St. Helena City Council
October 22, 2024

NEW SERVICE GROUND "GEC" NEW NEUTRAL TO EACH "AC-SPR" SEE SHEET E201 TYP. TO ADDITIONAL POSTS, TYP. NEW ELECTRICAL GROUND CONDUCTOR TO EACH "DC-POST" TYP. NOTES: · REFER TO SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, SHEET E201, FOR SPECIFIC CIRCUIT IDENTIFIERS BETWEEN EQUIPMENT. · REFER TO AC & DC CIRCUIT SCHEDULES FOR NEUTRAL/GROUND SIZING PER CIRCUIT, SHEET E201. LEGEND NEUTRAL BUSBAR GROUND BUSBAR PRIMARY OR SECONDARY COMMON TERMINAL, AS APPLICABLE IRREVERSIBLE SPLICE OR CRIMP PER NEC 250.64(C) NEC 250.52(A) COMPLIANT GROUNDING ELECTRODE NG NEW GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR, "GEC" 3/0 AWG SOLID COPPER (2) 5/8" DIA x 10' LONG COPPER GROUND ROD BURIED BELOW GRADE AT 6' MIN SEPARATION. ELECTRODES SHALL BE BONDED WITH 3/0 AWG SOLID COPPER NEW ELECTRICAL GROUND CONDUCTOR TO EACH "AC-SPR" SEE SHEET E201 TYP. GROUNDING DIAGRAM 1 SCALE: NONE
N
G
N
G
N
G
G
N
G
G GROUNDED CONDUCTOR AND CONNECTIONS PER UTILITY REQUIREMENTS TO UTILITY TRANSFORMER NEW MAIN SWITCHBOARD MAIN BONDING JUMPER (FACTORY INSTALLED) NEW SUPERCHARGER STAR-CENTER SB-1 DC-# NEW SUPERCHARGER CABINET, TYP. SPR-# SPR-# NEW SUPERCHARGER STAR-POINT SPR-# NEW SUPERCHARGER STAR-POINT G NEW ELECTRICAL GROUND CONDUCTOR IN HIGH VOLTAGE DC-BUS CONDUITS OR WIREWAY BETWEEN CABINETS IN A RADIAL CONFIGURATION FROM THE STAR POINT CABINETS TO THE STAR CENTER CABINET (1 STAR-CENTER PER 7 CABINETS TOTAL) NEW SUPERCHARGER POST TYP. DC-# DC-# 7" 1'-6" TESLA SUPERCHARGER 1 (877) 798-3752
7 1/2"
1" TYP. NOTE: ATTACH TO FRONT OF SWITCHGEAR 1'-2" TESLA EV SYSTEM DISCONNECT 4"
1" TYP. NOTE: ATTACH TO SWITCHGEAR MAIN DISCONNECT ST HELENA, CA. 94574 PLACARD NOTES: 1. PLACARDS TO BE MADE OF RED PHENOLIC PLASTIC WITH WHITE LETTERING. 2. ATTACH WITH RIVETS OR SELF TAPPING SCREWS. 3. ADDITIONAL PLACARDS REQUIRED FOR ARC FLASH LABELS. 4. TESLA TO PROVIDE ALL PLACARDS AND ARC FLASH LABELS. 5. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL. SYSTEM PLACARDS 2 SCALE: NONE 1600A, 480/277, 3P, 4W 10" WARNING CONTROLS COMPARTMENT EQUIPMENT IS STILL LIVE WHEN THE MAIN SERVICE DISCONNECT IS IN THE "OFF" POSITION. INDEPENDENT "CONTROLS DISCONNECT" LOCATED ADJACENT TO MAIN DISCONNECT 1" NOTE: ATTACH TO EXTERIOR OF CONTROLS COMPARTMENT PANEL 1/2"
TYP. 1301 MONEY WAY Job No.: TSD24 28 Draw/Check By: ACU / LBS

REVISIONS
No. DESCRIPTION DATE

TESLA SUPERCHARGER,
1301 MONEY WAY
ST HELENA, CA. 94574
(12) SUPERCHARGERS
4255 PARK ROAD
BENICIA, CA 94510

DIAMOND ENGINEERING SERVICES
07-19-24 A CD50, FOR REVIEW TESLA
3500 DEER CREEK RD.

PALO ALTO, CA 94304
08-09-24 B LAYOUT REVISION
08-15-24 C LAYOUT REVISION Job No.: TSD24 28 Draw/Check By: ACU / LBS

REVISIONS
No. DESCRIPTION DATE

TESLA SUPERCHARGER,
1301 MONEY WAY
ST HELENA, CA. 94574
(12) SUPERCHARGERS
4255 PARK ROAD
BENICIA, CA 94510

DIAMOND ENGINEERING SERVICES
07-19-24 A CD50, FOR REVIEW TESLA
3500 DEER CREEK RD.

PALO ALTO, CA 94304
08-09-24 B LAYOUT REVISION
08-15-24 C LAYOUT REVISION E202

ELECTRICAL DETAILS AC & DC ESTIMATED LENGTHS
4 AC SUPERCHARGER LENGTHS SUPERCHARGER TOTAL NUMBER OF CONDUITS LINEAR LENGTH IN FEET SWITCHBOARD TO SUPERCHARGER ESTIMATED LENGTH IN FEET* 1 2 17 42 LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE PER CONDUIT** 168 LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE *** 336 2 2 22 47 LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE PER CONDUIT** 188 LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE *** 376 3 2 27 52 LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE PER CONDUIT** 208 LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE *** 416 TOTAL LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE **** 1128 TOTAL LENGTH OF EGC ***** 282 NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET E 201 FOR WIRE CONFIGURATION. * AC CONDUCTORS: 25 FT IS ADDED TO THE HORIZONTAL RUN LENGTH TO ACCOUNT FOR BURIED DEPTH & TRANSITIONS. ** ESTIMATED LENGTH OF AL WIRE = SUM OF ESTIMATED LENGTH x 4 WIRES PER SUPERCHARGER *** LENGTH = LENGTH OF AC AL WIRE PER CONDUIT x # OF CONDUITS **** TOTAL LENGTH = SUM OF AC LENGTHS ***** TOTAL LENGTH OF EGC = LENGTH x # SETS DC CHARGING POST LENGTHS SUPERCHARGER CHARGE POST LINEAR LENGTH IN FEET ESTIMATED DC WIRE LENGTH IN FEET* 1 1A 46 68 1B 32 54 1C 12 34 1D 21 43 2 2A 35 57 2B 44 66 2C 53 75 2D 62 84
3 3A 51 73 3B 56 78 3C 73 95 3D 78 100 CONDUIT LENGTH 827 TOTAL CONDUCTOR LENGTH** 3308 TOTAL LENGTH OF EGC & COMM CABLE 827 NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET E 201 FOR WIRE CONFIGURATION. 2. ANY DC RUN OVER 330' SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE TESLA CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. * 22 FT IS ADDED TO THE HORIZONTAL RUN LENGTH TO ACCOUNT FOR BURIED DEPTH & TRANSITIONS. ** ESTIMATED LENGTH OF DC AL WIRE = SUM OF ESTIMATED LENGTH x 4 WIRES PER SUPERCHARGER MAIN SWITCHBOARD SB-1, MCB 1600A ZPOWER PHASE GROUND DESIGNATION FRAME AMPS 1,600 1,600 AIC kA 65 65 FRAME MFR EATON TYPE MODEL MPN-616 MPN-616 TRIP UNIT SENSOR AMPS 1,600 1,600 PLUG AMPS 1,600 1,600 DESCRIPTION LSI, 1600AF, 200-1600AP GF, 800-6000AF TYPE/MODEL MAGNUM PXR 20 MAGNUM PXR 20 TRIP UNIT SETTINGS (1600A TRIP) LONG DELAY PICKUP (lr) 1 (1600A) LONG DELAY TIME (tr) 24s SHORT DELAY PICKUP (lsd ) 2.5 (4000A) SHORT DELAY TIME (I2t) 0.1s INSTANTANEOUS PICKUP (l i) 6 (9600A) GROUND FAULT PICKUP (Ig
) 0.75 (1200A) GROUND FAULT DELAY TIME (tg
) 0.5s SUPERCHARGER CABINET BREAKERS PD-3 THERMAL-MAG TRIP UNIT (600A TRIP) INSTANTANEOUS (l i): 5 (3000A) BREAKER SETTINGS
3 Agenda Item #15.1.

34" SUGG. DEPTH
24" MIN. COVER
1'-6" RED WARNING TAPE W/ TRACE WIRE 4" PVC CONDUIT MAX (8) CONDUITS PER GROUP APPROVED BACKFILL EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE NEW FINISHED GRADE, REPAIR CAP TO MATCH EXISTING 4" MIN. SPARE 4" CONDUITS MAY BE USED AS SPACERS CONDUITS MAY NOT BE STACKED MORE THAN 2 HIGH "AC-SPR" CIRCUITS TRENCH - MAX RHO 90 3 SCALE: NONE AC-SPR SLURRY BACKFILL
2" MIN.
36" SUGG. DEPTH
24" MIN. COVER
1'-6" "DC-POST" CIRCUITS TRENCH - RHO 60
1 16 CONDUITS OR LESS SCALE: NONE CONDUITS MAY NOT BE STACKED MORE THAN 2 HIGH RED WARNING TAPE W/ TRACE WIRE DC POST CONDUIT PER SCHEDULE SEE SHEET E201 (1) CONDUIT PER CHARGE POST MAX. (16) CONDUITS PER CONDUIT GROUP DC-POST EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE NEW FINISHED GRADE, REPAIR CAP TO MATCH EXISTING SLURRY BACKFILL NATIVE FILL 2" MIN. 16 CONDUITS OR LESS
30" SUGG. DEPTH
24" MIN. COVER
1'-6" RED WARNING TAPE W/ TRACE WIRE PVC CONDUIT RUN (REFER TO PLANS AND WIRE SCHEDULE FOR ACTUAL NUMBER AND LOCATION OF CONDUITS) IN A SINGLE ROW, CANNOT BE STACKED APPROVED BACKFILL EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE NEW FINISHED GRADE, REPAIR CAP TO MATCH EXISTING "DC-BUS" CIRCUITS TRENCH - MAX RHO 90 2 SCALE: NONE DC-BUS SLURRY BACKFILL
2" MIN. DURALINE SMOOTH-COR FLEX CONDUIT
4 SCALE: NONE KEYLOCK STRIPS NO GLUE DURALINE SMOOTH-COR FLEX TO SMOOTH-COR FLEX COUPLER O-RING GASKET AIR & WATERTIGHT KEYLOCK COUPLING CORRUGATED OUTER WALL HIGH CRUSH STRENGTHSEMI SMOOTH INNER WALL KEYLOCK STRIPS NO GLUE O-RING GASKET AIR & WATERTIGHT DURALINE SMOOTH-COR FLEX TO HDPE, PVC, THREADED GALVANIZED STEEL CLAMP ADAPTER CONDUIT SMOOTH-COR FLEX NOTE: 1. DURALINE SMOOTH-COR FLEX CONDUIT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED FOR USE IN TESLA'S SUPERCHARGER SYSTEM AS DC-POST CONDUIT. 2. TESTING REPORTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH UL1660, UL 1990, AND UL651A STANDARDS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST 3. PVC TO BE UTILIZED FOR ALL 90-DEGREE TRANSITIONS. Job No.: TSD24 28 Draw/Check By: ACU / LBS

REVISIONS
No. DESCRIPTION DATE

TESLA SUPERCHARGER,
1301 MONEY WAY
ST HELENA, CA. 94574
(12) SUPERCHARGERS
4255 PARK ROAD
BENICIA, CA 94510

DIAMOND ENGINEERING SERVICES
07-19-24 A CD50, FOR REVIEW TESLA
3500 DEER CREEK RD.

PALO ALTO, CA 94304
08-09-24 B LAYOUT REVISION
08-15-24 C LAYOUT REVISION Job No.: TSD24 28 Draw/Check By: ACU / LBS

REVISIONS
No. DESCRIPTION DATE

TESLA SUPERCHARGER,
1301 MONEY WAY
ST HELENA, CA. 94574
(12) SUPERCHARGERS
4255 PARK ROAD
BENICIA, CA 94510

DIAMOND ENGINEERING SERVICES
07-19-24 A CD50, FOR REVIEW TESLA
3500 DEER CREEK RD.

PALO ALTO, CA 94304
08-09-24 B LAYOUT REVISION
08-15-24 C LAYOUT REVISION E501
TRENCH DETAILS TRENCHING NOTES: 1. THE DC-BUS, DC-POST, AND AC-SPR TRENCH DESIGNS ARE THE RESULT OF A THERMAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONDUCTORS UNDER LOAD. FOR PROPER PROTECTION THEY MUST BE FOLLOWED. 2. APPROVED BACKFILL IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE DESIGNED RHO VALUES USE THE SPECIFIED BACKFILL LISTED BELOW OR TEST NATIVE SOIL CONDITIONS TO CONFIRM MAX DEFINED RHO VALUES. 3. RHO 60 BACKFILL - CONCRETE BACKFILL WITH MIN 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI MUST BE USED TO ACHIEVE MAX RHO 60. 4. RHO 90 BACKFILL - LOW STRENGTH FLUIDIZED THERMAL (SLURRY) BACKFILL WITH MIN 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 150 PSI MUST BE USED TO ACHIEVE MAX RHO 90 5. FOR TRENCHES WITH MIXED CIRCUIT TYPES, APPLY THE CONDUIT SPACING FOR THE CIRCUIT TYPE WITH THE LARGER SPACING REQUIREMENT 6. CONDUIT TO BE INSTALLED TO A MAX COVER OF 24". COVER MAY BE REDUCED PER THE NEC TABLE 300.5.

Agenda Item #15.1.

Job No.: TSD24 28 Draw/Check By: ACU / LBS

REVISIONS
No. DESCRIPTION DATE

TESLA SUPERCHARGER,
1301 MONEY WAY
ST HELENA, CA. 94574
(12) SUPERCHARGERS
4255 PARK ROAD
BENICIA, CA 94510

DIAMOND ENGINEERING SERVICES
07-19-24 A CD50, FOR REVIEW TESLA
3500 DEER CREEK RD.

PALO ALTO, CA 94304
08-09-24 B LAYOUT REVISION
08-15-24 C LAYOUT REVISION Job No.: TSD24 28 Draw/Check By: ACU / LBS

REVISIONS
No. DESCRIPTION DATE

TESLA SUPERCHARGER,
1301 MONEY WAY
ST HELENA, CA. 94574
(12) SUPERCHARGERS
4255 PARK ROAD
BENICIA, CA 94510

DIAMOND ENGINEERING SERVICES
07-19-24 A CD50, FOR REVIEW TESLA
3500 DEER CREEK RD.

PALO ALTO, CA 94304
08-09-24 B LAYOUT REVISION
08-15-24 C LAYOUT REVISION E801
TITLE 24
Agenda Item #15.1.

Plan For EV Chargers
In St. Helena
St. Helena City Council
Presented by Anil Comelo, City Manager and Andrew Bradley, Program Manager October 22, 2024
Agenda Item #15.1.

City Council Goals
 Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further
Environmental Sustainability
 Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Agenda Item #15.1.

Key Decisions
 Do we need EV chargers?
 If yes, where should they be located?
 What type of chargers should the City install?
 Should the City own and maintain the chargers?
Agenda Item #15.1.

EV Chargers at City Hall
 The City has six (6) Level 2 Chargers at City Hall
 New Level 3 Chargers will help the City get closer
to meeting Climate Action goals
 County estimates need for 60 chargers by 2025
Agenda Item #15.1.

Current Chargers at Money Way Lot
Agenda Item #15.1.

EVgo Chargers at Money Way Lot
 EVgo
 Approved by City Council in September 2016
and contract expires in September 2024
 Can charge up to four (4) vehicles using only
CCS1 and CHAdeMO connections
Agenda Item #15.1.

NACS Connector - Industry Standard
  North American Charging System (NACS) is
recognized as the international standard for EV’s
by SAE International
 The NACS (NACS/SAE J3400) port is becoming an
industry standard
Agenda Item #15.1.

NACS Connector
 Manufacturers will have NACS as standard on new EV's:
 Audi (2025)
 BMW (2025)
 Ford (2024)
 Genesis (2024)
 GM (2025)
 Honda (2025)
 Hyundai (2024)
 Jaguar (2025)
 Kia (2024)
 Lexus (2025)
 Lucid (2025)
 Mazda (2025)
 Mercedes-Benz (2025)
 Mini (2025)
 Nissan (2025)
 Polestar/Volvo (2025)
 Porsche (2025)
 Rivian (2025)
 Rolls-Royce (2025)
 Scout Motors (2025)
 Stellantis (2025)
 Chrysler
 Dodge
 Jeep
 Maserati
 Ram
 Toyota (2025)
 Volkswagen (2025)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Charging Options
 ChargePoint
 Intergrative Charging
 Tesla
Agenda Item #15.1.

ChargePoint
 Would require the City to buy, install, manage,
and maintain equipment.
 Costly. City does not have staff that can
maintain specialized equipment
 Could provide some revenue to City over time
Agenda Item #15.1.

Integrative Charging
 Would install and maintain equipment (up to 12
Level 3 Chargers)
 No guarantee of what equipment, connectors,
or network would be used.
 Would install in phases
 City could have limited revenue share ($250 to
$500 per month depending on usage)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Tesla
 Would install and maintain equipment (12 Level 3
Chargers)
 Level 3 Chargers with “Magic Dock”
 Works for vehicles with CCS1 and NACS
 No adapter required
 99% “up time” average across their network
 Most vehicles are moving to the NACS
connector by 2025
 Tesla network is open to all vehicle models
Agenda Item #15.1.

Location Considerations
City
Hall Library Lewis Station
RR
Parking Safeway Sunshine Foods
Oak &
Money
Retail &
Dining No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
RR Tracks No No Yes Yes Yes No No
PG&E
Power - - - - - - Yes
Overhead
Lines No No Yes Yes No No No
Space for
ADA Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Parking
Layout Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes
Meets
Criteria No No No No No No Yes
Agenda Item #15.1.

Location Considerations (examples)
 Railroad Avenue and Lewis Station Park
 Too close to RR and Powerlines
 Space constraints
 Sunshine Foods
 Small shared lot
 Angled parking would
need reconfigured
Agenda Item #15.1.

Staff Recommendation
 Tesla at Oak Avenue / Money Way Parking Lot
 Work with Tesla to install 12 Level 3 chargers
 “Magic Dock” Chargers
 Tesla will determine rate to be charged
 Will reduce parking for non-charging vehicles by 12
 No cost to the City
 10-year contract
 City can cancel after 10 years with 18 months notice
Agenda Item #15.1.

Current vs. Future Configuration
  Current Parking lot configuration
• 28 total spaces
• 4 used by EVgo (1 ADA)
• 24 for general parking (2 ADA)
 Tesla Charging lot configuration:
• 24 total spaces (4 would be used by infrastructure)
• 12 EV (1 ADA)
• 12 General (2 ADA)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Oak Avenue / Money Way Lot
 12 Level 3 Chargers
 11 chargers + one (1) ADA van space
 ADA space “use last”
 12 spaces available for general parking
 Includes two (2) ADA spaces
 Meets all requirements from providers
and PG&E has already confirmed power
infrastructure is available for location.

Agenda Item #15.1.

Tesla Magic Dock Charging Station v4
 Magic Dock Chargers could be used by vehicles
with NACS and CCS1 connection points
 This includes St. Helena Police Department’s
Ford Mustang Mach-E’s
Agenda Item #15.1.

Potential Implementation Timeline
 Sep 4: Presentation to ATSC
 Oct 22: Recommendation to City Council
 Q4 2024: Agreement Signed with Charging Partner,
Building Plans Submitted to City for Approval
 1Q or 2Q 2025: Installation and Activation of New
Chargers
Agenda Item #15.1.

Agenda Item #15.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION No. 2024-

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SITE AGREEMENT WITH TESLA, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TWELVE (12) LEVEL 3 CHARGING STATIONS (SUPERCHARGERS) IN THE OAK STREET/MONEY WAY PUBLIC PARKING LOT FOR A TERM OF TEN (10) YEARS.

RECITALS
A. The City of St. Helena wishes to promote clean transportation to reduce Greenhouse Gases and other harmful vehicle emissions; and
B. Electric vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions, and are widely being adopted in California; and
C. Under California State Clean Air and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy, auto manufactures are required to continue to produce and sell electric vehicles in the State of California; and
D. City Staff looked at several Electric Vehicle Charging Service Providers and Options for adding additional electrical vehicle charging infrastructure and options at the Oak Street/Money Way Public Parking Lot in St. Helena; and
E. Of the three options reviewed, Tesla, Inc provided a zero cost, turnkey proposal to the City; and
F. The City Attorney's Office has approved the terms negotiated by City Staff and Tesla, Inc.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the Site Agreement with Tesla, Inc.

2. Approves the installation of twelve (12) Tesla, Inc “Superchargers” at the Oak Street/Money Way Public Parking Lot.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on October 22, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring:

Vice Mayor Eric Hall:

Council Member Anna Chouteau:

Council Member Patrick Kenealy:

Council Member Billy Summers:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Agenda Item #15.1.

From: Chris Fowler
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] October 22 City Council Meeting Public Comment Date: Sunday, October 20, 2024 6:09:16 PM
Hi Cindy, hope you had a wonderful weekend! Can you include this for Tuesday's meeting, please.

Cheers,
Chris
Dear Mayor & Council,
This in regards to Agenda Item 15.1. While I admire The City wanting to move in a positive direction for a cleaner, greener world, 12 Tesla EV spaces in the Money Way parking lot seems a little much at this time. Our business, Alan's, is directly adjacent to this parking lot, and with the exception of the weekend, I see this parking lot probably more than any other person in town.

What I see, first, are under-utilized EV chargers. I'm sure having Tesla chargers in there will help usage, but I'm not sure 12 of them is the right number at this time. Second, not all the time, but often enough, I see a very full parking lot. Eliminating 4 total public spaces for (what is essentially private) infrastructure, and cutting total non-EV spaces by 50% seems abrupt and large.

Is there a way to 'scale-up' this project over the coming years? Maybe beta test it with 6, and revaluate in a year or so?
As a post-script that is proximity related, is it possible to get actual signage on the restroom building itself? We get at least a couple people a week that come into our shop looking for them. While I always love seeing and meeting new people, chatting about picture framing or their visit to our wonderful town, isn't what they are really interested in. I have asked and broached this with a handful of City staff and elected officials in the past, and it continues to fall on deaf ears.

Respectfully,
Chris Fowler
Agenda Item #15.1.

Alan's St. Helena
1310 Oak Avenue
Saint Helena, CA 94574
707.963.9294
[email protected]
Agenda Item #15.1.

From: Mcknz
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] EV chargers Item 15.3
Date: Saturday, October 19, 2024 5:55:37 PM
Considering the fact that we have extremely limited parking in Downtown Saint Helena and only one actual “City Parking Lot”, partitioning off more EV restricted parking spaces In the only parking lot available should be rejected. 12 more spots is how I read the below statement (from the minutes) which would encompass most of the available spots!!! All spots should be open to any type of vehicle as most of us still drive gas powered cars!! Consideration of Adding 12 Level 3 electric vehicle chargers to the Oak Avenue / Money Way Public Parking Lot in Downtown St. Helena and Entering into an agreement with Tesla Inc for Installation and On-Going Maintenance of Chargers at No Cost to City.

Thanks,
Laura Keir
Agenda Item #15.1.

1 City Council Agenda Item 15.1, October 22, 2024 - Consideration of Adding 12 Level 3 electric vehicle chargers to the Oak Avenue / Money Way Public Parking Lot in Downtown St. Helena and Entering into an agreement with Tesla Inc for Installation and On-Going Maintenance of Chargers at No Cost to City
Comments and Recommendations of Christopher Warner, October 21, 2024 Background
I appreciate staff’s diligence in coming up with its recommendation to convert 12 existing parking spaces at the Money Way/Oak Avenue public parking lot to electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces. However, the staff recommendation is incomplete and deficient in several respects and should not be adopted without further information and modifications.

The appendix to these comments includes information City staff has provided me in response to my questions. Although the information clarifies some aspects of the staff recommendation, it does not change my opinion that the staff recommendation is deficient and needs to be modified to address the following key defects:
(1) The elimination of 12 of 24 public parking spaces is not justified because Saint Helena has an acute shortage of adequate off-street public parking to support Main Street businesses, an issue the Downtown Specific Plan needs to address before any public parking spaces in the Money Way/Oak Avenue public lot are eliminated; (2) The staff recommendation and responses provide no justification for the need for Level 3 EV chargers in St. Helena, because the Energy Commission report cited by the staff provides only goals, not a current or forecast market evaluation, and in any case the report does not provide any justification for the need to eliminate existing public parking spaces and locate the Level 3 chargers in St. Helena. The City has not demanded access to Tesla’s forecast of utilization of its chargers, nor did the City provide for access to similar utilization data for the existing EVgo chargers when the City granted EVgo the right to install its chargers on City property in 2016. This market utilization data is essential for evaluating the need for EV chargers and the use of City property and assets. (3) The staff recommendation and response are incorrect in asserting that the Tesla license is at no cost to the City and therefore can be exempt from competitive procurement open to all third parties; in fact, the City is providing access and use of valuable City property and assets with no compensation for 10 years – that is a significant “cost” to the City.

My comments and recommendations are based on my private professional expertise and experience since 2008 advising, counseling and consulting with clients in the electric vehicle industry, including electric vehicle charging site hosts, owners and operators as well as national auto industry marketing firms as well as Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Agenda Item #15.1.

2 Comments and Recommendations

1. Failure to Evaluate the Impact of Reducing Parking Spaces Available to Visitors and Community Members and to Coordinate with Downtown Specific Plan Parking Considerations.

The City and community have an acute shortage of off-street parking for Main Street visitors and community members. Yet the staff recommendation assumes without evidence that the conversion of 12 of 24 Money Way/Oak Avenue parking spaces to EV public charging spaces will not have any environmental or service impacts on parking available for all Main Street visitors and community members. Even if the EV charging spaces were also available for non-EV parking, the general response of the public to EV parking spaces is to assume they are reserved for EV parking only.

Given the acute shortage of off-street public parking, this assumption of no adverse impacts on available Main Street parking is not credible, particularly if the 12 new public charging stations are exclusively available or intended to be exclusively available to EV drivers only. This adverse impact on available parking may also be exacerbated by the staff recommendation that the additional EV charging station parking spaces be available for City electric vehicles, presumably for longer duration than the intended charging by temporary visitors and community members.

The staff recommendation provides no documented justification for this reduction in parking spaces available to all visitors and community members, nor does it even provide a justification for its recommendation of 12 Tesla EV charging spaces instead of some other number.

The staff recommendation and 10-year lease with Tesla should not be approved until the adverse environmental and service impacts on the availability of off-street parking to all Main Street visitors and community members is evaluated, coordinated with the Downtown Specific Plan proceedings, and reviewed by the Council.

2. Failure to Negotiate Adequate Compensation and/or Profit Sharing with Tesla for the Value of Using City-Owned Property and Assets as the Site of Tesla’s Level 3 Public Charging Stations.

Without competitive procurement, the staff recommendation would provide Tesla for free a 10-year license of City property at the Money Way/Oak Avenue public parking lot, with no sharing of Tesla profits or revenues that Tesla obtains at the City site. The staff recommendation apparently assumes Tesla is providing the City a “benefit” by agreeing to own and maintain the Level 3 charging stations without charge to the City. This is a false assumption, because Tesla reportedly already is a successful owner and exclusive operator of thousands of Tesla Supercharger sites across the country, without requiring compensation from site hosts for operating or maintenance costs.

To the contrary, it would be a reasonable commercial term in site host licenses to Tesla or to any other public charging provider that the charging provider be required to provide reasonable compensation to the site host for use and access to the property owned by the site host for the charging station. This compensation should and can include a reasonable form of profit or Agenda Item #15.1.

3 revenue sharing or annual license fee paid by Tesla or other charging provider to St. Helena for use of the City’s assets and property.

The staff recommendation and 10-year lease with Tesla or any other charging provider should not be approved until the City negotiates a reasonable profit or revenue sharing compensation arrangement as consideration of the charging provider’s 10-year license to use the City’s property and assets. In addition, the license should include a “most favored nation” clause that obligates Tesla or any other charging provider to provide compensation at no less than the highest provided to other site hosts. The license should also include a “market out” clause that allows the City to terminate the license prior to the end of the 10-year term if forecast Tesla or other charging provider revenue or profits from the charging stations do not meet minimum amounts forecast and agreed upon by the City and the charging provider.

3. Failure to Evaluate and Demonstrate the Need for Additional Level 3 EV Chargers in St. Helena and at the Money Way/Oak Avenue Location Based on a Current Market Evaluation.

The staff recommendation fails to provide and demonstrate a current market evaluation showing the level of need and market demand, if any, for Level 3 EV chargers in St. Helena and at the Money Way/Oak Avenue location. Instead, it cites a California Energy Commission report on statewide “need” for Level 3 EV charging stations based on statewide regulatory “goals” which are not based on actual current EV charging market conditions or on actual forecasts of future market demand, including site-specific market demand for Level 3 charging stations in St. Helena, both historically at the existing EVgo chargers at the Money Way/Oak Street location, or in the future based on forecast St. Helena specific market forecasts.

Moreover, the staff recommendation’s assumption that providing additional Level 3 public charging stations in St. Helena will stimulate incremental growth in EV light vehicle travel to St.

Helena or additional EV light vehicle use in St. Helena has no factual support. To the contrary, 90 percent of light vehicle EV charging takes place at home, not at public charging locations, and industry data indicates the 2024 slow down in EV purchases and regional EV travel in the U.S. and California are primarily attributable to range anxiety of the vehicles themselves as well as lack of available affordable EV models.

Most new EVs now have a 250- 300 mile range, and new models coming out in the next few years are likely to be more affordable, rendering as false any assumption that availability of local public EV charging stations has any measurable impact on the purchase or use of EVs.

The staff recommendation and 10-year lease with Tesla or any other charging provider should not be approved until an actual market forecast and need for EV Level 3 public charging demand in St. Helena is provided for review and analysis of the need and number of charging stations.

4. Failure to Conduct a Formal Competitive Procurement for Third-Party Owned Level 3 Charging Stations Without Compensation for Access and Use of City Property and Assets.

The staff recommendation references informal discussions with two third-party EV Level 3 public charging station providers, Tesla and Integrative Charging. However, staff did not Agenda Item #15.1.

4 conduct informal discussions with other third-party providers or a formal public competitive procurement open to all third-party public charging station providers.

Integrative Charging does not appear to be a nationally successful third-party charging station provider with a volume of charging station ownership and operation comparable to other thirdparty national public charging station providers, such as Tesla, EVgo, and other recent thirdparties awarded federal and state rebates under the nationwide NEVI program, including in California under the competitive bidding process conducted the California Energy Commission.

Tesla is a leading provider of Level 3 public charging stations, but is not the only such nationally successful provider and bidder in Level 3 public charging station competitive procurements by individual states such as California under the federal NEVI program.

The staff recommendation and 10-year license with Tesla should not be approved until a formal competitive procurement is conducted for EV Level 3 public charging stations open to all third-party Level 3 public charging station providers and including reasonable compensation for the licensee’s access and use of City property and assets.

Conclusion
The City Council should not approve the staff recommendation until these comments and modifications to the Staff recommendation are adopted.

Chris Warner
1434 Grayson Avenue
St. Helena
415-309-9572
October 21, 2024
Agenda Item #15.1.

5 APPENDIX 1: Staff Response to Questions, Received October 21, 2024 CEC Report:
• EV_ChargingStation_Projections_CEC - Napa County by Jurisdiction (attached): This is a document from the Napa County took recommendations from the California Energy Commission, to arrive at the numbers they took Countywide data and then split it out to the jurisdictions (County, cities, town) based on population. The California Energy Commission has come up with new projections since the creation of this Excel document that actually reflect a need for even more Level 3 Chargers in Napa County, while reducing the number of Level 2 Chargers needed. The revised for Napa County are 937 by 2025, 3802 by 2030, and 8109 by 2035 for Level 2 Chargers. For Level 3 (fast) Chargers the recommendations are 84 (2025), 321 (2030), and 644 (2035), this is up from what the document says (63 fast chargers by 2025 for the County.
• After being presented with options that included both Level 2 and Level 3 Chargers staff determined that it would be best to only offer Level 3 Chargers in the Oak Avenue / Money Way parking lot to encourage people to explore our Main Street while charging and not to leave their vehicles in the lot for an extended period of time (as they would have to do with a Level 2 Charger).

Agreements:
• https://sthelena.civicweb.net/document/3604 - EVgo Contract begins on page 6. • Tesla Supercharger Agreement - St. Helena CA - 1301 Money Way – Tesla Agreement (attached).

EVgo Usage:
• EVgo has been unresponsive to multiple requests for a variety of information and the City does not have usage data for EVgo’s current chargers.
• In speaking with Tesla they are motivated to come to St. Helena because of proprietary data they have that shows a need for EV chargers in our area. They are willing to invest in our community because they believe there will be usage.

Sole-Source:
• An RFP process was not needed because there is no cost to the City. The City did look at other options as referenced in the staff report (Tesla, Integrative Charging, and ChargePoint). Based on research of the options and that Tesla was willing to install the chargers all at once (rather than in phases like Integrative Charging) Tesla was determined to be the best fit. If there was a cost to the City (the ChargePoint option) then we may have needed to go through an RFP process.

CEQA:
• CEQA Determination: Exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, which exempts the operation, leasing, or minor alteration of existing facilities. o This was a similar finding to the determination used in 2016 for the EVgo Chargers. o It should be noted that in a parking study completed in July 2024 (PDF) the area being studied for the Downtown Specific Plan there are 639 marked and un-marked street parking spaces and 354 spaces in parking lots (of those 77 are in public parking lots).

Agenda Item #15.1.

6 APPENDIX 2: LA Times story, July 18, 2024 on slowdown in EV sales growth in California Statewide EV sales growth sees a drop. Tesla, once a
California darling, hit hard
Tesla sales in California have taken a downward turn. So have the state’s EV sales broadly. (David Zalubowski / Associated Press)
By Russ MitchellStaff Writer
July 18, 2024 Updated 6:41 PM PT
When does a sales-growth downturn move from a temporary blip to a longer-term trend? Maybe right now.

After years of rapid expansion, electric vehicles sales growth in California trended down in the middle of last year and now has turned negative: 101,443 all-electric cars were registered in the state in 2024’s second quarter, down from 102,730 in the second quarter of 2023, a drop of 1.2%.

As recently as last summer, that growth rate was positive at 55%. It fell to 16% growth in the fourth quarter last year, 2% in the first quarter this year, and now has gone negative.

EV sales growth is an important factor in determining whether the state can meet its goal of banning carbon-emitting new car sales by 2035.

ADVERTISING
Unit sales of EVs were up 11% this quarter compared with last, by 11,554 vehicles, but because of seasonal variation, comparing quarterly growth with the same quarter the previous year is a standard way of measuring business health.

Meanwhile, the market share of all-electric cars is roughly flat, according to the California New Car Dealers Assn. It stood at 21.9% of all vehicles sold through the first half of this year. It had risen over 22% at one point last year. Under the state’s climate plan, market share must reach 35% by 2026, requiring an annual sales growth rate of about 20%.

Tesla, once the darling of California car buyers, was hit hard. It’s still by far the EV sales leader, but Tesla’s California sales plunged 24.1% in the second quarter. Nationally, according to Kelley Blue Book, Tesla sales dropped 6.3% for the second quarter, even as total EV sales climbed 7.3%.

There are no hard data to suggest why Americans, and Californians in particular, are turning against Tesla. But the Tesla trend in the Golden State doesn’t look good.

Tesla “is facing mounting challenges. Its market share dipped 2.3 points from last year. ... Tesla’s allure seems to be wearing off, signaling potential trouble for the direct-to-consumer manufacturer,” the car dealers group said in a news release.

Agenda Item #15.1.

7 Tesla famously sells directly to customers and doesn’t use car dealers, so a bit of dealer group schadenfreude can be expected. But the numbers the group released are reliably produced by industry-standard data collection from Experian Automotive.

Besides Tesla, other second-quarter EV losers include Volvo, down 66.5%, and Polestar, down

61.9%. Both brands sell EVs made in China, hit hard by heavy Biden administration tariffs.

Volkswagen was down 34.5%. Chevrolet was down 50.6% — but that’s mainly because it discontinued the popular Chevy Bolt EV, with promises to reintroduce a new version. If the Bolt had still been for sale, there’s a good chance that statewide EV sales would have been in positive territory.

Winners include Audi, up 77.4%; BMW, up 59.5%; Kia, up 72.3%; and Toyota, up 108% — although those increases come off a fairly small sales base.

Overall California auto sales were up 4.8% in the second quarter. Gasoline-battery hybrids are a bright spot — up 21%. Sales of plug-in hybrids, which can drive a few dozen miles on batteries alone, fell slightly.

If the flat EV sales growth trend continues, it could mean trouble for Gov. Gavin Newsom’s EV mandate: By 2035, auto manufacturers will be allowed to sell only electric cars in California, 80% of them all electric, 20% plug-in hybrids.

Agenda Item #15.1.

From: Erika Opp
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: [External] public comment item 15.1
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:47:20 AM
On Oct 22, 2024, at 7:40 AM, Pamela Smithers <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Item 15.1 on tonight’s agenda.

Hopefully the discussion will be short, and everyone understands the need for encouraging electric vehicles. But after seeing the other comments about the lack of parking, I feel the need to offer this information.

We see what we are looking for. For all the “we lack parking”, remember that we had a study done very recently (a year or two), which in fact found that there is no lack of parking in the downtown area. Maybe on Main Street, but not on Oak, or the surrounding area. And with all the visitor Teslas and other EVs parked on Main Street, these spots will likely be freed up when the EVs move to the lot to charge.

Tesla charging stations are unfailingly reliable (unlike other brands of charging stations, unfortunately) and therefore sought out. This is a good brand for our public lot, it will draw folks to our town. I’m seeing an uptick at the existing charging stations on Oak; the spots are often in use, demonstrating the popularity of electric vehicles.

So we can use more stations, and many brands use Tesla chargers. Folks may not be aware that Tesla charging stations are now available to not just the Tesla brand but to almost all car brands except Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi Outlander.

So almost all electric vehicles will be able to use the new Tesla chargers.

In case these facts about parking availability, usage, charger reliability and desirability are not persuasive, I offer this inspiration read online this morning. “I’ve been reflecting on a summer of experiencing the beauty of the world, and how incomprehensible it is that we do not protect what we are so lucky to have. The earth is, as poet William Stafford wrote, “a great friend undeserved.” We do what we can for our own gardens but how long will we survive if massive improvements aren’t seized and fostered. Sometimes I feel that we’re having tea in the kitchen while the house is on fire.”
Thank you for your service to our community and thank you for supporting changes that will protect our earth for future generations.

Pam Smithers
1819 Vallejo Street
St Helena, CA
707-696-0530
Agenda Item #15.1.

Plan For EV Chargers
In St. Helena
St. Helena City Council
Presented by Anil Comelo, City Manager and Andrew Bradley, Program Manager October 22, 2024
Agenda Item #15.1.

City Council Goals
 Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further
Environmental Sustainability
 Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Agenda Item #15.1.

Key Decisions
 Do we need EV chargers?
 If yes, where should they be located?
 What type of chargers should the City install?
 Should the City own and maintain the chargers?
Agenda Item #15.1.

EV Chargers at City Hall
 The City has six (6) Level 2 Chargers at City Hall
 New Level 3 Chargers will help the City get closer
to meeting Climate Action goals
 County estimates need for 60 chargers by 2025
 Level 2 and Level 3
 CA Energy Commission estimates Napa County
needs 84 Level 3 chargers by 2025 and 644 by 2035
Agenda Item #15.1.

Current Chargers at Money Way Lot
Agenda Item #15.1.

EVgo Chargers at Money Way Lot
 EVgo
 Approved by City Council in September 2016
and contract expires in September 2024
 Can charge up to four (4) vehicles using only
CCS1 and CHAdeMO connections
Agenda Item #15.1.

NACS Connector - Industry Standard
 North American Charging System (NACS) is
recognized as the international standard for EV’s
by SAE International
 The NACS (NACS/SAE J3400) port is becoming an
industry standard
Agenda Item #15.1.

NACS Connector
 Manufacturers will have NACS as standard on new EV's:
 Audi (2025)
 BMW (2025)
 Ford (2024)
 Genesis (2024)
 GM (2025)
 Honda (2025)
 Hyundai (2024)
 Jaguar (2025)
 Kia (2024)
 Lexus (2025)
 Lucid (2025)
 Mazda (2025)
 Mercedes-Benz (2025)
 Mini (2025)
 Nissan (2025)
 Polestar/Volvo (2025)
 Porsche (2025)
 Rivian (2025)
 Rolls-Royce (2025)
 Scout Motors (2025)
 Stellantis (2025)
 Chrysler
 Dodge
 Jeep
 Maserati
 Ram
 Toyota (2025)
 Volkswagen (2025)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Charging Options
 ChargePoint
 Intergrative Charging
 Tesla
Agenda Item #15.1.

ChargePoint
 Would require the City to buy, install, manage,
and maintain equipment.
 Costly. City does not have staff that can
maintain specialized equipment
 Could provide some revenue to City over time
Agenda Item #15.1.

Integrative Charging
 Would install and maintain equipment (up to 12
Level 3 Chargers)
 No guarantee of what equipment, connectors,
or network would be used.
 Would install in phases
 City could have limited revenue share ($250 to
$500 per month depending on usage)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Tesla
 Would install and maintain equipment (12 Level 3
Chargers)
 Level 3 Chargers with “Magic Dock”
 Works for vehicles with CCS1 and NACS
 No adapter required
 99% “up time” average across their network
 Most vehicles are moving to the NACS
connector by 2025
 Tesla network is open to all vehicle models
Agenda Item #15.1.

Location Considerations
City
Hall Library Lewis Station
RR
Parking Safeway Sunshine Foods
Oak &
Money
Retail &
Dining No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
RR Tracks No No Yes Yes Yes No No
PG&E
Power - - - - - - Yes
Overhead
Lines No No Yes Yes No No No
Space for
ADA Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Parking
Layout Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes
Meets
Criteria No No No No No No Yes
Agenda Item #15.1.

Location Considerations (examples)
 Railroad Avenue and Lewis Station Park
 Too close to RR and Powerlines
 Space constraints
 Sunshine Foods
 Small shared lot
 Angled parking would
need reconfigured
Agenda Item #15.1.

Staff Recommendation
 Tesla at Oak Avenue / Money Way Parking Lot
 Work with Tesla to install 12 Level 3 chargers
 “Magic Dock” Chargers
 Tesla will determine rate to be charged
 Will reduce parking for non-charging vehicles by 12
 No cost to the City
 10-year contract
 City can cancel after 10 years with 18 months notice
Agenda Item #15.1.

Current vs. Future Configuration
 Current Parking lot configuration
• 28 total spaces
• 4 used by EVgo (1 ADA)
• 24 for general parking (2 ADA)
 Tesla Charging lot configuration:
• 24 total spaces (4 would be used by infrastructure)
• 12 EV (1 ADA)
• 12 General (2 ADA)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Oak Avenue / Money Way Lot
 12 Level 3 Chargers
 11 chargers + one (1) ADA van space
 ADA space “use last”
 12 spaces available for general parking
 Includes two (2) ADA spaces
 Meets all requirements from providers
and PG&E has already confirmed power
infrastructure is available for location.

Agenda Item #15.1.

Tesla Magic Dock Charging Station v4
 Magic Dock Chargers could be used by vehicles
with NACS and CCS1 connection points
 This includes St. Helena Police Department’s
Ford Mustang Mach-E’s
Agenda Item #15.1.

Potential Implementation Timeline
 Sep 4: Presentation to ATSC
 Oct 22: Recommendation to City Council
 Q4 2024: Agreement Signed with Charging Partner,
Building Plans Submitted to City for Approval
 1Q or 2Q 2025: Installation and Activation of New
Chargers
Agenda Item #15.1.

Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Parking
 July 2024 Parking Study for Downtown Specific Plan
639 marked and unmarked street parking spaces
354 parking spaces in parking lots (77 in public lots) DSP will evaluate current parking spaces and options
for additional parking spaces (garage, PG&E lot on
Mitchell, etc.)
Study area showed parking occupancy at 85% or
below, including in Oak Avenue parking lot, this
includes peak times (weekday and weekend)
Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Parking
 This plan doesn’t eliminate 12 spaces, it restricts
them to EV’s while charging
Could encourage vehicle turnover, bringing more
people to St. Helena businesses
Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Enforcement of “EV Only”
 EV parking only is enforceable when posted (CA Code)
 Idling after charging is complete is charged by provider Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Chargers
 Level 3 – Tesla V4 Supercharger (newest technology)
 Currently limited to 250kWh, but capable of up to 350 kWh
 Designed to be compatible and open to all EV’s
 Designed to keep hardware and footprint with updates as needed internally
 Tesla has a nationwide uptime of 99.97% (Impact Report 2023)
 Chargers get power from clean sources when available, when not available Tesla pays offsets
Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Utilization Expectations
 Anticipates 50 to 120 vehicles per day to use chargers  Varies based on season, day of week, etc.
 Will increase as more EV’s on the road
 As more chargers are available, auto customers are more likely to consider buying EV’s in the future
 Doing in phases would impact customer experience
 Increased wait times by drivers lowers customer experience  Increases time parking lot would be “under construction”  Plans to build 40+ Superchargers in Napa Valley
 St. Helena’s 12 are based on current demand and forecasted demand
Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Costs
 Investment to build is $550,000 to $600,000
 There are also regular maintenance costs, working with utility, etc.  Estimated cost recovery period is 10 to 15 years
 For the City a similar project could be more than $1,000,000  Due diligence, demand studies and analysis, hardware, working with utility for infrastructure.
 Plus, regular maintenance costs for the life of the chargers.

Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Timeline and Parking Lot Condition
 Tesla is motivated to begin work as soon as possible to meet their goals (40+ new Superchargers in Napa
Valley)
 Tesla has completed their due diligence, market
research, and planning.
 Working with PG&E could be the “delay” and why Tesla
give themselves a longer window to install chargers
 Will ensure parking lot looks good after construction  Topcoat/slurry seal (as needed), curbs and ramps (as needed, primarily for ADA), striping, replacement of any damaged/removed landscaping Agenda Item #15.1.

Questions from Comments
 Rates (non-member)
 Current EVgo rates:
 $0.44 to $0.64/kWh
 $0.99 session fee
 Charger are 50 kWh
 Tesla Fees (in area – Fairfield, Napa, Santa Rosa,
Sonoma, Vallejo, Windsor)
 $0.53 to $0.60/kWh
 Up to $1/min idling (after charging is complete)
 Chargers are 250 kWh
Agenda Item #15.1.

Agenda Item #15.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: October 22, 2024
FROM: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Establishing two Ad Hoc committees: (1) Finance Advisory Committee and (2) Strategic Water and Wastewater
Advisory Group.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution establishing the two
committees and beginning the recruitment process.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
10/24/23 - City Council established Water and Wastewater Exploratory Committee
11/28/23 - City Council appointment of Water and
Wastewater Exploratory Committee Members
8/27/24 - City Council received Water and Wastewater
Exploratory Committee Recommendation and provided
direction to staff
8/27/24 - City Council indicated interest in establishing a Finance Committee

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Institute two separate citizen ad hoc committees to
enhance transparency, improve financial planning, and
provide technical assistance as directed by City Council.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no need for allocation of monies for the establishment of the Finance Advisory Committee and
Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group. That said,
this establishment will increase staff time required to prepare for meetings and follow-up on research and other tasks associated with the work of the committees.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with several City Council Goals staff was directed to bring back two committee recommendations for discussion and consideration. The purpose of the two committees align with the following Council Goals:
 Goal 1: Strengthen Fiscal Resilience
 Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability  Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources  Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement
DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item #15.2.

Beginning in 2023, the City Council has expressed an interest in establishing a finance committee and in October 2023 the City Council established a committee to explore the formation of a water/wastewater enterprise advisory group. On August 27, 2024, City Council provided direction for the Council Ad Hoc group comprised of Mayor Dohring and Council Member Summers to work with staff to refine specific tasks that could be assigned to a water/wastewater committee. The same day Vice Mayor Hall expressed interest in the establishment of a finance committee. There was broad consensus and staff agreed to bring a report back to City Council for future consideration.

Based on City Council direction and interest the following committees are being brought to City Council for consideration and approval.

Finance Advisory Committee
The City of St. Helena is committed to promoting transparent governance and maintaining sound financial practices. The creation of an Ad Hoc Finance Advisory Committee will provide a structured forum for detailed review of financial matters and will assist the City Council by offering recommendations regarding budgeting, financial policies, and other fiscal issues. The establishment of this committee will help ensure that the City's financial resources are managed effectively and transparently. It will assist in long-term planning and strengthen public trust. Attachment A provides a summary of this committee.

Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group
The purpose of the Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group (SWAG) is to be an added resource to City Council and City staff by being available to provide technical assistance, evaluate long-term needs and develop plans to address those needs and to serve as a trusted resource as staff manages various projects, as assigned by City Council.

This group will be in place for a one-year trial period. Attachment B provides a summary of this committee as well as the recommended tasks for the trial period.

Timeline
The recommended timeline is as follows:
 October 22, 2024 - City Council establish bot the Finance Advisory Committee and the Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
 October 23, 2024 - Application period begins
 November 7, 2024 - Application period closes
 November 12, 2024 - Candidate interviews and appointments  January 2025 - First meetings of the new committees.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
n/a
GOAL:

Agenda Item #15.2.

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Finance Committee Recommendation
Attachment B - Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group Recommendation Resolution - Establishing Finance Advisory Committee and Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group
Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 1
Finance Committee
As with other Council appointed committees, this Committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council.

Purpose:

The purpose of the Committee is to ensure that public funds are allocated and used efficiently, transparently, and in alignment with the City’s strategic priorities and policies.

Composition, Structure, and Term:

1. As with other Committees of the City Council, this Committee will be Brown Act compliant.

2. Committee will have regularly scheduled meetings each quarter starting in January 2025.

3. The Committee will be comprised of five regular voting members serving 2-year staggering terms. Because the committee is being established mid-year, the initial terms will be as follows:
a. Three committee members will serve an initial 2-year term expiring June 30, 2027; and
b. Two committee members will serve an initial 1-year term expiring June 30, 2026.

Tasks:

Members of the Committee and the Committee as an entity serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council, as directed by the City Council and aligned with City Council Goals and Objectives, and City staff’s workplan. Tasks of this Committee will be directed by the City Council and may include:

1. Collaborate with staff to develop a long-range financial plan:
a. Project revenue and expenditures for 20-years to assess fiscal sustainability. a. Create a model which aligns the City’s fiscal resources to strategic goals. b. Incorporate reserve targets (assigned and unassigned). c. Capital planning to ensure identified infrastructure projects are funded. d. Recommend revenue offsets to meet the City’s long-term needs. e. Identify and provide a mitigation plan for key financial risks.

2. Provide input as part of the preparation of the two-year operating and capital budget in Spring 2025.

Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 2
a. Prioritization of programs for funding and/or cuts depending on availability of resources.

3. Provide input on the prioritization and funding for the replacement of major equipment and vehicles.

4. Review options for various City facilities including a Parks & Recreation Office/Building and a permanent City Hall.

5. Advise on actions related to pension liability.

Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 1
Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group (SWAG)
As with other Council appointed committees, this Committee will serve at the will of the City Council.

Purpose:

The purpose of the Committee is to be an added resource to City Council and City staff by being available to provide technical assistance, evaluate long-term needs and develop plans to address those needs, and to serve as a trusted resource as staff manages various projects, as assigned by City Council.

Philosophy:

The philosophy of the Committee is to look ahead and to build a culture where members of the community can collaborate with and be supportive of staff in a collegial, respectful manner. It will not be a forum to override council priorities/direction or seek to manage staff or projects. The Committee will be forward-thinking in nature, with a focus on current policy issues and long-term planning through policy development that provides sustainability for our community.

Trial Period:

City Council is establishing this Committee for a trial period of 12 months with regularly scheduled meetings every two months, starting in January 2025, meeting a minimum of 5 times during the trial period. The trial period is intended to allow rapport to be built with the Committee members, City Council, and City staff, and for the Committee to gain a better understanding of Enterprise needs and how this Committee can be utilized as a valuable and trusted resource for the City.

Composition, Structure, and Term:

As with other Committees of the City Council, this Committee will be Brown Act compliant with the following composition:
(1) comprised of highly skilled professionals in technical or business disciplines, (2) composed of five regular voting members and one alternate, (3) one member may represent business/commercial sector or may be a ratepayer residing outside the City limits.

If the Committee is deemed to be an effective resource worthy of continuance past the trial period, City Council will be asked to take action to extend the existence of the committee and/or convert it to a standing committee. The term of a Committee member shall be four years with staggered terms.

Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 2
Duties:

Members of the Committee and the Committee as an entity serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters pertaining to the Water and Wastewater Enterprises (“Enterprises”), present and future, as directed by the City Council and aligned with City Council Goals and Objectives, and City staff’s workplan and capacity. These matters could include policy formation/updates related to:

1. The protection, integrity, use and reuse of the City’s water resources.

2. Development and implementation of programs that achieve City Council goals and objectives related to water supply management, water conservation, water reuse, water demand management, and wastewater management.

3. Attendance and reports on relevant countywide commissions and committees.

Based on the adopted City Council goals and current staff workplan, the Committee will have the following tasks during its trial term:

Task 1
Task:

Review outside expert’s initial findings and provide feedback to staff on any overlooked areas or new issues to be addressed regarding recurring discolored water in the City’s water system and provide feedback to staff on proposed mitigation plan and public awareness program.

Provide quarterly progress reports to City Council Ad Hoc Water Committee.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Affiliated Staff Workplan:

NEW: Public Works Department will identify and implement a lasting solution to the recurring discolored water in the City’s water system.

Additional Information:

Key Objectives Identified:

1. Assessment: Hire an external engineering consultant, and work with a consultant to assess the system and identify the root cause(s).

2. Solution: Propose a solution or mitigation plan within six months, aiming for a 90% reduction in discolored water incidents within a year.

3. Impact: Reduce resident complaints by 65% within he first year of implementation.

It is estimated a proposed solution will be brought to City Council July 2025 and completed by August 30, 2025.

Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 3
Task 2
Task:

Research and prepare a report for the City Council on the feasibility of solar at Stonebridge Wells and the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Affiliated Staff Workplan:

2.300 Exploration of solar on water/wastewater infrastructure Additional Information:

City staff is currently exploring solar on Bell Canyon Reservoir as part of SCADA and microgrid project.

Task 3
Task:

Create survey template and database citywide to see whether respondents would be interested in utilizing recycled water, when available.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Affiliated Staff Workplan:

2.614 Develop Recycled Water Master Plan
Additional Information:

A key element in developing a Recycled Water Master Plan is determining the interest in utilizing recycled water. The City currently does not have a baseline to determine the demand for recycled water use.

Task 4
Task:

Research and prepare a report exploring uses for tertiary water.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

2.615 Explore use of tertiary water (resulting from treatment at the WWTP) to expand the amount of potable water by further treatment and/or mission with water at the reservoir.

Additional Information:

Is also tied with Task 2.

Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 4
Task 5
Task:

There are two phases to Task 5:

Phase 1 - Provide feedback to staff during the internal review process for both the Water Management Plan being prepared by West Yost and the Assessment of Water Supply Strategies being prepared by Luhdorff & Scalmanini.

Phase 2 - Review and provide feedback to staff on the DRAFT Water Management Plan and the DRAFT Assessment of Water Supply Strategies (Estimated June 2025).

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

3.110 Update Water Neutrality Policy and Safe Yield Analysis

3.810 Evaluate and pursue additional water resources (e.g. alternative municipal well, Sites Reservoir in Coluse County, Adventist Health Wells, Rector Dam surplus water, etc.)

3.900 Investigate feasibility of using recycled/reclaimed wastewater for either groundwater recharge or for mixing with our domestic water supplies Additional Information:

On October 8, 2024, City Council approved a contract with West Yost for the development of a Water Management Plan and a contract with Luhdorff & Scalmanini for an Assessment of Water Supply Strategies. Once completed, the DRAFT plan will need to be reviewed and feedback provided to staff for the consultant.

Once the Water Management Plan is complete, the next step will include workplan items:

3.110 Update Water Neutrality Policy and Safe Yield Analysis, and

3.500 Review current water allocations during Phase II and Phase III Water Emergency and recommend changes, and

2.1100 Explore limits on City’s capacity to provide water to residents beyond the existing RHNA cycle
The next steps could result in additional tasks delegated to the Committee.

Task 6
Task:

Review and make recommendations on the current Phase II Water Penalty structure, including, but not limited to penalty structures imposed by other entities.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

3.600 Review current penalty structure for the Phase II and Phase III water emergency.

Additional Information:

Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 5
Task 7
Task:

Research and make recommendations to refine, if necessary, the City’s incentive and rebate programs including, but not limited to leak repair, water conservation rebates, and enhancements and help for low income and/or seniors.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

3.700 Develop and refine incentive programs (leak repair, gray water, customer assessment services, other rebates/incentives) and enhancements and help for low income and/or seniors.

Additional Information:

Task 8
Task:

Research and complete applications for grants as they apply to water and wastewater enterprises.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Affiliated Staff Workplan:
n/a
Additional Information:

The City has actively searched for grants and working with California Consulting; however, most grants we do not qualify for due to the size of our community and because we are not considered a disadvantaged community.

Task 9
Task:

Recommend to City Council Water Ad Hoc Committee other tasks the Committee considers beneficial for the City.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Affiliated Staff Workplan:
n/a
Additional Information:

The City Council has an established Water Ad Hoc Committee, currently composed of Mayor Dohring and Council Member Chouteau. Quarterly, the Council Ad Hoc Committee may assign or shift tasks to the Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group Agenda Item #15.2.

pg. 6
Evaluation of Trial Period
At the end of the 12-month trial period, City Council will seek input from City Council Ad Hoc Committee, members of SWAG, and City staff to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the Committee. The City Council will determine if this Committee continues to exist. The evaluation will be subjective and considerations of the success of the committee include but is not limited to: (1) staff considers the Committee was beneficial to their work product, (2) the Committee’s focus, efforts, productivity, and time requirements aligned well with staffing capacity, and (3) the Committee advanced the goals and objectives of the City Council.

Agenda Item #15.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA ESTABLISHING TWO AD HOC COMMITTEES: A FINANCE

ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND A STRATEGIC WATER AND
WASTEWATER ADVISORY GROUP.

RECITALS
A. In accordance with several City Council goals, staff was directed to bring two committee recommendations to City Council for consideration; and B. The purposes set out for both committees align with the following established City Council Goals:

Goal 1: Strengthen Fiscal Resilience
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities to Engage Goal 7: Optimize Organizational Effectiveness; and
C. The City Council desires to establish the following two Ad Hoc committees:

1. Finance Advisory Committee

2. Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group (SWAG).

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

1. Establish an Ad Hoc Finance Advisory Committee for the purposes identified in the Finance Committee Summary (Attachment 1); and

2. Establish a Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group (SWAG), on a one-year trial basis for the purposes identified in the Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group Summary (Attachment 2); and
Agenda Item #15.2.

3. Provide notice to applicants seeking to participate in the Finance Advisory Committee and/or the Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group; and

4. Applications will be accepted from October 23, 2024 through November 7, 2024; and

5. Candidate interviews and appointments are scheduled for November 12, 2024.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on October 22, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #15.2.

From: Ross@gmail
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Item 15.2 10/22 agenda
Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 10:46:12 AM
Hello -
I respectfully request that agenda Item 15.2 on Tuesday's CC meeting be removed or tabled until the new members are seated after the election.

A significant number of citizens, including myself, believe that more time is needed to consider this issue and make our opinions known to the Council.

Item 15.2 has a long-term impact on our City, and so it should be put off to be considered by those newly-elected to serve.

Thank you,
- Ross Allen,
643 Pratt Avenue, St. Helena
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: sharon dellamonica
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Agenda item 15.2 on Tuesday, Oct. 22 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 10:11:10 AM
Please remove or table agenda item 15.2 on the Oct. 22nd agenda. The public has not had sufficient time to address this. What's the rush to push this through before the election? More attempts to disenfranchise the public while masquerading as the opposite.

Sharon Dellamonica
St. Helena, CA
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: Tim Hall
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Independent Commission on Water & Wastewater Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 11:30:52 AM
Please recognize my support for an independent, citizen-led and only staff-supported Water and Wastewater Commission that is permanent, not temporary.

Furthermore, this commission should be seated with Council appointed members, ONLY AFTER the new City Council is elected and seated.

The current agenda item should be TABLED at the upcoming CC meeting to allow the newly elected CC take a vote on establishing a permanent, independent commission and the make-up of the commission.

We must have independent voices not directed or managed by city staff to get to the bottom of the problems and recommend solutions to the City Council for action.

Regards,
Timothy Hall
657 Pratt Ave.

Agenda Item #15.2.

From: CN
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Tuesday agenda item
Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 10:53:44 AM
Please table the Ad Hoc Water Committee and finances committee that appears on Tuesdays agenda. St. Helena citizens would be better served for this item to wait until the new city council is seated. An independent committee that reports to the city council should be decide by those members of the city council that will be serving through its formations and future.

Thanks,
Celeste Neeley
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: Kelly Wheaton
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] For Tuesdays Meeting Agenda Items 15.2 Date: Sunday, October 20, 2024 9:58:31 PM
Re: Formation of a Water and Wastewater Committee and a Financial Committee To the St Helena Mayor and Council Members,
I have waited a few days to write this comment while I was waiting for my anger to subside.

And to be honest it has not. The thing about anger is it is jet fuel that propels one forward, for better or worse.

These remarks are not aimed at the Council, nor the staff although I address them here. They are aimed at the public record and any litigation or legislation that may someday ensue. And to the handful of citizens that still care enough to read the agenda, even as they know nothing they say or do will make a damned bit of difference. While the staff and some city council members are smugly applauding themselves for this coup, you should not be so quick to congratulate yourselves on staving off much needed independent oversight. Your goals as set May 9th 2023.

Goal 1: Strengthen Fiscal Resilience
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 6: Improve Employee Recruitment, Retention, & Morale Goal 7: Optimize Organizational Effectiveness
Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Let's take a closer look. Yesterday by happenstance I had two conversations with pro-business leaders. In order to protect them against retaliation I will not give you a clue, but know this--- they are disgusted and appalled at the City Staff and the majority of City council members.

Desperation has led to ill conceived Measures and lies. I did not suggest these things, they told me. There was so much we agreed on it should be a warning to the status quo.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Of the above goals if you were to poll the public the only goal that you the Council might receive a passing grade on is Goal 6. The problem is the Administrative staff and to a large extent the council exists in an insular bubble. They think “Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement ” means lecturing, dictating, propagandizing and paying lip service--- this fulfills this goal. They do not want community involvement or engagement except to fulfill the look of giving the community a voice. The reason there is such a HUGE turnover in Committee members is not that they don't care---it's that they have so little input into anything. They are patronized and then told what to do. So they quit. And don't get me started on the humiliating process that you put them through. Utterly shameful.

As all of you know it has been over 3.5 years that we were working with first Mayor Ellsworth and then Mayor Dohring to get an INDEPENDENT, PERMANENT Water and Wastewater Commission appointed that would be an advisory group to the City Council, reporting to them directly. Two WASH (Water Advocates St Helena) members were on the exploratory Committee. First one resigned early in the year and then the committee all but dissolved. We were waiting to give it another try when the new council is seated. And in what is the worst betrayal by Mayor Dohring, he worked with staff to put forward this bogus proposal for a Committee that is neither independent or permanent and to push it through before the election when they have the votes to try to circumvent something that would actual serve the council and replace it with an impossible, CYA committee for the staff.

The staff doesn't want you to know they are balancing the budget through overcharging the Water and Wastewater Enterprises in violation of Prop 218. They don't want you to know that they paid $13,000 to have a consultant come up with a plan to make it look like it is justified.

They have no proper accounting of how their time is spent as required by law. They hope they can continue to get away with it.

They hope that you won't notice that year after year your water rates go up and up and up but the quality of your water and the amount lost to leaks goes up and up and up. They try to trick you into thinking SMART METERS will save money and stop leaks. They will not. They will actually lead to more of your water bills going higher as the old meters don't register the flow as effectively. They do nothing to fix leaks or water quality. The staff and council know how to prioritize more money for themselves. More perks, higher salaries and fancier job titles while screwing you the taxpayer all in the name of retention and morale. What do you think the effect of these rates is on retention of residents and their morale. The bottom line is I don't think they care. And I don't think the current council writ large even thinks about the citizenry on a day to day basis. Some of them don't return calls or emails.

Any decision that makes it to the council 99 times out of a hundred is decided before the public has 4 days to respond. The deal is sealed just waiting for a signature. The public cannot affect any decision; they are frozen out at every step.

Agenda Item #15.2.

The Water and Wastewater Rate Study is a perfect example of how the staff controlled every step of the process and wrote the recommendations before the committee had an opportunity to make their recommendations. They were sent to the City Council as a done deal. It is only when the majority of the committee threatened to resign were they able to make the recommendations to the city council that was their work product (rather than the staff's). It is not that the Staff are bad people.it is that they have too much power and think they know what is best for a community that they don't even live in.

This proposal is a sham. The city manager and Assistant City Manager know that. The mayor and Vice Mayor and other council members know that too. It will not matter whether two people write or twenty or a hundred. It will not matter what I say or a few others at the hearing the staff will do everything in its power to push it through. Been there down that---whether it is Hunter or Fir Hill or a hundred other decisions. The deal is all but inked. But make no mistake the accounting is coming one way or another. You can pat each other on the backs but we see you. We see how both Assistants to the City Manager at over $200K each were shifted over to public works where they can draw their salaries from the Water Enterprises. You can fool some of the people some of the time but people are catching on. When a Public Relations guy is now a Project Manager in Public Works we have a big problem.

Goal 7: Optimize Organizational Effectiveness I would rate that an F. We hve added layers of bureaucracy ---but not improved effectiveness or delivery of services at all. The CM and PR guy spend inordinate amounts of time trying to convince you not to trust your own eyes.

If the council wants to prove me wrong, take these two committees and table them until after the election and so that their structure, goals etc can have public input. This won't happen because the Council doesn't care what you want. All their polling is designed to get the answers they want. They do nothing to foster real, honest communication. They think communication is them telling you what to think. They have no idea what public service is.

And they either don't know what was meant by a Citizen's Advisory Commission or simply don't care. Shame on you!
Kelly Wheaton
1335 Inglewood Ave
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: lana ivanoff
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Water Ad Hoc committee
Date: Saturday, October 19, 2024 5:50:07 PM
City Council Members….

I am requesting that you consider tabling item 15.2, on the 10/22/24, CC Agenda…..Consideration of Proposed Approval of a Resolution Establishing two AdHoc committees (1) Finance Advisory, (2) Strategic Water/WasteWater Advisory group.

I feel very strongly that both these committees should be set up by the new council.

With 2 seats, plus the possibility of the Mayor’s seat being turned over, I think this is something that should be decided upon by the newly seated members.

Also, it was my understanding that the original proposed idea was for a Commission to be set up, not another Ad Hoc Committee.

Council should know that those serving on Ad Hoc committees, and residents throughout town, are tired of their recommendations being ignored, or changed, or influenced/directed by staff recommendations.

It’s time to listen to the citizens of St Helena….their ideas, and frustrations. There is so much outside talent in this town, and ignoring their input is getting old.

Please consider tabling 15.2 until a new CC is seated.

Thanks you
Lana Ivanoff
Sent from my iPad
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: Mcknz
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Establishing two Ad Hoc committees: (1) Finance Advisory Committee Wastewater and Water (2) and Strategic Advisory Group.

Date: Saturday, October 19, 2024 5:41:17 PM
I highly encourage and recommend that this item be tabled until the new City Council is seated. They will be the governing body to deal with this matter.

Thanks,
Laura
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: Ed Wellington
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Independent Water / Wastewater Commission Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 12:20:22 PM
It has been over 3.5 years that we were working with first Mayor Ellsworth and then Mayor Dohring to get an INDEPENDENT, PERMANENT Water and Wastewater Commission appointed that would be an advisory group to the City Council, reporting to them directly.

Two WASH (Water Advocates St Helena) members were on the exploratory Committee. First one resigned early in the year and then the committee all but dissolved. We NEED to establish this committee ASAP! The water rates are exorbitant and the quality is third world. The fact that multiple $200k positions were moved to the water funding source creates much suspicion of misuse of funds.

Edward Wellington
US Army Veteran - Retired
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: Richard Seiferheld
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Agenda item 15.2 on 10/22/24 CC meeting.

Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 2:05:04 PM
Please remove or table agenda item 15.2 on the Oct. 22nd agenda. The public has not had sufficient time to address this.

Sent from my iPhone
Richard Seiferheld
(707) 695-0915
[email protected]
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: [External] Oct. 22, 2024 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 15.2 Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 4:40:33 PM
Public comment.

From: TOM BELT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 4:22 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Oct. 22, 2024 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 15.2 I request agenda item 15.2 be tabled until the new city council has been elected and seated. Providing St. Helena water and wastewater customers with an additional voice that is regularly scheduled would be a huge improvement from the current status quo where no citizen input is offered relating to how St. Helena's enterprise funds are managed.

Tom Belt
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: EK
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Agenda Item 10-22-24
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 3:26:42 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I respectfully request that you table Agenda Item 15.2 until the new city council has been elected and installed. Any advisory group on water and wastewater must be comprised of St. Helena citizens.

Sincerely,
Ellen Kieval
Agenda Item #15.2.

From: LESLIE WILKS
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Water rates
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 7:47:41 PM
City Clerk & the City Council of St Helena,
I do not want St Helena’s water rates to go towards balancing the city’s budget or paying the salaries of city employees.

Leslie Wilks
1320 Allyn Avenue
St Helena, CA94574
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #15.2.

Establishing Two Independent Committees:

1. Finance Committee

2. Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee
City Council Meeting
October 22, 2024 Agenda Item #15.2.

Background – Finance Ad Hoc Committee
• 2023 – City Council Expressed Interest in Establishing a Finance Committee
• August 27, 2024 – Vice Mayor Hall expressed interest in establishing a finance committee.
• Broad consensus by Council
• Staff agreed to bring a report back to City Council for future consideration
Agenda Item #15.2.

Finance Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation
• Purpose:
• Ensure that public funds are allocated and used efficiently, transparently, and in alignment with City’s strategic priorities and policies
• Composition:
• 5 members (alternating 2-year terms)
• Quarterly Meetings
• Tasks:
• Collaborate with staff to develop a long-range financial plan • Provide input as part of the preparation of the two-year operating and capital budget in Spring 2025
• Prioritization of programs for funding and/or cuts depending on resources • Review options for various City Facilities
• Advise on actions related to pension liability
Agenda Item #15.2.

Background – Water/Wastewater Exploratory Committee
• October 2023 – Resolution 2023-138 - Council Established an Exploratory Committee to:
• Identify issues for which qualified volunteers can best support the Water and Wastewater Enterprises
• Make a recommendation to City Council on how to best organize and advisory body for this purpose
• It was anticipated the exploratory committee would operate for approximately 6 months and conclude no later than June 30, 2024.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Background – Water/Wastewater Exploratory Committee
• Exploratory Committee met 6 times
• January 10, 2024 – June 28, 2024
• Committee unanimously supported a recommendation to bring to Council
• August 27, 2024 – Committee Recommendation brought to City Council
Agenda Item #15.2.

Background – Water/Wastewater Exploratory Committee
8/27/24 Committee Recommendation brought to City Council • Purpose – to be an added resource to City Council and City staff • Philosophy – forward-thinking with a focus on current policy issues and long-term planning through policy development • Trial Period – 24 months
• Duties – align with City Council Goals and Objectives and staff’s current workplan
• Anticipated Focus during Trial Period:
• Water supplies and distribution
• Water demand and conservation management
• Wastewater treatment and collection
• Water quality
• Citizen input and education
Agenda Item #15.2.

Background – Water/Wastewater Exploratory Committee
8/27/24 City Council Direction based on Recommendation
• City Council Ad Hoc group (Dohring & Summers) work with staff to refine tasks
• Shorten trial period to 12 months
Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 1:

Review outside expert’s initial findings and provide feedback to staff on any overlooked areas or new issues to be addressed regarding recurring discolored water in the City’s water system and provide feedback to staff on proposed mitigation plan and public awareness program.

Provide quarterly progress reports to City Council Ad Hoc Water Committee.

Task 2:

Research and prepare a report for the City Council on the feasibility of solar at Stonebridge Wells and the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Task 3:

Create survey template and database citywide to see whether respondents would be interested in utilizing recycled water, when available.

Task 4:

Research and prepare a report exploring uses for tertiary water.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 5:

There are two phases to Task 5:

Phase 1 - Provide feedback to staff during the internal review process for both the Water Management Plan being prepared by West Yost and the Assessment of Water Supply Strategies being prepared by Luhdorff & Scalmanini.

Phase 2 - Review and provide feedback to staff on the DRAFT Water Management Plan and the DRAFT Assessment of Water Supply Strategies (Estimated June 2025).

Task 6:

Review and make recommendations on the current Phase II Water Penalty structure, including, but not limited to penalty structures imposed by other entities.

Task 7:

Research and make recommendations to refine, if necessary, the City’s incentive and rebate programs including, but not limited to leak repair, water conservation rebates, and enhancements and help for low income and/or seniors.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 8:

Research and complete applications for grants as they apply to water and wastewater enterprises.

Task 9:

Recommend to City Council Water Ad Hoc Committee other tasks the Committee considers beneficial for the City.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
End of Trial Period – January 2026
• City Council will seek input from City Council Ad Hoc Committee, members of SWAG, and City staff to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the Committee. • City Council will determine if this Committee continues to exist. • The evaluation will be subjective and considerations of the success of the committee include but is not limited to:
(1) staff considers the Committee was beneficial to their work product, (2) the Committee’s focus, efforts, productivity, and time requirements aligned well with staffing capacity, and
(3) the Committee advanced the goals and objectives of the City Council.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Staff Recommendations
Adopt a resolution establishing:

1. Finance Committee

2. Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Recommended Next Steps:
• Open recruitment: 10/23
• Recruitment closes: 11/7
• Council applicant interviews: 11/12
• Appointment of Committees: 11/12
Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 1
Task:

Review outside expert’s initial findings and provide feedback to staff on any overlooked areas or new issues to be addressed regarding recurring discolored water in the City’s water system and provide feedback to staff on proposed mitigation plan and public awareness program.

Provide quarterly progress reports to City Council Ad Hoc Water Committee.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Affiliated Staff Workplan:

NEW: Public Works Department will identify and implement a lasting solution to the recurring discolored water in the City’s water system.

Additional Information:

Key Objectives Identified:

1. Assessment: Hire an external engineering consultant, and work with a consultant to assess the system and identify the root cause(s).

2. Solution: Propose a solution or mitigation plan within six months, aiming for a 90% reduction in discolored water incidents within a year.

3. Impact: Reduce resident complaints by 65% within he first year of implementation.

It is estimated a proposed solution will be broughtto City Council July 2025 and completed by August 30, 2025. Agenda Item #15.2. Page 375 of 418
Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 2
Task:

Research and prepare a report for the City Council on the feasibility of solar at Stonebridge Wells and the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Affiliated Staff Workplan:

2.300 Exploration of solar on water/wastewater infrastructure Additional Information:

City staff is currently exploring solar on Bell Canyon Reservoir as part of SCADA and microgrid project.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 3
Task:

Create survey template and database citywide to see whether respondents would be interested in utilizing recycled water, when available.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Affiliated Staff Workplan:

2.614 Develop Recycled Water Master Plan
Additional Information:

A key element in developing a Recycled Water Master Plan is determining the interest in utilizing recycled water. The City currently does not have a baseline to determine the demand for recycled water use.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 4
Task:

Research and prepare a report exploring uses for tertiary water.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure and Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

2.615 Explore use of tertiary water (resulting from treatment at the WWTP) to expand the amount of potable water by further treatment and/or mission with water at the reservoir.

Additional Information:

Is also tied with Task 2. Agenda Item #15.2. Page 378 of 418 Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 5
Task:

There are two phases to Task 5:

Phase 1 - Provide feedback to staff during the internal review process for both the Water Management Plan being prepared by West Yost and the Assessment of Water Supply Strategies being prepared by Luhdorff & Scalmanini.

Phase 2 - Review and provide feedback to staff on the DRAFT Water Management Plan and the DRAFT Assessment of Water Supply Strategies (Estimated June 2025).

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

3.110 Update Water Neutrality Policy and Safe Yield Analysis

3.810 Evaluate and pursue additional water resources (e.g. alternative municipal well, Sites Reservoir in Coluse County, Adventist Health Wells, Rector Dam surplus water, etc.)

3.900 Investigate feasibility of using recycled/reclaimed wastewater for either groundwater recharge or for mixing with our domestic water supplies Additional Information:

On October 8, 2024, City Council approved a contract with West Yost for the development of a Water Management Plan and a contract with Luhdorff & Scalmanini for an Assessment of Water Supply Strategies. Once completed, the DRAFT plan will need to be reviewed and feedback provided to staff for the consultant.

Once the Water Management Plan is complete, the next step will include workplan items:

3.110 Update Water Neutrality Policy and Safe Yield Analysis, and

3.500 Review current water allocations during Phase II and Phase III Water Emergency and recommend changes, and

2.1100 Explore limits on City’s capacity to provide water to residents beyond the existing RHNA cycle
The next steps could result in additional tasks delegated to the Committee.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 6
Task:

Review and make recommendations on the current Phase II Water Penalty structure, including, but not limited to penalty structures imposed by other entities.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

3.600 Review current penalty structure for the Phase II and Phase III water emergency.

Additional Information:

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 7
Task:

Research and make recommendations to refine, if necessary, the City’s incentive and rebate programs including, but not limited to leak repair, water conservation rebates, and enhancements and help for low income and/or seniors.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Affiliated Staff Workplan:

3.700 Develop and refine incentive programs (leak repair, gray water, customer assessment services, other rebates/incentives) and enhancements and help for low income and/or seniors.

Additional Information:

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 8
Task:

Research and complete applications for grants as they apply to water and wastewater enterprises.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Affiliated Staff Workplan:
n/a
Additional Information:

The City has actively searched for grants and working with California Consulting; however, most grants we do not qualify for due to the size of our community and because we are not considered a disadvantaged community.

Agenda Item #15.2.

Strategic Water/Wastewater Advisory Group
Task 9
Task:

Recommend to City Council Water Ad Hoc Committee other tasks the Committee considers beneficial for the City.

Affiliated City Council Goal(s):

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Affiliated Staff Workplan:
n/a
Additional Information:

The City Council has an established Water Ad Hoc Committee, currently composed of Mayor Dohring and Council Member Chouteau. Quarterly, the Council Ad Hoc Committee may assign or shift tasks to the Strategic Water and Wastewater Advisory Group Agenda Item #15.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Planning
DATE: October 22, 2024
FROM: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the waiver of building and grading permit fees and certain development impact fees in an amount not to exceed $199,922 and use of Affordable Housing Trust Funds and/or Measure E
Funds in an amount not to exceed $1,100,042 for the
remaining balance of development impact fees and water
neutrality in lieu fees in order to accommodate a proposed 40-unit affordable housing project at 0 Fountain Street (APN 009-660-005) in the High Density Residential district.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review and act on the request from Burbank Housing/OTSH to waive building and grading permit fees, certain development impact fees in amount not to exceed $199,922 and to use Affordable
Housing Trust Funds and/or Measure E Funds in amount
not to exceed $1,100,042 for the remaining balance of
development impact and water neutrality fees in order to accommodate a proposed 40-unit affordable housing
project at 0 Fountain Street in the High Density Residential district.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To facilitate the development of affordable workforce
housing through reducing cost burden to applicant by
waiving development related fees or utilizing city funds for affordable housing.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: As noted in the staff report, the total fiscal impact would be to utilize $1,100,042 from the Affordable Housing Fund
(Fund 751)/Measure E (Fund 752) funds to cover
development impact fees and water neutrality in lieu fees.

There is sufficient funding in these accounts to cover this request.

BACKGROUND:

On April 12, 2024, the applicant, Burbank Housing and Our Town St. Helena (OTSH), submitted a SB 330 application in order to vest an application to build 40 affordable apartment units on the subject site. Subsequently, on August 30, 2024, after Agenda Item #15.3.

discussions with staff about financial needs, the applicant submitted a request for a fee waiver (Attachment 2). On October 11, 2024, the applicant submitted a planning application for Minor Design Review, Density Bonus and a Minor Sign Permit (Please see site plan, Attachment 3). The application is under administrative review by staff for consistency with the development standards and objective design standards prior to the applicant submitting for a building and grading permit.

The 1.8 acre site is located adjacent to Highway 29, between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane. The site is noted is a Housing Opportunity Site in the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element and was recently rezoned from Service Commercial (SC) to High Density Residential (HR) in the spring of this year.

This site was also identified as the future affordable housing site to serve the Farmstead hotel development. However, due to financing challenges the hotel development has not yet initiated its plans to move forward with construction and other funding obligations per the development agreement. Burbank Housing plans to develop the subject site with “stand alone” affordable workforce housing-meaning without any improvements/commitments needed from the proposed Farmstead hotel.

DISCUSSION:

Development of affordable housing is extremely difficult, especially in high cost areas like St. Helena. In order to secure the financing necessary to develop this affordable housing project, the applicant plans to apply for low income housing tax credits, which are frequently used as a means to secure capital investment for the development of affordable housing. However, even with this investment, affordable housing generally will have a financing gap, due to the low rents that are charged to tenants. The applicant intends to make these units available at an affordable rent to tenants who earn no more than 60% of the Area Median Income for Napa County, which is well below market rents. The applicant has indicated that their project will not be feasible if they are obligated to pay the impact fee and processing fees described below. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that they meeting the City's water neutrality requirements through retrofitting or payment of in-lieu fees would make their affordable housing project infeasible. Prior to the applicant submitting its application for low income housing tax credits, the applicant would like to confirm that the City is will to waive and/or pay the processing and impact fees outlined in this staff report as these additional fees would impact the viability of the project. In addition to considering fee waivers, the City Council may authorize staff to utilize the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Measure E funds as outlined below.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Per St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.30.050, monies deposited in the housing fund along with any interest earnings on such monies shall be used solely to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to households of moderate, low and very low income households, including, but not limited to acquisition of property and property rights; cost of construction including costs associated with planning, administration, and design, as well as actual building or installation, as well as any other Agenda Item #15.3.

costs associated with the construction or financing of affordable housing. Monies in the housing fund may be disbursed, hypothecated, collateralized or otherwise employed for these purposes from time to time as the Community Development Director, City Attorney and City Council determine is appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the housing fund. The AHTF currently has an unencumbered balance of $862,000.

Measure E Funds
Measure E increased the existing transient occupancy tax (TOT) on the rental of hotel rooms by 1% from 12% to 13% within St. Helena. All revenues from the increase are restricted to programs and services for affordable and workforce housing. Affordable and workforce housing services and programs funded from Measure E include activities to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of rental and for-sale housing for households earning up to 120% of area median income (AMI). Examples include construction of new affordable housing, conversion of market rate units to affordable units, preservation, rehabilitation, or maintenance of affordable units, and acquisition of real property for any of the programs. The City of St. Helena’s Measure E fund currently has an unencumbered balance of $1,015,630.

Building/Impact Fees
Development impact fees are imposed on new development or conversions within the City to pay for public improvements related to civic improvement projects, public safety, sewer projects, water projects, traffic mitigation, parks, and storm drainage. SHMC Section 3.32.120(A) states that a developer of any project, including any new building or addition to or conversion of any existing building, subject to the fees described in SHMC Sections 3.32.050 through 3.32.100 may apply to the City Council for a reduction or adjustment of the fee(s), or a waiver of the fee(s), based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship between the nature of the impact of the development and either the amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed.

The Building Department estimates the following development impact and water neutrality fees would apply to the project:

Public Safety** $ 64,506.00
Civic Improvement** $ 79,392.00
Parks $ 604,371.60
Water $ 69,964.20
Sewer $ 77,904.40
Storm Drainage $ 30,268.20
Traffic $ 40,192.20
Fire Sprinklers** $ 10,361.25
Building Permit** $ 44,862.99
Grading Permit** $ 800.00
Water Neutrality* $ 277,341.00
TOTAL $1,299,963.84
Agenda Item #15.3.

*Utilizes Public Works staff calculation - Attachment 4 ** Fees proposed to be waived - see below
Staff Response: Based on information provided below, the City Council may consider waiving the following fees without the use of AHTF or Measure E Funds:

1. The addition of forty new housing units on a vacant site would not create a significant new demand on civic improvement or public safety. For this reason, the $79,392 civic improvement and $64,506 public safety impact fees could be waived.

2. The project will require fire sprinklers and the fee ($10,361) the City collects when fire sprinklers are proposed generally is to cover staff time to process and inspect. The City Council could elect to waive this fee which would not significantly impact the general fund.

3. The project will require both a building permit and grading permit prior to construction occurring. The City Council could elect to waive the fee for the building permit ($44,863) and grading permit ($800).

The sum total of the above fees that could be waived is $199,922. The City Council has chosen to waive fees in the past for affordable housing projects, such as 951 Pope Street. It is important to note that because it is expected this subject project would contribute to the demand for parks, water, sewer, storm drain and traffic, those fees should not be waived but utilize Affordable Housing Trust Fund/Measure E funds to help mitigate those future impacts.

The remaining development impact fees and water neutrality in lieu fees ($1,100,042) would need to be paid by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and/or Measure E Funds if approved by the Council.

Water Neutrality In-Lieu Fees
SHMC Section 13.12.030(B) (summarized below) requires any development application be accompanied with the requisite fee, unless the fee has been waived by action of the Council.

B. If the city council determines that retrofitting of existing residential or nonresidential buildings is impractical or constitutes an unusual hardship on an applicant, it may authorize the payment to the city of an in-lieu retrofit fee in lieu of complying with the requirements of subsection A of this section.

Public Works estimated the cost of the water neutrality in lieu fee assuming that the landscaping would be using potable water. (Please see Attachment 4) The applicant has indicated that the cost associated with the water neutrality fee is cost prohibitive to the viability of the development, thus the request from the applicant that the City provide the funds.

Summary:

Agenda Item #15.3.

In total, $199,922 in permit fees, fire sprinkler fees and impact fees for public safety and civic improvements are being requested to be waived. The remaining balance ($1,100,042) which covers impact fees for park, water, sewer, storm drain, traffic and water neutrality is being requested to be paid for using AHTF and/or Measure E monies.

The waiver and/or payment of fees would be contingent on the applicant actually constructing a 40 unit affordable housing development that would contribute to meeting the City's regional housing needs allocation for low and very low income households.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1-Fountain St Resolution Final
Attachment 2- Fountain Revised Fee Waiver Request FINAL Attachment 3-Fountain St Site plan landscape concept
Attachment 4-Water Neutrality Fee Waiver calculation PW Agenda Item #15.3.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena authorizing the waiver of building and grading permit
fees and certain development impact fees in an amount
not to exceed $199,922 and the payment of remaining
development impact fees and water neutrality in lieu
fees from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and/or
Measure E Funds in an amount not to exceed $1,100,042
in order to accommodate a proposed 40-unit affordable
housing project at 0 Fountain Street in the City of St.

Helena, California
WHEREAS, SHMC Section 3.32.120(A) authorizes the City Council to waive the fees described in SHMC Sections 3.32.050 through 3.32.100; and WHEREAS, per SHMC Section 17.30.050, monies deposited in the housing fund along with any interest earnings on such monies shall be used solely to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to households of moderate, low and very low income households, including, but not limited to acquisition of property and property rights; cost of construction including costs associated with permit fees as well as actual building or installation, as well as any other costs associated with the construction or financing of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, all revenues from Measure E are restricted to programs and services for affordable and workforce housing. Affordable and workforce housing services and programs funded from Measure E include activities to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of rental and for-sale housing for households earning up to 120% of area median income (AMI); and
WHEREAS, the addition of forty housing units on a vacant site would not create a significant new demand on civic facilities nor require new public safety funding.

Therefore, the City Council is waiving the $79,393 civic improvement fee and $64,506 public safety fee; and
WHEREAS, the project will require fire sprinklers and the fee ($10,361) the City collects when fire sprinklers are proposed generally is to cover staff time to process and inspect. The City Council waives this fee which would not significantly impact the general fund; and
Agenda Item #15.3.

WHEREAS, the project will require both a building permit and grading permit prior to construction occurring. The City Council finds the need for affordable housing justifies waiving the fee for the building permit ($44,862) and grading permit ($800);and WHEREAS, the sum total of permit and impact fee's being waived is not to exceed $199,922. The remaining development impact fees and water neutrality in lieu fees will be paid by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and/or Measure E Funds in an amount not to exceed $1,100,042.

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 approve the waiver of building and grading permit fees and certain development impact fees in an amount not to exceed $199,922 authorizing the use of Affordable Housing Trust Funds and/or Measure E Funds in an amount not to exceed $1,100,042 for the remaining fee balance in order to accommodate a 40-unit affordable housing project at 0 Fountain Street (APN 009-660-005) in the High Density Residential district.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on October 22, 2024, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #15.3.

August 30, 2024
Ms. Maya De Rosa
Mr. Aaron Hecock
Senior Planner
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
RE: Request for Fee Waiver - Revised
0 Fountain Court, St. Helena
Dear. Mr. Hecock,
In April, a preliminary application pursuant to SB330 was submitted to the City for the development of a 40-unit multifamily 100% affordable workforce housing project located on a

1.8-acre (gross) parcel on Fountain Court between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane (Project) in St.

Helena (City). On April 12, 2024 the City confirmed that the submitted SB 330 preliminary application was legally sufficient, that the Project obtained vested rights as of April 12, 2024, and that the Project is subject only to the City ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect as of April 12, 2024.

As such, pursuant to Section 3.32.120(A) of the City’s Municipal Code at this time we respectfully request the City waive fees associated with the Project, currently estimated at $1,293,551 (see attached spreadsheet).

As the City is aware, Affordable housing financing is extremely challenging and affordable housing development must rely on multiple tools to close project funding gaps. As a 100% affordable housing development, the requested impact fee waiver is necessary to ensure the financial feasibility and economic viability of the development and to close a project funding gap. Per Section 17.30.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, monies deposited in the housing fund are to be used solely to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to households of moderate, low and very low income households, including, but not limited to acquisition of property and property rights; cost of construction including costs associated with planning, administration, and design, as well as actual building or installation, as well as any other costs associated with the construction or financing of affordable housing. Similarly, all revenues from Measure E are restricted to programs and services for affordable and workforce housing to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of rental and for-sale housing for households earning up to 120% of area median income (AMI).

Agenda Item #15.3.

We respectfully request the City Council consider this request no later than August such that we may timely file our planning application within the 180-day vesting period afforded to us under the law.

Sincerely,
Larry Florin Jennifer La Liberte
Burbank Housing Our Town St. Helena
Agenda Item #15.3.

Fountain Court Workforce Housing Community - Fee Waiver Request 8/30//2024
City Fees
Building Permit $ 44,862.99
Grading Permit $ 800.00
Public Safety $ 64,506.00
Civic Improvement $ 79,392.00
Park $ 604,371.60
Water $ 69,964.20
Sewer $ 77,903.40
Storm Drain $ 30,268.20
Traffic $ 40,192.20
Housing NA
Subtotal $ 1,012,260.59
Fire
Sprinklers $ 10,361.25
Subtotal $ 10,361.25
Water Neutrality
In-Lieu $ 270,928.96
Subtotal $ 270,928.96
Total Fee Waiver Request $ 1,293,550.80
Agenda Item #15.3.

ADDITIONAL SITES

CHRONOLOGY

CONTACTS
NAME TYPE NAME ADDRESS1 CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL

OWNER PHELPS FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC C/O PHELPS

PARTNERSHIP

RANCHO SANTA
FE
CA 92067

CONDITIONS
Description: 49620 sf multi family 380 sf trash enclosure Type: MULTI FAMILY RES Subtype: NEW Status: UNDER REVIEW Applied: 7/1/2024 KC Parcel No: 009660005 Site Address: 0 FOUNTAIN ST. ST. HELENA,CA 94574 Approved:

Subdivision: Block: Lot: Issued:

Lot Sq Ft: 0 Building Sq Ft: 0 Zoning: Finaled:

Valuation: $28,840,657.00 Occupancy Type: Construction Type: Expired:

No. Buildings: 0 No. Stories: 0 No. Unites: 0
Details:

FINANCIAL INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QTY AMOUNT PAID PAID DATE RECEIPT # CHECK # METHOD PAID BY CLTD BY

CALIF BUILDING STD
ADMIN FEE 101-2154 0 $1,154.00 $0.00
Total Paid for CALIF BUILDING STD ADMIN FEE: $1,154.00 $0.00 Printed: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 10:26:24 AM 1 of 3
Permit Details
City of St. Helena

PERMIT NUMBER
BD2407-001
Agenda Item #15.3.

DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QTY AMOUNT PAID PAID DATE RECEIPT # CHECK # METHOD PAID BY CLTD BY

CIVIC IMPROVEMENT

IMPACT FEES

RESIDENTIAL/CONVERSI
ONS
713-3620 49620 $79,392.00 $0.00
Total Paid for CIVIC FACILITIES IMPACT: $79,392.00 $0.00 GRADING PERMIT 101-3381 0 $800.00 $0.00
Total Paid for GRADING PERMIT: $800.00 $0.00

MFR/HOTEL/CARE-NEW
BLD-INSPECTIONS 101-3120 49620 $25,327.20 $0.00

MFR/HOTEL/CARE-NEW
BLD-PLAN CHECK 101-3120 49620 $14,632.50 $0.00
Total Paid for MULTI FAMILY RES/HOTEL/CARE OCC: $39,959.70 $0.00

MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL 734-3331 49620 $604,371.60 $0.00
Total Paid for PARKS IMPACT: $604,371.60 $0.00

PUBLIC SAFETY

RESIDENTIAL/CONVERSI
ONS
216-3290 49620 $64,506.00 $0.00
Total Paid for PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT: $64,506.00 $0.00

SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL 774-3490 49620 $77,903.40 $0.00
Total Paid for SEWER IMPACT FEE: $77,903.40 $0.00
SMI - RESIDENTIAL 101-2153 0 $3,749.29 $0.00
Total Paid for SMI - RESIDENTIAL: $3,749.29 $0.00

SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL 742-3333 49620 $30,268.20 $0.00
Total Paid for STORM DRAIN IMPACT FEE: $30,268.20 $0.00 Printed: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 10:26:24 AM 2 of 3
Permit Details
City of St. Helena

PERMIT NUMBER
BD2407-001
Agenda Item #15.3.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment Type CREATED OWNER DESCRIPTION PATHNAME SUBDIR ETRAKIT ENABLED DOC 7/1/2024 KATHLEEN COLLINS Permit Details Permit Details.pdf DOC 7/18/2024 KATHLEEN COLLINS Permit Details_1 Permit Details_1.pdf DOC 7/18/2024 KATHLEEN COLLINS Permit Details_2 Permit Details_2.pdf DOC 8/14/2024 KATHLEEN COLLINS Permit Details_3 Permit Details_3.pdf

BOND INFORMATION

INSPECTIONS

INSPECTION TYPE INSPECTOR SCHEDULED
DATE

COMPLETED
DATE

RESULT REMARKS NOTES
SMOKE DETECTORS-CO2

REVIEWS

REVIEW TYPE REVIEWER SENT DATE DUE DATE RETURNED
DATE

STATUS REMARKS NOTES

PARENT PROJECTS
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QTY AMOUNT PAID PAID DATE RECEIPT # CHECK # METHOD PAID BY CLTD BY

SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL 740-3336 49620 $40,192.20 $0.00
Total Paid for TRAFFIC MITIGATION: $40,192.20 $0.00

SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL 764-3890 49620 $69,964.20 $0.00
Total Paid for WATER SYSTEM IMPACT: $69,964.20 $0.00
TOTALS: $1,012,260.59 $0.00
Printed: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 10:26:24 AM 3 of 3
Permit Details
City of St. Helena

PERMIT NUMBER
BD2407-001
Agenda Item #15.3.

ADDITIONAL SITES

CHRONOLOGY

CONTACTS
NAME TYPE NAME ADDRESS1 CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL

OWNER PHELPS FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC C/O PHELPS

PARTNERSHIP

RANCHO SANTA
FE
CA 92067

CONDITIONS
Description: 496 HEADS
Type: FIRE Subtype: FIRE SPRINKLERRESIDENTIAL NEWStatus: UNDER REVIEW Applied: 7/18/2024 KC Parcel No: 009660005 Site Address: 0 FOUNTAIN ST. ST. HELENA,CA 94574 Approved:

Subdivision: Block: Lot: Issued:

Lot Sq Ft: 0 Building Sq Ft: 0 Zoning: Finaled:

Valuation: $501,960.00 Occupancy Type: Construction Type: Expired:

No. Buildings: 0 No. Stories: 0 No. Unites: 0
Details:

FINANCIAL INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QTY AMOUNT PAID PAID DATE RECEIPT # CHECK # METHOD PAID BY CLTD BY

CALIF BUILDING STD
ADMIN FEE 101-2154 0 $21.00 $0.00
Total Paid for CALIF BUILDING STD ADMIN FEE: $21.00 $0.00 Printed: Thursday, July 18, 2024 1:06:39 PM 1 of 2
Permit Details
City of St. Helena

PERMIT NUMBER
FD2407-001
Agenda Item #15.3.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment Type CREATED OWNER DESCRIPTION PATHNAME SUBDIR ETRAKIT ENABLED DOC 7/18/2024 KATHLEEN COLLINS Permit Details Permit Details.pdf

BOND INFORMATION

INSPECTIONS

REVIEWS

REVIEW TYPE REVIEWER SENT DATE DUE DATE RETURNED
DATE

STATUS REMARKS NOTES

PARENT PROJECTS
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT QTY AMOUNT PAID PAID DATE RECEIPT # CHECK # METHOD PAID BY CLTD BY

FIRE SPRINKLERS -
RESIDENTIAL 101-3120 496 $10,275.00 $0.00
Total Paid for FIRE SPRINKLERS - RESIDENTIAL: $10,275.00 $0.00 SMI - RESIDENTIAL 101-2153 0 $65.25 $0.00
Total Paid for SMI - RESIDENTIAL: $65.25 $0.00
TOTALS: $10,361.25 $0.00
Printed: Thursday, July 18, 2024 1:06:39 PM 2 of 2
Permit Details
City of St. Helena

PERMIT NUMBER
FD2407-001
Agenda Item #15.3.

1 WATER NEUTRAL REPORT
Fountain Court Workforce Housing Community
St. Helena, CA
APN: 009-660-005
Prepared by
BKF Engineers
200 4th Street, Suite 300
Santa Rosa, Ca 95401
July 29, 2024
7-29-2024
Agenda Item #15.3.

2 I. BACKGROUND
In order to comply with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy, the attached water analysis has been prepared for the Fountain Court Workforce Housing Community (Project) located at Fountain Court, St. Helena (APN 009-660-005) (Property). This analysis documents the theoretical proposed water consumption for the new Project and the in-lieu fee necessary to off-set the demand.

II. EXISTING THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
The Property has no current connection to the City of St. Helena domestic water system.

Therefore, the existing demand associated with the Property is zero (0) gallons per day.

III. PROPOSED THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
The proposed development consists of 40 multifamily attached rental units consisting of a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units with associated common area including a kitchen and restroom as well as a restroom associated with the management office. The proposed water demand is calculated based upon water usage from water fixtures and appliances based on the number of occupants as laid out by the City of St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development as follows:

Fixture Type Theoretical Water Demand
Showerhead 8 min/shower/day/occupant
Lavatory faucet 0.25 min/3 times/day/occupant
Kitchen faucet 4 min/day/occupant
Toilet 3 flushes/day/occupant
Clothes Washer 0.37 load/day/occupant
Dish Washer 0.1 load/day/occupant
Water usage from water fixtures and appliances meet the minimum requirements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) as follows:

Fixture Type Theoretical Water Demand
Showerhead 1.8 gallons per minute
Lavatory faucet 1.2 gallons per minute
Kitchen faucet 1.8 gallons per minute
Toilet 1.28 gallons per flush
Clothes Washer 14 gallons per load
Dish Washer 4.25 gallons per load
Following the guidelines of the City of St. Helena policy, the analysis is to be completed based on two (2) occupants per bedroom. Based on the City of St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Agenda Item #15.3.

3 Development we have calculated the theoretical domestic water demand to be approximately 5,684 gallons per day for the Project; see the attached calculations.

IV. PROPOSED THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE WATER DEMAND
Landscape irrigation will be provided by the City of St. Helena. It is anticipated that there will be approximately 19,809 square feet of landscaped area. The landscaping will consist of drought resistant vegetation with low irrigation water demand. The estimated daily irrigation demand for the Project is approximately 531 gallons per day; see the attached calculations.

V. PROPOSED MITIGATION - IN-LIEU RETROFIT FEES
The Project will result in the use of approximately 6,215 gallons per day. Since the Property has no existing water usage, conservation measures incorporated into the Project design would not be able to achieve neutrality. Therefore, the Project proposes to pay an in-lieu retrofit fee equivalent to the cost of retrofitting showerheads, bathroom and kitchen faucets, and toilets in existing residential buildings to achieve the required water savings.

The theoretical residential water usage for residences with old fixtures is summarized in the table below:

Fixture Flow Rate1 Flow Duration
Daily Use
Per
Occupant
# Occupants Gallons Per
Day
Showerheads 2.5 gallons per
minute 8 min 1 6 120
Lavatory Faucets 2.2 gallons per
minute 0.25 min 3 6 9.9
Kitchen Faucets 2.2 gallons per
minute 4 min 1 6 52.8
Toilets 1.6 gallons per
flush 1 flush 3 6 28.8
Total 211.5 1Source: LEED v4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator Agenda Item #15.3.

4 The theoretical residential water usage for residences with retrofitted low flow fixtures is summarized in the table below:

Fixture Flow Rate Flow Duration
Daily Use
Per
Occupant
# Occupants Gallons Per
Day
Showerheads 1.8 gallons per
minute 8 min 1 6 86.4
Lavatory Faucets 1.2 gallons per
minute 0.25 min 3 6 5.4
Kitchen Faucets 1.8 gallons per
minute 4 min 1 6 43.2
Toilets 1.28 gallons
per flush 1 flush 3 6 23.04
Total 158.04
A residence with old fixtures uses approximately 222 gallons per day (gpd), while a residence that has been retrofitted with low fixtures will use approximately 158 gpd, representing an overall savings of approximately 64 gpd as summarized in the table below.

Gallons Per Day
Theoretical Water Use with Old Fixtures 211.5
Theoretical Water Use with Retrofits 158.04
Total Savings (53)
The calculation for the number of residences that would need to be retrofitted based on the anticipated demand for the Project is summarized in the table below:

Gallons Per Day
Project New Water Demand 6215
Water Savings per Residence w/Retrofit 53
Number of Residences to Retrofit 116
Agenda Item #15.3.

5 In order to offset the anticipated water demand for the Project, 116 residences will need to be retrofitted. The anticipated material cost to retrofit an existing residence are summarized in the table below:

Material Cost per Residence Quantity Cost Per Unit1 Total Cost Toilets2 2 $ 322.01 $ 644.03
Lavatory Faucets3 2 $ 89.85 $ 179.69
Kitchen Faucets4 2 $ 214.81 $ 429.62
Shower Heads5 2 $ 96.13 $ 192.26
Total Material Cost per Residence $ 1,445.60
The anticipated labor cost to retrofit an existing residence are summarized in the table below.

Installation Cost per Residence Hours Quantity Cost Per Hour6 Total Cost Toilets 1.5 2 $ 177.00 $ 265.50
Lavatory Faucets 1.5 2 $ 177.00 $ 265.50
Kitchen Faucets 1.5 2 $ 177.00 $ 265.50
Shower Heads 0.5 2 $ 177.00 $ 88.50
Total Labor Cost per Residence $ 885.00
The total cost to retrofit per residence is $2,330.60. The total cost to retrofit 116 residences is $270,928.96.

VII. CONCLUSION
The Project will result in the use of approximately 6,215 gallons of water per day. The Project will use water efficient fixtures and conservation measures to the maximum extent practicable.

In order to offset the water demand associated with the Project, 116 residences would need to be retrofitted resulting in a financial impact of $270,928.96.

Given the affordable nature of the Project and inherent limitations with publicly funded affordable housing financing sources, retrofitting of existing residential buildings is impractical and the Project would instead need to pay an in-lieu fee as provided for by St. Helena Municipal Code Section 13.12.030(B). To off-set this financial impact to the Project, as provided for by St.

Helena Municipal Code Section 3.32.120(A), the Project proponents request the City Council 1 Includes 8% sales tax
2 Kohler K-3999-0 https://a.co/d/08NSKJ0p
3 American Standard 7385004.002 https://a.co/d/0jfDUB7p 4 American Standard 7441300.002 https://a.co/d/0brO5vqd 5 HammerHead Showers® ALL METAL 3-Spray Handheld Shower Head https://a.co/d/076cOy8x 6 https://www.angi.com/articles/what-are-common-handyman-prices.htm Agenda Item #15.3.

6 waive the in-lieu water neutrality fee and utilize monies available in the Housing Trust Fund, which is intended to advance affordable housing projects in the community, to cover the cost of the Project’s water neutrality in-lieu fees.

Agenda Item #15.3.

R T +0" +12" +0" +12"+0"
R
T
T Project: Client: JOB #: SCALE: FOUNTAIN STREET WORKFORCE HOUSING FOUNTAIN CT., ST. HELENA, CA 94574 BURBANK HOUSING AND OUR TOWN ST. HELENA ___ 2300 BKF ENGINEERS 200 4TH STREET, SUITE 300, SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 CONTACT: RICK CARLILE, PE T: 707.583.8533 E: [email protected] QUADRIGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING INC. 1212 4TH STREET SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 CONTACT: cHRISTINE TALBOT, PRINCIPAL T: 707.546.3561 E: [email protected] ID DATE NAME Per Plan QUADRIGA l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d p l a n n i n g , i n c . s a c r a m e n t o | s a n t a r o s a 7 0 7 . 5 4 6 . 3 5 6 1 | w
w
w. q u a d r i g a - i n c . c o m L.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN
0 20' 40' Scale: 1" = 20'-0" Common Area Pathway Specimen native trees Potential Focal Point: Public Art Piece with Seating Lid planting Access from parked cars Low hedge, typ.

Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Mulch pet relief area Dog waste station 6'-0" mesh & wood fence Signage Planted berms See enlargements on sheet L.02 Layout Plan LEGEND Site Planting Lid Planting Planted Berms Asphalt Paving Concrete Paving Play Surfacing Proposed Trees ST HELENA HWY FUTURE MILLS LANE FOUNTAIN STREET PARKING LOT Trash enclosure, per Architect See L.02 See L.02 St Helena stone elements Stone wall with bench top Community tables Wire fence with wooden frame Circular bench around specimen tree Planted berms Natural pathway Oak Tree Specimen **All images are examples only. Final selection to be specified in CDs 6'-0" mesh & wood fence Circular bench with oakBike Path/ Sidewalk by others 6'-0" open wire & wood fence Property Line Railroad Tracks Fountain Street Extension by others Trellis Wall with trellis & vines Mailbox Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations Mulch 6' wood good neighbor fence Good neighbor fence BY OTHERS "Project Name" "123 FOUNTAIN STREET"
1 7'-2"
1'-4" 3'-0"
2'-8"
2'-6" 2" typ. Stone faced wall MONUMENT SIGN 1/2" = 1'-0" Plan View Front Elevation Side Elevation Metal wraps wall/double sided 1'-10" Signage attached to stone base with metal cleats and concealed welded brackets. 7" 4"
7" Metal Signage - 2 sheets sandwiched outer layer raw steel with laser cut letter, inner layer powder coated light color. Sign to be externally illuminated. Double sided signage 1'-0" 2 3
1 P-RE-FOU1-100
Agenda Item #15.3.

From: Maya DeRosa
To: Maya DeRosa
Subject: RE: Request for memo on water neutrality in lieu fees for Fountain Ct.

Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 5:02:46 PM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Eric Janzen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 11:58 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: Joseph Leach <[email protected]>; Ethan Walsh <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Request for memo on water neutrality in lieu fees for Fountain Ct.

Water neutrality review:

The baseline reported by the applicant is 0 (zero) GPD. This is an undeveloped lot with no prior water usage.

Public Works Staff reviewed the proposed plan and find that a total of 83 bedrooms are proposed. Under the water neutrality policy, this equates to 166 persons (2 per bedroom). Using the City’s standard LEED water usage for fixtures and appliances, this equals 5801 GPD of domestic water use that must be offset.

The project also proposes to use potable water for landscape irrigation at a rate of 531 GPD for a total water usage offset of 6,332 GPD.

The applicant has estimated an equivalent retrofit water savings of 53 GPD for retrofitting an older 3-bedroom home with new fixtures. This equates a total of 119 homes must be retrofitted (6,332 GPD / 53GPD savings per home = 119 homes).

The applicant has estimated that each home would cost $2,3360 to retrofit. Public Works Staff have reviewed this estimate and have no objections.

The in-lieu fee is calculated as follows:
5,801 GPD domestic + 531 GPD irrigation / 53 GPD savings per home = 119 homes $2,330.60 * 119 = $277,341 in lieu fee (w/ potable water irrigation) Agenda Item #15.3.

<end of calculation memo>

ERIC JANZEN

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
City of St. Helena | Public Works
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2831 | [email protected] | https://www.cityofsthelena.gov/publicworks **Our email addresses have changed to .gov
Agenda Item #15.3.

City Council
October 22, 2024
0 Fountain Street
Affordable Housing and Request
for Fee Waivers and Utilizing
Affordable Housing Funds
Agenda Item #15.3.

Background
• Site located near intersection of Dowdell and Highway 29 • Site was originally identified as future affordable housing site to serve the planned Farmstead hotel
• Housing Element Opportunity Site upzoned from
Service Commercial to High Density Zoning in May
2024
Agenda Item #15.3.

Background
• Eligible for streamlined review with SB 330
application- filed on April 12, 2024 by applicant
Burbank Housing and OTSH
• August 30, 2024, the applicant submitted to City a
request for fee waivers
• October 11, 2024, the applicant filed a Minor Design
Review, Density Bonus and Minor Sign Permit in
association with proposal to construct 40 affordable
housing units
Agenda Item #15.3.

Site Plan
HIGHWAY 29

DOWDELL LANE
Agenda Item #15.3.

Summary of Fees :40 unit multi-family
Public Safety** $ 64,506.00
Civic Improvement** $ 79,392.00
Parks $ 604,371.60
Water $ 69,964.20
Sewer $ 77,904.40
Storm Drainage $ 30,268.20
Traffic $ 40,192.20
Fire Sprinklers** $ 10,361.25
Building Permit** $ 44,862.99
Grading Permit** $ 800.00
Water Neutrality $ 277,341.00
TOTAL $1,299,963.84
**Fees to be
waived=
$199,922
Remaining Fees
utilizing
Measure
E/Affordable
Housing Trust
Fund=
$1,100,042
Agenda Item #15.3.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund
• Monies are to be used for:
• Increasing and improving the supply of housing for
moderate , low and very low income households
• property acquisition
• Cost of construction
• Costs associated with planning and administration
• Any other costs associated with the construction or
financing of affordable housing
Agenda Item #15.3.

Measure E Fund
• Measure E is an existing Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) applied to rented hotel rooms
• Revenues from Measure E are restricted to programs and services related to affordable and workhouse housing
• Activities to increase, improve and preserve the City’s supply of rental and for-sale housing for households earning up to 120% of the Area Median Income
• The project would be eligible to utilize Measure E funds Agenda Item #15.3.

Financial Impact
• Utilize $1,100,042 from Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) and Measure E Fund to cover development impact fees and water neutrality in lieu fees.
• There is currently $862,000 in the AHTF
• There is currently $1,015,630 in the Measure E fund
Agenda Item #15.3.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

Review and act on the request from Burbank Housing/OTSH to waive building and grading permit fees, certain development impact fees in amount not to exceed $199,922 and to use Affordable Housing Trust Funds and/or Measure E Funds in amount not to exceed $1,100,042 for the remaining balance of development impact and water neutrality fees in order to accommodate a proposed 40-unit affordable housing project at 0 Fountain Street in the High Density Residential district.

Agenda Item #15.3.

Questions and Discussion
Agenda Item #15.3.