City of St. Helena
Special City Council Meeting
Monday, February 10, 2025 @ 4:00 PM
City Hall Main Conference Room, 1088
College Avenue, St. Helena
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.
Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line City Council agenda.
Simultaneous Spanish interpretation services during meetings can be scheduled upon request. To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].
The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.
Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público. Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected] .
El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/ .
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor: Michelle Deasy, City Council Members:
Aaron Barak, Kate Spadarotto, Billy Summers
3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
4. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
5.1. Downtown Specific Plan - Status Report and Anticipated Outcomes
5.2. Main Street Streetscape Presentation
Presentation
3 - 43
5.3. Presentation on conceptual ideas for best use of Lyman Park, and the City's Adams Street property to enhance the vitality and fiscal stability of the City
Presentation
6. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for February 11, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California on February 6, 2025.
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.
Interview for San Bruno Zoning Code Update • Dyett & Bhatia City of St. Helena
Downtown Specific Plan
City Council Study Session
February 10, 2025
https://www.plandowntownsh.com
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda
1. Specific Plan Overview, Objectives and
Outcomes
2. Main Street Streetscape
▪ Streetscape Redesign (Terry Bottomley,
Bottomley Design)
▪ Traffic Implications (Alice Chen, DKS Associates)
▪ Implementation and Next Steps
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
1. Unique site
2. Locally and regionally important
project
3. Engaged community
Why Is the City doing a Downtown
Specific Plan?
more
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
Synchronize future land use in the DSP with:
▪ Parking
▪ Transportation
▪ Infrastructure
▪ Urban design
▪ Public realm beautification
• Implementation Plan that includes methods to
fund DSP improvements
⮚ Reflect community priorities to make
Downtown more desirable, economically
dynamic, support the city economically/fiscally
Why is the City doing a Downtown Specific
Plan?
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
Authorized under State law. Provide:
▪ Clear rules for land use, and design and
development standards
▪ Environmental review addressing CEQA
considerations
⮚ Streamlined project review and approval. Greater
project certainty, attracting investment
Many cities in Napa-Sonoma have specific plans
for their downtowns, including Napa,
Petaluma, Santa Rosa, and Windsor
Why a Specific Plan?
Agenda Item #5.2.
Planning Area/
Historic Core
Agenda Item #5.2.
Underutilize
d Sites
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
Community Workshop
& Survey
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
✔ Existing Conditions Report
✔ Market Analysis
✔ Existing Parking Analysis
✔ Traffic Analysis (incl. counts)
✔ Main Street Streetscape Design
✔ Community Outreach:
✔ Project Website
✔ Community Survey
✔ Community Workshop
✔ Stakeholder Meetings
✔ Steering Committee Meetings
Key Work Components; Completed
https://www.plandowntownsh.com
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
▪ Alternatives
▪ Preferred Plan
▪ Specific Plan
▪ Land Use and Urban Design
▪ Development Standards
▪ Streetscape and Community
Gathering Spaces
▪ Circulation Plan
▪ Parking Plan
▪ Infrastructure Plan
▪ Implementation Plan
▪ Technical Studies (parking, traffic,
water, sewer and storm drainage)
▪ Environmental Review
Key Work Components; Forthcoming
Agenda Item #5.2.
Schedule
We are here
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
▪ Total Budget: $500,000. Total Spent $220,000
Project Budget and Expenses to Date
Task Budget Status
1. Project Commencement $47,200 Complete
2. Existing Conditions Report
Initial Outreach (survey, workshop, Steering
Committee meetings)
$65,300 Complete
3. Concept Plan Alternatives $63,900 Initiated.
$20,000 spent
(mostly Main
Street redesign)
4. Specific Plan (including streetscape planning) $140,000 $12,000 spent
5. Hearings and Adoption $21,800 Not started
6. Environmental Review $63,000 Not started
A. Parking Study $37,800 $28,000 spent
B. Traffic Study $36,600 $19,400 spent
C. Market Study $23,500 Complete
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
▪ Attractive and economically
dynamic Downtown
Key Outcomes
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
▪ Cohesive planning for
opportunity sites, circulation,
and infrastructure
Key Outcomes
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
▪ Improved public realm/
streetscapes (Main, Adams,
Railroad, Oak, gathering
spaces)
Key Outcomes
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
▪ Clear guidance for development;
streamlined CEQA clearance
and greater certainty for
developers
▪ New Private
Investment=Revenue for City
Key Outcomes
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care Implementation Strategy-Action Plan
Identify Strategies
Develop Clear Actions
Establish Timeline
Assign Responsibility
Agenda Item #5.2.
Interview for San Bruno Zoning Code Update • Dyett & Bhatia City of St. Helena
Downtown Specific Plan
QUESTIONS?
https://www.plandowntownsh.com
Agenda Item #5.2.
Cultivate St. Helena Streetscape - 2019
Agenda Item #5.2.
Cultivate St. Helena Streetscape
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
1. Unique site
2. Locally and regionally important
project
3. Engaged community
Prior Downtown Studies
Urban Land Institute Report -2023
Agenda Item #5.2.
ULI Study Recommendations
Agenda Item #5.2.
Street Design Concepts for Community
Review
▪ Option 1 – Existing Sidewalk Upgrade with
“parklets” in some parking spaces
▪ Option 2 – Sidewalk Widening Both Sides
Agenda Item #5.2.
Main Street Streetscape/Sidewalk
Widening
Agenda Item #5.2.
Main Street Existing
Agenda Item #5.2.
Option 1: Sidewalk Upgrade with Parklets
Agenda Item #5.2.
Option 2: Sidewalk Widening
Agenda Item #5.2.
Main Street Existing
Agenda Item #5.2.
Option 1: Sidewalk Upgrade with Parklets
Agenda Item #5.2.
Option 2: Sidewalk Widening (tables
curbside)
Agenda Item #5.2.
Option 2: Sidewalk Widening (tables buildingside) Agenda Item #5.2. Page 33 of 43 Concept Layout Plan
Agenda Item #5.2.
Concept Layout Plan
Agenda Item #5.2.
Concept Layout Plan
Agenda Item #5.2.
Concept Layout Plan
Agenda Item #5.2.
Why we care
1. Unique site
2. Locally and regionally important
project
3. Engaged community
▪ Emergency Vehicle Access – 24’ two-lane width
allows cars to pull aside and 12’ EV through-access,
planned “Opticom” signal pre-emption system
▪ Construction Cost Increase – Additional cost for
sidewalk widening as part of sidewalk/streetscape
improvements
▪ Additional Caltrans Review – Initial input
supportive per current Main Street and Complete
Street policies
▪ Traffic Operations – Improved condition at Spring
Street, two options to be assessed for Adams;
signal timing optimization planned for corridor
Key Issues
Agenda Item #5.2.
Traffic Implications with Streetscape
▪ Focused operational analysis on four Main Street intersections ▪ Main & Adams – Signalized
▪ Main & Hunt – Stop-Controlled on Hunt
▪ Main & Spring – Stop-controlled on Spring
▪ Main & Mitchell/Pope - Signalized
▪ Peak hour turning movement counts collected May 2024
▪ Three periods analyzed:
▪ Weekday morning peak hour
▪ Weekday afternoon peak hour
▪ Saturday midday peak hour
▪ Metric:
▪ Average Vehicle Delay (in seconds) on Main Street
▪ Assumptions:
▪ Streetscape project - Removal of left turn pockets/center turn lane; removal of the left-turn signal phase
❖ Analysis is based on proposed streetscape lane configurations.
It does not include future buildout conditions of the Downtown Specific Plan, as the future land use mix has not been
determined at this time.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Average Delays on Main Street
▪ With the streetscape project, average delay per vehicle generally decreases for traffic on Main Street, with the exception of southbound vehicles at the intersection of Mitchell/Pope
▪ Northbound Direction
▪ Reduction of 7 to 12 seconds at Mitchell/Pope
▪ Reduction of 1 to 2 seconds at Adams
▪ Southbound Direction
▪ Reduction of 7 to 9 seconds at Adams
▪ Increase of 9 to 18 seconds at Mitchell/Pope
Agenda Item #5.2.
Average Delays - Northbound
▪ At Mitchell/Pope
▪ Reduction of 11 seconds during the AM peak hour
▪ Reduction of 12 seconds during the PM peak hour
▪ Reduction of 7 seconds during the Saturday mid-day peak hour
▪ At Adams
▪ Reduction of 2 seconds during the AM peak hour
▪ Reduction of 2 seconds during the PM peak hour
▪ Reduction of 2 seconds during the Saturday mid-day peak hour
Agenda Item #5.2.
Average Delays - Southbound
▪ At Adams
▪ Reduction of 9 seconds during AM peak hour
▪ Reduction of 18 seconds during PM peak hour
▪ Reduction of 13 seconds during Saturday mid-day peak hour ▪ At Mitchell/Pope
▪ Increase of 9 seconds during AM peak hour
▪ Increase of 18 seconds during PM peak hour
▪ Increase of 13 seconds during Saturday mid-day peak hour Agenda Item #5.2.
Average Vehicle Delay
Direction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour
Existing
(sec)
With
Project1
(sec)
Change Existing
(sec)
With
Project1
(sec)
Change Existing
(sec)
With
Project1
(sec)
Change
Northbound
at Mitchell/Pope 28 17 -11 31 19 -12 25 18 -7
at Adams 17 15 -2 21 19 -2 22 20 -2
Total delay2 45 32 -13 52 38 -14 47 38 -9
Southbound
at Adams 17 8 -9 19 12 -7 22 13 -9
at Mitchell/Pope 36 45 9 40 58 18 38 52 14
Total delay2 53 53 0 59 70 11 60 65 5
1With Project represents the Streetscape lane configurations only. It does not include the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) buildout conditions, which are yet to be determined. Signal optimization/coordination and re-routing of left-turn traffic is not assumed for this analysis, but would be considered as part of the analysis of DSP buildout conditions. 2 Delay at signalized intersections on Main Street.
Agenda Item #5.2.