St. Helena City Council
September 10, 2024

City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, September 10, 2024 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena

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

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

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

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

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

5.1. Consideration and proposed approval of Special Meeting Minutes and Regular Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2024
Special City Council - 27 Aug 2024 - Applicant Interviews - Minutes Regular City Council - 27 Aug 2024 - Minutes
9 - 17

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

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

Estimated start time: 6:10 p.m.

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

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

Estimated start time: 6:20 p.m.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

8.1. Suicide Awareness Month Proclamation Presented to Mentis Napa's Center for Mental Health Services
Estimated start time: 6:25 p.m.

Proclamation
Suicide Prevention Conference Flyer
19 - 22

8.2. David Shew, Napa County Fire Administrator presentation on effects of fire and climate change
Estimated start time: 6:35 p.m.

Presentation - David Shew
Presentation - Fire Chief John Sorensen
23 - 44

9. STAFF BRIEFING

9.1. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program Project Update by Joe Leach, Public Works Director
Estimated start time: 6:45 p.m.

9.2. Water Quality Update by Joe Leach, Public Works Director Estimated start time: 6:55 p.m.

Presentation
45 - 56

9.3. Review of City Budgetary and Related Fiscal Issues Estimated start time: 7:05 p.m.

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

Receive and file.

Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation
57 - 84

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public (present at the meeting) may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one

motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote) Estimated start time: 7:35 p.m.

10.1. Consideration and proposed adoption of a resolution (1) Approving temporary street closures; and (2) Authorizing possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets and parking lots for the 2024 Harvest Festival.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Dave Jahns, Director of Community Services Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council review and adopt the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
85 - 88

10.2. Consideration and proposed adoption of a resolution authorizing (1) a temporary street closure of Hunt Avenue from November 25, 2024 until January 3, 2025; and (2) possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets on November 27, 2024 for the Holiday Wine Barrel Tree installation and lighting ceremony.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Dave Jahns, Director of Community Services Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council review and adopt the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
89 - 92

10.3. Waive second reading and adoption of an Ordinance adding Sections

15.18.020 through 15.18.090 of the St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15, (Buildings and Construction) to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the impacts of climate change as discussed as directed by Council at the August 27, 2024 City Council meeting.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Philip Henry, Chief Building Official
Recommendation:

Waive the second reading of the proposed adoption of the ordinance.

Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Chris Warner
Public Comment.Chris Warner 2
93 - 105

10.4. Consideration and adoption of a Resolution: (1) Establishing R25- 81 Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair Project and Award the Project to TCW Concrete in the amount of $365,280; (2)
Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Construction Contract with TCW Concrete; (3) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve Change Orders not to exceed 15% of the ontract amount; (4) Authorize a budget transfer from Fund 240 Measure T to Fund 741 Street Capital in the amount not to exceed $420,072, which includes the 15% contingency; and (5) 107 - 112

Determining the project to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA Determination: Class I Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation:

Approve the Resolution
Staff Report - Pdf

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

12. OLD BUSINESS
None

13. NEW BUSINESS

13.1. City Council requested information regarding Measure B - Informational Item
Estimated start time: 7:40 p.m.

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

Receive and file.

Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Tom Belt
Public Comment.Richard Seiferheld 1
Public Comment.Richard Seiferheld 2
Public Comment.Pat Dell
Public Comment.Kelly Wheaton
Public Comment.Julia Bolander
Public Comment.St Helena Citizens No on Measure B
113 - 140

13.2. Request by Fulton Junction Partners LLC for preliminary review of a proposed General Plan Amendment for the property located at 1030 Fulton Lane (APN 009-194-005).

Estimated start time: 8:15 p.m.

CEQA Determination: CEQA will be completed before formal adoption.

Prepared By: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
Recommendation:

The City Council should review the proposed General Plan Amendment application and either:

1. Authorize the application to be processed, referring the matter to the Planning Commission or

2. Direct staff to cease processing the application pursuant to St.

Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.06.
141 - 170

Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Mary Stephenson
Presentation 1
Presentation 2

13.3. Consideration and Proposed Approval of:

1. Designating a Voting Delegate on Behalf of the City of St.

Helena City Council; and

2. Designating Alternate Voting Delegates; and

3. The City Council authorizes the Voting Delegate and/or Alternate Voting Delegates to vote on any proposed resolution on behalf of the City at the League of California Cities Annual Conference Business Meeting.

Estimated start time: 8:30 p.m.

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

Consideration and Proposed Approval of:

1. Designating a Voting Delegate on Behalf of the City of St.

Helena City Council; and

2. Designating Alternate Voting Delegates; and

3. The City Council authorizes the Voting Delegate and/or Alternate Voting Delegates to vote on any proposed resolutions on behalf of the City at the League of California Cities Annual Conference Business Meeting.

Staff Report - Pdf
171 - 199

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

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

K. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
L. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee M. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
N. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports

15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for September 24, 2024, at 6:00 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on September 5, 2024.

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE

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

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 27, 2024 @ 5:30 PM
Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, First Floor, Wellness
Center, St. Helena
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742. The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.

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

Absent: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

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

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

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.

5. NEW BUSINESS:

5.1 The City of St. Helena received three applications for the Library Board of Trustees.

Library Board of Trustees
Agenda Item #5.1.

Special City Council
August 27, 2024
Janet Myers resigned on June 11, 2024 leaving one opening with an expiring term June 30, 2025.

Three applications were received from Hailey Covey, Jonathan Furuta and Nadia Torres.

Hailey Covey, Jonathan Furuta and Nadia Torres addressed the City Council.

6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 5:53 p.m.

APPROVED:
______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #5.1.

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 27, 2024 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742. The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.

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

Absent: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

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

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

5. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

5.1 Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of August 13, 2024.

Vice Mayor Eric Hall moved to approve the Regular Meeting minutes of August 13, 2024 The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
August 27, 2024
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

No public comment was made.

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

City Attorney, Ethan Walsh noted there was no reportable action from the August 27, 2024 special City Council closed session meeting.

Reports were made by staff.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
None

9. STAFF BRIEFING
None

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

10.1 Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Establishing the 2025 Tax Rate for General Obligation Bonds.

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

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

10.2 Waiver of second reading and approval of an Ordinance amending and restating Chapter 12.08 of the St. Helena Municipal Code to clarify maintenance responsibility of property frontage debris, surveyor requirements and street repair responsibilities as discussed as directed by Council at the July 23, 2024 City Council meeting.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Eric Janzen, Assistant Public Works Director Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
August 27, 2024
Recommendation:

Introduce and waive the second reading of the proposed revisions to the ordinance.

10.3 This item was pulled.

Proposed approval of a resolution authorizing Amendment #1 to the Professional Services Agreement with California Consulting in the amount of $25,000, for a total amount not-to-exceed of $50,000 to provide grant research and writing support on an as needed basis.

10.4 July 2024 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability.

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

Receive and file.

Vice Mayor Eric Hall moved to approve Items 10.1, 10.2, and 10.4. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:

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

10.3 Proposed approval of a resolution authorizing Amendment #1 to the Professional Services Agreement with California Consulting in the amount of $25,000, for a total amount not-to-exceed of $50,000 to provide grant research and writing support on an as needed basis.

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

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Clarification was made on item.

No public comment was received.

Vice Mayor Eric Hall moved to approve Item 10.3. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anna Chouteau and on roll call carried by the following vote:

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
August 27, 2024
AYES: Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers NOES: Mayor Paul Dohring
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.1 Introduction of Ordinance Adding Sections 15.18.020 through 15.18.090 of the St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15, (Buildings and Construction) to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the impacts of climate change.

CEQA Determination: This action is exempt from the requirements of CEQA under the "General Rule", Section 15061 (b) (3), in that it can be seen with certainty that no environmental impacts will result from this action; and Section 15273 given that CEQA does not apply to Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges.

Prepared By: Philip Henry, Chief Building Official
Recommendation:

Introduce and waive the first reading of the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed addition of Sections 15.18.020 through

15.18.090 to the St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15 is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3); and .

2. Add Sections 15.18.020 through 15.18.090 to the St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.

Chief Building Official, Philip Henry reported on item.

Public Comment was made by Chris Warner.

Council Member Anna Chouteau moved to approve recommendation by staff to introduce and waive the first reading of the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed addition of Sections 15.18.020 through

15.18.090 to the St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15 is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3); and .

2. Add Sections 15.18.020 through 15.18.090 to the St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.

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

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: Vice Mayor Eric Hall
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
August 27, 2024
RECUSE: None

12. OLD BUSINESS

13. NEW BUSINESS

13.1 Adopting a resolution appointing one applicant to the Library Board of Trustees to fill a vacancy
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution appointing an applicant to the Library Board of Trustees.

No public comment was made.

Mayor Paul Dohring moved to adopt a resolution appointing Jonathan Furuta to the Library Board of Trustees. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Eric Hall and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Mayor Dohring called for a recess at 7:13 pm.

13.2 Review, Discussion, and Direction of Ad Hoc Water/Wastewater Exploratory Committee Recommendation to City Council.

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

Review and discuss the WWE Committee recommendation and provide direction to staff.

Assistant City Manager, April Mitts reported on item.

Public Comment was received by Chris Warner, Gene Armsted, Kelly Wheaton and Garry Rose.

Council Member Kenealy made a motion to approve the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Mayor Dohring and Council Member Summers to Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
August 27, 2024
work with staff to determine specific goals that a water/wastewater committee could be tasked with. The motion was seconded by Council Member Summers.

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Anna Chouteau, Council Member Patrick Kenealy, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: Vice Mayor Eric Hall,
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Previous to the motion, council had wide ranging discussions including the idea of a one year and two-year committee but no motion was made to create a WWE committee.

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

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

15. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
August 27, 2024
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

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

CITY OF ST. HELENA

PROCLAMATION
Suicide Prevention Month ~ September 2024
WHEREAS, the Napa County Suicide Prevention Council (NCSPC), a public/private collaborative of people and organizations who are dedicated to reducing stigma around suicide, supporting those who have lost loved ones to suicide, identifying and advocating for resources and promoting a safe, connected and resilient community to reduce the risk of suicide; and
WHEREAS, in the last seven years NCSPC has worked tirelessly to reach their vision of a suicide-free community through education and training, stigma reduction, linkage to services, and provision of resources to combat suicide; and WHEREAS, from 2020-2022, the suicide rate in California was 10.7 deaths per 100,000 population and Napa County’s was 11.9 deaths per 100,000 population, placing Napa County higher than the State average; and
WHEREAS, in Napa County in Calendar Year 2023, residents between the ages of 18-35 had the highest suicide rate with 15 individuals who completed suicide. The most common mechanism for suicide was by firearms (40%) and hanging (40%); and
WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 23-24, the NCSPC published a 3-year Strategic Plan for Suicide Prevention which reflects the priorities, accomplishments, and needs for suicide prevention in Napa County. The NCSPC also trained 768 community members in the Question, Persuade, Refer model of suicide prevention; and WHEREAS, in partnership with Napa County Health and Human Services, the NCSPC organized and will host the first annual Suicide Prevention Conference on September 18, 2024 with the theme of Hope Beyond Darkness: Uniting for Suicide Prevention; and
WHEREAS, every City of St. Helena resident can be an ally by knowing the signs of suicide, finding the words to communicate with someone they are concerned about, and reaching out to local resources for help.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor of the City of St. Helena, along with the St. Helena City Council, do hereby proclaim September 2024 as Suicide Prevention Month.

Dated: September 10, 2024
________________________________

PAUL JAMISON DOHRING, MAYOR
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #8.1.

Lunch will be Provided ~ Spani sh Trans lat ion available Ticket s are $20 ~ Space i s Limi ted ~ Please regi s ter here:
ht tps ://bi t .ly/SPC-24
We are committed to making sure this conference is accessible to everyone. Please reach out to Jeni Olsen at [email protected] about potential discount options.

Join us for a day of learning, sharing, mutual support, and awareness-raising as we explore the complexities of suicide, reduce stigma around mental health issues, and provide practical tools and strategies for prevention, intervention, and postvention.

September 18, 2024 ~ 9am-3:30pm
Napa Valley College Performing Arts Center
Hope Beyond Darkness:

Uniting for Suicide Prevention
Hope Beyond Darkness:

Uniting for Suicide Prevention
Napa County Suicide Prevention Council
invites you to our first Suicide Prevention Conference:

KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Candace Washington is the Founder and CEO of Restorative Minds Therapeutic & Wellness Services. She is a mother, licensed social worker, psychotherapist, author, minister, Veteran, and a Suicide Survivor.

She will be sharing her message of hope and restoration, encouraging others to give tomorrow another chance.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BREAKOUT LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
QPR Suicide Prevention Training ~ Reducing Access to Lethal Means for Those in Crisis Supporting Youth Mental Health ~ How to Survive Suicide Loss, a panel presentation A Faith Leader’s Role in Suicide Prevention ~ Supporting the Mental Health of our Elders Agenda Item #8.1.

Acompañanos para un día de aprendizaje, intercambio, apoyo mutuo y concientización mientras exploramos las complejidades del suicidio, reducimos el estigma en torno a los problemas de salud mental y brindamos herramientas y estrategias prácticas para la prevención, la intervención y la posvención. 18 de septiembre de 2024 ~ 9 a. m. a 3:30 p. m.

Napa Valley College Performing Arts Center
Esperanza Más Allá de la Oscuridad:

Unidos para la Prevención del Suicidio
Esperanza Más Allá de la Oscuridad:

Unidos para la Prevención del Suicidio
Se proporcionará almuerzo ~ Traducción al español es tara di sponible Las ent radas cues tan 20 dólares . El espacio es limi tado. Regí s t rese aquí:
ht tps ://bi t .ly/SPC-24
Nos comprometemos a garantizar que esta conferencia sea accesible para todos. Comuníquese con Jeni Olsen a [email protected] para obtener información sobre posibles opciones de descuento. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ORADORA PRINCIPAL
Candace Washington es la fundadora y di rectora ejecutiva de Res torative Minds Therapeutic & Wellnes s Services . Es madre, trabajadora social con lícencia clinica, ps icoterapeuta, autora, mini s tra, veterana y sobreviviente de suicidio. Ella compar ti rá su mensaje de esperanza y res tauración,
alentando a otros a dar le al dia de mañana otra opor tunidad.

Consejo de Prevención del Suicidio del Condado de Napa
te invita a nuestra primera Conferencia de Prevención del Suicidio:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OPORTUNIDADES DE APRENDIZAJE
Capacitación de PPR (QPR) para la Prevención del Suicidio ~ Reducción del Acceso a Medios Letales para Quienes se Encuentran en Crisis ~ Apoyando la Salud Mental de los Jóvenes Cómo Sobrevivir a la Pérdida por Suicidio, una Presentación de Panel El Papel de un Líder Religioso en la Prevención del Suicidio ~ Apoyando la Salud Mental de Nuestros Mayores Agenda Item #8.1.

WILDFIRE IMPACTS TODAY
PREVENTION PROJECTS WORK!
Presented By:

David Shew, Napa County Fire Administrator
Agenda Item #8.2.

LAHIANA, HAWAII – AUGUST 8, 2023
The “Miracle House”
of Lahaina
Really???
Why did this house
survive?
Agenda Item #8.2.

BOTANIA NEIGHBORHOOD, QUILPUE, CHILE FEBRUARY 2-3, 2024 Agenda Item #8.2.

DEFENSIBLE SPACE – GLASS FIRE
Agenda Item #8.2.

HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNOLOGY
TO

BREAK THE PATH OF FIRE SPREAD

HAZARD MITIGATION METHODOLOGY
REDUCE

EXPOSURE
• Remove Fuels
• Reduce Fuels
• Relocate Fuels
HARDEN

STRUCTURE
• Fire Resistant Design
• Community Design
• Ignition/Fire Spread
Resistant Material
• Active Systems

BREAK THE IGNITION PATHWAY
SOURCE: NIST
Agenda Item #8.2.

A VISION FOR FIRE RESILIENCY IN

NAPA COUNTY

FIRE ADMINISTRATION
MAY 7, 2024
Agenda Item #8.2.

A VISION OF THE
FUTURE
Agenda Item #8.2.

THE PLAN –

HOW WE CAN GET THERE

1. Require all homes and businesses in the WUI to be
ignition resistant

2. Current codes and standards, as well as sound land
use practices, must be in use and enforced

3. Fire departments for communities in the WUI must
be prepared to respond safely and effectively to
wildfire

4. Government must increase resources for vegetative
fuel management

5. The public must understand their role and take
action in reducing wildfire risk
Agenda Item #8.2.

THE PERFECT PLAN FOR OUR FUTURE!!!!!
Agenda Item #8.2.

New Construction Materials, Methods, and Practices
RSG 3-D – New Construction Panel
Bushfire Mesh – Restricts Ember Intrusion
Others
Firewise USA Program – NFPA
Wildfire Prepared Home – IBHS
Land Use Planning Efforts
Agenda Item #8.2.

TOGETHER, WE CAN

CHOOSE TO BUILD A

MORE FIRE

RESILIENT FUTURE
FOR NAPA COUNTY!
Thank you!
Agenda Item #8.2.

Actions
Taken by The
City of St.

Helena
• Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
Policy change 2023
• Vegetation removal requirements
increased from 100’ to 150’ from all
structures
• Grasses cut below 4” within 150’ from all
structures
• City Policy (Valley Floor)
• All dead, dying, and decaying vegetation
removed
• All annual grasses cut below 4”
• Public Education
Agenda Item #8.2.

Fuel Load
• Grass
• Brush
• Timber
Agenda Item #8.2.

Water Treatment
Plant
(Parking lot)
Glass Fire 2020
Agenda Item #8.2.

Water Treatment
Plant
(Backside)
Glass Fire 2020
Agenda Item #8.2.

Arundo Bamboo
• Minimal existence in
Vineyard Valley area
• Napa Valley flood control
continues eradication
• Minimal threat to St.

Helena
Agenda Item #8.2.

Agenda Item #8.2.

Agenda Item #8.2.

Agenda Item #8.2.

Agenda Item #8.2.

Emergency
Warning
System
Agenda Item #8.2.

Water
Quality
Update
September 10, 2024
Agenda Item #9.2.

Water Quality
Efforts
Safe? Yes.

Agenda Item #9.2.

Water Quality
Efforts
Acceptable? No.

Agenda Item #9.2.

Agenda Item #9.2.

Agenda Item #9.2.

Trends
May June July August September
Water Quality Complaints 2 10 62 29 33
Odor and Taste Complaints 0 1 10 3 30
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Water Quality Complaints
Water Quality Complaints
Odor and Taste Complaints
Agenda Item #9.2.

Water Quality
Issue Contributors
• Source Water
• Infrastructure
• Maintenance & Operations
Agenda Item #9.2.

Systematic Approach
Agenda Item #9.2.

Agenda Item #9.2.

Water Projects Initiated
Project Status
Water Tank 2 Rehabilitation (W-101) PSA Engaged, Inspection complete, Plans at 90%
Water Hydraulic Model (W24-10) PSA Engaged, in process
Bell Canyon Dam Geotechnical Analysis & Seismic Retrofit (W18-120) PSA Engaged, in process Smart Meter Replacement Project (W24-04) PSA Engaged, Council Approved purchase, In process
Napa Intertie Pump Station (W24-04) & Pipeline (W25-01) Replacement PSA Engaged, in process Bell House Valve Replacement (W-85) Fiscal Year 26-27 Project Water System SCADA Improvements (W18-113) PSA Engaged, Work starts August 24 Bell Canyon Phreatic Surface Monitoring & Assessment (W18-120) In process Water Treatment Plant Condition Assessment (W18-111) In Design – Estimated completion September ‘24
Kearney Andrea Water Main Replacement (W21-01) Completed Safe Yield Policy and Water Neutrality Policy Update (W24-08) PSA Engaged, in process Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement (W-109) PSA Engaged, in process Agenda Item #9.2.

Water Quality Enhancement Efforts
• Extensive list of Water Capital Improvement Projects In Process • Meeting with State Regulators for approved process modifications • Exploring & testing for modified treatment processes
• Contacting Consultants, Professionals & Regulators
• Discharging and flushing tank water when past retention • Citywide hydrant flushing to remove problematic water • Repair of equipment (Chlorine pump, activated carbon pump, etc) • Exploring aeration and mixers for tanks for increased retention • Exploring alternative equipment for improved quality and consistency • Continuing to test and monitor for safety and compliance Agenda Item #9.2.

Water Quality
Efforts
It’s not enough.

We will do better.

Agenda Item #9.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: STAFF BRIEFING
Department: Finance
DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Review of City Budgetary and Related Fiscal Issues

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Receive and file.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

At the August 27, 2024 City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Hall suggested the formation of a Finance Committee. In the subsequent discussion, council agreed that it would be helpful to have staff provide a briefing on the City's current financial condition.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Provide financial information to the City Council.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

On May 28, 2024, staff presented to the City Council the FY 2023-24 and 2024-25 MidCycle Budget report.

Since that time, there has been an increased interest in the community regarding the financial issues the City is facing. At the August 27, 2024 City Council meeting, staff was directed to bring back an updated presentation on the City's finances.

DISCUSSION:

City staff will be making a presentation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

None.

GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Agenda Item #9.3.

City of St. Helena
City Council
Financial Update
September 10, 2024
Agenda Item #9.3.

Long-Range Financial Needs: 20-year
Total Estimated
Need*
Total Estimated
Revenues
Estimated 20-Year
Shortfall
$330 M $118 M $212 M
20-Year Comprehensive List: Updated 04.08.24
*Source Documents
• FY 24-28 adopted CIP
• PTAP 24 Report
• ADA Transition Plan
• General Plan
• 2017 Facilities Needs Assessment (escalators applied) • 2020 Financing Civic Infrastructure Task Force (escalators applied) • SHAPE committee Final Report (includes EMG Reports)
• FY 23 Water and Wastewater Rate Study
• 2021 20-year Integrated Utility Mater Plan
• Risk & Resilience Assessment
• Staff input
Agenda Item #9.3.

Long-Range Financial Needs: 20-year
INCLUDES (to name a few)
• Pavement Restoration, increase from 53 to 78
• Bridge Enhancements (Oak/Grayson,
Adams/Silverado Trail, and Pratt)
• Downtown Sidewalks Phase I
• Permanent City Hall ($15 million)
• ADA Transition Plan
• Vehicle Replacement
• Equipment Replacement
• WWTP/Napa River Embankment Rehabilitation
• Groundwater Recharge Study
• Stormwater Systems Improvements
20-Year Comprehensive List: Updated 04.08.24
DOES NOT INCLUDE (to name a few)
• Downtown Sidewalks Phase II
• New Bridge (Pope Street to Silverado Trail)
• Misc. Road Connections/Extensions
• Off Street Parking
• Parks & Recreation Facilities
• Park Upgrades (to be identified in the Parks Master Plan) • CalPERS Unfunded Liability
• Install renewal energy systems at City facilities
• Misc. Items identified in the General Plan
• Sites for future public use
Agenda Item #9.3.

FY 25 General Fund Projected Revenues
Total revenue: $18.7M
Agenda Item #9.3.

FY 25 General Fund Projected Expenses
Total expenses: $21.5M
Agenda Item #9.3.

FY25 General Fund Budget – Reserve Levels
Updated: Mid-Cycle Budget Report May 2024
Agenda Item #9.3.

Surplus Deficit
Our Fiscal History
Agenda Item #9.3.

One-Time Expenditures and Net Expenditures
As of May 2024 FY23 FY 24 FY25
Budgeted Expenses $18.65 M $22.54 M* $21.53 M
Budgeted Revenues $17.29 M $18.27 M $18.71 M
Difference ($1.36 M) ($4.27 M) ($2.82 M)
% Reserves** 65% 46% 31%
$ Reserves $13.08 M $9.53 M $6.71 M
As of September 2024 FY 23 – Actuals FY 24 – Adjusted FY 25 – Adjusted Estimated Expenses $19.72 M $20.91M* $21.53 M
Estimated Revenues $18.77 M $18.03 M $18.71 M
Difference ($0.95 M) ($2.88 M) ($2.82 M)
1x Expenditures $2.13 M $1.64 M $1.09 M
% Reserves** 71% 54% 39%
$ Reserves $14.08 M $11.20 M $8.37 M
*Includes Purchase Order Roll Overs
**City Council Reserve Policy – 30% | GFOA Recommended Minimum Reserve – 17% Agenda Item #9.3.

One-Time Expenditures
* City Council Reserve Policy – 30% | GFOA Recommended Minimum Reserve – 17% FY23
Description Amount
Public Works Vehicle Replacement 550,000
NVC Tenant Improvements 500,000
Street Paving - CIP Contribution 500,000
Public Works Bucket Truck 160,000
Replenish Equipment Replacement Fund 100,000
Parks - Large Equipment Replacement 83,000
Website & Communications Assistance 50,000
Oak Avenue & College Avenue Interim Street Improvements 50,000 Vegetation Management - FEMA Match 40,750
Vegetation Management Supplement 35,000
Replacement Police Vehicles Outfitting 25,000
Police Scanning Services 25,000
Permitting Software Selection 6,700
Total 2,125,450
Agenda Item #9.3.

Future Risks to General Fund
• Loss of Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
• Estimated as early as FY 26
• Approximately $1 million loss per year in General Fund Revenue • Decline in Sales Tax Projections
• Wine Industry Revenue Outlook (Fortune.com 5/17/24)
• Wine Consumption is down 8.7% as of 2023
Agenda Item #9.3.

What has been done the past 2 years
• Independent Review of City Finances and LRFF (Baker Tilly) o Evaluated Budget Cutting Options
o Evaluated Revenue Generating Options
• Explored Shared Services Agreements
• Initiated Sale of City Surplus Properties
• Increased User Fees and Impact Fees
• Implemented 5 Software Systems for Efficiency
• Transparent Discourse about City Finances
Agenda Item #9.3.

Revenue Recovery Plan
$19M
$23M
$27M
FY 2024 FY 2030
Today
Real Property Transfer
Tax and Charter City
Hotel Taxes from
2 hotels
Agenda Item #9.3.

General Fund Revenues
Property Tax Allocation
Sales Tax Allocation
Agenda Item #9.3.

FY 25 Up Valley Estimated Revenues
Agenda Item #9.3.

City employees
City employees plus Fire Department
Historical Headcount
Agenda Item #9.3.

FY 25 - Risks to General Fund Budget
Description FY 25 Impact
Sales Tax Revenue 9.5% Decline
Healthcare 18.4% Increase
Pension Costs 14.6% Increase
Property & Liability Insurance 23.3% Increase
Workers Compensation 19.4% Increase
Agenda Item #9.3.

Agenda Item #9.3.

Road Related Allocations
Agenda Item #9.3.

Revenues
Expenses
Surplus
Deficit
Unassigned
Fund Balance $
Unassigned
Fund Balance %
Recent Fiscal Performance
Agenda Item #9.3.

Department Expenditures
Agenda Item #9.3.

Characteristics of RPTT (Measure A2)
Examples:

If a Property Sells
For….

The Tax Rate
Applied will be….

The Tax Calculation
is…..

Additional
RPTT Amount
Collected
$999,000 0% $999,000 x 0% = $0
$2,000,000 1.5% $2,000,000 x 1.5% = $30,000
$5,500,000 3% $5,500,000 x 3% = $165,000
Agenda Item #9.3.

Characteristics of Charter City (Measure A1)
• Simple and “limited” charter
• Provide legal authority to enact a RPTT by voter approval • Both the City Charter and RPTT must pass in order for the RPTT to go into effect
• Continue to follow the General Law of the State of California in all other matters
Agenda Item #9.3.

One-Time Expenditures and Net Expenditures
FY24
Description Amount
Downtown Specific Plan & EIR 500,000
Planning Online Permitting Software Implementation 165,000 PW Admin Other Contract Services Additional for CIP 150,000 Attorney Litigation Expense 110,000
Community Engagement Contract 110,000
Replenish Equipment Replacement Fund 100,000
Landscape Architect Consultants - Weed Abatement 100,000 Temporary Police Overhire* 86,950
NVC Tenant Improvements 86,308
Zoning Code Update 45,000
Towable Trash Pump 40,000
Crack Sealer for Streets Repairs 40,000
Website Hosting Transition 20,000
Light Tower for Night Work 20,000
Nimbus Arts Grant 20,000
Recreation Software Implementation 16,000
RFID 15,600
Self-Propelled Electric Stump Grinder 11,000
Total 1,635,858
Agenda Item #9.3.

One-Time Expenditures and Net Expenditures
FY25
Description Amount
PW Admin Other Contract Services Additional for CIP 150,000 Temporary Police Overhire* 135,755
Communications Contract 114,400
Attorney Litigation Expense 110,000
Parks & Rec Office Improvements 104,000
Replenish Equipment Replacement Fund 100,000
Ballot Measure Polling 52,000
Permit Software Upgrade 50,000
SLA 50,000
Storm Drains Capital Equipment 42,000
Additional Annual Tree Maintenance 40,000
Government Relations 40,000
Annexation 30,000
Permit Software Payment Provider 25,500
Website Support 20,800
Water Buffalo 15,000
EV Bikes 10,000
Total 1,089,455
Agenda Item #9.3.

Tax Options
Tax Annual Revenue
Potential ($Mill)
Sales Tax increase of 0.5% 2.3
Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel tax) increase 1% .5
New $313 annual Parcel Tax 1.2
Increase permitted short-term-rentals from 25 to
100
.5
Business Tax review based on 1% tax rate (net of
annual enforcement costs)

3.2 Specific Taxes (Road, Library, Safety, Utility, etc.) .3 - 1.2 Real Property Transfer Tax 5.3
Approve, build and tax two new luxury hotel rooms
totaling 100 rooms paying 10% TOT

2.4 Agenda Item #9.3.

General Fund Budget – Revenues vs. Expenses
General Fund Budget Estimated
FY 24
Adopted
FY 25
Adjusted
FY 25
Proposed Revenues 18,029,671 19,087,896 18,708,046
Proposed Expenses 20,909,051 20,002,020 21,534,763
Difference* (2,879,380) (914,124) (2,826,717)
*Use of Reserves to Balance the Budget
Updated: Mid-Cycle Budget Report May 2024
Agenda Item #9.3.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Recreation
DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: Dave Jahns, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed adoption of a resolution (1) Approving temporary street closures; and (2) Authorizing possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets and parking lots for the 2024 Harvest Festival.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends City Council review and adopt the
attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council has adopted several resolutions of similar nature with the most recent taking place at the September 12, 2023 City Council meeting. Resolution No. 2023-118.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Staff is seeking City Council's approval to temporarily close several streets and allow the possession of alcoholic beverages on specific public streets to support the
implementation of the 2024 Hometown Harvest Festival.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: All staff time and associated event costs will be funded from approved FY 24-25 departmental budgets.

BACKGROUND:

The Harvest Festival is an annual event implemented by the St. Helena Community Services Department, in partnership with various community-based organizations and local vendors. The event has historically taken place on the third Saturday of October on Oak Avenue and surrounding streets and parking lots. The event is free to attend, and all community members and visitors are welcome.

DISCUSSION:

This year's annual Harvest Festival celebration is scheduled to take place on Saturday, October 19, 2024. With City Council's approval of the proposed resolution, the event will include an all-day street fair, pet parade, food and beverages, and other various community activities.
(1) Street Closures
In order to safely accommodate these activities, staff is requesting the following street closures:
 Oak Avenue, between Spring Street and Pine Street, from 5:00am – 1:00pm  Adams Street, between Oak Avenue and Kearney Street, from 5:00am – 7:00pm  Oak Avenue, between Spring Street and Adams Street, from 5:00am – 7:00pm  Tainter Street, between Oak Avenue and Kearney Street, from 5:00am – 7:00pm Agenda Item #10.1.

 City parking lot located at 1304 Oak Avenue from 5:00am - 7:00p Staff will implement the following precautionary traffic control measures to ensure a safe event for attendees and limit the impact the proposed road closures have on the community:
 Electronic sign boards will be placed around the proposed street closures to notify community in advance of the event.
 No parking signage will be placed within the proposed street closure area 72- hours in advance of the event.
 City staff will directly notify and provide details of potential impacts to the businesses residents adjacent event area in advance of the event.  City staff in the Fire, Parks & Recreation, Public Works, and Police Departments will be working day-of event.
 City staff will supply, set-up, and remove traffic control items (signage, barricades, traffic cones, vehicle blockades) to limit any potentially dangerous vehicle/pedestrian interface.
 Event staff will abide by all conditions of the encroachment permit and traffic safety as stipulated by the Public Works and Police Departments. (2) Open Alcohol Possession
Historically, local non-profit organizations have sold alcoholic beverages at this event, including St. Helena Kiwanis Foundation, St. Helena Rotary Club, and St. Helena Oddfellows. Staff will once again work in partnership with these local non-profits to provide the same service at this year's event. The organizations will be responsible for securing a permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and will meet all insurance and security requirements as stipulated by City staff, St. Helena Police Department, and ABC.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff will coordinate with the City's Environmental Service technician and ensure event activities and associated amenities are implemented in accordance with all applicable environmental management practices.

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
2024 Harvest Festival Resolution
Agenda Item #10.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -
RESOLUTION (1) APPROVING TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURES; AND (2) AUTHORIZING POSSESSION OF OPEN

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PUBLIC STREETS FOR THE

HOMETOWN HARVEST FESTIVAL FESTIVITIES ON
OCTOBER 19, 2024
WHEREAS, the City’s Community Services Department, in partnership with community organizations and local vendors, has traditionally hosted an annual community event the third Saturday in October, known as the Hometown Harvest Festival; and
WHEREAS, Temporary closure of City streets and lots within the event area will provide adequate space for Harvest Festival activities to take place and create a safe environment for event attendees, staff, and vendors; and WHEREAS, The St. Helena Recreation Department is requesting temporary closures of portions of Oak Avenue, Adams Street, Tainter Street, and the City parking lot on Oak Street (1304 Oak Ave.) for the Hometown Harvest Festival on October 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, The St. Helena Municipal Code Section 9.04.010 authorizes the City Council to allow possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets or any private or public off-street parking lot. City staff will work in partnership with local non-profit organizations to sell beer and wine at the event; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby approves the following:

1. Temporary closures of the following streets and parking lots on October 19, 2024:
• Oak Avenue, between Spring Street and Pine Street, from 5:00am – 1:00pm • Adams Street, between Money Way and Oak Ave, from 5:00am – 1:00pm
• Adams Street, between Oak Ave and Kearney Street, from 5:00am – 7:00pm
• Oak Avenue, between Spring Street and Adams Street, from 5:00am – 7:00pm
• Tainter Street, between Oak Avenue and Kearney Street, from 5:00am – 7:00pm
• City parking lot located at 1304 Oak Avenue from 5:00am – 7:00pm Agenda Item #10.1.

• Possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets and parking lots encompassed by the Harvest Festival event footprint on October 19, 2024.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on September 10, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: ___
Vice Mayor Hall: ___
Councilmember Chouteau: ___
Councilmember Kenealy: ___
Councilmember Summers: ___
APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Recreation
DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: Dave Jahns, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed adoption of a resolution authorizing (1) a temporary street closure of Hunt Avenue from November 25, 2024 until January 3, 2025; and (2)
possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets on November 27, 2024 for the Holiday Wine Barrel Tree
installation and lighting ceremony.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends City Council review and adopt the
attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council has approved similar resolution for the
installation Holiday Wine Barrel Tree since 2021. The
most recent action took place at the September 12, 2023 City Council Meeting, Resolution No. 2023-123.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

City Staff, in partnership with the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce, is seeking City Council's approval to
temporarily close a portion of Hunt Avenue and allow the possession of open alcoholic beverages on Hunt Avenue
for Holiday Wine Barrel Tree installation and lighting
ceremony.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will incur costs associated with installation of traffic safety measures and community event
implementation. All staffing and associated installation costs will be funded from approved FY 24-25 departmental budgets. The cost of the barrel tree materials and
professional install will be covered by the Chamber of
Commerce, with the support of local sponsorship.

BACKGROUND:

Over the past several years, the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) has worked in partnership with City staff to enhance community holiday festivities for the period of time between the Thanksgiving and the New Year’s Day holidays. In 2021, the Chamber introduced a lighted Holiday Wine Barrel Tree installation on Hunt Ave. The installation consists of 145 professionally installed wine barrels stacked with a custom steel structure, baseplate and plywood decks, measuring over 30 feet tall. Additionally, the installation will once again include holiday-themed décor throughout Hunt Ave and artistic traffic barrier coverings to enhance the overall aesthetics of the closure.

Agenda Item #10.2.

After successful installations the past three years, the Chamber, in partnership with the City, are proposing a similar display for the holiday season in 2024.

DISCUSSION:
(1) Street Closure
In order to accommodate the wine barrel tree installation, safely allow pedestrians to gather in the surrounding area, and provide space for holiday festivities and entertainment, staff is proposing to close Hunt Avenue (between Main Street and Railroad Avenue) to vehicle traffic throughout the duration of the wine barrel tree display. City staff will assist with installation of safety barriers, public notifications of parking modifications, and installation of temporary parking spaces along the eastern closure of Hunt Avenue near Railroad Avenue. If approved, the road closure would be in place from November 25, 2024 – January 3, 2025.

If the proposed road closure is approved by Council, the Chamber of Commerce will obtain a Temporary Use and Encroachment Permit for the installation. The Chamber and City staff will notify all businesses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed closure prior to the September 10 City Council meeting.
(2) Open Alcohol Possession
As part of the barrel tree lighting festivities on November 27, staff is requesting the possession of alcohol beverages (beer and wine) be allowed within the footprint of the street closure on Hunt Ave. If approved, the Chamber would be responsible for securing a permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and will meet all insurance and security requirements as stipulated by City staff, St. Helena Police Department, and ABC.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff will coordinate with the City's Environmental Service technician and ensure event activities and associated amenities are implemented in accordance with all applicable environmental management practices.

GOAL:

Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
2024 Holiday Wine Barrel Tree Resolution
Agenda Item #10.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING (1) A TEMPORARY STREET
CLOSURE OF HUNT AVENUE FROM NOVEMBER 25, 2024 –
JANUARY 3, 2025; AND (2) POSSESSION OF OPEN

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON HUNT AVE ON NOVEMBER
27, 2024 TO SUPPORT THE HOLIDAY WINE BARREL TREE

INSTALLATION AND LIGHTING CEREMONY
WHEREAS, the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) is working in partnership with the City to support the economic vitality of downtown St.

Helena and create a festive holiday atmosphere for community members and visitors alike; and
WHEREAS, the Chamber has successfully installed a lighted Holiday Wine Barrel Tree installation on Hunt Avenue for the past three holiday seasons; and
WHEREAS, the Chamber, in partnership with City staff, is proposing the return of the Holiday Wine Barrel Tree installation with accompanying décor and entertainment for the 2024 holiday season; and
WHEREAS, a temporary street closure of Hunt Avenue from Main Street to Railroad Avenue is being requested to support the Holiday Wine Barrel installation and provide a safe environment for the community to gather; and WHEREAS, The St. Helena Municipal Code Section 9.04.010 authorizes the City Council to allow possession of open alcoholic beverages on public streets or any private or public off-street parking lot; and
WHEREAS; City staff, in partnership with the Chamber, are requesting City Council authorize the possession of open alcoholic containers within the confines of the event space for the Holiday Wine Barrel Tree Lighting ceremony on November 27, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby approves the following:

1. The temporary street closure of Hunt Avenue, between Main Street to Railroad Avenue, from November 25, 2024 - January 3, 2025.

2. Possession of open alcoholic beverages on Hunt Ave during the duration of the barrel tree lighting festivities on November 27, 2024.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on September 10, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: ___
Vice Mayor Hall: ___
Councilmember Chouteau: ___
Councilmember Kenealy: ___
Councilmember Summers: ___
APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Planning
DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: Philip Henry, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: Waive second reading and adoption of an Ordinance adding Sections 15.18.020 through 15.18.090 of the St.

Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15, (Buildings and
Construction) to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
the impacts of climate change as discussed as directed by Council at the August 27, 2024 City Council meeting.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Waive the second reading of the proposed adoption of the ordinance.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

On August 27, 2024, the City Council discussed and
adopted the proposed first reading of the Reach code
ordinance.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To adopt a Reach Code as an implementation action of
the General Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

On October 27, 2023, the Climate Action Committee which was formed under a Cooperative Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to fund and administer the Napa Countywide Climate Action Program recommended that all member jurisdictions adopt a building “reach” code to further reduce GHG emissions. The Climate Action committee prepared a Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory which indicated that building energy use resulted in the release of 279,579 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2019, which comprised 22.9 percent of all GHG’s emitted in Napa County that year. As indicated in the Final Napa County Regional Greenhouse Gas Forecast (2019-2030), published on November 21, 2022, if no further actions are taken, building energy used in Napa County is estimated to release 277,244 MTCO2e by 2030.

In August 2021, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2022 California Energy Code. The California Energy Code was also considered by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) in December 2021. The 2022 Energy Code, which became effective on January 1, 2023, included key changes from the 2019 Energy Code. The changes included promoting usage of electric heat-pump technology, establishing electric-ready requirements for buildings when natural gas is installed, updating requirements for residential solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards, and bolstering gas cooking ventilation standards.

Agenda Item #10.3.

Provisions for multi-family buildings include a compliance pathway for central heatpump water heating and prescriptive heat-pump requirements for multifamily HVAC systems in dwelling units. Single-family dwelling requirements include a new prescriptive baseline based on either a heat-pump HVAC system or heat-pump water heating. Nonresidential buildings are required to add efficiency measures if not meeting prescriptive requirements such as heat-pump space heating.

DISCUSSION:

The City of St. Helena has adopted and enforces the 2022 California Energy Code.

California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, and 18941.5 permit a city to make local amendments and modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code. It is the desire of the City of St. Helena to reduce GHG emissions and lessen the impact of climate change consistent with the City’s General. Plan.

For multiple reasons including health, safety, economics, and environmental benefits, there is considerable interest in all-electric new construction, or “building electrification”, which means that buildings would not have any fossil fuel services. All-electric buildings have electric appliances for space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking.

The interest in building electrification stems from the fact that the power utility is providing 100% carbon-free electricity and eliminating the use of natural gas can greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector.

This Reach code provides incentives for new home builders to construct all-electric homes, but owners may continue to use natural gas appliances so long as they meet the minimum energy use requirements.

Where natural gas appliances are used, the electric panel must have dedicated circuits to allow future owners the option of converting to all electric appliances. In addition, construction must include a location for a future heat-pump compressor unit with drainage to allow for future electric conversion.

This proposed model Ordinance would do the following:
• Creates standards to disincentivize the use of natural gas in new single-family construction, with exceptions. These exceptions include:
a. Seasonally occupied agricultural buildings (less than 180 days/calendar year) b. A free-standing Accessory Dwelling Unit
c. A Certificate of Compliance prepared by a Certified Energy Analyst • Non-residential buildings will be required to provide Electric-ready requirements for future electric appliances where gas systems are installed.

Agenda Item #10.3.

• Requires subdividers to offer all-electric homes and/or Energy Storage Systems (batteries) as an option for buyers.
• Requires new single-family homes to reduce overall energy use by 13%. • Requires new multi-family home to reduce overall energy use by 10%.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The action is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3).

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Reach Ordinance clean
Agenda Item #10.3.

ORDINANCE NO.________________
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. HELENA ADDING SECTIONS 15.18.020 THROUGH

15.18.090 TO CHAPTER 15.18 (CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE-ADOPTED) OF TITLE 15 (BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION) OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE

GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS AND REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE WHEREAS, the Countywide Climate Action Committee’s recent Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory update illustrates the need for action to be taken to have an appreciable impact on climate change; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 Regional Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory indicated that building energy use resulted in the release of 279, 592 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2019, which comprised 22.9 percent of all GHG’s emitted in Napa County that year; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2023, the Climate Action Committee, formed under the Cooperative Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to fund and administer the Napa Countywide Climate Action Program, recommended that all member jurisdictions adopt a building “reach” code to further reduce GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 California Energy Code comprising Title 24, Parts 1 and 6 of the California Code of Regulations was adopted by the City of St. Helena City Council on November 22, 2022 under Ordinance 22-12 § 3 and codified under Section 15.18.010 of the St. Helena Municipal code; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) allows for the adoption of stricter conservation standards to lower energy demand and reduce GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5 establish the authority for a city to adopt and make local amendments and modifications to the building standards in the California Building Standards Code to establish more restrictive building standards than those contained in the California Building Standards Code; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5 permit a city to make such local amendments and modifications as the city determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5 require a city, before making any amendments and modifications to the California Building Standards Code, make an express finding that such amendments and modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and Agenda Item #10.3.

WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 17958 requires that cities adopt building regulations that are substantially the same as those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Building Standards; and WHEREAS, the St. Helena City Council desires to adopt standards that are more restrictive than the 2022 California Energy Code to provide for greater GHG reductions than are currently required, thereby reducing the impacts of climate change; and WHEREAS, the St. Helena City Council proposes to add by the adoption of this Ordinance Sections 15.18.020 through 15318.090 to Title 15 of the St. Helena Municipal Code to include stricter standards than the 2022 California Energy Code to better address local conditions; and WHEREAS, the St. Helena City Council makes express findings that such modifications to Chapter 15.18 are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions as set forth in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2), the St. Helena City Council also finds that the proposed modifications to Chapter 15.18 of the St. Helena Municipal Code by this Ordinance will save energy and are cost-effective within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council affirms that such modifications will result in designs that consume no more energy than that permitted under the 2022 California Energy Code; and WHEREAS, express findings that these modifications to the Chapter 15.18 are reasonably necessary are hereby made and will be filed with the California Building Standards Commission in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 before this ordinance takes effect.

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

SECTION 1: Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated into this Ordinance.

SECTION 2: Additions to Chapter 15.18. The following Sections 15.18.020 through

15.18.090 are hereby added to Chapter 15.18 of Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the St.

Helena Municipal Code to read in full as follows:

15.18.020 Options for Homebuyers
Section 100.0.(e)(2)(D) of the CEnC is modified to read as follows:

D. Single-family Buildings.
i. Sections applicable. Sections 150.0 through 150.1 apply to newly constructed single-family buildings.

Agenda Item #10.3.

ii. Compliance approaches. In order to comply with Part 6, newly constructed single-family buildings must meet the requirements of:
a. Mandatory measures: The applicable provisions of Sections 110.0 through 110.10, and 150.0; and
b. Either:
(i) Performance approach: Sections 150.1 (a) and (b); or (ii) Prescriptive approach: Section 150.1(a) and (c).

Exception to Section 100.0(e).2Diib: Seasonally occupied agricultural housing limited by State or Federal agency contract to occupancy not more than 180 days in any calendar year. (iii) Designers, builders, licensed contractors, professionals, or other owner designees of newly constructed single-family buildings shall provide all owners with the option of installing a stationary storage battery system and/or all-electric appliances.

15.18.030 Definitions
Section 100.1(b) of the CEnC is modified by adding the following definitions:

CERTIFIED ENERGY ANALYST is a person registered as a Certified Energy Analyst with the California Association of Building energy Consultants as of the date of submission of a Certificate of Compliance as required 10.103.

FREE STANDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT is a detached building that is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence on a lot that is zoned for Singlefamily or Multi-family use, located on the same lot as an existing dwelling, and does not exceed 1,200 square-feet of total floor area.

GAS is natural gas as defined by the California Code of Regulations in CCR 17, Section 95481(106).

15.18.040 Electric Readiness for Nonresidential Structures A new subsection, 120.9(d) of the CEnC is added to read as follows:
(d) Where systems using gas are installed, dedicated circuits at the main building panel shall be provided with sufficient power to support future conversion of all fossil fuel fired service water heating appliances to electric appliances.

15.18.050 Electric Readiness for Single-family Units
The first two paragraphs of Section 150.0 of the CEnC are modified to read as follows:

Section 150.0 – MANDATORY FEATURES AND DEVICES
Agenda Item #10.3.

Single-family residential buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(v).

NOTE: The requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(r) and 150.0(f) 3 apply to newly constructed buildings. Sections 150.2(a) and 150.0(b) specify which requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(r) also apply to additions or alterations.

Section 150.0(t) of 0the CEnC is modified to read as follows:
(t) Heat Pump Space Heater Ready
Systems using gas or propane furnaces to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following:

1. A dedicated 240-volt branch circuit wiring shall be installed within three feet from the furnace and accessible to the furnace with no obstructions. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 30 amperes minimum. The blank cover shall be identified as “240-V Ready”. All electrical components shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

2. The main electrical panel shall have a reserved space to allow installation of a twopole circuit breaker for a future heat-pump space heater installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “Future 240v use”.

3. A designated exterior location for a future heat pump condenser unit either a drain or natural drainage for condensate shall be provided.

15.18.060 Performance Requirements for Single-family Units A new section, 150.1(b).1.A, is added to the CEnC to read as follows:

In addition, the total source energy (EDR1) of the Proposed Design Building shall be less than the EDR1 of the Standard Design Building by a compliance margin of 13.

EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.1(b)1.A. A free-standing Accessory Dwelling Unit.

EXCEPTION 2 to Section 150.1 (b) 1.A. If the Certificate of Compliance is prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst, compliance margin may be reduced by one point, but in no event shall be less than zero.

15.18.070 Electric Readiness for Multi-family Units
A new section, 160.4 (g) is added to the CEnC to read as follows:

Systems using gas water heaters that do not serve individual dwelling units shall include a dedicated circuit at the main electrical panel with sufficient power to support future conversion of all fossil fuel-fired service water heating appliances to electric appliances.

Agenda Item #10.3.

15.18.080 Performance Requirements for Multi-family Units Section 170.1 of the CEnC is modified to read as follows:

Section 170.1 – PERFORMANCE APPROACH: ENERGY BUDGETS
A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget (Time Dependent Valuation as defined in the California Energy Code) calculated for the Proposed Designed Building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a). Additionally, the energy budget, expressed in terms of source energy, of a newly constructed low-rise multifamily building (less than four habitable stories) shall be at least ten percent (10%) lower than that of the Standard Design Building.

EXCEPTION 1 to Section 170.1. If the Certificate of Compliance is prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst, the compliance margin may be reduced by one percentage point, but in no event be less than zero.

SECTION 3: The St. Helena City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), which exempts from CEQA any project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. It is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15038 which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies for the enhancement and protection of the environment. As such, the Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA SECTION 4: It is hereby declared to be the intention of the St. Helena City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clause, and phrases are severable, and if any phrase, clause, section or paragraph of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sections of this ordinance.

SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the provisions depicted in this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions adopted under this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of St. Helena hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases thereof shall be declared invalid.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date the California Building Standards Commission accepts the ordinance for filing, but in no earlier than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.

Agenda Item #10.3.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the twenty-seventh day of August 2024, and was adopted at a regular meeting of St. Helena City Council on the 10th day of September 2024
Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Council Member Chouteau: _____
Council Member Kenealy: _____
Council Member Summers: _____
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:

CITY OF ST. HELENA
___________________________________
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
I, CINDY TZAFOPOULOS, CITY CLERK of the City of St. Helena, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2024. That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Council Member Chouteau: _____
Council Member Kenealy: _____
Council Member Summers: _____
Agenda Item #10.3.

From: Christopher J Warner
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Cc: Anil Comelo
Subject: [External] Sept 10, 2024 City Council Agenda - Comments on Consent Agenda Item 10.3 (Proposed Reach Code Ordinance)
Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 10:15:48 AM
Attachments: 2024 SB 695 Report.pdf
Here are comments on Consent Agenda Item 10.3 on the Sept. 10, 2024 City Council Agenda.

Please be sure to circulate to Phil Henry and other appropriate staff. Thx! PG&E electric rates and bills to St. Helena residents and businesses keep going up and up, over and over. For this reason, I request that Consent Agenda Item 10.3 on the September 10, 2024, City Council Agenda (Waive Second Reading of “REACH Code Ordinance”) be removed from the agenda until such time as public information and publicly-available record evidence are provided to the City Council and the public regarding the cost effectiveness and impacts of the proposed ordinance on energy costs for new affordable housing, multi-family housing, new hotels and other retail buildings in St. Helena.

If the proposed REACH Code Ordinance is not removed from the agenda, I request it be removed from the consent agenda and subject to public hearing and comments as a public hearing agenda item.

If the City Council determines to waive and move forward with second reading of the proposed REACH Code Ordinance, I request that the Resolution of approval be revised to remove the four “Whereas” findings clauses at the end of the recitals in the resolution and replace them with a clause deferring the effective date of the ordinance until such time as the ordinance is filed with the California Building Standards Commission and the cost-effectiveness and local need for the ordinance are evaluated and determined by the California Building Standards Commission and/or California Energy Commission and reviewed by the City Council using current and reasonably forecast PG&E electricity costs, rates and bills, such as included in the attached independent analysis and forecast provided by the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Governor and Legislature in July, 2024. Absence of such an analysis in the public record and publicly available evidence would render adoption of the ordinance as lacking required legally supportable findings.

Such an analysis should also evaluate the mandatory alternatives to electrification included in the proposed ordinance, such as the performance requirements that new buildings reduce overall energy use by 10% to 13% beyond what is required by current California and St.

Helena building codes.

As noted above, data on current and forecast PG&E electrification rates and costs can be found in attached CPUC SB 695 Report and also at link: 2024-sb-695-report.pdf (ca.gov) P. 32: “Since 2013, bundled residential average rates have increased at an average annual rate greater than the assumed rate of inflation: about 12 percent for PG&E, and 7 percent for SCE and SDG&E.”
P.66: “The average annual percentage change in forecasted year-end 2027 bundled residential rates over actual year-end 2023 rates for each IOU are shown below. • PG&E:
about 43 percent through 2027 for an average annual increase of 10.8 percent.” P.68: “The average annual percentage change in forecasted year-end 2027 bundled commercial rates over actual year-end 2023 rates for each IOU are shown below. • PG&E:
about 49 percent through 2027 for an average annual increase of 12.4 percent.” It should be noted that any present value analysis of cost-effectiveness of electrification measures also should take into account financing costs for the capital costs of such measures.

Current 30-year mortgage rates are averaging approximately 6.5%.

Agenda Item #10.3.

At the August 27, 2024, City Council meeting considering the first reading of the proposed REACH Ordinance, City Council members and the City Attorney raised questions and expressed concern about the lack of any public information and publicly-available record evidence to support the proposed findings in the draft ordinance that the ordinance was costeffective, reasonable, and necessary because of local St. Helena conditions. I believed and understood that staff were directed to provide such information to the Council and to the public prior to any second reading of the proposed ordinance. In addition, I believed and understood that staff were directed or suggested to solicit comments on the ordinance from local affordable housing advocates, such as Our Town St. Helena. For these reasons as well, I recommend that the City Council defer action on a second reading of the proposed REACH Code Ordinance until these additional actions take place and additional public information is provided.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments, My comments are personal only and do not reflect any position or affiliation I have.

Christopher J. Warner
1434 Grayson Avenue
415-309-9572
Agenda Item #10.3.

C.Warner 9/10/24
REACH Code Cost Effectiveness Data and Forecasts
2022 Energy Codes & Standards Study July, 2024 CPUC Report PG&E
Residential 1.8% annual, 10.8% annual,
Electric Rate Forecast 2023—2027, 2023- 2027,
Average Annual Escalation cumulative 9% cumulative 43%
Financing Costs 4% 30-year 6.41% average
mortgage 30-year mortgage'
Retail Cost of 2019-2022 retail None
Electric Appliances electric appliance
costs (no update for
2022- 2024 in?ation)
10% Mandatory None None
Energy Use Reduction
New Multi-Family Housing
13 Points Mandatory None None
Energy Use Reduction
New Single Family Housing
Study: Single Family New Construction, California Energy Codes and Standards, June, 2023, Napa County Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda Item 13.3, p. 10, April 9, 2024, accessed at Napa Coung - Calendar jlegista r.com ).
‘ Ba
nk
accessed 2024. Sept. Ra 10. websit
tee.

Agenda Item #10.3.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and adoption of a Resolution: (1) Establishing R25-81 Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair
Project and Award the Project to TCW Concrete in the
amount of $365,280; (2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Construction Contract with TCW Concrete; (3) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve
Change Orders not to exceed 15% of the ontract amount;
(4) Authorize a budget transfer from Fund 240 Measure T to Fund 741 Street Capital in the amount not to exceed
$420,072, which includes the 15% contingency; and (5)
Determining the project to be exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the Resolution

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council approved the plans and authorized staff to solicit bids for this project on June 11, 2024.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To award this project to TCW Concrete to rehabilitate the downtown pavers between Adams Street and Mitchell
Drive, and establish the R25-81 Capital Improvement
Project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total financial impact of awarding the contract is $420,072, which includes an additional $54,792 for a 15% contingency of the contract amount and will be funded
utilizing Measure T (Fund 240).

BACKGROUND:

In April 2024, City Council approved an interim solution to address the downtown sidewalks while continued design efforts are completed and funding sources identified.

Staff is requesting City Council authorize the R25-81 Capital Improvement Project. The project will result in a substantial refurbishment through the corridor which will include the removal off 11 trees, repairs to curb and gutter, grading and resetting of sections of pavers, and the replanting of 17 trees.

The project plans, specifications and contract documents were prepared by City staff and approved for bid solicitation by City Council on June 11, 2024.

Agenda Item #10.4.

DISCUSSION:

On July 22, 2024, a Notice Inviting Bids and project plans and specifications was posted to the City of St. Helena website and posted at area construction plan rooms and exchanges. On August 15, 2024, two bids were received and opened publicly at City Hall. All bids are provided by reputable, licensed firms and are complete and competitive.

The bid results are as follows:

Company Base Bid
TCW Concrete, Loomis $ 365,280
ZARA Construction, Sacramento $ 466,204
Engineer's Estimate: $275,000
The base bid cost of $365,280 assumes all replacement trees to be 48" Box. Total costs are expected to be lower as price deductions will be applied to smaller replacement trees where constraints preclude the installation of the 48" Box. City Staff reviewed all bids and find that TCW Concrete is the lowest responsible and responsive bid. TCW Concrete holds a valid Class C-8 Concrete Contractor’s License No. 1038728 in the State of California, with no enforcement actions listed. Their license expires on 4/30/2026. TCW Concrete's bid is consistent with the engineer’s estimate.

TCW Concrete has positive reviews and has successfully executed similar projects in the North Bay region.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None
GOAL:

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

Attachment 1 - Resolution Awarding Contract for R25-81
Attachment 2 - CIP Sheet
Attachment 3 - Bid Tabulation
Agenda Item #10.4.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Resolution: (1) Establishing R25-81 Downtown Sidewalk
Paver Repair Project and Award the Project to TCW
Concrete in the amount of $365,280; (2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Construction Contract with
TCW Concrete; (3) Authorizing the Director of Public
Works to approve Change Orders not to exceed 15% of
the contract amount; (4) Authorize a budget transfer
from Fund 240 Measure T to Fund 741 Street Capital in
the amount not to exceed $420,072, which includes the
15% contingency; and (5) Determining the project to be
exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

RECITALS
A. The project plans for the work were approved by the City Council and the Director of Public Works pursuant to authority by St. Helena City Council on June 11, 2024; and B. Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04; Article 3 Public Works Projects; Section 3.04.220 on July 11, 2024 a notice inviting bids was posted and distributed to contractors inviting bids for the Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair Project; and
C. On July 22, 2024, two (2) bids were received and opened in accordance with applicable law; and
D. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Project was TCW Concrete of Loomis, CA in the amount of $365,280; and
E. City staff has determined that TCW Concrete’s bid satisfies the bidding requirements for the project; and
F. City staff has verified that TCW Concrete possess a valid Contractor’s License, Class A, number 1038728 that qualifies TCW Concrete to complete the project; and G. The Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair Project has been found to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as it consists of minor alterations of existing street and sidewalk facilities.

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

Agenda Item #10.4.

1. Establish R25-81 Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair Project and award the Project to TCW Concrete in the amount of $365,280; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract in the amount of $365,280 with TCW Concrete for the R25-81 Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair Project; and

3. Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve change orders not to exceed $54,792, or 15% of the contract account; and

4. Authorize a budget transfer from Fund 240 Measure T to Fund 741 Street Capital in the amount not to exceed $420,072, which includes the 15% contingency.

5. Funding is provided as follows:

Funding Details Fund GL Account Amount
Funded with Measure T
Fund Balance Transfer
Streets Capital
Improvement 741-50-14-31-60 365,280
Funded with Measure T
Fund Balance Transfer
Streets Capital
Improvement 741-50-14-31-70 54,792
Budget Transfer From (1) Measure T 240-40-00-29-99 (420,072) Budget Transfer To (1) Streets Capital
Improvement 741-39-98-00-00 420,072
Total 420,072
(1) Transfer will be based on actual expenditures not to exceed $420,072

6. R25-81 Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair Project is found to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as it consists of minor alterations of existing street and sidewalk facilities, as the project involves no expansion of an existing use.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on September 10, 2024 by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Hall: __________
Councilmember Chouteau: __________
Councilmember Kenealy: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.4.

Agenda Item #10.4.

Mario Traverso
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ 1 Mobilization 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $42,000 $42,000 $25,000 $25,0002 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $18,000 $18,000 $22,000 $22,0003 Adjust SS Clean Out/G5 Box 9 EA $100 $900 $400 $3,600 $900 $8,1004 Adjust Meter Box 16 EA $100 $1,600 $360 $5,760 $200 $3,2005 Adjust Utility Vault 3 EA $400 $1,200 $360 $1,080 $1,000 $3,0006 Remove & Reinstall Bench 3 EA $250 $750 $656 $1,968 $2,400 $7,2007 Remove & Reinstall Garbage Bin 3 EA $250 $750 $656 $1,968 $2,200 $6,6008 Remove Tree 11" - 16 " 6 EA $4,500 $27,000 $2,150 $12,900 $2,500 $15,0009 Remove Tree 17"-21" 5 EA $5,000 $25,000 $2,950 $14,750 $2,500 $12,500 10 Remove & Replace Curb & Gutter 40 LF $150 $6,000 $150 $6,000 $700 $28,00011 Remove & Reset Pavers 4,597 SF $20 $91,940 $26 $119,522 $32 $147,10412 Plant Tree 48" - Chinese Pistache 17 EA $5,000 $85,000 $7,296 $124,032 $9,500 $161,50013 Pressure Wash Pavers 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $3,500 $3,500 $10,000 $10,00014 Stump Grind 15 EA $1,000 $15,000 $600 $9,000 $1,000 $15,00015 Stump Grind in Grated Well 2 EA $1,000 $2,000 $600 $1,200 $1,000 $2,000 $297,140.00 $365,280.00 $466,204.00 $0.00 $0.00
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ UNIT COST, $ ITEM TOTAL, $ 12A Plant Tree 36" Box - Chinese Pistache EA 17 $1,982.35 $33,700.00 $2,529.41 $43,000.00 12B Plant Tree 24" Box - Chinese Pistache EA 17 $3,958.82 $67,300.00 $4,529.41 $77,000.0012C Plant Tree 15 Gal - Chinese Pistache EA 17 $4,823.53 $82,000.00 $5,764.71 $98,000.00

BID RESULTS
R24-81 Downtown Sidewalk Paver Repair Project
Engineer's Estimate TCW Concrete Zara Construction Inc

BASE BID
Bid Schedule
Bid Opening: August 15 2024
Bid Altermate 1 - Deduct for Size Reduction
Agenda Item #10.4.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department:

DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: City Council requested information regarding Measure B - Informational Item

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Receive and file.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 25, 2024 - City Council adopted a resolution
submitting the Noble House St. Helena Agritourism
Initiative to the voters for consideration at the November 5, 2024 Election
August 13, 2024 - City Council request for information

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Informational item as requested at the August 13, 2024
City Council Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:

In his letter dated August 8, 2024, Congressman Thompson requested a response to this issues raised by the opponents of the Measure B in their letter to Congressman Thompson dated August 2, 2024. At the August 13, 2024 City Council meeting Mayor Dohring asked staff to review the letter and respond where we have information. Mayor Dohring also requested staff bring a report back to the City Council, and the public, with the information provided to Congressman Thompson.

City Manager Comelo advised the Council that this would be a two step process.  Staff will draft a memo to Mayor Dohring that can be forwarded to the Congressman's office as a response from the City.
 Staff will being an informational item back at the September 10 Council meeting summarizing the City's response to the items listed in the letter.

DISCUSSION:

In his letter dated August 8, 2024, Congressman Thompson requested a response to the issues raised by the opponents of Measure B in their letter to Congressman Thompson dated August 2, 2024. As the list of issues in the August 2, 2024 letter is based in significant part on the City's 9212 Report brought to City Council on June 25, 2024, there is not a significant amount of other information to bring forth except to restate the conclusions of the 9212 Report. That said, to the extent possible, the following restatement of the issues attempts to provide some additional clarity. This does not and is not intended to take any position on the merits, for or against, Measure Agenda Item #13.1.

B. Additional information can be found in the Summary of Findings contained on pages 4 - 6 of the 9212 Report.

Update to City's Zoning Code, General Plan, and Municipal Code and General Plan Consistency
The initiative is consistent with General Plan policies related to economic sustainability and circulation element policies related to bicycle and pedestrian amenities, car-free tourism, and transportation demand management programs for major employers.

If the project were proposed through the normal entitlement process, it would present inconsistencies with General Plan policies relating to preservation of agricultural land and extension of urban development outside of the Urban Limit Line that would have to be addressed in order for the project to move forward. However, the proponents are seeking to make amendments to these General Plan policies through the electoral process, which is allowed under California law.

Workforce Housing
The Initiative requires construction of 50 moderate-income units off site or payment of Affordable Housing Fee. The peer review of the workforce housing obligation and proposal noted the following:
 The proposed site has constraints that pose serious challenges for the proponent's workforce housing concept.
 The Initiative provides no incentives or disincentives for proponents to pursue a workforce housing project in a timely manner. If the proponents do not pursue the workforce housing concept, the default option of making a payment to the Affordable Housing Impact Fee Fund - estimated to be a one-time payment of $735,000. This amount may change, as the City's Impact Fees are currently under review by City Council.

Environmental
Environmental Design Features (EDF)
The Initiative, if passed, would not be subject to CEQA. However, the Initiative includes 92 EDF, many of which must be satisfied prior to issuance of permits, similar to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) mitigation measures.

Biological
The proponent’s Biological Resources analysis stated the need for additional studies and, possibly, permits from resource agencies to ensure that there is no impact to wetlands and aquatic resources. The peer review of this analysis concurred there was a need for additional studies.

Water
The project proposes reliance on on-site wells and on-site recycled water. Additional hydrogeological analysis and information regarding measures that would be taken to Agenda Item #13.1.

reduce water usage would be needed to determine the extent to which the use of onsite wells of the project would impact the groundwater basin. The peer review of the proponent’s Civil Engineering/Utilities analysis found that the project has not demonstrated the feasibility of using the on-site wells, and that in the event that water was to be provided by the city, the project would have to comply with all city requirements related to new water connections, including but not limited to, compliance with the city’s water neutrality requirements.

Historic and Cultural Resources
The peer review recommends that a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the Charles Krug Winery property should be completed prior to construction; that a qualified architectural historian complete the review. The peer review also 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 the project-related impacts on archaeological resources or Tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.

Regulatory
The project would still be subject to regulatory and permitting requirements of other agencies (e.g. Napa County, Caltrans, Water Board, CDFW, Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency, etc.). As well as the city’s regulatory processes such as compliance with building codes.

Traffic and Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions
The project would contribute to increased congestion and a degradation of Level of Service at the westbound approach of Deer Park Road/SR 29 and at the Silverado Trail/Deer Park Road intersection. The Initiative includes EDF’s that would require the project to contribute to future intersection improvements at both locations.

Additionally, the peer review of the GHG emissions report raised some questions regarding the inputs in the modeling and noted that the project did not include a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis that demonstrates it is exempt or below the BAAQMD/SB743 target or the City of St. Helena’s recently adopted VMT thresholds.

Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact provided by Noble House was prepared by EFA utilizing industry standards for projecting economic impacts of projects. The report by EFA was based on an economic analysis which considers an expansive region-wide fiscal impact and is expected to have a positive impact on both local and regional economies. In preparing the 9212 Report staff noted they did not encounter any known mathematical errors for the broad economic impact and staff provided a narrowed focus to the estimated ongoing (post-construction) revenues this resort would generate for the city’s General Fund. It is estimated this project, post construction, would generate an additional $1.8 million in General Fund annual revenues.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Agenda Item #13.1.

None
GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
Agenda Item #13.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: TOM BELT <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: Fwd: [External] Measure B
Hi Cindy,
I sent this letter to Napa County Supervisor Anne Cottrell and request for information purposes that you add it to the letters to City Council for this coming Tuesday night's meeting. Supervisor Cottrell replied to me that she will assign her staff to follow up with my concerns and will get back to me. If city council would like a copy of the reply I receive, I'll be happy to share it with the city.

Tom
---------- Original Message ----------
From: TOM BELT <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 09/05/2024 1:37 PM PDT
Subject: Measure B

Hi Anne,
I'm curious about your thoughts about Measure B (aka Noble House's agritourism development at Krug). Hopefully you'll remember my career with California Fish and Wildlife. I remind you of this because I'm concerned about Noble House pumping water from our St. Helena aquifer and the potential it may have not only for the native fisheries but also the added competition for water at the Stonebridge Wells in St. Helena.

If you have not walked the Napa River lately, you'll find it dry from the Sulphur Creek Tributary to where the Stonebridge Wells are located.

In addition, St. Helena recently received a revised Safe Annual Yield report from West Yost and Associates and the report lowers the city's safe annual yield by about 200 acre feet from the 2012 report.

I understand a provision in Noble House's 9212 report reads Noble House reserves the right to request water from St. Helena. If that request ever comes to fruition, I'm concerned that our city has enough water to share with the proposed development. And another concern is whether or not the Krug water well Noble House is planning to draw water from falls under the .3 acre feet/year limit under the Groundwater Sustainability rules? Could you please clarify this matter?

If the Krug water well falls under the rule, Noble House will not be able to extract the amount of water they will need to operate their development and that would increase the likelihood of their requesting supplemental water from St. Helena.

Lastly, the City of St. Helena has been pumping more water out of it's Stonebridge water wells during the last few years than it has in the past. Last year the city pumped Agenda Item #13.1.

2 539 acre feet out of it's wells and as you know, this is approaching the annual amount of water the city purchases from Napa. I'm also curious about whether or not the City's original well permit from the county allows this much pumping from the river/aquifer? I have been told in the past that St. Helena's well permit is limited to taking supplemental water. Considering Bell Canyon is nearly full, pumping that much water out of the Stonebridge wells seems to be more than supplemental.

I look forward to your reply to my concerns.

Thank You,

Tom and Margot Belt

Agenda Item #13.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Richard Seiferheld <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 1:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] September 10, 2024 City Council meeting New Business item 13.1 Attachments: Noble House well use docs.pdf
Please add the following to the public comment section of the subject agenda item:

In order to validate my concern regarding the impact and efficacy of the proposed use of a well(s) in the Krug property to supply the needs of the Noble House Resort, I have written the following letter to two sitting and one Napa County Supervisor Elect for their response as members of the Napa County Ground Water Sustainability Agency. Citizens of our City who may vote on Measure B should also take into consideration this concern.

Thanks for be willing to help me understand whether I am correctly interpreting what I perceive to be a contradiction between the proposed ground water extraction to service a new hotel development on the Krug Winery property in St. Helena and Napa County’s sustainable yields per the Napa Ground Water Sustainability Agency. In addition to my comments, I am attaching herewith a .pdf with some docs, tables and maps the relate to my concerns. Let me know when you have time to discuss this further.

Noble House’s (NH) initiative claims their groundwater pumping will have no impact on flows in York Creek and the groundwater surrounding it although York Creek joins the Napa River on the Krug property near the development site. I question the conclusion of their consultant, Sherwood’s, report. While the wells they intend to convert from agricultural to commercial use may be capable of producing 250 gallons of water per minute, the Napa Ground Water Sustainability Agency recommends that under the current permitted use, the ag land that their new resort/spa is to be developed on should only be allocated .3 AF/yr/ac. For the 10.5 acres in question that’s only 3.15 acre feet per year which equals 2812 gallons per day versus the spas projected use of 32,500 gallons of water per day.

Please refer to 6.2.12 – Utilities in the attached City of SH Environmental Assessment report

In the paragraph Water Supply pages 82-83, it makes no sense to me for NH to justify their allowable usage to be in compliance with NGWSA .3 AF/AC/Yr by using the entire 140 acres of the Krug parcel (actually 137.8 acres per Napa Co. Assessor’s map) when the development will only occur only ~1/14th of the total acres. Some of that acreage not currently used by the Krug winery is currently or could in the future be under cultivation and also be entitled to draw .3 AF annually.

Even if I were to accept the NH calculations, Table 12: page 84 that shows a net ground extraction of 7200 GPD, it is more than double the recommended sustainable amount.

Agenda Item #13.1.

2 Richard Seiferheld
2020 Birch Ave.

St. Helena CA 94574

Richard Seiferheld
[email protected]
707 695 0915
Agenda Item #13.1.

City ofSt. Helena -—St.Helena Resort Project
Environmental Assessment Report EnvironmentalBene?tsand Impacts

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

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

70. In the event the City of St. Helena installs a traffic signal at SR-29/DeerPark Road, the project Applicant shall pay its proportional share of the cost of the signal at the time the signal is constructed by the City.

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

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

73. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall pay traffic impact fees based on the City's Master Fee Schedule, and the fee will assume all square footage calculated at the lodging rate.

74. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a City or other applicable encroachment permit for improvements on any public right—ofaway.

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

6.2.12 — Utilities
Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater
The proposed project is located in a California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM)High Priority Basin, which requires a local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (Gswgpa Count ’5Groundwater Manage e Or -.a c mefple dm'en"t§’th'e’se'6§A’re??if'é'?n'entsy which ’generally coveWoVa'l'o'f water supply systems?wellsg, an diconser-vationIn accordance with the GMO,the proposed project would be a steward of local water resources by demonstrating a water use scheme witl?gnolnfgtgim l paetEo?e5%
The proposed project has determined a feasible water use scheme to achieve no impact to the aquifer, as described below. Additional pathways to no net aquifer impact are available, which may be studied as the project advances.

FirstCurbon Solutions 81
Htlps‘l/adeannovatlonssharenoint.oom/siles/Publimlianss?e/Shared Do:umerits/Publicatmns/Client (PIHNVGmO/smocoot/Environmenral Amsyuenusmooom 5! Helena Regan Environmental Assessment (1) mm Agenda Item #13.1.

City ofSt. Helena—St. Helena Resort Project
Environmental Benefitsand Impacts Environmental Assessrn am Report Water Demand
Water demands associated with the proposed project would include an on—siterestaurant, kitchen and cooking classes, bar, spa, and irrigation of grounds landscaping. Interior building plumbing demands have been estimated using the Napa County Design, Construction, and Installation of Alternative Sewage Treatment Systems based on the architectural program. As shown in Table 10, below, the gross project water use is projected at 35,200 gallons per day (GPD),with 15,000 GPD of that required to be potable quality and 20,200 GPD able to be served by nonpotable water.

Table 10: Water Demand Summary
Program Element Gross Water Use (GPD) Potable Water (GPD) Nonpatahle Water (GPD) Guest Rooms 5,525 5,525 0
Employees 1,165 1,165 O
Multipurpose" 2,660 2,660 0
Laundry 2,790 — 2,790
Cooling 1,515 — 1,515
Fitness/Spa 3,720 3,720 ~
Pools 1,919 1,919 ~
Irrigation 15,879 — 15,879
TOTAL - 35,200 15,000 20,200
Notes:
* Multipurpose includes the Event Barn, on—site restaurant, breakfast buffet, area for cooking classes, retail spaces, bar, lounge areas, meeting rooms, and administrative areas.

Water Supply
In collaboration with the Krug Winery, the proposed project would leverage one of three existing groundwater wells onesite for water supply. Well No.1 is located in the northern portion of the parcel, close
to the proposed primary
access to the hotel through the vineyards, andEs?'t’?rh'e‘ht’Ql -. . -W. ThissequategltoiaBGGAQGGIGPDmg?~ million ablasupplyg " “sitwater
sourc?hlc??jgxc'eledsithgant
‘ 9:93demands?oflt'h'e§pné)jgg?§edi .5
egAgritourismInitiative, no public conne Ion to the City water distribution is anticipated. As such, the Agritourism Initiative would not burden the municipal supply system, which has limited capacity for additional connections.

Although the existing Well No. 1 is capable of pumping 360,000 GPD, the proposed project's water supply is also constrained by permitted availability. Using Napa County’s standards to show no net increase in groundwater extraction by basin, projects in the County generally are allocated either a set amount of new groundwater withdrawals or must show no net increase in groundwater use if the existing groundwater use exceeds that allocation. The project site is located in the Napa Valley 82 Firstfarbon Solutions nuns//adecInivwallsnSshimpelnuonI/sites/PuhlicatmnsSite/Shano Documents/Publlmuons/CheI'Il IPNJMllsom/S?lmom/Envxronmenhl Assexsment/Wlml 5: Helena mm Environmemzl Assessment mam Agenda Item #13.1.

City ofSt. Helena—St. Helena Resort Project
Environmental Assessment Report Environmental Bene?tsand Impacts Floor groundwater area, which under County standards is allocated 0.3 acre-feet per acre per year of new groundwater withdrawals. One acre—footis equivalent to 325,851 gallons. Because the proposed project would repurpose previously permitted groundwater extraction, the 1404acre parcel would demonstrate a net water usage not exceeding 13.7 MGY(37,500 GPD) for no net increase in allocated groundwater use.

Wastewater
Wastewater ?ow from the proposed project is projected as 15,900 GPD. Existing wastewater flow from the Charles Krug Winery is 2.2 MGY(6,030 GPD on average) of process water and 3,630 GPD of domestic water. Dailyprocess wastewater rates vary with the winery production cycle. For the purposes of this analysis a daily average is used. This combined daily water use equates to the winery’s wastewater generation for a total winery wastewater flow of 9,700 GPD.

Under current State and County Code, domestic wastewater generated on—sitefrom sinks, showers, toilet flushing, and winery process water can be treated to high quality tertiary standards on»site with a packaged treatment system operated by the facility. A new package plant sized for both the proposed project and winery wastewater flows would yield 20,400 GPD of total reclaimed water.

This high quality effluent would be reused for nonpotable demands within the proposed project, consisting of outdoor drip or spray irrigation and indoor flush fixtures. Excess treated water would be available for the winery to use for washdown and tank cleaning or application to vineyards in keeping with State and County requirements to return to the aquifer.

With the use of on-site treatment, no connection to the public sewer system is anticipated. As such, the Agritourism initiative would not burden the municipal treatment system.

Water Reuse
The proposed project would provide on-site treatment and reuse of reclaimed wastewater for nonpotable demands. The proposed project would partner with the existing winery to improve water usage at a larger, parcel-based scale to increase the benefits of onsite reclaimed water. With the reclaimed water supply, water use for the proposed project would be 14,800 GPD, as shown in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Net Project Water Use
Water Demand Yype Demand
Project Potable Water Demand + 15,000 GPD
Project Nonpotable Water Demand + 20,200 GPD
(Project Reclaimed Water) 7 12,700 GPD
(Krug Reclaimed Water) ~ 7,700 GPD
Net Project Water Use 14,800 GPD
FirstCarbon Solutions 83
Hmax/lademnnovationssharenalni.znm/shes/Publvcanons$ilel§harad Documents/Pumutations/Client[PNAN)/EmD/50100001/EnvironmentalAssessment/60100001 St Helena Resort Environmental Assessment ll).doo< Agenda Item #13.1.

City afSt. Helena—5t. Helena Resort Project
Environmental Bene?tsand Impacts Environmental Assessment Report The 14,800 GPD net project water use would be offset through Krug Winery operational changes to reduce overall water use. Because the project site is partially within existing vineyards that would be removed, decreased vineyard irrigation would provide a substantial reduction in water use and enable reclaimed water to be used for process water or applied to vineyards.

Groundwater Extraction
The proposed water reuse scheme would allow the proposed project to demonstrate no net increase in acceptable groundwater use (see Appendix F).An allowable-water supply of 37,500 GPD is assumed for‘the'parcel.Considering the various
uses th’a‘twould draw from this allowance,
groundwater demand wouldnot exceedthegroundwater allowancej§ee Table 12). Irrigation and process water uses both have seasonal variationsphowever,an average daily rate is reported for consistency. Additionally, although Krug connects‘to theCitymunicipal potable system for their domestic use, it is included below to reflect a conservative burden on regional groundwater resources. in addition, under EDF80, the use of existing groundwater well(s) on the winery property would not have a material adverse impact on the water production capability of the City and pursuant to EDF82 the proposed project must incorporate best practices for water conservation, which includes metering the water production/extraction and well water levels.

Table 12: Groundwater Extraction Allowance Minus Demands on Groundwater Groundwater Type Demand
Groundwater Extraction Allowance - 37,500 GPD
Net Project Water Demands + 14,760 GPD
Krug Domestic Demands + 3,630 GPD
Krug Process Demands + 6,030 GPD
Krug Irrigation Demands + 5,891 GPD
Net Groundwater Extraction - 7,200 GPD
Net Water Use Change
On a net parcel scale, the proposed project would result in increased water use as compared to existing conditions. The Charles Krug Winery's current average daily water usage rate is 15,500 GPD.

With the proposed project, the future average daily water usage rate is 30,300 GPD. This yields a net increase of 14,800 GPDacross the 140—acreparcel.

Water Storage
Water for potable, nonpotable, and fire protection systems would be stored on—siteper code requirements and project demands. Given the flat nature of the site, water would be pressurized as required to serve each system.

If approved, the Agritourism Initiative requires the following EDFs related to water, groundwater, wastewater, and utilities to be implemented:
84 FirstCarbon Solutions
Hugs-I/adecinnmuonssharepaimom/megPubiiaxiunssue/snarea Documents/Pommuons/Client1PerN)/6010/60101m1/EnwmnmentalAssessment/mlumulst Helena Resort Environmental Assessment oram Agenda Item #13.1.

9/1/24, 3:19 PM
3'
, MCDONALD
DAVID
jACKSON
=
. NEAL
FAMILY r - TR 2m.

INVESTMENTS I
m LLc
ETAI.

BALLENTINE'
kuLuAM

VJR&JANE

SORENSEN
TR , c MONDAVI
I‘ AND
SONS
INC

HERNANDEZ
JORGE
* 5m. TR

FANTESCA
LLC
MARTIN

KRISTIN
L ETAL
httpszllwebmap.onxmaps.com/hunllmap#14.53/38.51SIM/42248198 Page ‘10H Agenda Item #13.1.

TN: Map Vlnl Pupurud For
N01!
RVR
\ @555 854-23-74
g
o.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Road
Perennial Streams (Napa County GIS, 2011)
/‘ Known
' Probable
_j Municipal boundaries - Water Body
L L County Boundary
- Very Low (0.5 — 30)
Q Low(30-50)
Moderate (50 — an)
High (80 7140)
Es Imated Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity (ftlday)
0 05 1 2 —:._Miles
Note: Perennia| streams represenlsd here are from a GIS datase‘ produwd and malntalned by meNapa County Depsnmem of Planning. Building, and Environmental Services, Quasiions regarding Ihis dataset should be directed to Napa County shaft
N
Agenda Item #13.1.

Be?!"Canyon
Riservoir
Legend
D Napa Valley Subbasin
'_-_' Napa River Watershed
Napa River
- ---- Intermittent
— Perennial
Creeks
,
"7 Intermittent
— Perennial - Water Bodies
USGSr Streams.Seeps and Springs. ESRI 7 Hillshade, Counties; DWR — Subbasin Boundaries, Wetlands (Natural Communities Commonly Assoc. wrth Groundwater) u 1 2Miles N
X I I I2Naa -
, 7N.a Vail Subb'n GSleemenlaim3szTsdmiGal ServiceslGlSlSii-eamSelbadlslSlIei-lmSemaxsarx Napa County Well Permit Standards: LUhdor? .8 . Significant Streams Egggmgag' I“
Napa County WellPermit Standards
Napa County, Califomra
Figure1
Agenda Item #13.1.

September 7, 2024
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice=Mayor Hall and members of the City Council, A sequence of events has happened in the last few months that need to be reviewed.

1. The Noble House organization applied to the City of St. Helena to build a hotel and resort on agricultural land located on the Charles Krug Winery property.

2. The Noble House organization applied to do a precedent setting type of construction. They wanted to be exempted from the requirement to do this project using the CEQA standards.

3. The City staff, in a very limited period of time did an excellent review, 9212 report, of the various factors that should be considered using CEQA standards.

4. The City staff found several areas where the plan did not meet CEQA standards. This was reported in a very factual manner being careful to not use any language that would initiate a law suit. This City has been handcuffed for the last few years because of concerns about being sued.

Why do we have an attorney? He seems to primarily advise no matter what the cost to avoid being sued.

5. The City Council then decided to put this matter on the ballot.

6. Some concerned voters formed a committee to fight against building this precedent setting, CEQA deficient project and they appealed to Congressman Mike Thomson. He did what all elected representatives should do. He wrote to the City wanting an explanation of this situation.

7. So, Mayor Dohring asked staff to respond. I strongly believe the City Council should have responded, not CM or staff.

8. A simple list of the areas where Noble House has failed to meet CEQA standards and a statement of resolve on the part of the City that those areas will have to be resolved before permits to build will be issued.

9. I am not a water or traffic expert. I have been an advocate of affordable housing for most of the years I have lived here, 24 years. Their plan to build the required workforce housing is actually silly to have proposed. It obviously will not work. So, they will pay the $750,000 which is a pittance in todays real estate market and the cost of construction.

I am not absolutely sure you needed to discuss this at your September 10th meeting but it seemed to be the least inflammatory solution to answer the opponents to the Noble House Project and to answer Congressman Thompson. To do it on a night when a very important debate is going to be televised is unthinking and unfortunate. Please focus more on the essential needs of the community like long term water availability, ability to move around on the roads, precedent setting to allow powerful developers to do whatever they want. You did that with the housing project on Fir Hill and Madrona, the Hunter project, and here we go again.

Pat Dell
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Kelly Wheaton
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] ***Spam*** Noble House discussion for Sep 10 Date: Saturday, September 7, 2024 3:08:18 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I will not be at the meeting as I will be watching the Presidential debate. But I want to raise concerns about statements by Council Members and Staff, similar to the ones we heard on the Hunter Project. Really calling them statements is generous, what they are, are lies designed to manipulate public opinion. A financial blackmail based on half truths and lies.

The City’s Own 9212 report calculated average annual General Fund revenues from the Noble House hotel at $1,833,759. Yet the “Yes on B” keeps claiming this hotel will deliver $3,633,880 to St Helena. At the City Council meeting both our City Attorney and City Manager said they could not recommend the project as proposed. But that is what is going to be discussed.

It's all going to be groundwater and inhouse sewage treatment---until it is not. Why would you believe a word that Noble House says?
The supposed Workforce 50 units of housing is a mirage---they intend to donate $735k to the Affordable housing fund. How many homes do you think that will build? It isn't what it purports to be.

They can still build their hotel, just go through the normal process like everyone else. And yet a City Council Member told a citizen that if Noble House and the Transfer Tax doesn't pass there would be no Fire, Police or Library. We have REAL FINANCIAL problems because the City Manager and you, the City Council have been on a spending spree.

The public has lost faith in its leaders---not because we are morons. But because you on the Council writ large, cannot be trusted to tell us the truth.

Sincerely,
Kelly Wheaton
1335 Inglewood Ave,
--
Kelly Wheaton
[email protected]
Beginners Guide to Genetic Genealogy
WheatonWood.com
Agenda Item #13.1.

As a private citizen with no winery connections, I am
against the Noble House Project.

Saint Helena needs money but not at the expense of
everyone else.

No one has spoken to the issues of the nearby property
owners. Taking 30,000 gallons of water a day will have
an adverse effect of the private homes nearby that rely on wells for their water needs. Taking that amount of water could have an effect on water levels in York Creek which flows into the Napa River. A loss of water in these areas will affect the steelhead, fox, coyote, quail and all other wildlife.

What is going to happen with all the wastewater that
Noble House will produce? Is that going to end up
contaminating the groundwater?
It is my understanding that the Wine Train will be
bringing guests to and from the resort. This will increase noise, air pollution and decrease the quality of life for everyone.

Agenda Item #13.1.

The noise when there is an event at Krug is very
disruptive. This starts at 10 am with sound checks and
continues many times well past 10pm even though the
city has a noise ordinance. When you call about it you
are told there is no one available to enforce the ordinance because the police force is too busy with traffic control.

The Measure B is written for the benefit of the developer not the city of Saint Helena or its citizens.

All developers should go through the proper process for any project approval.

Agenda Item #13.1.

September 10, 2024
The Honorable Paul Dohring, Mayor
City of St. Helena and
Members of City Council
Anna Chouteau
Billy Summers
Patrick Kenealy
c/o City Clerk
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA. 94574
Via email:
[email protected]
Re: Report analyzing the impacts and effects of Noble House “St. Helena Agritourism Initiative” September 10, 2024, Regular Meeting
Dear Members of the St. Helena City Council:

I speak on behalf of St Helena Citizens No on Measure B, an unincorporated association of St.

Helena residents, property owners, and voters.

Congressman Thompson requested a response to issues we raised in our August 2 letter. He asked the city to provide an opportunity to gather and examine critical information about the significant and potentially serious consequences of this Initiative effort. Many of the issues we raised in our August 2 letter to Congressman Thompson remain unaddressed.

We appreciate your work in assembling the 9212 Report in a short amount of time. The peer review raises multiple issues of concern, particularly with respect to this commercial project’s use of groundwater.

Tonight, the staff reports that “there is not a significant amount of information to bring forth except to restate the conclusions of the 9212 Report.”
Cutting off the time the publics has to significant understand negative impacts is exactly what Noble House is hoping for. It is not by accident that we don’t have enough time to thoroughly gather and examine critical information about the significant and potentially serious consequences of this Initiative effort.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Noble House invoked this initiative process so their project avoids CEQA. They chose to evade a meaningful and thorough public review of the resort’s impacts on our environment. Noble House chose to exempt their resort from our Municipal Code provision that prohibits use of agricultural wells for commercial purposes.

We will never see an EIR that follows recognized standards. Noble House does not have to circulate a report for public review and comment. Noble House does not have to consider or implement public concerns and recommendations for improving the project or minimizing or avoiding its deleterious effects on the city and its resources.

And you, our elected leaders are all but powerless to influence the design and operation of the resort, or to impose conditions of approval or mitigation measures to ensure that our community is adequately protected.

When it comes to groundwater, the “peer review” of the developer’s water analysis is more than alarming (Found in its entirety at Appendix E-7 of 9212 Report):
• The project has not demonstrated the feasibility of using on-site wells . . . (9212 report pg 5-6) Has the city requested a study?
• The St. Helena Resort will increase the rate of groundwater extraction from the agricultural wells on the Krug winery to 30,300 gallons per day, or 11.06 million gallons per year, more than 2.5 times the current winery extraction rate. (9212 Report, page 47). • There is no mention in the EAR of how groundwater use will be monitored or enforced. (9212 Report, pg 48)
• Additional hydrogeological analysis and information regarding measures that would be taken to reduce water usage would be needed to determine the extent to which the use of on-site wells for the project would impact the groundwater basin. (9212 Report pg 5) Has the city requested a study? • The proponents have evaded the question of whether some type of subdivision or separation of the resort from the winery is contemplated. If the resort site is somehow separated from the greater 140-acre winery site, this raises the question of whether the groundwater allocation from the remaining larger winery parcel can be shared with the resort property. If a subdivision is contemplated in the future, the County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure that a shared groundwater allocation can be accommodated. (9212 report pg 47- 49)
• “Careful review of the County’s Groundwater Management Ordinance is necessary as it relates to the proposed increase in groundwater use . . .and to ensure that the proposed winery/resort shared Agenda Item #13.1.

groundwater allocation can be accommodated. 9212 Report, pg [47-48] Has the city requested a study.

I refer you to Richard Seiferheld’s letters and the following:
“. . . the Napa Ground Water Sustainability Agency recommends that under the current permitted use, the ag land that their new resort/spa is to be developed on should only be allocated .3 AF/yr/ac. For the 10.5 acres in question that’s only 3.15 acre feet per year which equals 2812 gallons per day versus the spas projected use of 32,500 gallons of water per day.

It is worse than that. According to the 9212 Report: The “Project” is described as the development of 8.5 acres plus an additional acre for a landscape buffer, which suggests a total of only 9.5 acres.

What happens if Measure B passes, and a lawsuit is brought to enjoin the use because the resort uses more water than the Ground Water Sustainability Act allows? Will the City of St Helena be obligated to defend Noble House for legal costs since we, as citizens, have voted to amend our Municipal Code to permit the project to use agricultural wells for commercial purposes? Public records disclose that the Noble House team met with Maya and Anil last December and told them they wanted to “proceed with the entitlement process expeditiously.” They never had any intention to do that. They understood that their project in our Ag preserve and without a public water supply could not withstand an objective CEQA analysis of its environmental impacts, let alone a thorough review of the project’s s inconsistencies with our General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

As of the end of August, Noble House – and no one else – has pumped $174,000 into Measure B to buy our votes. By any measure in our St. Helena politics, that amount of money is outrageous and disgusting.

The public relations firm Noble House retained boasts of their ability to “gain project approval” and “influence” policy decisions. They are knowingly providing biased and false interpretations of facts to influence public opinion. How many times are they going to claim this hotel will deliver $3,633,880 to St. Helena when the City’s 9212 report calculates average annual General Fund revenues from the hotel at $1,833,759? They’re even putting this false information in their ballot arguments and in letters to Congressman Mike Thompson.

More than likely the PR firm wrote their August 15 letter to Mike Thompson. That letter relies on their quick fix to our city’s “urgent financial needs” and their $3,633,880 figure to justify the decision to cram their project through by initiative. Yes, our normal entitlement process includes time and lack of guarantee of success. That’s no excuse. They boast that Measure B gives “the community the power to make an informed decision.” The initiative process they chose prevents Agenda Item #13.1.

the community from obtaining reliable, objective information. What we’re getting from Yes on B is nothing but spin.

The Measure B proponents constantly stress the economic benefit of their project, while they simultaneously fudge the numbers. But even at $1,833,759 it is not worth it for us to “roll the dice” on groundwater and our environment.

It is crystal clear to me that this project is bad for St. Helena. This group of developers from Washington state are trying to steamroll the community, bypassing a proper, thorough vetting which they know they cannot pass. What they are proposing will drastically and irreversibly alter St Helena’s Ag reserve and General Plan. It is not right, and it is time for all those citizens who value thoughtful policymaking in the future to stand up against it.

Respectfully,
Susan Kenward
St Helena Citizens No on Measure B
cc: The Honorable Mike Thompson
Napa District Office
2721 Napa Valley Corporate Drive
Napa, CA 94558
Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Planning
DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Request by Fulton Junction Partners LLC for preliminary review of a proposed General Plan Amendment for the
property located at 1030 Fulton Lane (APN 009-194-005).

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

The City Council should review the proposed General Plan Amendment application and either:

1. Authorize the application to be processed, referring the matter to the Planning Commission or

2. Direct staff to cease processing the application
pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter

17.06. PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

City Council review and consideration of the proposed
General Plan Amendment application.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact is anticipated as the applicant's application fees are in the form of a deposit account and they will be required to pay the cost of a CEQA consultant.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property at 1030 Fulton Lane is approximately 39,092 square feet (sf) and is located east of the railroad tracks and north of Fulton Lane. The property has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Service Commercial (SC). The SC zone is intended to provide for service and retail uses, restaurants, service stations, hotels, motels, public and quasi-public uses and similar and compatible uses. The designation is intended primarily for service and retail uses that are automobile-oriented or whose operational characteristics and space needs are not considered appropriate for the Central Business District. The intent is for the SC Zone to be primarily local resident-serving in character. Strictly tourist serving retail uses are prohibited within this designation. The parcel is the only commercially zoned property north of Fulton Lane and east of the railroad tracks and has remained vacant for over a decade; it is surrounded by agriculturally designated parcels on three sides.

DISCUSSION:

The applicant has submitted a General Plan Amendment (GPA) application to change the property's land use designation from SC to Agriculture (AG) to accommodate the future construction of a single-family home. The AG land use designation includes Agenda Item #13.2.

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

Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.06.030(B), complete applications received for a General Plan Amendment shall be presented to the City Council for preliminary review at the Council’s first regularly scheduled meetings in March and September of each year. Following the review, the City Council, at its discretion, may order the application to be further processed or may direct staff to cease processing the application. Any authorization to proceed does not imply in any way ultimate approval or disapproval of an application.

1. If the City Council authorizes the application to be processed, it shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission, which shall hold public hearings pursuant to state law after the necessary environmental review process and staff analysis have been completed.

2. In the event the City Council directs staff to cease processing the application, a new application for a General Plan amendment involving substantially the same request for a parcel or area shall not be reviewed by the City Council for at least one year after such direction.

Should the Council authorize the GPA application to be processed, the applicant will also be required to submit applications for rezoning the property to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) and major design review for construction of the new single-family home. While the property would require a rezone to A-20 to be consistent with the agricultural land use designation, because the subject parcel is less than two-acres in size, the Low Density One-Acre Minimum (LR-1A) zoning standards would apply (opposed to the A-20 standards). The LR-1A standards allow for the construction of a single-family home; so while the property would have agricultural General Plan and zoning designations, due to the property's size, it would likely not accommodate active agricultural uses.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Should the Council authorize the application to be processed, the applicant will be required to pay the cost for a qualified CEQA consultant to prepare the requisite documentation.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Agenda Item #13.2.

General Plan Map
1030 Futon Assessors Map
Aerial View
Project Narrative
Site Plan
Agenda Item #13.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena authorizing General Plan Amendment application
(#PL24-043) for 1030 Fulton Lane in the City of St.

Helena to be processed and referred to the Planning
Commission for consideration.

WHEREAS, The applicant, Fulton Junction Partners LLC submitted a General Plan Amendment application on August 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section

17.06.030(B), complete applications received for a General Plan Amendment shall be presented to the City Council for preliminary review at the Council’s first regularly scheduled meetings in March and September of each year; and WHEREAS, following the review, the City Council, at its discretion, may order the application to be further processed or may direct staff to cease processing the application; and
WHEREAS, any authorization to proceed does not imply in any way ultimate approval or disapproval of an application; and
WHEREAS, if the City Council authorizes the application to be processed, it shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission, which shall hold public hearings pursuant to state law after the necessary environmental review process and staff analysis have been completed.

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

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

SECTION 2. To Authorize the General Plan Amendment application for 1030 Fulton Lane in the City of St. Helena to be processed and referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on September 10, 2024, by the following vote:

Agenda Item #13.2.

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #13.2.

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

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.1
Adopted Land Use Diagram
St. Helena General Plan
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Central Business
Service Commercial
Mixed-Use
Office
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture
Open Space
Woodlands and Watershed
Napa County General Plan
Agricultural Resource
Agriculture, Watershed and Open
Space
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #13.2.

PIQ
1999-0011780
Agenda Item #13.2.

Imagery ©2024 Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2024 50 ft
1030 Fulton Ln
Agenda Item #13.2.

City of St Helena
℅ Mayor Dohring and Members of the City Council
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
(707) 968-2659
Re: 1030 Fulton Lane - General Plan Amendment Request
APN: 009-194-005
Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My client, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, the property owner (“Owner”), acquired the above referenced property. The Owner acquired the property with the goal of improving the vacant parcel to create a vibrant and more aesthetically pleasing environment consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. To meet this goal, a general plan amendment application is being filed requesting to designate the referenced property within the Agriculture General Plan land use designation consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.06 of the City of St.

Helena zoning code.

The property is on the northern side of Fulton Lane north of the railroad, which intersects the community creating a distinct transition line between the downtown and the agricultural lands to the north. The property is surrounded on three sides by parcels designated “Agriculture” and currently developed with a mixture of residential and agricultural uses.

Subsequent to the demolition of the pre-existing warehouse structure in 2010, the property has been underutilized, mostly vacant and has created a disconnect or interruption in flow as one travels northerly on Fulton Lane. In 2018, a wine storage project was approved but never proceeded to construction. The redesignation of the property to a land use designation of Agriculture provides a great opportunity to create a more cohesive land use/development pattern for this segment of Fulton Lane.

The 39,092 square foot parcel is currently located within a Service Commercial General Plan land use designation, is zoned Service Commercial and located within the Urban Limit Line.

The pre-existing structure and uses on the property predated the City’s land use planning efforts. As such, the land use designation and reciprocating zoning were enacted consistent with the pre-existing uses rather than to establish a forward-thinking land use consistent with the predominance of agriculture and residential uses in this quadrant of the City.

With the demolition of the pre-existing structure and change in ownership, there is an Agenda Item #13.2.

opportunity to amend the general plan land use designation to be in keeping with the overall policy direction of the General Plan by retaining the predominance of agriculturally designated lands in this area of the community and preventing the encroachment of commercial development north of the railroad. To help the City achieve its objectives and create neighborhood land use consistency, the owner is requesting that the City Council consider and direct the review of a general plan amendment at its first regularly scheduled meetings in September, if not before, to designate the property Agriculture.

The General Plan currently designates the property for Service Commercial uses. The Service Commercial designation provides for service and retail uses, restaurants, service stations, motels, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. The designation is intended primarily for service and retail uses that are automobile-oriented. The intent is for the Service Commercial district to be primarily local residents serving in character. It is our belief that the majority of these aforementioned uses and the intensity of development allowed in the Service Commercial land use designation is not appropriate for this parcel. The city also recently contemplated the parcel as an opportunity site for housing, but it was rejected due to its size. Instead, designating the parcel with an Agricultural designation is more appropriate and would be consistent with the policy direction of the General Plan.

Although the Agricultural land use designation establishes a minimum parcel size of 5-40 acres, the lot is an existing lot and would not create new parcels inconsistent with the already established lot density. Due to the lot creation development pattern, it is common to find existing parcels less than 5 acres in the Agricultural land use designation, especially along Fulton Lane and Pratt Avenue. The City’s Zoning Code addresses this variation in parcels sizes through its development standards based upon lot size. For example, lots less than two acres in size are subject to the LR-1A district development standards.

Applying the Agricultural land use designation on this property would further the land use policies of the General Plan. The Agricultural land use designation would allow agricultural use(s) on the parcel consistent with the prevailing agricultural uses in the northern quadrant of the city east of the railroad tracks, furthering Policy LU5.1 of the Land Use and Growth Management Element. The redesignation reduces the encroachment of non-agricultural land use designations into the periphery of the city.

The General Plan indicates that the Agriculture land use designation includes agricultural and winery uses with restricted single family residential and public/quasi-public uses. The owner intends to develop a single-family residence, detached garage and ADU on the property consistent with agricultural land use designation and the prevailing development in the area.

Agenda Item #13.2.

A schematic site plan is included to provide the city with a conceptual site design. Upon the City Council ordering the general plan amendment application to be further processed, a rezone request and design review application would be subsequently filed, to be processed concurrently with the general plan amendment application. The Planning Commission would then consider a recommendation to the City Council related to the general plan amendment and rezone. The Planning Commission would also consider approval of the design review conditioned upon the City Council amending the general plan and rezoning the parcel.

As such and as a first step in this process, I respectfully request the City Council’s consideration and direction to staff to further process the general plan amendment request together with the rezone and design review.

Sincerely,
Erik V. Lundquist
Principal, Land Use Planning & Permitting
Brodie, Inc
480 Gate 5 Road, Suite 100
Sausalito, CA 94965
D: (707) 888- 6386
Agenda Item #13.2.

BROOKS

WALKER III
No. C-18893
REN. 6/30/25
L

S TATE OF CA L IFOR NIA

I CENSED A RC HITE CT
ISSUED: A P N : 009 - 19 4- 005
1030 FULTON LOT
1030 FULTON LANE,
ST HELENA, CA 94574

SITE PLAN
A1.0
SCALE : AS NOTED
202016
SHEET :

JOB NUMBER :

T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E T H E O R I G I N A L U N P U B L I S H E D W O R KO F T H E A R C H I T E C T A N D M A Y N O T B E D U P L I C A T E D O R U S E DW I T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F T H E A R C H I T E C T .© W A L K E R / W A R N E R A R C H I T E C T S LEGEND - SITE PLAN:

EXISTING CONTOURS

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK LINE
(E) STRUCTURES
(N) HARDSCAPE
(E) TREE TO REMAIN

PG&E EASEMENT
(N) STRUCTURES
(E) FENCE
20'-0" REAR
SETBACK 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK 10'-0"SIDE SETBACK
10'-0" SIDE

SETBACK
10'-0" PG&E

EASEMENT
(E) GATE
(E) 4' FENCE
(E) WATER METER
(E) GAS METER
(N) CARPORT
(E) JUNCTION POLE

FUTURE VINE TRAIL

PATH SHOWN DASHED
(E) STUB-UP FOR
CONNECTION TO (E) 6"

FORCE MAIN
APN 009-194-004
256
255
254

FULTON LANE

RR TRACKS
(N) ADU
1,000 SF
(N) RESIDENCE
APPROX. 4,500 SF
(N) 2-CAR
GARAGE
APPROX. 600 SF
(N) POOL
& DECK
(E) 6" SEWER FORCE MAIN
NOTES - SITE PLAN:

1. EXISTING CONTOURS ARE SHOWN. S.C.D. FOR

PROPOSED FINISH GRADING

2. S.C.D. FOR DRAINAGE INFORMATION

3. S.C.D. FOR SEPTIC INFORMATION

4. NOT USED
North
SCALE: 1" = 20'
1 SITE PLAN
A1.0
2024-04-04 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Agenda Item #13.2.

From: Mary Stephenson
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Fulton Avenue Project on Agenda Tomorrow Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 3:29:51 PM
Attachments: Fulton Lane Property.pdf
Untitled attachment 00038.txt
Cindy - can you please share this with the appropriate people before the Council Meeting tomorrow night.

First, thanks for making the Impact Fee Study Session happen on Thursday.

Secondly - I am speaking as an individual not representing any group.

Thirdly - I have a concern about a item on your agenda tomorrow night. An owner is requesting a zoning change on a property on Fulton Lane currently zoned commercial. The site is directly across from the Noble House property and very close to the City property on Railroad. The change seems like a stretch to me, but no one asked me.

However, if these folks are allowed to get a zoning change to build their estate on AG, they will most likely not be pleased to have one, possibly two, dense housing projects across the street. I hope they are made aware of this possibility and that the council considers the priority of providing work force housing over yet another estate.

Mary Stephenson
707 849 2583
Agenda Item #13.2.

City of St. Helena
City Council
Project: 1030 Fulton Lane General Plan Amendment
Staff: Aaron Hecock, AICP
Community Development Department September 10, 2024
Agenda Item #13.2.

Project Description
• The applicant has submitted a General Plan Amendment application to change the land use designation of 1030 Fulton Ln. from SC to AG to accommodate the future construction of a single-family home. • Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.06.030(B), complete applications received for a General Plan Amendment shall be presented to the City Council for preliminary review at the Council’s first regularly scheduled meetings in March and September of each year. • Following the review, the City Council, at its discretion, may order the application to be further processed or may direct staff to cease processing the application.
• Any authorization to proceed does not imply in any way ultimate approval or disapproval of an application.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Aerial View
Agenda Item #13.2.

General
Plan Map
Agenda Item #13.2.

Conceptual
Site Plan
Agenda Item #13.2.

Recommendation
The City Council should review the proposed General Plan Amendment application and either:

1. Authorize the application to be processed, referring the matter to the Planning Commission or

2. Direct staff to cease processing the application pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.06.

Agenda Item #13.2.

Questions?
Agenda Item #13.2.

1030 FULTON LANE

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
Agenda Item #13.2.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS, CHAPTER 17.06
City of St. Helena, Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning Code 2 09.10.2024
● Initiated by agent on behalf of Owner
● Preliminary review and authorization from City Council ● Refer the matter to Planning Commission for public hearing ● Planning Commission recommendation to City Council

PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY REVIEW
● Not an unusual process (could be on consent rather than new business)
● Collective understanding (i.e., potential for multiple requests) ● Merit of request (i.e., weed out unreasonable requests) Agenda Item #13.2.

1030 FULTON LANE
3 09.10.2024 Agenda Item #13.2.

LAND USES IN THE VICINITY
4 09.10.2024 Agenda Item #13.2.

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION
5 09.10.2024
1030 FULTON
LANE
Agenda Item #13.2.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST HAS MERIT
1030 FULTON LANE

EXISTING
● 39,092 square foot parcel
● Service Commercial (SC) General Plan land
use designation
● Service Commercial Zone and located
within the Urban Limit Line
● Pre-existing structure resulted in district
establishment
● Intensity of uses allowed in SC Zone is not
appropriate on property

PROPOSED
● Agriculture General Plan Land Use
Designation
● Agricultural and residential uses are
prevailing uses in northern quadrant
● Reduces encroachment of non-agricultural
land use designations into the periphery of
the City
● Reciprocating A-20 District (Rezone)
● New SFD, ADU and Garage (Design Review)
6 09.10.2024 Agenda Item #13.2.

7 COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDATION
1030 FULTON LANE
■ Authorize the Application to
proceed
■ Refer the matter to the
Planning Commission
■ Staff to process GPA with
Rezone

09.10.2024 Agenda Item #13.2.

brodiecm.com
480 Gate 5 Road, Suite 100
Sausalito, California, 94965
Erik V. Lundquist | Land Use Planning and Permitting Principal | 707.888.6386| [email protected] 8 Agenda Item #13.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: September 10, 2024
FROM: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Consideration and Proposed Approval of:

1. Designating a Voting Delegate on Behalf of the City
of St. Helena City Council; and

2. Designating Alternate Voting Delegates; and

3. The City Council authorizes the Voting Delegate
and/or Alternate Voting Delegates to vote on any
proposed resolution on behalf of the City at the
League of California Cities Annual Conference
Business Meeting.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Consideration and Proposed Approval of:

1. Designating a Voting Delegate on Behalf of the City
of St. Helena City Council; and

2. Designating Alternate Voting Delegates; and

3. The City Council authorizes the Voting Delegate
and/or Alternate Voting Delegates to vote on any
proposed resolutions on behalf of the City at the
League of California Cities Annual Conference
Business Meeting.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To appoint a voting delegate and alternates to represent the City of St. Helena at the League of California Cities Annual Conference Business Meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts.

DISCUSSION:

The League of California Cities provides legislative advocacy, professional development, and educational resources for incorporated cities and towns in California, including the City of St. Helena.

The League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled for October 16-18, 2024, at the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach. The Cal Cities General Assembly will convene on the last day of the conference for the Annual Business Meeting in order to potentially consider and take action on resolutions that establish League policy. Cal Cities received one resolution by the submission deadline. There is still the possibility that petitioned resolutions may be introduced onsite at the conference by members.

Agenda Item #13.3.

Each member city of the League of California Cities may, with the approval of the City Council, designate a city official as their Designated Voting Delegate and, in the event that the Designated Voting Delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, up to two Alternate Voting Delegates may vote.

Designated Voting Delegates and Alternates must be registered to attend the Annual Conference. A staff member can be appointed to fill the voting role in the event that no Council Member plans to attend, or as an alternate delegate.

Currently Vice Mayor Hall, Council Members Chouteau, Kenealy and Summers and City Manager Comelo are registered to attend the conference.

The resolution to be considered at the business meeting is listed below and outlined in the attached packet.

Resolution:

A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS THAT ENSURE THAT “WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, APPLIES TO ALL” IN THE FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL

OFFICIALS AT ALL LEVELS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Summary:

This Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - 2024 Cal Cities Voting Delegate Information Packet Attachment 2 - 2024-Resolutions-Packet
Agenda Item #13.3.

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024
Agenda Item #13.3.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly Agenda Item #13.3.

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

Agenda Item #13.3.

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

Agenda Item #13.3.

2023-2024

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Daniel T. Parra
Mayor
Fowler
First Vice President
Lynne Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Second Vice President
Gabe Quinto
Council Member,
El Cerrito
Immediate Past President
Ali Sajjad Taj
Mayor Pro Tem,
Artesia
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 28, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers, and City Clerks RE: Cal Cities 2024 Resolution Packet
Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the Aug. 17 deadline.

The attached packet contains the proposed resolution, supporting letters from city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process.

We encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a city position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution.

Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Sept. 25. The voting delegate packet contains more information.

The Cal Cities 2024 General Assembly will be held Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. in the Long Beach Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

For questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals.

Agenda Item #13.3.

2024
Resolutions
Packet
Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
Information on 2024 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, the Cal Cities President has referred the submitted resolution to the Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee. The committee will meet on Oct. 3 at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Oct. 17 at 1:30 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consists of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. to consider any qualified resolutions. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked-in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Oct. 17. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page four of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked-in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 Agenda Item #13.3.

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 2 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The below table shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 3 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. It an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
4 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
2024 Resolution

1. Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels submitted by City of Glendora
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
ii. Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
iii. Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
iv. Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
v. John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes • Referred to Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
5 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Fair and Equal
Treatment of All Governmental
Officials at All Levels submitted by
City of Glendora
6 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS THAT ENSURE THAT “WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, APPLIES TO ALL” IN THE

FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS AT ALL

LEVELS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Source: City of Glendora
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
City Officials: April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia; Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa; Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne; Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita; John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Referred to: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations Policy Committee
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities objects to the practice of the California Legislature of imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California; and WHEREAS, examples of such rules or regulations that apply to local city elected officials that do not otherwise apply to the elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:

California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq., which purport to “declare[] that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly,” but which limits its application to “local agencies,” but not including elected officials of the State of California; Creating “one-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which purportedly requires all government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or committing to a course of action on a project in order to demolish and then rebuild State offices for the Governor and other State officials; 7 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
Adopting rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”), by removing the exception for local elected officers from contribution limits requiring disqualification on development project decisions,” but not including elected officials of the State of California;
Adopting rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office, including, but not limited to: prohibiting the making a contribution over the AB 571 limit to another candidate in jurisdictions subject to the AB 571; requiring a candidate that has qualified as a committee to establish a separate controlled committee and campaign bank account for each specific office; prohibiting a candidate from redesignating a committee for one election for another election.

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities now calls upon the Governor and the California Legislature to adopt a policy, practice, and procedure requiring, in their legislative activities, that “what applies to one applies to all.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2024 in Long Beach, California, that the League calls upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.” 8 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
9 Agenda Item #13.3.

July 10, 2024
The City Council of Glendora
is proposing the following resolution for consideration at the California League of Cities annual conference
on
October 18, 2024
Proposed Resolution: (“To ensure fairness and equal treatment for all government officials in California”)
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not approve, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
The following five city council members are in concurrence with their letters of support (attached):
✓ Mayor John Cruikshank, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
✓ Mayor Bill Uphoff, City of Lomita
✓ Mayor Robert Gonzales, City of Azusa
✓ Mayor April Verlato, City of Arcadia
✓ Mayor Tim Hepburn, City of La Verne
Please confirm receipt of this request.

Sincerely,
Michael Allawos
Council Member
City of Glendora
10 Agenda Item #13.3.

11 Agenda Item #13.3.

12 Agenda Item #13.3.

13 Agenda Item #13.3.

14 Agenda Item #13.3.

15 Agenda Item #13.3.

2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
16 Agenda Item #13.3.

League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Johnnie Pina, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Committee: Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Summary:

This Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
Background:

This resolution states that examples of the California Legislature imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:
• California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq.;
• “One-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
• Rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”); and
• Rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office.

Ralph M. Brown Act
The California Attorney General’s (AG) Office defines The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) as what governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils and school boards. The AG’s office states the Act represents the Legislature’s determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering on the other.

The Ralph M. Brown Act governs local agencies, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act covers all state boards and commissions, and Government code 17 Agenda Item #13.3.

9027 governs the state Legislature. The California Constitution also mandates open meetings for state agencies, boards, and commissions. Specifically, the Constitution requires that each local agency comply with the Brown Act (Article I, section 3(b)(7)): and that the proceedings of each house of the Legislature be open and public (with exceptions for employment matters; matters affecting security; confer with legal counsel; and to meet as a caucus (Article IV, section 7).

Although fairly detailed requirements apply to state agencies and other state bodies, they do not apply to the Legislature. The Legislature has Constitutional authority to adopt rules for its proceedings that are consistent with the requirement that the proceedings of each house and the committees be open and public.

Another notable difference between the Legislature and a city council is the ability for Legislators to have a caucus to discuss a bill, express how they will vote, and to count votes. This is not allowed under the Brown Act. One other difference is that the laws governing teleconferencing for members of the state Legislature is far less flexible than it is for local bodies. However, state agencies have more flexibility than locals in that regard.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
The Resolution cites the Legislature's action in exempting from CEQA the reconstruction of the State Capitol Annex building. The State Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970, establishing it as a public disclosure law for the environmental review of discretionary projects and a process for mitigating or avoiding potential environmental impacts.

SB 174 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 74, Statutes of 2024 was signed into law July 2, 2024. This bill exempts the work performed under the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this example the Legislature exempted themselves as not being considered a “public agency,” “state agency,” or “lead agency” under CEQA. A lead agency under CEQA is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that is subject to CEQA.

Over the years, the Legislature has also created many CEQA exceptions and exemptions for local projects involving local agencies as well.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Senate Bill No. 1439
SB 1439 (Glazer) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 848, Statutes of 2022 amends section 84308 and is aimed at preventing "pay-to-play" practices, in part by prohibiting parties, participants, and their respective agents in a 18 Agenda Item #13.3.

proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use from contributing more than $250 to an officer of an agency during a 12 month period. When the Levine Act was first enacted in 1982, Section 84308 applied to appointed members of boards and commissions who were running for elective office. SB 1439 expended this law to now apply to local elected officials. Since it is focused on permits and licenses, it now applies to State agencies and local agencies that approve permits and licenses. Section 84308 does not apply to the Legislature or the Courts. It is important to note that unlike local governments, neither issue permits and licenses.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Assembly Bill No. 571
AB 571 (Mullin) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 556, Statutes of 2019 established default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. This bill permitted a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.

The Resolution cites AB 571 as an example of treating cities differently than the State. The Fair Political Practices Commission clarifies in their AB 571 fact sheet that under AB 571 a city may elect to have "no" contribution limit in which case the state contribution limit will not apply as a default for that jurisdiction. A city or county can set contribution limits higher than the default state limit, AB 571 sets a default in line with contributions Assembly Members and Senators if a city or county is silent on contribution limits.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown.

Existing Cal Cities Policy:

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe:
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility. The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities.
• Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy. The active participation of all city officials increases Cal Cities’ effectiveness.
19 Agenda Item #13.3.

• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Comments:

Additional Examples
The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed many laws that apply to local governments and do not apply to the state or the state Legislature. This year AB 2561(McKinnor) was introduced, which requires local governments to present in a public meeting a detailed report about their vacancy rates and detailed information about their hiring practices. This is an attempt to address public sector vacancy rates. This bill does not apply to the state in a time when they are also dealing with high vacancy rates.

Additionally, there were several bills that aim to amend the Levine Act, which now applies to local elected officials, to make changes to SB 1439, referenced previously in the analysis. None of the bills would amend the law to be applicable to Assembly Members or Senators.

AB 817 (Pacheco), co-sponsored by Cal Cities tried to bring parity to the Brown Act by making the teleconference rules for state advisory bodies the same for local advisory bodies but the Legislature struck the bill down.

Applying to elected officials or to the legislative body? Legislature or the State? The resolution also states, “… applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate.”
This portion of the resolve clause is specifically speaking to local elected officials and State Assembly Members and Senators. However, many of the “where as” clauses are in reference to laws that apply to cities, the state and the Legislature as government agencies and not specifically to the elected officials on the governing bodies. For example, the Brown Act applies rules to the Legislative body and not the individual council member. Additionally, the city council as a whole is the lead agency under CEQA and not the individual council members.

Inherent Powers of the Legislative Branch
The resolution also states, “This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
It is unclear what inherent powers of the legislate branch under the California Constitution means in this context. The legislative branch does have the power 20 Agenda Item #13.3.

of preemption over cities and can state that a change in law is a matter of state wide concern. This allows the legislative branch to apply new laws or amend existing laws to apply to general law and charter cities. It seems like the last sentence of the resolve clause could negate the rest of the resolve clause if not clarified.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
21 Agenda Item #13.3.