
Transportation 12 $549,600
Logistics/Warehousing 20 $1,906,700
Information 1 $476,600
Financial Services 93 $17,186,400
Real Estate 258 $28,535,000
Professional Services 360 $35,313,300
Management Offices and Consulting 76 $11,017,400
Admin and Waste and Security 96 $5,059,800
Private Education 13 $638,500
Healthcare and Non-Profit Health 462 $65,238,200
Events, Entertainment and Fitness 75 $8,011,800
Hotels and Restaurants 524 $45,056,900
Other Personal Services 194 $15,423,400
Government 180 $21,583,300
Estimated Totals 5,029 $675,714,700
Sources: IMPLAN® and EFA
Agenda Item #12.1.

70 Appendix 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.

429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405
www.illingworthrodkin.com [email protected]
REVIEW
Date: May 30, 2024
To: Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Cc Linda Ruffing
North Coast Community Planning
707.272.2343
[email protected]
From: James A. Reyff
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
429 E. Cotati Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
[email protected]
RE: St. Helena Agritourism
SUBJECT: Peer Review of St. Helena Resort Project Environmental Assessment Report Job#24-067
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (I&R) peer reviewed the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) sections of the St. Helena Resort Project Environmental Assessment Report. The results of our review are described below.

Project Understanding Related to Air Quality and GHG
An Environmental Assessment Report was prepared to provide an analysis of the Agritourism Initiative’s potential impacts upon the community and environment. The Agritourism Initiative would amend the City of St. Helena’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to 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.

Specifically, the WPA Overlay would be applied to a certain property to facilitate the development of up to a 56-room maximum world-class resort (proposed project) on the property known as the Charles Krug Winery (winery) located at 2800 Main Street in the City of St. Helena. We Appendix E - Peer Rview Reports

1. Air Quality
Agenda Item #12.1.

Maya DeRosa, City of St. Helena
May 30, 2024 - Page 2
understand the air quality and GHG analyses that we reviewed addressed development of only the project at 2800 Main Street.

The proposed project would consist of up to 36 villas; six second-floor villa units; four estate house suites; one estate house junior suite; seven estate house rooms; and two guest rooms in refurbished, historic train cars facing the Napa Valley Wine Train tracks that bisect the larger winery property.

A variety of public and visitor-serving amenities are also proposed as part of the resort project, from an organic culinary garden and olive tree grove to meeting and event spaces, swimming pools, and an on-site spa and restaurant. The Agritourism Initiative also 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.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start January 2026 and would be completed over the course of 18 months. An estimated 16,700 cubic yards (CY) of import soil would be required to meet the site grading scheme.

Summary of Air Quality Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The air quality analysis indicates that the construction emissions from all construction activities would be below the recommended thresholds of significance for reactive organic gases (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 required 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.

The air quality analysis found less-than-significant impacts with respect to localized carbon monoxide concentrations or health risks. No odor analysis was provided.

Summary of GHG Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

Maya DeRosa, City of St. Helena
May 30, 2024 - Page 3
which would indirectly reduce the effects of GHGs. Note that most emissions are the result of traffic, followed by energy use.

Summary of Traffic Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report Related to Air Quality
The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 576 trips per weekday including adjustments for internalization. Weekend daily trips were not provided. Based on the location and characteristics of the proposed project, the total VMT in the region would be unlikely to change as a result of the proposed project and, in fact, could reduce slightly if future guests are comprised of people who were already intending to visit the area. Additionally, employee VMT is not considered significant. However, to further reduce employee VMT and support the City’s trip reduction and climate policies, Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) were recommended.

These may include carpool incentives, active transportation incentives, subsidized transit passes, guaranteed ride home, bicycle trip-end facilities, and a designated transportation coordinator.

Required EDF 66 includes TDM measures that would be included, such as rideshare/carpool/vanpool promotion and support; education and information on alternative transportation modes, including railway; and a designated TDM coordinator.

Air Quality Peer Review
The air quality analysis was mostly based on use of the CalEEMod recommended by BAAQMD in their latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. This is the appropriate model to use for this type of land use. The primary inputs to the model included:
• Hotel with 56.0 rooms and 99,606 sf of floor space on 257,492 sf landscaped area on 7.26 acres
• Quality Restaurant with 5.39 thousand sf on 0 acres (assumed to be covered in the Hotel acreage) Note traffic study describes restaurant as having 150 seats. • Parking lot with 141 thousand sf on 3.24 acres
The CalEEMod construction modeling was appropriately based on default conditions, given that construction details are not available. It appears that emissions associated with the hauling of 16,700 CY of import material were not included. 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.

We identified two minor issues with the CalEEMod operational modeling:

design,” however, the CalEEMod modeling provided in Appendix C (26/50) 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, discussed below.

The modeling used the traffic study for mobile emissions, with daily trip generation as input represent 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 peak-hour trips were much greater than weekday. For this reason, the operational traffic emissions Agenda Item #12.1.

Maya DeRosa, City of St. Helena
May 30, 2024 - Page 4
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.

The analysis did not include a quantified health risk assessment and we would agree that one is not necessary for the following reasons:
• Sensitive receptors are located at least 200 feet from most construction. • EDF 15 will require diesel-powered construction equipment be equipped with the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type.

Based on reduced emissions through implementation of EDF 15 and the separation distance, construction emissions should not lead to significant health risks.

The air quality study did not address odors. It appears the project would include on-site wastewater treatment and reuse of reclaimed wastewater (page 83 of the Environmental Assessment). There is no description of this 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The prediction of GHG emissions was based on CalEEMod modeling. Comments regarding natural gas use and traffic inputs apply to this portion of the assessment. The Environmental Assessment uses the latest project GHG thresholds recommended in the 2022 BAAQQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which are qualitative in general. Therefore, the prediction of GHG emissions is not a factor in assessing the significance of the project emissions.

Since St. Helena does not have a current GHG reduction plan that addresses future GHG reduction goals , the assessment GHG emissions is based on evaluation of design elements in Criterion A of BAAQMD’s 2022 GHG Significance thresholds1
. There are three issues to be aware of:

1. All electric design. To meet BAAQMD thresholds, the project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).

As discussed above, the CalEEMod modeling indicates natural gas usage. The City should obtain assurances that the project will not include natural gas appliances or plumbing.

2. 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.
1 Defined by BAAQMD as a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)
Agenda Item #12.1.

Maya DeRosa, City of St. Helena
May 30, 2024 - Page 5

3. 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, without any explanation, 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.

The City will have to impose appropriate EV charging requirements upon the Project that are consistent with CALGreen Tier 2 to make a less-than-significant finding for this impact.

Agenda Item #12.1.

WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868 · WRA Project #340184 June 3, 2024
Attn: Maya DeRosa
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
[email protected]
Subject: Peer review of Biological Resources assessment - St. Helena Resort Project, St. Helena, California
Ms. DeRosa:

This letter provides a peer review by WRA, Inc. (WRA) of the Biological Resources portion (section 6.2.3) of the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) for the St. Helena Resort Project, by First Carbon Solutions (2024). The proposed project (Project) is a hotel and resort on the greater Charles Krug Winery property located at 2800 Main Street (APN 009-010-022-000) in the City of St. Helena (City), Napa County, California. The context of the EAR includes the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative, a voter-sponsored initiative that if approved would amend the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow for winery-related development on certain larger, outlying parcels (greater than 110 acres) within the City’s limits that meet other specific criteria.

The EAR also includes Environmental Design Features (EDFs) from the Agritourism Initiative that are designed to address potential environmental issues, including related to biological resources; specific EDFs are also referenced herein when warranted.

No dedicated field work (site visit) occurred in support of this peer review. The information provided herein is based on the materials provided, publicly available information, and WRA’s professional biological resources experience; the latter includes many vineyard and wineryrelated projects in Napa County.

AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS
I (Jason Yakich; author) have over 16 years of biological consulting experience performing general biological assessments, wildlife habitat assessments, breeding bird and other avian surveys, and protocol‐level surveys for several special‐status wildlife species. I have prepared and overseen a variety of general biological and technical reports with a geographic focus on the North Bay counties and North Coast. This includes over 45 vineyard and/or winery-related projects in Napa County since 2017 (many ongoing). I received a Bachelor of Arts in Biology from U.C. Santa Cruz and a Master of Science in Biology from San Francisco State University.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves development of hotel and resort facility within up to 11 acres within the central-western portion of the greater 140-acre Charles Krug Winery property (Project Area). The Appendix E - Peer Review Reports

2. Biological Resources
Agenda Item #12.1.

WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
2 facility would include an estate house, up to 54 guest rooms within several single- and two-story villas, two guest rooms located in historic train cars, and various other amenities (some public) including but not limited to an on-site spa, restaurant, culinary garden, and a vineyard. The Project Area mostly consists of open, disturbed (fallow) land with a gravel substrate and/or ruderal (disturbance-oriented) vegetation.

PEER REVIEW
Overall, the biological resources portion of the EAR is adequate in its presentation of the Project Area and its environs. The Project Area has a history of disturbance and modification and was at least partially dedicated to agriculture by 1940 (Napa County 2024). More recent uses (since 1993) include vineyards (and possibly other crop production) and vehicle/equipment staging and storage (Google Earth 2024, Napa County 2024). 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. Several coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees are present along the northeastern boundary of the Project Area, and oaks and other trees are present along a linear drainage ditch on the northwestern boundary along Deer Park Road.

Aquatic Resources
Sensitive aquatic resources are those protected by one or more federal, state, and/or local regulations; common aquatic features subject to such protections include streams and wetlands (including seasonal wetlands). A review of existing aerial photography indicates that no stream is present within or adjacent to the Project Area (though see references to streams within the greater property below).

The EAR does reference 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) during a site visit in the month of February. Based on a review of aerial photography, no clear signature of a potential wetland is consistently visible (over multiple years), so the specific location of the subject feature is uncertain. 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, ultimately dependent on the jurisdictional assessment of the subject feature(s) in accordance with EDF 31 (Wetlands and Waters).1
WRA concurs with the EAR regarding the need for an
aquatic resources delineation, and stresses that the delineation should consider the history of 1 Note that a jurisdictional determination would be ultimately provided by the Corps and/or RWQCB.

Agenda Item #12.1.

WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
3 modification in the Project Area and how this may affect a jurisdictional determination if any potential wetland features are present.2
The EAR also states that “the adjacent drainage ditches appear to have a direct hydrological connection to the Napa River” (p. 56). 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, though 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, which has increased in extent and density since at least 1993 (Google Earth 2024). If involved in Project review, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) could claim regulatory authority over the vegetation along the ditch if the subject vegetation is classified as “riparian.” The Napa River is Waters of the U.S. and State and thus jurisdictional to the Corps and RWQCB, as well as to CDFW. The EAR notes that the ditch in question 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.

WRA 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. Note that 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. WRA recommends complete avoidance of the ditch and its immediate vicinity via the largest feasible setback, which would likely preclude involvement of the Corps and RWQCB as regards the ditch. Avoidance should also be clearly specified in the final description and plans for the Project. The Project will also presumably require a SWPPP as part of its grading authorization, providing additional measures and monitoring to ensure that incidental impacts to the ditch are avoided; these measures should also be specified in the final project description.

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 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, 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 2 It is WRA’s understanding that no wetland mitigation banks currently service Napa County. As such if compensatory mitigation for wetland loss is needed (via the regulatory permitting process), the creation and/or enhancement of wetland acreage in the vicinity of the Project Area would likely be required.

Agenda Item #12.1.

WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
4 measures to ensure that no adverse impacts to the hydrology of these streams occurs as a result of the Project.

Special-status Species
Plants
As outlined above, the Project Area has been used for agricultural and other purposes and subject to disturbance for decades. Although special-status plants are not referenced in the EAR, the disturbed nature of the Project indicates that such species are highly unlikely or have no potential to occur there or otherwise be impacted by the Project.

Wildlife
The disturbed conditions (including on surrounding lands) and resulting lack of suitable habitats also greatly limit the potential for special-status wildlife to occur within the Project Area. The EAR references two special-status wildlife species (pp. 56-57): 1) white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; state Fully Protected Species), assessed as having potential to nest in trees within or adjacent to the Project Area; and 2) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendiii; state Species of Special Concern), which may roost within the trees. The EAR references EDF 20s (Nesting Birds) and 21 (Roosting Bats), respectively, to address any potential impacts to these species. WRA agrees with both the assessment regarding white-tailed kite and the suitability of EDF 20 to address this species. Townsend’s big-eared bat, however, roosts in caves, mines or secluded portions of buildings (also those abandoned or otherwise underutilized) and is unlikely to use the subject trees for roosting.3
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). WRA recommends that EDF 21 be revised as follows:

Bats, including pallid bats: If feasible, vegetation (including tree) removal and/or construction initiation shall be conducted between September 1 and March 31. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities is to occur during the general maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment and preconstruction survey (if needed)of trees within and adjacent to the Project Area no more than seven days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If no suitable roosting habitat for bats is found, then no further study is warranted.

If an active bat roost is found, a non-disturbance buffer with a 150-foot radius shall be established around the roost unless a smaller buffer zone is approved by CDFW.

Construction may resume once the maternity roost is no longer active or as approved by the qualified biologist. If the roost of a special-status species is to be necessarily removed or otherwise impacted, coordination with CDFW shall occur. Irrespective of time of year, all felled trees with potential bat roosts should remain on the ground for at least 24 hours prior to chipping, off-site removal, or other processing to allow any bats present within the felled trees to escape.
3 EDF 21 itself mentions pallid bat, so perhaps this was the intended species to include in the EAR text.

Agenda Item #12.1.

WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
5 Additionally, 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. Such tables are typical of full California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents for projects of this scale, even for highly disturbed sites.

Bird Nesting – General
As implied in the EIR, 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. WRA recommends that EDF 20 be revised as follows:

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 (one with eggs or young) is found, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest and remain in place so long as the nest is active. Buffers will have a minimum radius of 500 feet for raptors and special-status species, and 150 feet for other birds. Buffers may be reduced in size if on-site observations by the biologist indicate that the reduction will not result in impacts to the nest or breeding success. Buffers may be removed once all young birds have left the nest or as approved by the qualified biologist.

SUMMARY
The Biological Resources section (6.2.3) of the EAR provides generally sufficient documentation of conditions at the Project Area and potential biological resources constraints for the Project. The following summarizes WRA’s peer review, including recommendations.

Aquatic Resources
 An aquatic resources delineation of the Project Area should be performed, including the jurisdictional status (federal and state) of any potential wetland features present.

Regulatory authorizations for any necessary impacts to aquatic features should be obtained from the Corps and/or RWQCB (as warranted), in accordance with EDF 31.  The Project should completely avoid the drainage ditch (including directly associated vegetation) along Deer Park Road, and clearly state and demonstrate this avoidance in project descriptions and plans.
 Current plans show that York Creek (on the eastern boundary of the greater Krug Winery property) is being sufficiently avoided by the Project. The hydrology study required by EDF 80 should include an assessment of on-site well use in the context of avoiding any adverse hydrological impacts to the York Creek and the Napa River.

Special-status Species
 Given the highly disturbed and modified nature of the Project Area, all special-status plant species known from the vicinity are unlikely or have no potential to be present there.

Agenda Item #12.1.

WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
6  Few special-status wildlife species have the potential to be present within or in close enough proximity to be impacted by the Project. Nonetheless, it is recommended that an occurrence potential table for special-status wildlife species known from the vicinity be developed and included in environmental documentation for the Project.  Regarding avoidance of impacts to nesting birds and bat roosts, WRA recommends that EDFs 20 and 21 be respectively revised as outlined herein.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Jason Yakich
Senior Biologist
[email protected]
Ec: Linda Ruffing, North Coast Community Planning
Agenda Item #12.1.

WRA, Inc. | 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com · ph: 415.454.8868
7 REFERENCES
(CDFW) California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA. Accessed: May.

FirstCarbon Solutions, Inc. 2024. St. Helena Resort Project – Environmental Assessment Report.

Prepared for the City of St. Helena, Napa County, California. 87 pp. + Appendices. May

15. Google Earth. 2024. Saint Helena, Marin County area. Image dates: 1993-2023. Most recently accessed: May.

Napa County. 2024. Napa County Online Public Map. Available online:
https://gis.countyofnapa.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0bbafe490c58430d a719ff851c78b7fa. Most recently accessed: May.

Agenda Item #12.1.

1141 Gravenstein Highway S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. 707-823-7400
Email: [email protected]
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page 1
June 4, 2024
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena, Community Development Department
RE: Historic Built Environment Peer Review of the St. Helena Resort Project Environmental Assessment Report and Elements of the Cultural Resources Supporting Information within Appendix E for the Proposed Project within the Charles Krug Winery Property at 2800 Main Street, St Helena, Napa County.

Ms. DeRosa,
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) completed a historic built environment peer review of the St. Helena Resort Project Environmental Assessment Report (EA), completed by First Carbon Solutions (FCS) on May 15, 2024,
1 and elements of the documentation within the “Cultural Resources Supporting Information” of Appendix E of the EA, submitted to the City in support of the voter-sponsored initiative known as the St.

Helena Agritourism Initiative (Agritourism Initiative), not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed St Helena Resort Project (detailed below) is within an 11-acre portion of the 137.80-acre Charles Krug Winery property at 2800 Main Street, St Helena, Napa County, within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 009-010-022 (Property). The Charles Krug Winery is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places Historic Places (NRHP; National Register #74000543; 1974), and the Charles Krug Winery Building is listed as a California State Historical Landmark (# 563).

At the request of the City of St. Helena, the historic built environment peer review was conducted by EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. (“peer reviewer”), who exceeds the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards in Architectural History and History. The peer review was completed to provide guidance and recommendations to the City of St. Helena and the City Council, as needed.

St. Helena Agritourism Initiative Background
The St Helena Resort Project was proposed via a voter-sponsored initiative pursuant to Section 9200 et seq. of the California Election Code laws that would allow for approval of a 56-room maximum resort facility within the Charles Krug Winery Property by the St. Helena City Council, without review under CEQA. The voter-sponsored initiative (aka ballot measure), titled the “St. Helena Agritourism Initiative” (Agritourism Initiative), contains text changes necessary to amend the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code to create a Winery and Planned Agritourism (WPA) Overlay Zone, which would facilitate the development of a 56-room resort hotel and agritourism facility (proposed project).

Recently, the Agritourism Initiative ballot measure received enough voter support to qualify to be presented to the St. Helena City Council for further action. If the ballot measure is approved by the City Council, the Agritourism Initiative would amend the City of St. Helena’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to establish the WPA Overlay, which can only be applied on up to 11 acres of parcels in excess 1 First Carbon Solutions, “St. Helena Resort Project Environmental Assessment Report,” May 15, 2024.

Appendix E - Peer Review Reports

3. Historic Resources
Agenda Item #12.1.

1141 Gravenstein Highway S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. 707-823-7400
Email: [email protected]
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page 2
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. Specifically, the WPA Overlay would be applied to the Property to facilitate the development of the St. Helena Resort Project within the Charles Krug Winery Property, a 56-room maximum resort with 36 villas, six second-floor villa units; four estate house suites; one estate house junior suite; seven estate house rooms; and two guest rooms in refurbished, historic train cars facing the Napa Valley Wine Train tracks that bisect the larger winery property. As well as various public and visitor-serving amenities, such as an organic culinary garden and olive tree grove for meeting and event spaces, swimming pools, and an on-site spa and restaurant.

In addition, the Agritourism Initiative would introduce 92 specific Environmental Design Features (EDFs) addressing 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 Agritourism Initiative requires the proposed project to adhere to and implement the EDFs.

Charles Krug Winery Historical Status
To begin the peer review, EDS has provided the following section detailing the current historical status of the previously documented built environment resources within the Charles Krug Winery Property.

Charles Krug Winery
• 1957: The Charles Krug Winery building was listed as a California State Historical Landmark (# 563).
• 1974: The Charles Krug Winery Property was listed on the NRHP (National Register #74000543).

The listing includes the 1874 Winery Building (Redwood Cellar) and the 1881 Stable Building (the Oak House or Carriage House), known as the Winery Complex. Although the 1974 listing did not fully document the Property, the Statement of Significance on the NRHP form states, “The Charles Krug Winery and its surrounding vineyards are living reminders of a man and his accomplishments which form an integral part of the cultural and commercial heritage of California.” 2 Although the
listing is unclear, the “Winery Complex” was listed under Criterion B at the state level for its association with Charles Krug within a period of significance from 1861 to 1892. • 2007: The Charles Krug Winery was part of a Historic Property Tax Credit project that included seismic strengthening and rehabilitation of the 1874 Winery Building (Redwood Cellar) and alterations to the 1881 Stable Building (Oak House or the Carriage House). As part of the certification process, and only for the purpose of the rehabilitation project, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) requested that the applicant provide supplemental documentation of the Property, including information on previously undocumented buildings within the Property, including a “Storage Shed, Tasting and Retail Room, Boiler House, Restroom Building, Barbecue Pavilion, Winery Operations Facility, Scale Facility, Hopers, and the three dwellings.” Information about these buildings was provided as part of the tax credit application for association with 2 National Register of Historic Places, “Charles Krug Winery,” (National Register #74000543), 1974.

Agenda Item #12.1.

1141 Gravenstein Highway S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. 707-823-7400
Email: [email protected]
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page 3
Charles Krug but was not evaluated for individual eligibility and was not part of an amendment to the Charles Krug Winery National Register listing. The tax credit application also included updated photographs of the Property provided to the OHP and NPS.

EDS Comments
• The 1874 Winery Building (Redwood Cellar) and the 1881 Stable Building (aka the Oak House or Carriage House) within the Charles Krug Wine Property are listed on the NRHP and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) for association with Charles Krug; however, the other current built environment resources, including three houses, a stone shed, production/warehouse/office, tasting room, shop, shed, toilets (page 125 of Appendix E), vineyards, and other elements within the Charles Krug Winery Property have not been documented or evaluated for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR.3In addition, EDS suggests that the Property may also be eligible for its association with the Mondavi family, specifically Cesare, Peter, and Robert Mondavi, who, according to the supplemental documentation provided in 2007 by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to the NPS as part of a Historic Property Tax Credit project (Pages 65-222 of Appendix E), “revitalized the site, renovated the main buildings, and established the "C.K. Mondavi" label. The Mondavi family brought innovation to the winery, experimenting with cold fermentation, focusing on Cabernet Sauvignon varietals, and introducing French oak for aging. The Mondavi family did things first at the Krug Winery that were to catch on in other places and become industry standards, such as developing winery tourism as early as 1949 with regular guided tours and a visitor center. The Mondavi's published a wine newsletter, possibly the first in California. The family and their award-winning wines were instrumental in the growth of the wine industry in California.”
Napa Valley Railroad/Southern Pacific Railroad Historical Status • A portion of the Napa Valley Railroad/Southern Pacific Railroad (P-28-000966) is located within the Property. The Napa Valley Railroad/Southern Pacific Railroad line has been the subject of numerous surveys, and the line is recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHR; however, the rail line has not been evaluated for listing on the CRHR.4 EDS Comments
• EDS 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. As such, if a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) of the Property is completed before the approval of the Agritourism Initiative, the section of the Napa Valley Railroad/Southern Pacific Railroad within the Property should be evaluated to determine if this section of the rail line is individually eligible or as part of a district, for its association with the Charles Krug Winery, or 3 Although there is information about these built resources within the Historic Property Tax Credit project, they were not documented or evaluated.
4 Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, “Napa Valley-Southern Pacific RR” (P-28-000996).

Agenda Item #12.1.

1141 Gravenstein Highway S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. 707-823-7400
Email: [email protected]
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page 4
the Mondavi family.

General Comments
• The EA does not appear to have been written with the assistance of a professional, qualified architectural historian who is needed to advise on potential impacts to historic built environment resources.

EDS Review of the First Carbon Solutions Environment Assessment and Appendix E Although the Agritourism Initiative is not subject to review under the CEQA, the FCS EA and Appendix E contain information regarding historic built environment cultural resources within the Property. The following section focuses on reviewing the EA and Appendix E and provides recommendations related to the known historic built environment resources within the Property.

EA: Table 3; Page 3
“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. allowing for the development of the proposed St Helena Resort Project (detailed below) within the Charles Krug Winery.” EDS Comments
In Table 3, FCS lists potential impacts on historic built environment cultural resources, including the following “elements.”
• Historic vineyard rows associated with the National Register-listed Charles Krug Winery • Charles Krug Winery “viewshed”
• Napa Valley Wine Train/Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks EDS Review: Historic Vineyard
• The term “historic vineyard” is only used once in the EA within Table 3, and no details explain this reference within the EA or Appendix E. In addition, Page 58 of the EA states the “vineyard has been surveyed and documented (Appendix E).” EDS reviewed Appendix E 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

1141 Gravenstein Highway S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. 707-823-7400
Email: [email protected]
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page 5
resources within the Property. As such, impacts as a result of the Agritourism Initiative cannot be accessed based on the current documentation within the EA or Appendix E.

EDS Recommendations:

EDS recommends that an HRE of the Charles Krug Winery Property is completed prior to moving forward with the approval of the Agritourism Initiative, as the demolition of “historic vineyards” or a reduction of the vineyard within the Property could significantly impact its integrity, including its feeling, setting, and association.

EDS Review: Charles Krug Winery “viewshed”
• Although the EA clearly states that there could be impacts to the Charles Krug Winery “viewshed” (EA pages 3, 58, 59, and 63) as a result of the Agritourism Initiative that would allow for the construction of the St. Helena Resort Project, the term “viewshed” is not used in accessing impacts to historic built environment resources. In addition, the statement on Page 58 of the EA that “The Agritourism Initiative would not directly impact the buildings listed in the NRHP and CRHR. It is currently assumed that any potential impacts to these buildings would be related to the viewshed” may be misleading. Although the two buildings listed on the NRHP/CRHR may not be directly impacted, the other buildings, vineyards, and various built environment elements, including roads, fencing, and other elements, have not been evaluated for the NRHP or the CRHR.

As such, direct or indirect impacts cannot be accessed based on the current documentation with the EA or Appendix E.

EDS Recommendations:

It appears that the term “viewshed” within the EA 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. As such, EDS recommends that the EA clarify the term “viewshed.” EDS also recommends that an HRE of the Krug Winery Property be completed prior to moving forward with the Agritourism Initiative, as the demolition of any “historic vineyards,” the reduction of the vineyards, and changes to the setting of the Property, including roads, setbacks, fencing, and views, and introduction of new building can significantly affect the integrity of the historic property/historical resource.

In addition, EDS recommends 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 historic property owners, architects, contractors, and the City of St. Helena (project reviewers) prior to the beginning of any work within the National Register-listed Property.

Additional Comments:
• EA; Page 58: FCS states the “Winery Buildings” are “Potentially Eligible for State Historical Landmark”; however, the 1874 Charles Krug Winery Building (Redwood Cellar) is a listed landmark (#563).
• EA: Section 6.2.4, Page 58: Although the EA states a “cultural resource pedestrian survey of the Agenda Item #12.1.

1141 Gravenstein Highway S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. 707-823-7400
Email: [email protected]
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page 6
project site was completed on February 22, 2024”; however, it does not appear that a qualified architectural historian participated in the survey and that the vineyards were documented or evaluated.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The current documentation of the Charles Krug Winery Property lacks complete documentation and evaluation of the built environment resources within the Property. In addition, it does not appear that the association with the Mondavi family has been considered part of the Property's significance. This is extremely important to address before the approval of the Agritourism Initiative, particularly given the importance of the Mondavi family to the wine industry in Napa Valley. As such, EDS recommends that the City of St. Helena consider requiring the completion of an HRE and DPR 523 forms and a Standards review to determine if there will be any impacts to historic properties/historical resources.

Thank you for the opportunity to complete this review.

Sincerely,
Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Principal Architectural Historian Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
[email protected]
Agenda Item #12.1.

429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405
www.illingworthrodkin.com [email protected]
Date: May 30, 2024
To: Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Cc Linda Ruffing
North Coast Community Planning
707.272.2343
[email protected]
From: Paul R. Donavan, ScD
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
429 E. Cotati Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
[email protected]
RE: St. Helena Agritourism
SUBJECT: Peer Review of St. Helena Resort Project Environmental Assessment Report Regarding Noise
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (I&R) peer reviewed the noise section of the St. Helena Resort Project Environmental Assessment Report. The results of our review are described below.

Project Understanding Related to Noise
An Environmental Assessment Report was prepared to provide an analysis of the Agritourism Initiative’s potential impacts upon the community and environment. The Agritourism Initiative would amend the City of St. Helena’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to 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.

Specifically, the WPA Overlay would be applied to a certain property to facilitate the development of up to a 56-room maximum world-class resort (proposed project) on the property known as the Charles Krug Winery (winery) located at 2800 Main Street in the City of St. Helena. I&R reviewed Section 6.2.9 – Noise and the corresponding Appendix H: Noise Calculations Sheets pertaining to the proposed project at 2800 Main Street in St. Helena, California.

Appendix E - Peer Review
Reports 5. Noise
Agenda Item #12.1.

Maya DeRosa, City of St. Helena
May 30, 2024 - Page 2
The proposed project would consist of up to 36 villas; six second-floor villa units; four estate house suites; one estate house junior suite; seven estate house rooms; and two guest rooms in refurbished, historic train cars facing the Napa Valley Wine Train tracks that bisect the larger winery property.

A variety of public and visitor-serving amenities are also proposed as part of the resort project, from an organic culinary garden and olive tree grove to meeting and event spaces, swimming pools, and an on-site spa and restaurant. The Agritourism Initiative also 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. Two of these address noise management.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start January 2026 and would be completed over the course of 18 months. An estimated 16,700 cubic yards (CY) of import soil would be required to meet the site grading scheme.

Summary of Noise Findings in the Environmental Assessment Report The Noise Section, 6.2.9, is divided into areas that consider Construction Noise Impacts, Operational/Stationary Sources Noise Impact, Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts, Shortterm Vibration Impacts, Operational Vibration Impacts, and Airport Noise Impacts. The Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts are further subdivided into Mechanical Equipment Operations and Parking Lot Activities. The analysis identifies two EDFs that shall be implemented if the project is approved. The first (EDF 47) is that the construction contractors shall be required to provide and implement a Noise Management Plan to reduce construction noise at off-site residences to the extent feasible. The second (EDF 48) addresses operational issues to be included in a noise management plan. These include restricting the time in which specific operations can only be performed to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and equipping noise-generating equipment with noise control devices, using haul routes that avoid noise sensitive land uses, locating staging areas and construction material storage away from adjacent residences, and using noise reducing measures for pile driving activities. Vibration levels were assessed for construction activities and found to be well below the levels that could create structural damage to the existing structures on the property. Operational vibration levels were found to be lower than that detectible for persons in the project vicinity. Noise from the Napa County Airport 23 miles south of the project may produce audible levels when overflying the project site, however, not above acceptable standards.

Noise Peer Review
Construction Noise
A number of issues regarding the prediction of construction noise levels should be clarified. First, it appears that the calculation in pages 70 and 71 were based on the Federal Highway Roadway Construction Noise Model, RCNM. If this is so, it should be stated. 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 site 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. 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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Maya DeRosa, City of St. Helena
May 30, 2024 - Page 3
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 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.

Parking Lot Noise
The estimated source levels are expressed as Lmax however, the estimated interior levels are expressed as Leq. Issues such as door slams and possible horn honks are basically impulsive.

Assuming the worst case of 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, the impulsive noise levels would still be only about 15 dBA Lmax on the interior and 40 dBA Lmax on the exterior for the worst case. The Leq levels would even be substantially lower. It may be worthwhile to note this in the discussion.

Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts
No issues or concerns were noted for this section.

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
A reference for the source level of a small vibratory roller should be provided. It should be noted as to whether or not the winery building is deemed to be a historic structure as lower threshold levels may be appropriate; however, the assessment would not be affected.

Operational Vibration Impacts
No issues or concerns were noted for this section.

Airport Noise Impacts
No issues or concerns were noted for this section.

General Comments
Throughout the Noise section, many noise levels are cited without any references. This should be addressed by the proper references, or at least citing the source in the write-up itself. Also it is assumed that the RCNM was used for the calculations and should be stated if that is the case.

Submitted by
Paul R. Donavan, Sc.D.

Principal
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
May 22, 2024 Project# 21900
To: Paul Wade, P.E.

Coastland Civil Engineering
1400 Neotomas Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
From: Aaron Elias, T.E.

RE: Krug Resort TIS Review
This technical memorandum documents Kittelson & Associates, Inc. review of a transportation impact study (TIS) performed by W-Trans and dated April 16, 2024 for a resort project proposed to be located at 2800 Main Street in St. Helena, CA. The proposed project would construct a 56-room resort with a 150- seat restaurant. Based on our review of the TIS, Kittelson had the following comments for W-Trans:
• Executive Summary (4th Paragraph)
o Queueing is not a CEQA impact. Kittelson recommends not using “less-than-significant” or “significant” language to describe non-CEQA issues. This is a minor language issue and no updates to the TIS are recommended unless it is updated for other reasons. • Study Areas and Periods, Page 4, Final Paragraph
o Text notes traffic counts were collected on Friday, January 26th and Saturday, January 27th between 4 and 6 PM. Typical 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 was collected rather than midday. Please provide additional documentation such as 7-day tube counts or other studies for why the counts collected represent peak conditions in St Helena rather than the use of typical midweek PM and Saturday midday counts.
• Collision History, Page 5, Final Paragraph
o The text notes that half the collisions were broadside collisions and one was head on with a conclusion that all involved different types of movements and “Therefore, due to lack of similarity between the collisions, no remedial action is suggested.” It is unclear how half the collisions at a “T” intersection could be broadsides and there be a lack of similarity between them. The broadsides most certainly all occurred with vehicles turning into and out of Deer Park Road so they are all in fact related to the unsignalized control of the intersection. Additionally, it is recommended the last sentence of the paragraph be removed. The statement “within normal safety parameters” is not backed up by any facts and is not typical term. Kittelson suggests the section be rewritten to focus on the known facts. Focus should then be on whether these collisions meet the safety signal warrant.

Are there enough collisions that trigger the safety warrant. If not, simply state the number of collisions is not sufficient to meet safety warrants for the installation of a traffic signal per the MUTCD.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
Appendix E - Peer Review Reports

6. Transportation Agenda Item #12.1.

June 20, 2024 Page 2
Krug Resort TIS Review
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Trip Generation, Page 6, 2nd Paragraph
o Please provide additional documentation for why 25% of restaurant patrons are assumed to come from the hotel.
• Trip Distribution, Page 8, Table
o The overall trip distribution seems a little off. The travel time between the project site and SR 12 south of Napa is about the same whether you take SR 29 or Silverado Trail yet almost all of the southbound traffic is assumed to take Silverado Trail. I would anticipate something closer to 60/40 or 50/50. While the TIS states a sign will direct people to Silverado Trail, most people will use their GPS which based on the travel time is just as likely to send people to SR 29 as Silverado Trail. Is there any additional documentation you can add to the TIS on why Silverado Trail is so much more preferred than SR 29? • VMT Section, Pages 12-14
o Kittelson 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 nonlocals. Converting the hotel daily trip generation into an equivalent retail square footage to show the hotel is a local serving use will potentially open the project up to litigation.

Kittelson suggests removing the section on Hotel and Restaurant customer VMT and only includes the calculations for employee VMT. Employee VMT is the only thing the hotel can really control anyway, and customer trips are likely coming to St Helena whether the hotel is built or not. It is cleaner to just analyze the project for its effect on employee VMT.
• Existing Plus Project Conditions, Page 22
o LOS for two-way stop controlled intersections is traditionally reported for the worst approach. Just because the overall intersection shows acceptable does not mean the twoway stop controlled intersection operates well. Since the westbound approach is failing today and the project makes it worse, the St Helena criteria for looking at whether signalization is warranted should be performed. Please perform a peak hour signal warrant analysis both with and without the project under existing and future conditions to determine whether the signal warrants are met.
• Parking, Page 25
o Please include 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.

Memorandum
Santa Rosa | Auburn | Pleasant Hill | Fairfield
www.coastlandcivil.com
Date: June 7, 2024
To: Joseph Leach, Public Works Director/City Engineer
From: Paul W. Wade, Consulting Civil Engineer
Subject: St. Helena Resort – Comments on the Sherwood Infrastructure Report Sections 3.0 Water and 3.2 Water Demands
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-feet per acre per year of new groundwater withdrawals. One acre-foot is equivalent to 325,851 gallons. Because the Nobel 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.

Comments:

This last sentence seems to be misconstruing the maximum annual allowance for new groundwater withdrawals with the concept of no net increase. The existing Krug Winery extraction rates are provided in Table 3 and total 11,921 GPD or 4.35 MGY (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-feet per year allocated for new groundwater withdrawals, it is clearly an increase in groundwater Appendix E - Peer Review Reports

7. Water/Groundwater Agenda Item #12.1.

use. The interpretation of the County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance needs to be carefully reviewed as it relates to this proposed increased groundwater use.

In addition, it seems likely that the resort site will be 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 be shared with the resort property.

Again, the County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance needs to be carefully reviewed to see if it addresses shared groundwater allocations.

Finally, there is no mention 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.

Section 9.2 FEMA Floodplain
Comment:

This section 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, this ignores the two new access driveways north of the Project site that will cross through the Floodway.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Memorandum
Santa Rosa | Auburn | Pleasant Hill | Fairfield
www.coastlandcivil.com
Date: June 7, 2024
To: Joseph Leach, Public Works Director/City Engineer
From: Paul W. Wade, Consulting Civil Engineer
Subject: St. Helena Resort – Comments on the Agritourism Initiative and EDFs St. Helena Agritourism Initiative
• Section 2.A.8 states that the Winery and Planned Agritourism Overlay (EDF Overlay) will be applied to 11 acres within the larger 140-acre winery site as depicted on Exhibit A.

Exhibit A should be accompanied by a metes and bounds legal description of the subject property.
• Some of the exhibits indicate “property lines around the 11-acre WPA Overlay Property.

Would dividing this from the larger Winery Property invalidate the application of the land use overlay to large parcels in excess of 110-acres? It should be made clear whether there will be a land division is anticipated with the development of the resort. • Section 2.G.1 should state that SHMC 16.32.160 requiring connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system will not apply.
• Section 2.G.2 should state that SHMC 16.32.150 requiring connection to the City’s water system will not apply.
• Section 2.G should state whether SHMC 16.32.060.C.2 requiring improvement of lot frontages with curbs and sidewalks will apply to the SR 29 and Deer Park Road frontages.

Initiative Exhibit C, Environmental Design Features (EDFs) EDF 50: Project water lines and hydrants shall be sized and located so as to meet the fire flow requirements established by the Fire Department.

Comment: This should also include any necessary water storage and pumping facilities.

Appendix E - Peer Review Reports

7.b. - Water/Groundwater Agenda Item #12.1.

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

Comment: This should be clarified to only apply to building construction and not site grading and utility improvements.

EDF 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.

Comment: The methodology for determining “proportional share” should be defined.

EDF 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.

Comment: Is it acceptable to the City for the lodging rate to apply to the restaurant and spa square footages? Do the traffic impact fee rates in the City’s Master Fee Schedule supersede the rates in SHMC 3.32.100.B.2?
EDF 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 or any required permits, with reasonable and feasible conditions, from any federal and/or state agency with jurisdiction over construction affecting jurisdictional waters.

Comment: The trail should be extended northwest through the Project site to connect to Deer Park Road.

EDF 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.

Comment: This should be clarified as to whether it applies to the existing overhead utilities along the greater winery site’s frontage along SR 29.

EDF 80.c: The Project with existing groundwater uses on the Winery Property will not annually exceed 0.3 acre-ft/acre of groundwater extraction from the Project well(s).

Comment: It is assumed that the 0.3 acre-ft/acre/year figure comes from Napa County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance. However, it needs to be determined whether the acreage of the greater winery/vineyard property can be included if the resort property is divided from winery property.

EDF 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 Agenda Item #12.1.

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.

Comment: This should include entering into a Post Construction Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Agreement with the City.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Elections Code Section 9212 Report
Evaluation of the St. Helena Agritourism
Initiative
City Council of St. Helena – June 25, 2024
Presenter: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director 1 Agenda Item #12.1.

Presentation
Outline
2 • Overview of St. Helena Agritourism
Initiative
• Overview of St. Helena Resort
Project
• Summary of 9212 Report Findings
• Review of Council Options For
Action
Agenda Item #12.1.

St. Helena
Agritourism
Initiative
3 Krug Winery
Agenda Item #12.1.

Initiative
Process &
Background
4 Agenda Item #12.1.

Overview of
Initiative
• Zoning Amendments: Creates WPA Overlay
• General Plan Amendments:
o Modify definition of Agriculture land use classification o Allow Large Parcel Agritourism Facilities within WPA
Overlay
o Exempt projects in WPA Overlay from requirement to
hook up to City water and sewer
• Environmental Design Features: 92 requirements written into Initiative; many of which must be satisfied prior to issuance of permits. Similar to EIR mitigation measures • Other Regulatory & Permitting Requirements:

Regulatory and permitting requirements of other agencies (e.g., Napa County, Caltrans, Water Board, CDFW, etc.)
would continue to apply
5 Agenda Item #12.1.

St. Helena
Resort
Project
Overview
6 Agenda Item #12.1.

What is a 9212
Report?
Evaluates impact of proposed Initiative to
inform City Council and the community
• Authorized by Elections Code 9212(a)
• Examines fiscal, land use, infrastructure,
business, and housing impacts
• The 9212 Report for this project includes
peer review of the proponents’
Environmental Assessment Report,
(including their Traffic Study, Civil
Engineering Report) as well as their
Economic & Fiscal Analysis and the
conceptual plans for an associated
Workforce Housing project
7 Agenda Item #12.1.

General Plan
Consistency
Analysis
Consistencies:
• Supports workforce housing
• Promotes upscale, visitor-serving uses
• Encourages car-free tourism and rail corridor use
• Includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements
8 Agenda Item #12.1.

General Plan
Consistency
Analysis
Potential Inconsistencies*:
• Allows development outside Urban Limit Line
• Converts Prime Farmland to urban uses
• Lacks buffer requirements for agricultural land
• No permanent farmland protection
• Uncertainty about whether use of existing on-site
wells will be permitted by County
9 *if the project were proposed through the normal entitlement process Agenda Item #12.1.

Consistency
with Zoning
Code
10 Permitted Uses:
• Hotel/resort (56 rooms), spa, restaurant, bar, meeting spaces
• Train station/depot (2,500 sq. ft.)
• Conditional Use Permit not required
Design Review Exemption:
• No design review required for permitted uses
Design Standards:
• 45' height limit, 50% building coverage, 0.3 FAR,
105,000 sq. ft. maximum area
• Requirement for cohesive design with all sides
treated, compatibility with site character
Agenda Item #12.1.

Consistency
with Zoning
Code
11 Landscaping:
• Setbacks per Chapter 17.25 of Zoning Code,
minimum of 20% of property landscaped, recycled
water irrigation
Parking:
• Proposed Overlay requires minimum 77 spaces,
joint-use parking allowed
• Based on 56 guest rooms and an estimated 100
employees, yields a requirement for 89 parking
spaces. The proposed minimum of 77 parking spaces
would not meet the parking standards in the Code.
• Additional parking required for restaurants and bars
• Electric vehicle charging stations required
Agenda Item #12.1.

Impacts on
Housing
Housing Impact:
• No existing or planned housing on the 11-acre site
Workforce Housing Obligation:
• Proposal requires construction of 50 moderate-income
units off site or payment of Affordable Housing Fee
Indirect Housing Demand:
• Project may increase housing demand due to 100 new
employees
Regional Housing Needs:
• Site not designated for RHNA; no impact on City's
12 regional housing needs
Agenda Item #12.1.

Impacts on
Agricultural
Lands & Open
Space
13 Conversion of Agricultural Land:
• 11 acres of Prime Farmland converted to resort
use
• Located outside the Urban Limit Line
Open Space Provisions:
• 20% of the site for landscaping (EDF 12)
• 8’ wide bicycle/pedestrian trail along rail line (EDF 75)
Buffer Requirement:
• One-acre landscape buffer between project and
agricultural activities, mentioned in EAR, but not
required by Initiative
Agenda Item #12.1.

Impacts on
Traffic
Congestion
14 Projected Traffic Conditions:
• SR 29/Deer Park Road continues to operate at Level of Service (LOS) F
• Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road intersection would
operate unacceptably at LOS F during weekday peak
hour
EDF Requirements:
• Applicant to share cost of SR 29/Deer Park Road signal (EDF 70)
• Applicant to cover costs for Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road signal changes (EDF 71)
Traffic Management:
• EDFs include several measures to minimize traffic
impacts (EDFs 61-75)
Agenda Item #12.1.

Impacts on
Downtown
Business
Districts
15 Positive Economic Impact:
• Expected boost to local businesses during and
after construction
Construction Phase:
• $71.1 million project cost
• 339 full-time equivalent construction workers
• $23.6 million in wages to construction workers
Agenda Item #12.1.

Impacts on
Downtown
Business
Districts
16 Operational Phase:
• $10.7 million in value-added income in year 1 to over $23.4 million by year 5 for the resort and St. Helena
merchants and employees
• $5.6 million to $12.2 million in wages are paid to
workers at the resort and beyond in St. Helena from
years 1 to 5
• “Multiplier effect”: Visitor spending at local
restaurants, wineries, and retailers
Agenda Item #12.1.

Peer Review:

Introduction
17 Peer Review Process:
• City staff and/or qualified specialists
consulted for analysis
Detailed Information:
• Full summaries of the EAR findings,
relevant EDFs, and peer reviews are
available in 9212 Report
Agenda Item #12.1.

Peer Review:

Air Quality,
GHG
Emissions,
Noise
18 Noise:
• The peer review analysis generally concurs
with the EAR’s conclusions – with EDFs, no
significant impacts.

Air Quality:
• The peer review analysis generally concurs
with the EAR’s conclusions – with EDFs, no
significant impacts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
• The peer review report raises questions
regarding inputs in the modeling and notes
that the project did not include a Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) analysis.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Peer Review:

Biological
Resources &
Transportation
19 Biological Resources:
• The peer review concurs with the need for
additional studies and, possibly, permits from
resource agencies to ensure no impacts to
wetlands and aquatic resources.

Transportation
• The peer review of the proponent's Traffic
Impact Study presents questions regarding the
methodology and assumptions and
recommends that additional traffic signal
warrant analysis be conducted at the SR
29/Deer Park Road intersection.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Peer Review:

Historic &
Cultural
Resources
20 Historic Resources:
• The peer review recommends that a Historic Resource
Evaluation (HRE) of the Charles Krug Winery Property and a Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties review should be completed.

Archaeological Resources:
• The peer review 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.
• A Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) should be prepared because the property contains a Native American resource, is a State Historical Landmark, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Agenda Item #12.1.

Utilities
Site
Plan
21 Agenda Item #12.1.

Peer Review:

Civil
Engineering &
Utilities
22 Civil Engineering & Utilities:
• Peer review found that the project has not
demonstrated the feasibility of using on-site
wells.
• If water were 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.
• Future subdivision to establish a separate
11-acre resort parcel could affect
groundwater allocation assumptions.

Agenda Item #12.1.

23 Workforce
Housing
Concept
Plan
Railroad
ROW
Fulton
Lane
Railroad
Ave
Agenda Item #12.1.

Review of
Workforce
Housing
Obligation &
Proposal
24 • Site constraints pose serious challenges for
the proponent's workforce housing concept
• The Initiative provides no incentives for
proponent to pursue workforce housing
project in a timely manner, making default
option of "making a payment for the
purpose of furthering the City's affordable
housing goals" readily available.
• If $7/per square foot Affordable Housing
Hotel Impact Fee that is currently under
review by the City is passed, it would yield
an Affordable Housing Payment of
approximately $735,000 for the resort
project.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Review of
Fiscal &
Economic
Impact
Analysis
25 Fiscal & Economic Impact:
• The City’s review does not dispute the numbers or
analysis in the report
• The peer review presents refined revenue
estimates that are specific to the City of St. Helena
rather than regional.
• These estimates suggest 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
o Increased revenue from property taxes, sales
taxes, and transient occupancy taxes (TOT).

Agenda Item #12.1.

Alternative
Actions &
Council
Considerations
26 Options:
• Adopt the Initiative without
alteration; or
• Take action to submit the Initiative
to the voters at the next general
election (November 5, 2024)
Agenda Item #12.1.

To: St. Helena City Council Members
From: Thomas Belt
Subject: Noble House Petition for an Agritourism Hotel Development I am writing to ask City Council members to allow the Noble House Initiative to be placed on the November ballot to enable St. Helena residents the opportunity to vote on the proposed initiative. This city council decision will allow voters the time to familiarize themselves with the City’s review of the Noble House environmental documents and also provide for a more informed decision by city residents.

Respectfully,
Thomas and Margot Belt
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Pat Dell
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] Public Comment on Noble House development Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 5:20:32 PM
Please forward to all CC members. Thank you. Pat Dell
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice-Mayor Hall and City Council members, This coming Tuesday, June 25th, 2024 you have the opportunity to set a precedent on how decisions are made in St. Helena. The Noble House development on the Charles Krug property may be a dandy hotel and resort. However, allowing them to circumvent CEQA by your exclusive vote would create an atmosphere in which developers could use this precedent to change the face of this lovely small but sophisticated town. I am not opposed to hotels but not this way. I fully support the real estate transfer tax which, as has been pointed out, will offer financial relief in the near future. Hotels take much longer and possibly don't get built after being approved. This resort must be on the November ballot to let the voters decidE. Pat Dell - St. Helena voter.

Agenda Item #12.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Alan Galbraith <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 2:06 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] Public Comment, June 25, 2024 City Council Meeting, Item 12.1 (Noble House Project) This pubic comment raises a legal issue pertaining to the use of on‐site groundwater wells for the hotel project.

The ElecƟon Code SecƟon 9212 Report, page 48, under Monitoring and Enforcement, states: “if a new well is developed or an exisƟng well is expanded, then it would be subject to St. Helena Municipal Code 13.16 which requires metering of the well producƟon, monthly groundwater level monitoring and reporƟng to the City.”  The IniƟaƟve Measure, page 7, secƟon 5G.2., enƟtled Water, exempts the on‐site wells from the requirements of code secƟon 13.16.060 (“modificaƟon or reconstrucƟon , , , shall not require a permit”).

The legal quesƟon:  Can an IniƟaƟve Measure, if passed, override an otherwise valid legal requirement in a municipal code?
This is an important issue.  The policy goal behind the monitoring and enforcement provisions of secƟon 13.16 was to enhance knowledge of local groundwater condiƟons. An exempƟon is not in the public interest.

Alan Galbraith
Sent from my iPad
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Jack Glasso
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Noble House/Krug project
Date: Friday, June 14, 2024 6:37:00 PM
Put it to a vote by citizen of St Helena not the City Counsel.

John Galasso
St Helena resident
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Les Breckenridge
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Noble House
Date: Friday, June 14, 2024 5:22:32 PM
The city has managed to squash just about everything ever put before it that would eliminate the need to try and find other means (taxes) to fund the city. It obviously has an abhorrence to any type of hotel. Yountville has become a thriving community, why, hotels. Calistoga is going the same direction. Saint Helena, Oh, let’s come up with any ole reason to continue to put Saint Helena in the no win column. Go for it. Les B Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #12.1.

55%“
June21, 2024
Pun MONDAVI 5:. Fun” ESTA
C. MONDAVI & FAMILY
FAMILY OWNED andOPERATED farFOURGENERATIONS
Via Electmm'cMail
ATTN: St. Helena CityCouncil
MayorPaul Dohring
Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Councilmember Anna Chouteau
Councilmember Patn'ck Kenealy
Councilmember BillySummers
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
Mayor Dohring and Members of the St. Helena CityCouncil, We have been asked to con?rm our support of the Noble House project on ourCharles Krug winerysite. On behalf of the Peter Mondavi Sr. Family,we submit this letter for our entire family and con?rm our uni?ed support of the St. Helena AgritourismInitiative and St. Helena Resort project.

Through our work and interactions with the initiative sponsors, the Colee Familyand Noble House Hotels & Resorts, we’ve been impressedwith their commitment to build a qualityproject, and their passion to make the vision behind the St. Helena Resort a realitythrough the initiative before you today.

We know the initiative sponsors have been an active and engagedpresence in our community, as they have been from the outset of this project with our family.Please know that they have the full backingof Charles Krug and our families in this endeavor.

Sincerely,
Marc Mondavi, Co-Proprietor eter Mondavi Jr., Co-Proprietor Charles Krug Winery Charles Krug Winer
2800 Main Street 2800 Main Street
St. Helena, California 94574 St. Helena, California 94574 charleskxu .com Ckmondavi.com ?atto wines.com u leheartwinesxom Letter of Support for the St. Helena Agritourism Initiative contacnigymzmcil@cigJQ?rl
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Nancy J Brandl
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] nobel house initiative
Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 7:49:05 AM
All City Council Members,
I urge you to vote against the proposal to forgo putting the Nobel House Initiative on the November ballot.

The citizens of St Helena deserve a chance to make our opinion known.

Please vote to give us that chance.

Sincerely,
Nancy Parrish Brandl
St Helena Resident
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Tim Hall
To: Public Comment; Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers Cc: Tim Hall
Subject: [External] Against City Council Passing Noble House Agritourism Initiative Without Putting on Ballot Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 7:43:57 PM
As owner of 657 Pratt Ave. I am against the City Council passing the initiative which would effectively eliminate a vote by the residents, and require a thorough, independent analysis of the impacts of the project that a CEQA would provide and not the developer’s own analysis submitted that does not provide enough time to read, analyze and independently verify its estimates and conclusions. This smacks of an end run by the developers of the public review and vote.

Approval by the City Council would constitute a dangerous precedent that will be exploited by future development projects and their attorneys. We have been down this road before where unwise decisions have created a precedent that has come back to bite the City (and drain our budget from lawsuits and attorney fees).

Please vote NO on the initiative and allow for a thorough review and voice by the citizenry of St. Helena at the ballot box.

Thank you,
Timothy Hall
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Christine Sekino
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Charles Krug development
Date: Friday, June 14, 2024 2:13:36 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Both my husband and I are extremely concerned about the new hotel and spa development being proposed by Charles Krug. This will only have negative impact on the residents in this area. Increased traffic that may result in the the slow down of those of us evacuating fires, increased depletion of the aquifer. I understand that St Helena likes the tax benefits but at the cost of turning the valley into a wine Disneyland.

Agenda Item #12.1.

From: susan kenward
To: Public Comment; Paul Dohring; Anna Chouteau; Eric Hall; Billy Summers; Patrick Kenealy Subject: [External] Agritourism Initiative vote
Date: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:40:02 AM
City Council
City of St. Helena
June 24st, 2024
Dear Council members,
I have attached a copy of the opinion piece we submitted to the St. Helena STAR.

Rather than repeat all of our points, I encourage you to read the attached document. https://napavalleyregister.com/news/community/star/opinion/letter-let-the-peoplevote/article_75747e5e-273f-11ef-96c4-9ba3f34cdf28.html On June 25th, you can decide whether to adopt the Noble House St. Helena Resort Agritourism Initiative as presented and bypass the voters and endorse this huge project without the vote of the citizens OR to put it on the November ballot and let the citizens vote.Council members and voters alike need more time to process this vast trove of data. Approving the project on June 25 shortens what’s already a truncated review process.

I want to re-emphasize that Noble House deliberately chose this Initiative which escapes public input and scrutiny, controls their entitlement process and subverts CEQA review. So, if the Council will vote to put this on the ballot in November, we will work to objectively analyze this project and provide the voters with reliable, unbiased information on the Noble House narrative and the project's impact.

I quote the St. Helena STAR: "Politics aside, putting the initiative on the ballot is just the right thing to do. It buys another four months for the vetting, review and analysis that tend to make projects better." STAR Editorial Board June 21, 2024 Sincerely,
Susan Kenward, Gayle Davies, Pat Dell, Sue & Dick Wollack, Vallie & Tom Farrell, Tom Belt, Richard Siefield, Linda & Gary Rose, Connie Wilson, Arlene & Richard Corseiti
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: Public Comment on Noble House Developement Date: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:53:58 AM
FYI – please save and upload.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 4:54 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [External] Public Comment on Noble House Developement Hi Cindy,
Please forward to all City Council Members
Mayor Doring, Vice Mayor Hall and Council Members,
You will set an extremely bad precedent if you approve The Noble House Development without following our Cities established processes for making decisions, including honoring our General Plan, Zoning Code, and St Helena residents right to make Public Comments. Even worse if you approve this it allows the Applicant to avoid the state's ACEQUA process.

I am not opposed to approving hotels but only if the decision is made by following our normal decision making process.

Please either deny the project or put it on the ballot and allow St. Helena's Citizens to vote.

Thank you,
Grace D. Kistner
St, Helena Resident
Agenda Item #12.1.

"P ,4. azkm Um;
Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: [External] 12.1 SH Agritourism Initiative
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:29:10 PM
From: Leslie Stanton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:47 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] 12.1 SH Agritourism Initiative
Hello Council - Please allow more time for study and public input on the Noble House/Krug plan. This plan and the initiative seems like a sneaky way to circumvent much scrutiny. Voters put their trust in you to make decisions so please be trustworthy, and have it placed on the ballot. Many of the people who signed the initiative were told that they were signing to have it put on the ballot. Do that. Thank you, Leslie Stanton Agenda Item #12.1.

From: Water Audit California
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: [External] City of St. Helena City Council Meeting June 25, 2024 Agenda Item 12.1 Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:53:56 PM
Attachments: EDR 009-010-022 Charles Krug Winery 2012 WCR E12-00131 w DWR No. e0145099.pdf DWR Well Completion Reports - Well Completion Reports - California Open Data.pdf EDR 009-010-022 Charles Krug Winery 2012 Well E12-00131.pdf EDR 009-010-022 Charles Krug Winery 2005 WCR E05-0656 DWR No. 0913058.pdf EDR 009-010-022 Charles Krug Winery 2005 Well E05-0656.pdf To whom it may concern:

The initiative is inadequate for summary adoption. Water Audit California urges that it be put on the ballot and thereby opened to public scrutiny, and ratification or rejection. It is internally inconsistent, in part asserting that water will be supplied by three existing onsite wells. Indicative of the problem, the agenda states the well data is attached, but when one follows links to the supporting documents the information is REDACTED (color and caps in original). In other locations, for example in the peer review section, it is asserted that water will be supplied by the City's existing potable water system, which prima facie does not have adequate capacity or infrastructure. LSCE states that it cannot determine any well locations, and our researchers have been unable locate more than two. Wells located within the federal flood zone, and notes on one state expressly that it is not consructed to withstand inundation.

Water supply resiliency is a threshold of significance for land use change or development projects, and a water supply cannot be founded on an illegal act. This prerequisite to a project cannot be avoided or circumvented, and if given the opportunity will likely be rejected by well informed electors.

Under Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7, a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general state laws. If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void. A conflict exists if the local legislation duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1062.)
Agenda Item #12.1.

“In most cases, when a court finds that an agency has violated CEQA in approving a project, it issues a writ of mandate requiring the agency to set aside its CEQA determination, to set aside the project approvals, and to take specific corrective action before it considers reapproving the project.

See, e.g., Nelson v County of Kern (2010) 190 [Cal.App.4th] 252, 285.” (2 Kostka, supra, § 23.124, p. 23-140.) This usual remedy of setting aside a project approval has been applied by our Supreme Court in cases where the project was a local ordinance. (See Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 196 [where local ordinance was approved by voters without CEQA compliance, the appropriate relief was invalidation of the ordinance]; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 88 [city had not made required CEQA determinations before adopting ordinances creating oil drilling districts; Supreme Court stated “superior court shall set aside the ordinances”].)
The usual remedy also has been applied by the Courts of Appeal. (See Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 712–713 [failure to comply with CEQA; trial court directed to issue writ of mandate directing city to set aside ordinance and resolution]; Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1185 [further environmental review required by CEQA; trial court directed to issue writ of mandate directing county to set aside negative declaration and related ordinance].) (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 896.)
Under Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7, a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general state laws. If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void. A conflict exists if the local legislation duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1062.)
A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance conflicts, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by, general law, either expressly or by legislative implication. (People v.

Minor (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 29, 32.)
Agenda Item #12.1.

The procedures for municipal voter initiatives are found in Elec. Code, § 9200 et seq. Under Elec. Code, § 9214, when a local body receives an initiative petition signed by at least 15 percent of the city's registered voters, it must: (1) adopt the initiative, without alteration, within 10 days after the petition is presented; (2) immediately submit the initiative to a vote at a special election; or (3) order a report pursuant to Elec. Code, § 9212. The report may examine the proposed initiative's effects on land use, infrastructure, and any other matters the legislative body requests be included. § 9212, subd. (a)(8). If ordered, the report must be prepared and presented within 30 days after the petition was certified as satisfying the signature requirement. § 9212, subd. (b). Within 10 days after receiving the report, the legislative body must either adopt the ordinance or order an election pursuant to § 9214, subd. (b). § 9214, subd. (c). (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1030 [175 Cal.Rptr.3d 601, 330 P.3d 912].)
Field preemption generally exists where the Legislature has comprehensively regulated an area, leaving no room for additional local action. (See, e.g., American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252–1257; O'Connell, supra, 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1068–1074.) (T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1122.)
The proposed project is largely within an identified flood zone under the regulatory jurisdiction of the US Army Corp of Engineers, and may implicate the interests of NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, which supports the doctrine of federal preemption, provides that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. (U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.) The supremacy clause invalidates state laws that interfere with, or are contrary to, federal law. State laws may be preempted by federal regulations as well as federal statutes.

For the purposes of the supremacy clause, the constitutionality of local ordinances is analyzed in the same way as that of statewide laws. Similarly, state law may preempt local legislation when a local ordinance conflicts with or contradicts state law, or attempts to legislate in a field that is fully occupied by state law. (Citizens to Enforce CEQA v. City of Rohnert Park (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1595-1596.)
Agenda Item #12.1.

The proposed project is within the zone of presumptive interference defined by the Napa County Water Availability Analysis which prima facie defines the standard of inquiry of potential injury to the public trust implicated by the close proximity of the Napa River and York Creek. When the legislature has made clear its intent that one public body or official is to exercise a specified discretionary power, the power is in the nature of a public trust and may not be exercised by others in the absence of statutory authorization. (Bagley v.

Manhattan Beach (1976) 18 Cal.3d 22, 24.)
A city ordinance proposed by initiative must constitute such legislation as the legislative body of the city has the power to enact under the law granting, defining and limiting the powers of such body. (Bagley v.

Manhattan Beach (1976) 18 Cal.3d 22, 24.) In short, an initiative cannot do what the city council cannot.

When the Legislature has made clear its intent that one public body or official is to exercise a specified discretionary power, the power is in the nature of a public trust and may not be exercised by others in the absence of statutory authorization. (Pacifica Firefighters Assn. v. City of Pacifica (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 758, 758.)
For the foregoing reasons Water Audit California respectfully requests that the Noble House/Krug/Mondavi/St Helena Resort not be summarily approved, but as the best alternative available under the law be placed on the November 2024 ballot for voter consideration.

Respectfully,
William McKinnon
General Counsel
Water Audit California
WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA - A California Public Benefit Corporation 952 School Street #316, Napa, CA 94559 / phone: (707) 681-5111 Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Show 10 entries
Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries (filtered from 1,077,336 total entries) Search: 2800 st helena
Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries (filtered from 1,077,336 total entries) Hide/Unhide Columns Export
416398 WCR2005-000688 0913058 DWR North Central
Region Office
Napa Napa Co
Building
Services
423709 WCR2012-002037 e0145099 DWR North Central
Region Office
Napa Napa Co
Building
Services
Previous 1 Next
_id  WCRNUMBER  LEGACYLOGNUMBER  REGIONOFFICE  COUNTYNAME  LOCALP 6/25/24, 10:05 AM California Open Data
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/well-completion-reports/resource/6c6deb49-5977-4bc0-91dc-3d4ed3303a9d 1/1 Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: June 25, 2024
FROM: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Approval of a resolution appointing applicants to the Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee, Active
Transportation Sustainability Committee to NVTA, Parks
and Recreation Commission, Library Board of Trustees
and Planning Commission and consider leaving the
recruitment open for the unfilled terms of office until filled.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends adopting a resolution appointing
applicants to the following committees:

Active Transportation Sustainability Committee to NVTA
Active Transportation Sustainability Committee
Library Board of Trustees
Parks & Recreation Committee
Planning Commission

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To fill expiring terms of office.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.

BACKGROUND:

In April, the City Clerk advertised a recruitment seeking applicants from the community to fill expiring Board, Committee and Commission terms of office. The Board, Committee and Commissions that have expiring terms include the Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and Library Board of Trustees.

DISCUSSION:

The recruitment seeking applicants from the community to fill expiring and/or vacant Board, Committee and Commission terms of office concluded on June 13, 2024. The City received a total of nineteen applications.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Per City Council Rules of Procedure appointments shall be made by interview and the Mayor shall nominate applicants with the appointments subject to approval by the majority of Council. The City Council convened an applicant interview meeting on June 20, 2024 at 4:00 pm in the main conference room at City Hall.

The following lists the names of the individuals who have applied for various boards and committees.

Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee to the NVTA One opening
Two applications received from Glenn Smith and Natalia Ramirez Guzman.

Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee
Four regular openings and two alternate openings
Foure applications were received from Glenn Smith, Natalia Ramirez Guzmàn, Coral Posert and Richard Seiferheld.

Library Board of Trustees
Four openings and one opening with an expiring term June 30, 2025 Five applications were received from Alexandra Haslip, Dana Johnson, Deborah Boeschen, John (Jack) Stuart and Michelle Deasy.

Parks and Recreation Commission
Three openings
Eight applications were received from Christopher Smith, Denise Nelson, Donna Hinds, Doug Boeschen, John Thompson, Julie Jenanyan, Cheryl Rainville and Stephanie Smithers.

Planning Commission
Two openings
Two applications were received from Autumn Anderson and Sue Furdek Agenda Item #13.1.

Should Council decide not to appoint someone from the current applicants, staff would re-advertise the recruitment.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Appointments Resolution
Library Board of Trustees Application - John (_Jack_) Stuart Library Board of Trustees Application - Michelle Deasy
Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Christopher Smith Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Denise Nelson Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Donna Hinds Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Doug Boeschen Parks and Recreation Commission Application - John Thompson Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Julie Jenanyan Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Stephanie Smithers Planning Commission Application - Autumn Anderson
Planning Commission Application - Sue Furdek
Active Transportation Advisory Committee to NVTA and City ATSC Application - Glenn Smith
Active Transportation Advisory Committee to NVTA and City ATSC Application - Natalia Ramirez Guzmàn
Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Application - Coral Posert Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Application - Richard Seiferheld Library Board of Trustees Application - Alexandra Haslip Library Board of Trustees Application - Dana Johnson
Library Board of Trustees Application - Deborah Boeschen Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Cheryl Rainville Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Appointing applicants to the Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee to NVTA, Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board of Trustee and Planning Commission

RECITALS
A. There are expiring terms on the Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee to NVTA, Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board of Trustee and Planning Commission; and B. Applications have been received from community members for the openings. Per City Council Rules of Procedure appointments shall be made by interview and the Mayor shall nominate applicants with the appointments subject to approval by the majority of Council; and
C. The recruitment concluded on June 13, 2024. An applicant interview meeting is scheduled to be held On June 20, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.

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

Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee to NVTA

1. __________, is appointed to the St. Helena Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee to NVTA filling a two year term expiring on June 30, 2026; and
Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee

2. __________, __________, __________, and __________ are appointed to the St. Helena Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee filling a two year term expiring on June 30, 2026, and leaving the recruitment open until the vacant alternate positions are filled; and
Library Board of Trustees

3. __________, __________, __________ and __________ are appointed to the St. Helena Library Board of Trustees filling a two year term expiring on June 30, 2026, and __________, is appointed to fill a vacant position that expires on June 30, 2025; and
Parks and Recreation Commission

4. __________, __________ and __________ are appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission filling a two year term expiring on June 30, 2026; and Planning Commission
Agenda Item #13.1.

5. __________, and __________ are appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission filling a four year term expiring on June 30, 2028; and Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on June 25, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall : __________
Council Member Chouteau: __________
Council Member Summers: __________
Council Member Kenealy: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 9, 2024
Application Type: Library Board of Trustees
CA-24-021
NAME: John ("Jack") Stuart
ADDRESS: 22 Crane Avenue, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: (707) 260-5565
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 41 years
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Retired
REASON FOR APPLYING: To help sustain and improve the library, an important institution of our community. Little Saint Helena is fortunate to have its own library, and I'd like it to stay that way.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Public schools in Saratoga, California; A.B. English, Stanford University, 1968; Graduate Masters Program, Enology & Viticulture, U.C. Davis, 1976-1978 OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Friends & Foundation, Saint Helena Public Library (see below) COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Friends + Foundation, Saint Helena Public Library, member 2013-2019; Land Trust of Napa County, board and committee member 2006 to present; Napa Valley Vintners, board member
REFERENCE 1: Paul Dohring
1830 Spring Mountain Court
(707) 942-1298
[email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Anna Chouteau
1100 Paulson Court
(707) 968-1865
[email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Maria Criscione Stel
1115 Chiles Avenue
(707) 363-3002
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes, a few times when I was on Friends & Foundation board What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To advise library leadership and the city council regarding the stewardship of the institution and to be ambassadors for the library in our community, and by specifically, to attend meetings, communicate regularly, engage in discussions and decisions, participate in projects or other work, and always keep our purpose in Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION mind.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To do the above with interest, imagination, reasoning and teamwork.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
Design Review Committee, 1980s; Revenue Task Force, 2015, Water Rates Task Force, 2016; Library, City Hall, and Recreation Task Force, 2019
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? Nope!
I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
John ("Jack") Stuart June 10, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: May 22, 2024
Application Type: Library Board of Trustees
CA-24-009
NAME: Michelle Deasy
ADDRESS: 702 McCorkle Avenue, St. Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 4155770915
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 5 years
EMPLOYER: QA Commons
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: I am applying for the opportunity to meaningfully support the educational, cultural, and social enrichment of all St. Helenans. I hope to contribute to equitable access to information and resources and foster a vibrant and inclusive environment in our town.

I love libraries. I chose my college, in part, due to the “feel” of the A.D. White Library. Earlier this year, when taking one of St. Helena’s U10 soccer teams to watch the Cal/Stanford game, we stopped in at the Doe Library (also one of the country’s most beautiful). I was struck by the looks of awe and fascination in our group of young boys. I see libraries serving as sanctuaries that offer boundless opportunities for learning, exploration, and connection - and can inspire hopes and dreams.

I am also very interested in “the future of public libraries,” which I believe lies in their evolution into dynamic community hubs that offer a wide range of services beyond traditional book lending. Already, we are seeing libraries transform into multifunctional spaces offering services and resources such as digital literacy training, maker spaces, and flexible meeting areas for collaboration and events.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: BS, Rural Sociology, Cornell University, 1994 MA, Demography, UC Berkeley 2003
Design Futures Training Certificate, Institute for the Future, 2019 Higher Education Teaching Certificate, Harvard BOK, 2024 OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: I have 25 years of experience in the non-profit, corporate, and higher education realms. (My resume is attached.) Currently, I lead a small, national nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring today’s learners are prepared for the rapidly changing world of work. We work with colleges, universities, workforce programs, and carceral institutions to develop “employability” skills in their students.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Employed by QA Commons (501c3)
Formerly employed by the RP Group (501c3)
Former Board Member, Mural Music & Arts Project (501c3) Former Board Member, Presidio YMCA (501c3)
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Former Board Member, South End Rowing Club (501c3)
Former Board Member, Cornell Track Association (501c3)
REFERENCE 1: Name: Doug Boeschen
Address: 3242 Silverado Trail N
Phone Number(s):7078156141
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Matt Demcuck
Address: 1000 Brown St Apt 14
Phone Number(s): 707.975.7076
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Kristen Knight
Address: 706 McCorkle Avenue
Phone Number(s): 707.290.3637
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? No. (I am sorry to have to answer no. I intended to attend on May 8th, but was sidelined with a short-term medical issue.)
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? As per the statement on the city's website, the Library Board of Trustees' role and responsibility is to make and enforce all regulations for the library's administration, subject to approval by the City Council; purchase books and publications for the library; maintain inter-library lending; and establish conditions for nonresident lending; administer any trust created for the library; and receive and dispose of gifts and bequests.

I believe there may also be opportunities to advocate for library services within the community, collaborate with library staff on strategic planning, represent the interests of library patrons and stakeholders in decisionmaking processes, engage in community outreach initiatives, and serve as a liaison between the library board and other community organizations.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
My goals would focus on advocating for equitable access to lifelong learning, empowering city residents to pursue their passions, explore new interests, acquire valuable skills, and improve their overall well-being.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
Parks & Recreation Commission, 2020 to 2024 (term ending 6/30/24) Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? I would be excited to meet and collaborate with fellow commissioners and other community stakeholders if selected. One of the things I have enjoyed most about serving on the Parks & Recreation Commission has been learning more about our community and hearing new perspectives on challenges and opportunities facing the city.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Michelle Deasy May 23, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

MICHELLE DEASY
[email protected] | St. Helena, CA |415.577.0915
Profile
Thoughtful leader with a breadth of experience in the non-profit and corporate realms. Specialties in education and workforce. Able to connect with high-level stakeholders. Passionate about issues of social equity.

Professional Experience
The Quality Assurance Commons (QA Commons) – Washington, DC / Remote May 2019 – present Non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring today's students are prepared to succeed in the rapidly changing workforce by focusing on the topic of Employability Skills.

Executive Director (full-time, Jan 2024 - present)
> Leading the organization's strategy, operations, project, and funding efforts.

Vice President (part-time, April 2021 - Dec 2023)
> Developed and led Employability projects with universities, community colleges, and carceral institutions. > Invited to speak at conferences and webinars across the country and internationally.

Director, Operations & Planning (full-time, May 2019 - July 2021) > Brought services to market in two states, transitioned from a fiscally sponsored project of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) to a 501(c)3, and began to scale nationally. > Managed a $1.7 million grant from Lumina Foundation.

Clutch Social Strategy – St. Helena, CA / Remote March 2021 – present Principal
Strategy and operations for small- to mid-sized education and social impact organizations. > As a subcontractor to WorkEd Consulting, led a Labor Market & Career Pathways project for an Oregon community college and served as a qualitative researcher on a Regional Talent Pipeline Initiative for a Virginia workforce development board. Co-wrote a $495,000 winning DOL Critical Jobs grant. > Provided guidance and implemented a strategy to secure funding to the Go Green Initiative. Wrote and cowrote over $1.2 million in winning grants from federal and philanthropic funders. > Led development for the National Association for Media Literacy Education and KidNuz.

The RP Group – San Rafael, CA / Remote Sept 2016 – May 2019 Director, Organizational Strategy
Non-profit organization focusing on research for student equity-based policy and practice within the California Community Colleges. (Promoted from Corporate Secretary) > Re-shaped operations by championing the concept of in-house backoffice vs. outside management service provider. Proposed to board and executed, reducing annualized administrative costs by over 65%. Included implementation of new accounting, banking, HR, IT and legal infrastructure. > Built from scratch the RP Group’s FY2017-18 budget of $5.5m, collaborating with department directors.

Accurate within 2%, allowing for informed decisions and investments. > Led the RP Group management team in a collaborative process of creating and monitoring key performance indicators, ensuring organizational goals were met and keeping the board abreast of progress.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Professional Experience, continued
Atlas Capital Advisors – San Francisco, CA Apr 2012 – Sept 2016 Managing Director
Merrill Lynch/Bank of America – San Francisco, CA May 2006 – Apr 2012 Senior Financial Advisor
Oracle Corporation – Redwood Shores, CA Aug 1996 – Aug 1999 Account Representative; Direct Response Rep; Oracle OpenWorld Coordinator Board Leadership
Strategic planning, fundraising, policy & procedure, and special projects with mission-oriented organizations. > City of St. Helena – St. Helena, CA 2020 – present
Commission Chair, Parks & Recreation; Open Space, Equity, and Strategic Plan Committees > Cornell Track Asociation – Ithaca, NY 2012 – 2018
Executive Committee member; Secretary & Head of Nominating Committee > Mural Music & Arts Project – East Palo Alto, CA 2004 – 2015 Board of Directors; Treasurer
> South End Rowing Club – San Francisco, CA 2011
Board of Directors; Swim Commissioner
> Presidio YMCA – San Francisco, CA 2005 – 2010
Board of Directors
Formal Education
> University of California, Berkeley – Berkeley, CA 2002 – 2003 M.A., Demography
Quantitative study of the causes and consequences of population change Conducted original research using SPSS, R, S-Plus and other statistical computing packages > Cornell University – Ithaca, NY 1990 – 1994
B.S. with Honors, Rural Sociology (now Global Development) Concentration in Social Indicators, Data Management and Analysis Dean's List, Alpha Kappa Delta International Honor Society Continuing Education
> Harvard BOK Center for Teaching & Learning – Boston, MA / Remote Feb 2024 Higher Education Teaching Certificate
> Institute for the Future Dec 2019
Design Futures Certificate
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 7, 2024
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-24-016
NAME: Christopher Smith
ADDRESS: 1171 Starr Avenue, Saint Helena, California, 94574 PHONE: 4156027759
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: Saint Helena
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: I love living in Saint Helena and would like to contribute to keeping it a fun, lively, and healthy environment.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: BS - Hotel Management
MBA - Entrepreneurial Studies and Health care administration OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Assisted neighbors and city in getting the pickleball courts built.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Extensive work in the non-profit sector of providing health care housing to children and adults dealing with life threatening illnesses.

REFERENCE 1: Name:Jim Anderson
Address:1775 Scott Street - Saint Helena
Phone Number(s):707 363 4440
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Elaine Lund
Address: 1166 Hudson Ave - Saint Helena
Phone Number(s): 415 726 8500
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name:Michelle Deasy
Address: 702 McCorkle - Saint Helena
Phone Number(s):415 577 0915
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? Aid and assist with strategic vision, gaining community input, and actively participating in tasks to help the city employees when necessary.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
Beautify the parks, foster and further develop the robust activities offered by Park and Rec. - Ensure the community has clean, safe, fun and beautiful parks to enjoy and meet other neighbors. Support park and Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION rec's efforts offering activities for all ages.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
no
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? I'm a passionate, friendly, motivated individual who truly values and works towards creating community.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Christopher Smith June 7, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 2, 2024
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-24-012
NAME: Denise Nelson
ADDRESS: 59 Laguna Seca Court, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 16503463490
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 2 years
EMPLOYER: self
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Part-time
REASON FOR APPLYING: To have a positive impact on my community through service EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Carlmont 1975, various business courses and vocational classes on an ongoing basis
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Please see attached resume
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: An active member of the Yountville Kiwanis with a goal of fundraising for scholarships
REFERENCE 1: Name:Ann Nevero
Address:58 Laguna Seca CT
Phone Number(s):4083945926
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name:Mary West
Address:3 Laguna Seca CT
Phone Number(s):7072277127
Email: artsy101@comcast
REFERENCE 3: Name:Maryam Malek
Address:1025 Crinella CT
Phone Number(s):4159992293
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? No
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To act as a citizen advisory committee regarding programs, services, facilities, and development What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
I believe Park & Rec is vital in our city, for not just the infrastructure provided, but in its capacity to keep the residents connected in a positive manner through programs and events. My goal is to provide my time, experience, and ideas to help facilitate that to some small degree.

Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
No
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? Please see attached letter of reference
I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Denise Nelson June 2, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

Town of Yountville • 6550 Yount Street • Yountville • California • 94599 Telephone (707) 944-8851 • FAX (707) 944-9619
May 29, 2024
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to recommend Denise Nelson for a position on your Parks and Recreation Commission. Denise has been teaching various arts and crafts classes for us for over 6 years.

Denise has also volunteered in various capacities with the Town as well including during the Yountville Days Parade, Egg Hunt, Halloween Carnival and more. Denise not only teaches classes but provides an environment for participants to get to know each other and form long lasting bonds that benefit their lives outside of class time.

My direct experience working with Denise in various capacities has been that she is helpful, shares ideas, is friendly and fun to be around. Denise is well versed in what it takes to offer inclusive and interesting parks and programming for communities. I believe she would be an asset on the St.

Helena Parks and Recreation Commission Board.

Denise’s unique talents, interests and her clear love for her “new” home city of St. Helena would make her a great fit on your board. Yountville’s loss is St. Helena’s gain! Please fee free to reach out with any questions.

Sincerely,
Samantha Holland
Parks and Recreation Director
Agenda Item #13.1.

Denise Nelson
59 Laguna Seca Court
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
650-346-3490
[email protected]
Profile
Productive team member with a demonstrated ability to individually succeed. Strong communication and supervisory skills with an emphasis on performance management, coaching, training, customer service, and sales.

Experience
Independent Contractor 2018 - Present
Conducting weekly classes for the Yountville Park and Recreation program with an emphasis on community connection as well the skills taught.

Self Employed/Social Media Influencer/Affiliate 8/2015 - 2020 Conducted workshops for arts as a contracted teacher at various locations in the Bay Area contracting direct with brick and mortar studios. Created and managed 2 private social media groups of 160,000+ members for selling and support of font and graphic design license. With a working knowledge of FTC guidelines for social media, managed engagement and brand awareness for increased sales, maintained day to day social media marketing.

General Manager/Buyer, Perfect Edge Cutlery, San Mateo, 5/2011 - 7/2015 Responsible for the hiring, training, and development of staff. Accountable for daily planning, directing. accounting of retail outlet POS system. Responsible for product procurement, pricing negotiations and purchasing analysis.

Directly responsible for written marketing material, ads, promotional flyers. As GM, oversee all guest relations, dealing with in store customers, contractors, wholesalers, and mobile units, as well as overseeing back office functions such as billing, reporting. Successfully implemented events for community exposure and sales.

Columnist, San Mateo Patch/AOL, San Mateo, 4/2011 - 12/2013 Author of the paid weekly column “My San Mateo” published Mondays via AOL & San Mateo Patch exploring local issues or events in the community.

Owner, The Perfect Ten, San Mateo, CA 1991-2010
Responsible for the development and maintenance of a strong client base through effective marketing, customer service, and community education. Accountable for all product procurement, price point analysis, merchandising, and sales success. Successful supervision of three independent contractors including sub-lease negotiations, training, and performance management. Responsible for all tax preparation and licensing requirements for state, federal, city, and health agencies.

Credit Supervisor, Provident Central Credit Union, Burlingame, CA 1983-1991 Responsible for the hiring, training, development, and supervision of staff of 24 within the Consumer Lending Division and Loan Call Center Departments. Coordinated the daily operations of consumer lending from loan sales through credit analysis and student loan servicing. Developed, implemented and monitored operating procedures for the centralization of consumer lending. Developed and administered a comprehensive training guide for departmental procedures including lending regulations and laws, judgmental credit analysis, auto leasing, California Student Loans , system interpretation and use. Prepared and managed administrative reporting including performance appraisals, federal reporting. Initiated and conducted training workshops in lending and related products. Responsible for credit granting of loans over the credit limits of staff loan officers.

Community Service
As Director/President of the 25th Avenue Merchant’s Association successfully implemented a committee structure for goal attainment. Was responsible for written publications, marketing ads, interfacing with the City of San Mateo.

Coordinated the homeless jobs program for 25th Avenue. Currently a member of the Yountville Kiwanis.

Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 5, 2024
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-24-014
NAME: Donna Hinds
ADDRESS: 1106 Chiles Ave, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 7077994844
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 8 years
EMPLOYER: Coldwell Banker Brokers of the Valley
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: I love Saint Helena and want to do my part to make the town the best it can be. I have served on Parks and Recreation previously and really enjoyed working on this committee.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: University of Texas, BBA, University of Houston J.D.

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: I have worked on various boards and committees included the St. Helena Parks and Rec Commission; I am very organized; Completed Napa Valley Master Gardeners Program
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: St. Helena Ad Hoc Revenue Task Force, St. Helena Active Transportation Commission, St. Helena Parks and Recreation Commission, St Helena Chamber of Commerce Committees and current member, Various school committees when my children were young, former HOA President of Magnolia Oaks REFERENCE 1: Name: Jim Anderson
Address: 1775 Scott St
Phone Number(s): 707-363-4440
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Jeff Green
Address:2000 Howell Mountain Rd
Phone Number(s):

Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Oliver Caldwell
Address: 235 Crane Ave
Phone Number(s): 415-999-9272
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes, many
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? Evaluate, discuss and make recommendations regarding park facilities and recreational events and activities.

Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
I served on the Active Transportation Commission (2014-2017); I served on the Parks and Recreation Commission (2016-2017) (Served as Vice Chair); Chair of the St Helena Ad Hoc Revenue Task Force (2016) Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? See Attached Resume
I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Donna Hinds June 5, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

Donna Hinds * Broker Associate
Donna Hinds is dedicated to giving her clients personalized attention and professionalism throughout the entire process of buying or selling properties. Having practiced law (including real estate law) for over 15 years, together with her business background and residential construction/development business, Donna has skills and experience that will benefit clients in various phases of their transactions. Donna is passionate about real estate and studies the market constantly to maintain knowledge of current listings and market conditions. Donna’s negotiating skills, knowledge of the market, strong work ethic and dedication will ensure that your transaction is smooth and successful. Donna is also a licensed real estate Broker.

AWARDS: (top selling awards yearly since 2017)
2022-23 • President’s International Premier: Top 1% of Coldwell Banker agents worldwide 2021 •President’s Elite Award; Top 3% of Coldwell Banker agents worldwide 2020 • International President's Circle Award; Top producing 6% of Coldwell Banker agents worldwide
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT:
• Vice Chair of Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Saint Helena; (2016 - 2019) • Member of Active Transportation Commission of the City of Saint Helena; (2014 - 2017) • Member of the Saint Helena Renaissance Foundation; (2014 - 2016) • Master Gardener of Napa County; (2014 - 2019)
• Member of the Active Transportation Commission of the County of Napa; (2014 - 2016) • Meadowood ladies tennis team; (2014 - 2018)
• Crane Park Bocce League; (2014 - current)
• Yountville Bocce League; (2021- current)
• Savvy Saints Investment Club; (2016 - current)
• Saint Helena Book Club; (2019 - current)
• Chair of the Ad Hoc Revenue Task Force for the City of Saint Helena; (2016) • Numerous school, social club and professional committees (2000-2014) EDUCATION:
1982 Bachelor of Business Administration – University of Texas 1986 Doctor of Jurisprudence – University of Houston
PERSONAL:

Donna’s hobbies include gardening, home decorating/remodeling, cooking, bocce, yoga, cycling and reading.

Donna Hinds • www.donnahinds.com • 707-799-4844 • [email protected] Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 5, 2024
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-24-013
NAME: Doug Boeschen
ADDRESS: 1903 Vineyard Ave., St. Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 707 815 6141
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 19 years
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: I would like to continue the work of the past two years on the Commission, particularly in the areas of equitable recreation, access to public facilities, and facilitating cross-organizational cooperation and integration.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Stanford University: Bachelor of Arts 1992 International Relations Stanford University: Master of Arts 1993 International Policy UC Davis: Bachelor of Science 2005 Viticulture and Enology OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Board of Directors, Black Butte Ranch homeowners association Board of Directors, UpValley Family Centers
Commissioner, St. Helena Parks and Recreation Department Coach of 18 teams Kindergarten-High School: soccer, baseball, track and field, basketball.

Current Assistant Coach, Justin Siena High School track and field team Former member Stanford University track and field team
Former Washington state high school high hurdle champion COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Board of Directors: UpValley Family Centers Volunteer Tutor: St. Helena Elementary School (7 years) Member: Hand In Hand Domestic Employer lobbying organization Volunteer: Immigration Institute of the Bay Area: Citizenship application and tutoring
Labor rights activist: in partnership with Jobs with Justice North Bay REFERENCE 1: Name: Dave Jahns
Address: St. Helena Community Services
Phone Number(s):

Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Jenny Ocon
Address: UpValley Family Centers
Phone Number(s):

Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: John Harrington
Address: St Helena High School
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Phone Number(s):

Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To advise the professional staff. To act as liason to the community. To represent the community's interests in areas of parks and recreation.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
Continue to enhance equitable recreation opportunities in St. Helena, Codify public access to recreational facilities, Help to integrated local departments, businesses and organizations.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
Yes - Parks and Recreation (2 years)
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? I am bilingual in spanish and english.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Doug Boeschen June 5, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 7, 2024
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-24-019
NAME: John Thompson
ADDRESS: 1626 Tainter Street, St Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 7072252383
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: Almost 1 year and a further 18 months in 2016/17 EMPLOYER: Oldstreet Consulting - Principal
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: St. Helena is an incredible place to call home. My wife and I first experienced its charm in 2016, and now we’re back for good! The vibrant community, with its diversity and friendliness, truly defines St. Helena. I’m passionate about the outdoors, and I see a clear opportunity to contribute by joining the Parks and Recreation Commission. Giving back to our community and ensuring that residents continue to enjoy this wonderful place motivates me.

My extensive global travels, living in England, India, Australia and the United States, have given me a unique perspective, which I believe can benefit discussions related to our city’s parks, recreational facilities, open spaces, and programs. Throughout my corporate career, I’ve honed my listening skills and maintained a proactive attitude, promoting ideas and awareness which will bring value to any discussion brought before the Commission.

So, why the Parks and Recreation Commission? Simple. I’m committed to enhancing our community’s well-being. By serving on the commission, I aim to contribute my time, expertise, and fresh insights. I’m impressed by St Helena’s recreational programing from the Autumn Harvest Festival through to the Bocce League, and I’m excited about the upcoming opening of the Vine Trail – there is so much to contribute to. Let’s continue the great work so far in St Helena, where green spaces thrive, families play, and memories flourish. Serving on this commission would be an honor.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: BEng (Hons) Electronic Engineering 1993 OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: As a seasoned senior executive with a track record of advising and influencing strategy, I bring a wealth of experience to the Commission. Throughout my corporate career, I’ve collaborated with consumers, boards, and fellow executives, shaping visions, and driving results.

The great outdoors has always been my sanctuary, from state forests to local parks, I’ve fished, explored trails, jogged through open spaces, cycled, and reveled Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION in sports and recreational facilities. This firsthand experience gives me a unique perspective on how to maximize enjoyment in our parks and recreational spaces and programs.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: I am a member of the St Helena Odd Fellows lodge.

REFERENCE 1: Name: Brent Randol
Address:1791 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St Helena
Phone Number(s):7074813319
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Candace Westgate
Address:1010 Allison Avenue, St Helena
Phone Number(s):7078152668
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Elaine Honig
Address: 1248 Stockton Street, St Helena
Phone Number(s):7074792055
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? No
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? I understand the role of a Parks and Recreation Commission member to include:

Advisory: Providing recommendations to the City Council regarding parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces.

Community Engagement: Interacting with residents, gathering input, and addressing community needs related to parks. At the same time actively promoting St Helena's park, open spaces, and recreational facilities.

Policy: Assist in shaping policies and initiatives to enhance local parks and recreational opportunities.

Regular Meetings: Focus on improving recreational experiences and promoting public use of park facilities.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
My goal for serving on the commission is to contribute to this amazing community. I’d like to use my experience in a positive way to ensure the residents of St Helena, and anyone passing through our wonderful city, understand the opportunities they have from our parks and recreation areas, enhancing our community’s overall well-being.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
No
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? I feel it’s important to emphasize, one of my core competencies which is Collaboration and Teamwork and my ability to foster positive relationships. This may be a significant advantage managing the relationship between, Council, Commission, fellow commissioners, city officials and most importantly our residents. I also feel my experience advising boards and shaping visions positions me well to contribute to the long-term planning and development of St. Helena’s parks and recreational spaces.

Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
John Kennneth Thompson June 8, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 7, 2024
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-24-017
NAME: Julie Jenanyan
ADDRESS: 1727 Vineyard Avenue, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 707-337-3549
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 33 years
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Retired
REASON FOR APPLYING: As the chair of the upcoming Napa Valley Pickleball Classic and an avid pickleball player, I have gotten to know both Dave Jahns and Kevin McLeod, have enjoyed working with them, and want to support the Parks and Rec department in general. I also have a vested interest in our community and all of its parks and recreation programs. St. Helena is a gem and it is up to all of us to contribute to maintaining its beauty and vibrancy.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: BA in Psychology and Business, University of San Diego, 1984 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Chair, 2024 Napa Valley Pickleball Classic (Benefitting UpValley Family Center) Chair, 2018 St. Helena Soroptimists Crab Feed
REFERENCE 1: Name: Jim Anderson
Address:1775 Scott Street
Phone Number(s): (707) 363-4440
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Doug Boeschen
Address:1903 Vineyard Avenue
Phone Number(s): (707) 815-6141
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Susan Duryea
Address:1759 Crinella Drive
Phone Number(s): (707) 287-5176
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To support the Parks & Rec department and to facilitate the maintenance and optimal use of all park facilities and recreational programs in St. Helena.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION I want to help ensure that all of our city’s park facilities and recreational programs continue to be available and accessible to everyone in our community.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Julie Ann Jenanyan June 7, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: May 25, 2024
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-24-011
NAME: Stephanie Smithers
ADDRESS: , St. Helena, ,
PHONE: 909-786-9208
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 10 years
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: Passionate about City's parks and recreation services. I'm invested in supporting the Parks & Recreation department through volunteerism and serving on the commission.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: BS in Recreation, Park and Nonprofit Management - 2012 OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: - Certified Parks & Recreation Professional through NRPA - Volunteered in numerous park clean ups
- Previously employed in municipal recreation departments - Well experienced in fundraising
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Board member with Napa Valley Vine Trail Employed by Napa Firewise
REFERENCE 1: Name: Andre Pichly
Address: Placerville, CA
Phone Number(s): 916-206-9977
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Brent Randol
Address: 1791 Sulphur Springs
Phone Number(s): 707-481-3310
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Darrell Quirici
Address: 850 Fulton, St. Helena, CA
Phone Number(s): 707-480-0334
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? Commissioners support city staff, review policy, advise on programs and services, as well as advise city council and executive staff. The commission works to help support City Council goals with a focus on parks and Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION recreation while also providing recommendations to staff about it's parks, services, and any needs that may fall within the Parks & Recreation department.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
I'd like to support city staff in a future parks master plan.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
No.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Stephanie Smithers May 25, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

S T E P H A N I E S M I T H E R S
St Helena, CA 94574 | E: [email protected]

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Highly motivated Marketing Communications professional with 10+ years of experience crafting engaging content and managing communications for non-profit organizations, government agencies, and small businesses. Proven ability to develop and execute strategic marketing campaigns that increase public awareness and engagement. Engaged Napa Valley local with experience in emergency communications including wildfires. Adept at presenting information, facilitating public meetings, and leading groups to achieve shared goals.

EXPERIENCE
April 2021 – Current | Visit St. Helena Vice President & Chief Strategy Officer • Increased client retention by 6% through improved communication and systems. • Manage over 260 accounts, collaborating with C and D level executives across corporations and small businesses.
• Oversee business development strategies including growing client list by 30% in under two years.
• Oversee email marketing and successfully Increased average email open rate by 33%.
• Develop creative for digital ads, webpage banners, social media content. • Manage social channels (Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest) and strategy. • Coordinate social media partnerships, giveaways to increase followers/email subscribers, and content creators.
• Spearhead educational initiatives, creating, facilitating, and leading virtual and inperson learning opportunities. • Oversee press and media, including writing press releases, live TV appearances, and media inquiries.
• Work closely with elected officials and community stakeholders. 2020 – April 2021 | City of St. Helena Public Information Officer (EOC) • Responded to public and media inquiries during local emergencies, contributing to communication strategy during incidents like LNU and Glass Fire. • Wrote and disseminated daily press releases, both informational and educational. • Served as liaison with other community/government agencies such as, CALFIRE, Napa County, local Chamber, Napa Valley COAD, and Napa County Sheriff. • Oversaw social media channels and content creation.
• Increased Facebook following by 59% and average post reach by 1342%. • Implemented strategies to support local businesses, including initiatives like outdoor dining, temporary use permits, and bi-weekly virtual forums. • Aided in securing a federal grant to support businesses during COVID emergency. • Digest complex information and re-write to share with the public. 2017 – 2020 City of St. Helena Recreation Supervisor
• Raised over $89,000 for community special events in 2019.

Agenda Item #13.1.

• Oversaw the City's largest holiday special event, increasing downtown foot traffic by 615% over two years.
• Recruited, hired, and supervised part-time, contractual, and volunteer employees. • Planned, implemented, and coordinated recreation and leisure activities. • Developed presentations for the community, City management, and elected officials. • Organized events, community programs, and opportunities for residents to engage and recreate.
• Developed marketing material for programs and events. 2011 – 2017 Health Spa Napa Valley Operations Director
• Developed and implemented operational systems, achieving short and long-term goals.
• Managed an operating budget of $2.5 Million
• Led a team of 50+, resolving employee turnover from 65% in 2014 to 20% in 2017. • Increased membership sales by 30%
SKILLS:
• Writing: Press releases, website content, social media posts, print collateral, reports, email marketing content, and newsletters.
• Social Media Management: Experience in most social platforms like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and TikTok. Skilled in content creation, influencer marketing, social media collaborations, and community engagement. • Content Creation: Able to develop engaging content for various channels, including blog posts, marketing materials, low-fi social content and video, logos, fliers, and other minor graphic design.
• Public Speaking: Confident in presenting information to diverse audiences, media appearances, virtual meetings, and networking events.
• Software Proficiency: Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Canva, Mailchimp, Asana, Google Drive, Dropbox, Salesforce, MS Teams, Sprout Social, Meta Business Suite, AI Prompts, Outlook and Google Calendar
References Available Upon Request
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: May 14, 2024
Application Type: Planning Commission
CA-24-007
NAME: Autumn Anderson
ADDRESS: 950 Crane Ave, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 7073639692
ALTERNATIVE PHONE: 7073639692
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: Saint Helena
EMPLOYER: Self
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Other
REASON FOR APPLYING: I am applying for reappointment for the opportunity to continue serving my community.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Certified Travel Advisor, FORA travel, 2024 Digital Marketing, Digital Marketing Institute, 2020
Winemaking & Viticulture, Napa Valley college, 2014
Wine Analysis, UC Davis Extension, 2012
Adobe Applications, Santa Rosa JC, 2009
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: I'm a 7th generation Napa Valley native with a career spanning marketing, winemaking and hospitality. I have over 20 years of experience relevant to the local industry and economy.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: COSH Parks and Rec, 2017-2019
COSH Planning Commission, 2019 - current
REFERENCE 1: Name:Lester Hardy
Address:St. Helena
Phone Number(s):707-480-8093
Email:

REFERENCE 2: Name: Jeff Feeney
Address: St. Helena
Phone Number(s):707-580-5678
Email:

REFERENCE 3: Name: Annette Smith
Address:St, Helena
Phone Number(s):707-738-3792
Email:

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? The role of a city planning commission is to help determine how urban areas develop. It manages land use by zoning, reviews and approves development projects and plans, and also involves the public in planning processes. The commission advises city council and helps ensure that development is sustainable and in compliance with zoning laws. This helps achieve a balance between economic growth and environmental preservation and societal needs.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
If I am reappointed to the commission, my goal would be to carry out the commission’s duties as best as I could, to assist in economic growth and environmental preservation and the greater needs of the community.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
COSH Parks and Rec, 2017-2019
COSH Planning Commission, 2019 - current
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? I am applying to be reappointed to the city planning commission, having served a partial 1.5-year term followed by a full 4-year term. As another commissioner departs after a longer tenure next year, I am now positioned, if reappointed to a second 4-year term, to become the most tenured member of the commission. I believe there is great value in the historical perspective I’m able to bring to the commission. I have been enriched by my experience, and while I have gained much, I have much more to contribute, and would be honored and grateful for the opportunity to continue serving.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Autumn Dawn Anderson May 14, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 10, 2024
Application Type: Planning Commission
CA-24-023
NAME: Sue Furdek
ADDRESS: 1861 Spring Mountain Road, Saint Helena, CA, 94574 PHONE: 707-738-9330
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: Saint Helena
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Retired
REASON FOR APPLYING: To make a meaningful contribution to my community by using my leadership, communication, consensus building, problem solving, and analytical skills.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 1983-1985: San Francisco State University: Bachelor of Science in Business, Marketing, Magna Cum Laude
1980-83: University of California, Santa Barbara; Major in Economics, Minor in Communications, Varsity Soccer Team
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: I've spent my entire career as a marketing, communications, and business development professional in leadership roles in fast-paced industries and companies both very large (international) and smaller (family owned, including with Warren Winiarski at Stag's Leap Wine Cellars. I mention that only because we all just learned of this legendary man's passing.) I am skilled at analyzing a lot of data or a complex situation, I excel at problem solving and finding win-win solutions whenever possible, while being respectful and considering many points of view.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: St Helena Community Academy - Class 1, 2023 St Helena Transfer Tax Citizens Committee, 2024
Citizens for Yes on Measure (charter city) and (RPTT), Chair, 2024 Nimbus Arts Board of Directors, Secretary, Since March 2019 Nimbus Arts Sponsorship Committee Chair since 2018
Nimbus Arts Live Auction Committee Chair since 2023
REFERENCE 1: Name:Grace Kistner
Address:San Juan Court, St Helena CA
Phone Number(s): 707-799-7095
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Dana Johnson
Address: 2294 Boysen Lane, St Helena CA
Phone Number(s): 707-738-8942
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Oliver Caldwell
Address: 235 South Crane Ave, St Helena CA
Phone Number(s): 415-999-9272
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? No. I have had no personal business before the commission but I do follow many of the issues before it by watching videos of select meetings or reading articles in the Star.

What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To decide on land-use and development issues important to the future and well-being of the community. The ability to analyze challenging issues and resolve difficult situations.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To be respected by the community as a good listener and problem solver. Someone who is fair-minded and can clearly explain why I've arrived at a decision.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
St Helena Transfer Tax Citizens Committee, 2024 (past)
Citizens for Yes on Measure (charter city) and (RPTT), Chair, 2024 (current) Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? It would be an honor and privilege to be of service to my community :) I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Sue Furdek June 10, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

SUE FURDEK
1861 Spring Mountain Road, St. Helena, CA 94574
(c) 707-738-9330 | [email protected]
SUMMARY A passionate, strategic, and creative marketing, ecommerce, communications, and business development professional with a successful track record for developing new brands and reviving old ones.

Qualifications include: P&L responsibility / budget development and tracking / strategic planning / brand positioning, messaging, and voice / brand identity development /marketing and public relations long term plan development, analysis & execution / new product development / packaging design and development / website design and content development / channel and pricing strategies / trade, press and collector relations /wholesale and direct-to-consumer program development / copywriting / collateral development / event production and management / partnership development / project management / brand ambassadorship / corporate and brand spokesperson / internal and external brand champion.

EXPERIENCE
3/2018-12/2023 Keto-Mojo (Napa, CA)
Startup in the health and wellness space which took on big pharma and became the #1 blood glucose and ketone meter in the US within its first two years.

Director of Ecommerce & Marketing
Reporting to the Founder, responsible for all ecommerce platforms, sales, marketing, market expansions, and content development.
 Created four Shopify ecommerce platforms to serve sales in 30 countries.  Developed robust Wordpress content site with over 1000 pages of content including hundreds of recipes developed by our proprietary culinary team.
1/2016-2/2018 STUDIO 4forty (St. Helena, CA)
The fastest growing event fundraising group in the U.S., with two event concepts: Wine Women & Shoes and Farm to Table(aux) Director of Marketing & Business Development
Reporting to the President and Founder, responsible for sales, marketing, and public relations.  Sold 10 new events to nonprofits in 2016 (above goal). Developed all new sales materials and analytics.  Led and managed the development and launch of a new company name/identity and second event series.  Managed the development of 3 new website, wrote all the copy for two.  Launched a PR campaign: hired and managed PR consultant  Updated and developed all marketing and sales materials for nonprofit, winery, and corporate sponsorship partners. 11/2014-5/2015 Clos Du Val (Napa, CA)
An iconic Napa Valley winery estate which gained recognition at the famed Judgment of Paris Tasting in 1976. Family-owned, with 350 acres of estate vineyards.

Director of Marketing
Reporting to the President and CEO, responsible for marketing and public relations strategy, plan development, and execution at a time of critical change to revitalize the business. Managed PR agency, numerous creative consultants, and one employee.  Realigned products, portfolio architecture, and pricing to maximize brand equity and profitability for future brand repositioning and relaunch.
 Created new branding and wine club material establishing a new, more sophisticated look and feel for the brand.  Redesigned packaging for the top tier wine and created new packaging for DTC only wines.  Created library wine program and policies including inventory management, release schedule, and pricing.  Pitched and placed community-oriented feature story in the Napa Valley Register to build the winery’s local profile.  Oversaw winery relationship with trade organizations: NVVA, Stags Leap Winegrowers, Carneros Wine Alliance. 8/2013- 11/2014 Jackson Family Wines (Oakville, CA)
Family -owned and ranked among the top 10 US wine companies, with over 30 wineries in California, France, Chile, Italy and Australia.

Sr. Marketing Manager, Artisan Brands
Cardinale, Lokoya, La Jota, Mt. Brave, Galerie
Responsible for brand plan development and execution, supporting growth in all channels (3-tier, DTC, and international) on brands ranging in price point from $30-$350. Managed a creative agency and one employee.  Shipments up 65%, depletions up 62% across brands in my first fiscal year.  Cardinale: Rolled out new brand identify in collateral, web, DTC. Developed partnership with luxury travel club Inspirato.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Sue Furdek, page 2
 Lokoya: Created all new brand material and style guide. Developed partnership with luxury brand Swiss watchmaker Ulysses Nardin.
 La Jota: Developed all new collateral, brand standards and style guide. Created successful on-premise waistaff trade incentive program in key markets utilizing library wine inventory.  Mt. Brave: Developed high-end on-premise by-the-glass pour plan for sales utilizing Coravin wine systems. Developed and launched social media campaign.
 Galerie: Designed packaging and launch materials/plan for new Cabernet products. 2012 - 2020 EONIAN Wines (St. Helena, CA)
Proprietor
Co-founded a small boutique Napa Valley wine brand with my husband Wayne Donaldson - a well-known and highly regarded winemaker in the US and Australia - to capture the love of two countries and the grape varieties that brought them fame. EONIAN is a blend of Napa Valley Syrah and Cabernet Sauvignon. 9/2007- 11/2012 STE. MICHELLE WINE ESTATES (Napa, CA)
One of the top 10 premium wine companies in the U.S. with estates in Washington, Oregon and California.

Director of Marketing, CA Brands
Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, Conn Creek Winery, Antica Napa Valley, Hawk Crest, Villa Mt. Eden Reporting to VP Marketing, led portfolio and brand strategy and managed profitability for brands spanning super-premium to ultra-luxury price points with volumes up to 120,000 cases. Responsible for brand building, new product development and launch, channel strategy, allocations, pricing, packaging, collateral & POS development, consumer & trade promotion, website redesigns, direct to consumer and digital initiatives, strategic partnerships, and research. Supervised one Brand Manager.  Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars: Restored image and business vitality to venerable but dusty Napa Valley brand resulting in a 48% increase in volume and 22% increase in profitability. Developed new product tier resulting in highly successful launch with annual sales of 10,000 cases and product selling out in the first year.  Conn Creek Winery: Comprehensive brand repositioning, packaging, and pricing overhaul that breathed new energy and sales velocity into declining brand. Grew volume 73%. Created revolutionary AVA Barrel Blending Room & Experience which won the “Innovative Wine Tourism Experience” award in 2011 from the Great Wine Capitals Global Network.  Villa Mt. Eden: Comprehensive brand repositioning, packaging, and pricing overhaul to eliminate portfolio redundancies.

Was still being rolled out in 2012.
 Antica Napa Valley: Took nascent luxury wine brand in crowded Napa Cabernet competitive set from 1,400 cases in 2007 to 6,700 cases.
12/2005- 9/2007 STAG’S LEAP WINE CELLARS - (Napa, CA)
World renowned winery recognized for Cabernet Sauvignon and for bringing international recognition to California winemaking and the Napa Valley when it won the now legendary 1976 Paris Tasting.

Director of Marketing & Communications
Reporting to owner and proprietor, responsible for corporate and brand marketing, packaging, collateral & POS, promotion, new product development, corporate communications, media relations, and consumer and trade events. Supervised a Marketing & Communications Coordinator and Creative Services Manager.  Enhanced company-wide branding and communications materials.  Capitalized on 30th anniversary of the Paris Tasting to secure cover and feature articles in prestigious publications including San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, Decanter Magazine, as well as coverage in TV, radio, and documentaries.  Developed wine collector initiatives and managed relationships resulting in record prices paid for the winery’s Premiere Napa Valley and Auction Napa Valley auction lots.
12/2000-11/2005 DOMAINE CHANDON, INC - (Yountville, CA) Napa Valley’s leading producer of sparkling wine and one of the most highly visited destinations in Napa Valley. Owned by LVMH—the world’s leading luxury goods company.

Director, Public & Community Relations
Reporting to VP Marketing, responsible for media relations, corporate communications, company branding and messaging, consumer events, sponsorships, and PR agency relationships for promoting sparkling and varietal wine brands, the Visitor Center, and the Restaurant to consumers and the trade. Supervised a PR Manager. Hired and managed public relations agency.  Achieved highest-ever press coverage in the consecutive years of 2003 and 2004, delivering over $1.4 million in advertising equivalency each year. Secured placements in high profile lifestyle publications including Gourmet, Food & Wine, Bon Appetit, In Style, and Sunset magazine as well as national TV and local TV and radio.  A key member of the marketing team that revamped brand strategy and consumer marketing programs for Chandon sparkling wines which resulted in consecutive years of double-digit sales growth in 2003 and 2004, outpacing the category.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Sue Furdek, page 3
 Initiated first-ever comprehensive PR plans for the Restaurant at Domaine Chandon resulting in the chef being named a San Francisco Chronicle’s Rising Star Chef in 2005.
 Developed new company-wide messaging points and led extensive media training with executive team and winemaking spokespersons.
 Conducted multi-market press tour for launch of Domaine Chandon varietal wine brand. 6/1999-9/2000 WINESHOPPER.COM (San Francisco & Napa, CA) E-commerce startup backed by $46 million in funding from Amazon.com and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (eventually became wine.com).

Director of Advertising & Promotion
Reporting to VP Marketing, developed and managed the second largest budget in the company. Responsible for establishing and developing the brand look, feel, and personality across all advertising, promotions, events, and collateral material to multiple channels including consumers, producers, wholesalers, retailers, and regulators. Managed staff of three. Hired and managed advertising, design, and research agencies.
 Developed brand logo, letterhead system, shipping box, gift box, trade advertising campaign, consumer advertising campaign, event booth, premiums, and collateral (brochures, newsletters, etc.)  Set advertising and media plan objectives and strategies. Managed the development and execution of a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to consumers and trade.
 Managed the design and development of all research including an ongoing national Attitude & Usage study.  Established an events and promotions department. Set the strategic direction for participation in events. Managed the design and development of an event booth and event booth materials.  Negotiated strategic corporate partnerships (alongside business development and editorial) with Food & Wine, The New York Times Group, Wine & Spirits, among others.
 Developed business systems for the marketing department. Worked cross functionally to identify and develop business requirements for site features and functionality.
7/1997–6/1999 DETAILS MAGAZINE – CONDÉ NAST PUBLICATIONS (San Francisco, CA) A men’s lifestyle magazine by one of the country’s largest and privately held publishing companies.

Northwest Advertising Manager
Reporting to the Publisher, responsible for managing, developing, and growing the Northwest territory by establishing key industry relationships, customizing promotional programs, preparing all presentation materials, analyzing research data and developing research tools.
 Grew revenue by 69% to make it the second largest territory (next to New York) in the country.  Named Sales Person of the Year in 1998. Earned awards for Best Save and Most Up.  Key new business wins in technology, apparel, and spirits categories including Microsoft, Dockers, and Skyy Vodka. 5/1996-7/1997 HARPER’S MAGAZINE (San Francisco, CA)
One of the country’s oldest magazines with coverage of politics, culture, and literature.

West Coast Advertising Manager
Reporting to the Publisher, responsible for managing, developing, and growing the West Coast region by finding creative ways to overcome the magazine’s small circulation and lack of syndicated research.  Grew revenue over 25% versus the previous year.
 Grew billings against current accounts by 50%.
 Developed category presentations for the national sales force. Designed and developed media kit materials. Helped establish research tools.
11/85-5/96 HAL RINEY & PARTNERS (San Francisco, CA)
One of the largest independently owned advertising agencies on the West Coast with offices in San Francisco, Chicago, New York.

Vice President, Associate Media Director
Reporting to Sr. VP, Media Director, responsible for the strategic direction and management of clients’ advertising and media strategies, media plans, testing, tracking, and research needs. Led, trained, and supervised teams of planners in the development, presentation, and implementation of national and regional media plans and promotional programs with budgets up to $30 million.
 Media Futures task force member: identifying and recommending strategies for emerging media.  Frequent guest speaker at client seminars and conferences.  Developed the agency’s first media training program and manual.  Managed a staff of up to 11 team members.
 Promoted from starting position as Assistant Media Planner.

Key clients included: Saturn Cars (General Motors), Clinique, Alamo Rent A Car, Stroh Brewery, Swanson Frozen Foods, TCI (TeleCommunications Inc), Security Pacific Bank, Gallo (Bartles & Jaymes), PBS, Spectrum Foods (Restaurant Group).

Agenda Item #13.1.

Sue Furdek, page 4
EDUCATION San Francisco State University
 B.S. Business, Marketing, Magna Cum Laude (1983-1985) University of California, Santa Barbara
 Majored in Economics, minor in Communications (1980-1983)  Varsity Soccer Team
VOLUNTEERING Nimbus Arts Board Secretary (Mar 2019 – present)  Napa Valley Community Arts Nonprofit
The Ketogenic Foundation Board Member (Sept 2018 - Jul 2023)  Public charity dedicated to fostering ketogenic education and clinical research.

Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 12, 2024
Application Type: Active Transportation Advisory Committee to NVTA
CA-24-025
NAME: Glenn Smith
ADDRESS: 1730 Dean York Ln., St. Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 7073207612
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: St. Helena
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Retired
REASON FOR APPLYING: I would like to be reappointed and remain on the City's ATSC and also be considered for the City's representative on the ATSC to NVTA. I would like to be the conduit that shares vital information from the City to the NVTA.

I value the service these committees provides to the City administration and City Council.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: (High School, College, Professional, Vocational, or other Schools Attended. Please include Major or Field of Study, Dates attended, Degree and date of Degree) Undergraduate degree--UC Berkeley--Economics
Graduate Master, Business Administration--Ohio State
Certifications from Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Stanford and Harvard business seminars
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Consultant with Watson Wyatt (an International human resources consultancy) and west coast practice leader in health care cost management COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Serviced for the past 8+ years on ATSC Board membership on Marin Community Foundation and Marin AIDS Project Certified member of Univ. of California Master Gardeners and Board member and officer of Marin and Napa Chapters
Served on Blue Zones' Built Environment Committee
REFERENCE 1: Name: Michael Caldorola
Address:1761 Vineyard Ave., St. Helena
Phone Number(s): 415-652-4423
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Richard Seiferheld
Address:2020 Birch St., St. Helena
Phone Number(s): 707-695-0915
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Pat Dell
Address: Vineyard Valley, St. Helena
Phone Number(s):707-799-9043
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To review programs and projects of interest to the City Council and brought to the committee by City administration; to advise the city administration on community interests effected by proposals; to identify issues for he city administration and Council that are of interest to the community What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To fully participate in meetings through preparation and objectively contribute to the best advice to city administration on proposal formulation to support Council for their decision making.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
Yes, the ATSC
Served on SHAPE Committee
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? I've served on this Committee for many years including a year as acting Chair Person. I value this opportunity to contribute to the community and have active connection to City operations I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Glenn Smith June 12, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: April 24, 2024
Application Type: Active Transportation Advisory Committee to NVTA
CA-24-006
NAME: Natalia Ramirez Guzmàn
ADDRESS: 1103 Pope St, Apt E, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 7076995510
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: Saint Helena
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Unemployed
REASON FOR APPLYING: I would also like to be considered for the City's ATSC and also be considered for the City's representative on the ATSC to NVTA. I would like to be the conduit that shares vital information from the City to the NVTA.

I am a member of the St. Helena Community Academy as well as the Paso Adelante Committee hosted by the Napa Valley Grape Growers, and I serve on the board of the Napa Valley College Estate & Winery.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: I am a first generation student at Sonoma State University, I attended Napa High School. I currently working on obtaining my Bachelor’s of Science degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Wine Business Strategies as well as pursuing a certification in ASL
REFERENCE 1: Name:Jill Durfee
Address:

Phone Number(s):707-460-7666
Email:

REFERENCE 2: Name:

Address:

Phone Number(s):

Email:

REFERENCE 3: Name:

Address:

Phone Number(s):

Email:

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? No, but I am a member of the St. Helena Community Academy What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? The community! By bringing up voices that are not heard and making a difference, as well as using the opportunity to grow personally, we are able to make a difference.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Advocating on behalf of the Gen Z community and the younger generation, as well as Farmworkers, and making diversity a priority here!
I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Natalia R. Guzman April 24, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

Natalia R. Guzmàn
Napa, California, United States
[email protected] 7076995510
linkedin.com/in/natalia-r-guzm
%C3%A0n-146a30247
Summary
As a wine enthusiast and a first-generation college student, I am pursuing a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Wine Business Strategies at Sonoma State University. My education has equipped me with the fundamentals of wine production, distribution, and supply chain, as well as the business and legal aspects of the wine industry.

I have also applied my knowledge and skills in various internships and jobs at reputable wineries, where I have demonstrated my hospitality, communication, and interpersonal skills. Most recently, I worked as a Sales and Marketing Representative Intern at Napa Valley College Winery Estate, where I developed and managed marketing campaigns, newsletters, social media, and wine club communications. Previously, I provided informative and engaging wine tastings, tours, and customer service to a diverse range of guests, achieving a 95% satisfaction rating and generating repeat business, as a Wine Specialist at Frog's Leap Winery and as a Guest Experience Associate at Foley Family Wines.

My goal is to contribute to the growth and success of wine businesses while offering memorable and enjoyable experiences to customers. I am always eager to learn new things, explore new opportunities, and create a homely environment for others. With my education, experience, and skills, I am confident that I can add value to any winerelated organization! Experience
Sales & Marketing Representative Internship
Napa Valley College
Dec 2022 - May 2023 (6 months)
NVC Winery Estate
•Developing and managing marketing calendars, newsletters, monthly emails, and social media. •Managing Wine Club Communications (Club Releases, Shipments, and Account Updates on Winedirect,Vinoshipper, Square)
•Responsible for managing campus events related to the Napa Valley College Winery Estate Wine Specialist
Frog's Leap Winery
Mar 2022 - Jan 2023 (11 months)
•Extensive knowledge of International wines, vintages, and characters. As well as detailed knowledge of Frogs Leap House wines.
•In my discussions with guests, I provide information about the History and Sustainability practices behind Frogs Leap wine making styles.
•With guest, I provide information about Frogs Leap events and products during wine tastings. I also highlighted the benefits of wine clubs.

Natalia R. Guzmàn - page 1
Agenda Item #13.1.

Concierge & Wine Educator
Foley Family Wines
May 2021 - Jan 2022 (9 months)
•Assisted with the daily organization and management of the reservation platform. (Tock) •Assisted with reservations and winery information via telephone and email. •Provided assistance with wine inventory, wine buffing, and maintaining the winery's appearance for guests.
•I operated and closed the winery on my own, managed reservations, inventory, wine club, hosted guests, and explained to them the background of Bill Foley and the Rutherford Appellation.

Summer Internship
Napa Valley Grapegrowers
Jun 2018 - Aug 2018 (3 months)
Field's of Opportunity - Summer Mentor Program
Wineries:
•Pine Ridge Winery, 5901 (Silverado Trail) / Gustavo Avina •Walsh Vineyards Management, 1125 (Golden Gate Dr) / Rolando Sanchez •Yount Mill Vineyards/Napa Wine Company / Sarah Meyer
•Silverado Farming Company, 390 (Taylor St)/ Arnulfo Solorio Experiences:

Vineyard: learned various skills in vineyard management including (canopying, harvesting, graphing) Equipment: learned about and to recognize all of the equipment used in vineyard & winery operations Cellar: worked in the cellar and performed cleaning and sanitizing fermentation tanks Office: received comprehensive safety training
Education
Sonoma State University
Bachelor of Science - BS, Business Administration Concentration in Wine Business Strategy’s
Aug 2023 - May 2025
•The French Language Wine Business Program
Napa Valley College
Associate of Science - AS, Business Administration, Management and Operations 2022 - 2023
Napa Valley College
Associate of Science - AS, Wine Marketing & Sales
2019 - 2022
Natalia R. Guzmàn - page 2
Agenda Item #13.1.

Napa High School
GED
Aug 2016 - Jun 2019
California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
Jan 2024 - May 2024
Licenses & Certifications
Certificate of Achievement- Wine Marketing & Sales - Napa Valley College Fundamentals of Digital Marketing - Google Digital Garage

SLMZGMVVF
Wines of Georgia Course - Napa Valley Wine Academy
73495414
Skills
Public Relations   •   Direct to Consumer Marketing   •   Knowledge Acquisition   •   Fostering inclusivity   • Account Management   •   Product Knowledge   •   Product Service   •   Negotiation   •   Office Administration   • Winemaking
Natalia R. Guzmàn - page 3
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 9, 2024
Application Type: Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee
CA-24-020
NAME: Coral Posert
ADDRESS: 1140 Victoria Drive, St. Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 9252120485
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: St. Helena
EMPLOYER: Dentist Ole Health
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: Seeking to contribute to the City of St Helena government EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: UC San Diego BA in Biology 1982 UCLA School of Dentistry 1987
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Active in the City of Orinda Educational Foundation (EFO) 2000-2010 REFERENCE 1: Name: Antonio Castellucci
Address: 1115 Victoria Drive, St Helena, 94574
Phone Number(s): 415-948-4595
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Peter Hicks
Address: 1321 Orchard Napa, CA 94558
Phone Number(s): 707-320-3005
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Mason Revelette
Address: 1500 South Whitehall Lane, St Helena, 94574
Phone Number(s): 615-838-2320
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? Gather information and act in an advisory capacity to the City Council What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
Identify areas of need for the City of St Helena and implement plans to address them.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
No
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION I have been a small business owner (dental offices) in three different cities. I currently work for a non-profit healthcare organization (Ole Health). I am very interested in participating in the planning of the next segment of the VinTrail from St Helena to Yountville.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Coral Posert June 9, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 10, 2024
Application Type: Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee
CA-24-024
NAME: Richard Seiferheld
ADDRESS: 2020 Birch Ave., St. Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 7076950915
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: St. Helena
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Retired
REASON FOR APPLYING: I am a long time St. Helena resident, now a retired real estate professional, and have time to actively engage and contribute to the improvement and well being of our City.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Moses Brown School 1957; Cornell University 1961 (BA); NYU Business School 1963; UC Berkley 1972; Napa Community College 1982-84
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Back ground in real estate, finance and environmental organizations COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Active with Land Trust of Napa County (BOT) 30+yrs; Former BOT Stonebridge Housing ; Volunteer coordinator for CDFW 2013 to present;Active BOT Mennen Environmental Foundation; Advisory Committee to Napa Regional Parks & Open Space district. ad hoc committee member with SH Parks & Rec for walking paths in the City
REFERENCE 1: Name: Maury Robertson
Address: 1475 Main Street St. Helena CA
Phone Number(s):(707) 227-9559
Email:[email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: David Duncan
Address:1715 Dean York Lane St. Helena CA
Phone Number(s): (707) 287-3909
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name:William Densberger
Address:1508 Main Street St. Helena CA
Phone Number(s):(707) 483-7889
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? no
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To advise Public Works on community traffic and transportation; explore policy and/or programs to improve Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION and enhance a sustainable and healthy community environment.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To both introduce and vet new ideas that will enhance the quality of life for SH citizens as well a provide feedback to City staff on issues that fall under the prevue of this committee.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
ad hoc walking paths committee recommending formalization of pedestrian walkways I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Richard Seiferheld June 10, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 5, 2024
Application Type: Library Board of Trustees
CA-24-015
NAME: Alexandra Haslip
ADDRESS: 1655 SYLVANER AVE,, SAINT HELENA, CA, 94574-2341 PHONE: 7073341113
ALTERNATIVE PHONE: 707-967-0876
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 50 years
EMPLOYER: private tech company
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Retired
REASON FOR APPLYING: This is a re-apply. Already serving on Board. I & my family love the Library and would like to continue to serve it and the community.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Graduate of UC-Berkeley in anthropology & archaeology COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: SH Beautification Foundation, SH Public Schools Foundation, White Barn Board ......

REFERENCE 1: Name:

Address: See previously submitted application
Phone Number(s):

Email:

REFERENCE 2: Name:

Address:

Phone Number(s):

Email:

REFERENCE 3: Name:

Address:

Phone Number(s):

Email:

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? Help keep the library a vibrant, welcoming place for the people of St.Helena. To help keep the budget on track and assist the staff in doing its wonderful work.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
Library Board 5 years ?
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Alexandra Haslip May 6, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: May 24, 2024
Application Type: Library Board of Trustees
CA-24-010
NAME: Dana Johnson
ADDRESS: 2294 Boyson Lane, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 7077388942
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: Saint Helena
EMPLOYER: Nimbus Arts Board of Directors President
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Other
REASON FOR APPLYING: I’m interested in supporting the mission of the St Helena Library and in finding ways to integrate the library with other community organizations and resources.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: I have a BS degree from Lewis and Clark College in a self-designed major of Community Arts. I also have an MLIS degree from the University of Washington School of Library and Information Science.

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: I was a Librarian and Professor of Online Reference Services at Western Washington University from 1986-1989. I then worked for Bibliographic Retrieval Services (BRS) as a database designer from 1988 -1992 and then worked for Ovid Technologies as VP of Software Development from 1992-1998.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: I am the co-founder and Board President of Nimbus Arts, which will be celebrating its 20th anniversary next year.

REFERENCE 1: Name:Anne Cottrell
Address:1752 Scott Street
Phone Number(s):707-696-1166
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name:Deb Claymon Boeschen
Address:1903 Vineyard Ave
Phone Number(s):415-516-0070
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name:Stephanie Gamble
Address:1801 Scott Street
Phone Number(s):707-696-7140
Email: 707-696-7140
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? I have not.

What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION I understand that I need to work with my fellow commissioners to consider the range of challenges and responsibilities facing the library and provide advice, counsel and feedback in order to support and assist the library in moving forward with both the mission of the library and with integrating the library with other city services.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To provide advocacy and counsel that will strengthen and improve the library’s capacity to engage and serve the St Helena community, especially during this time of leadership transition. :

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
I do not, though I served briefly on an advisory committee assisting the city with considering the issues related to how to implement a real estate transfer tax.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? I think it is important to have a person on the Board with a degree in Library Science.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Dana Johnson May 24, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 8, 2024
Application Type: Library Board of Trustees
CA-24-018
NAME: Deborah Boeschen
ADDRESS: 1903 VINEYARD AVE, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 4155160070
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 18
EMPLOYER: Self
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: Continuing my service on the board EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: MA Northwestern University
BA Stanford University
Yale Writer's Workshop
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: 25+ years in journalism, media work and education COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Scholarship Chair, Napa Valley Community Foundation, 6 years AVID tutor, RLS Middle School, 2 years
St. Helena Farmers Market to Food Pantry, Volunteer Coordinator, 4 years Other significant community volunteership and leadership REFERENCE 1: Name: Loraine Stuart
Address:

Phone Number(s):

Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Jenny Ocon, UpValley Family Centers
Address:

Phone Number(s):

Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: John Harrington, teacher
Address:

Phone Number(s):

Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? I am chair the sub-committee clarifying the roles and responsibilities of this commission. Our redefined vision is to advise and advocate for the St. Helena Library to the director of the library and the St. Helena City Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Council, and for members to serve as positive ambassadors to the community on behalf of the library.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To revitalize this commission in a positive direction; to help in the transition with new organizational structure and new leadership at the library.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
Yes, I serve currently on this commission.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Deborah Claymon Boeschen June 8, 2024
Agenda Item #13.1.