Agenda, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, May 13, 2025 (part 2 of 6)

- 13 -
which the ADU is proposed as established in Table 17.16.030(B), Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts, subject to subsection (F)(1)(c), above.

34. Setbacks.
a. No part of any ADU may be located within twenty (20) feet of the front and corner lot property lines.ADUs that are subject to this subsection (F) must conform to 4-foot side and rear setbacks. ADUs that are subject to this subsection (F) must conform to the front setback as required by the underlying zoning district, subject to subsection (F)(1)(c), above. b. No part of any ADU may be located within four feet of a side or rear yard property line.No setback is required for an ADU that is subject to this subsection (F) if the ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing, nonconforming, enclosed structure.

45. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by subsection (C) of this section, is required for an ADU.

56. Parking.
a. Generally. One off-street parking space is required for each ADU. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking, as defined by subsection (C) of this section.
b. Exceptions. No parking under subsection (F)(5)(a) (F)(7)(A) of this section is required in the following situations:
i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined by subsection (C) of this section.
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
iii. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure under subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section. iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 224 of 1338 ends

- 14 -
v. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU.
vi. When the permit application to create an ADU is submitted with an application to create a new single-family or new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the lot satisfies any other criteria listed in subsection (F)(7)(b)(i) through (v), above.
c. No Replacement. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.

7. Architectural Requirements.
a. The materials and colors of the exterior walls, roof, and windows and doors must be the same as those of the primary dwelling.
b. The roof slope must match that of the dominant roof slope of the primary dwelling. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.
c. The exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights or as otherwise required by the zoning, building, or fire code.
d. The ADU must have an independent exterior entrance, apart from that of the primary dwelling.
e. The interior horizontal dimensions of an ADU must be at least 10 feet wide in every direction, with a minimum interior wall height of seven feet. f. No window or door of the ADU may have a direct line of sight to an adjoining residential property. Each window and door must either be located where there is no direct line of sight or screened using fencing, landscaping, or privacy glass to prevent a direct line of sight.
g. All windows and doors in an ADU less than 30 feet from a property line that is not a public right-of-way line must either be (for windows) clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor, or (for windows and doors) utilize frosted or obscure glass.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 225 of 1338 ends

- 15 -

8. Historical Protections. An ADU that is on real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

9. Allowed Stories. No ADU subject to this subsection (F) may have more than one story, except that an ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may have the stories allowed under subparagraph (E)(2)(d) of this section.

G. Fees. The following requirements apply to all ADUs that are approved under subsections (D)(1) or (D)(2), above.

1. Impact Fees.
a. Impact fees shall not be imposedNo impact fee is required for an ADU that is less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet in size. For purposes of this subsection (G)(1), “impact fee” means a “fee under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov.

Code § 66000(b)) and a fee under the Quimby Act (Gov. Code § 66477). “Impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.
b. Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit (e.g., the floor area of the ADU, divided by the floor area of the primary dwelling, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling). An impact fee does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.

2. Utility Fees.
a. If an ADU or JADU is constructed with a new single-family home, a separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility and payment of the normal connection fee and capacity charge for a new dwelling are required. For detached ADUs where there is a demonstrated adequate sewer capacity acceptable to the city engineer and cleaning/review of the sewer lines has been performed with closed circuit television technology, and an application has been submitted to the city engineer to substantiate capacity calculations, a separate connection for the ADU is not required.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 226 of 1338 ends

- 16 -
b. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, converted ADUs and JADUs on a single-family lot that are created under subsection (D)(2)(a) (D)(1)(a) of this section are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility, nor is a connection fee or capacity charge required.
c. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, all ADUs and JADUs that are not covered by subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section require a new, separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility for any utility that is provided by the city. All utilities that are not provided by the city are subject to the connection and fee requirements of the utility provider.
i. The connection is subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the burden created by the ADU or JADU, based on either the floor area or the number of drainage-fixture units (DFU) values, as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system. ii. The portion of the fee or charge that is charged by the city may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

H. Nonconforming ADUs and Discretionary Approval. Any proposed ADU or JADU that does not conform to the objective standards established in subsections A through (G)(2) of this section may be allowed by the city with a conditional use permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this title.

IH. Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

1. Generally. The city will not deny an ADU or JADU application due to a nonconforming zoning condition, building code violation, or unpermitted structure on the lot that does not present a threat to the public health and safety and that is not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU.

2. Unpermitted ADUs JADUs Constructed Before 20182020.
a. Permit to Legalize. As required by state law, the city may not deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 227 of 1338 ends

- 17 -
before January 1, 20182020, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
i. The ADU or JADU violates applicable building standards; or ii. The ADU or JADU does not comply with the state ADU or JADU law (California Government Code Section 65852.2) or this section. b. Exemptions.
i. Notwithstanding subsection (I)(2)(a)(H)(2)(a) of this section, the city may deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 20182020, if the city makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or occupants of the structurecomply with the standards specified in Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.
ii. Subsection (I)(2)(a) (H)(2)(a) of this section does not apply to a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.

Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4. CEQA. This ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council find that, under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, which is California’s ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as defined by section 66313. Therefore, adoption of the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that it implements state ADU law.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced within thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption by the City Council at a second reading and shall be posted and published in accordance with the California Government Code.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 228 of 1338 ends

- 18 -
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St.

Helena City Council on the 22nd day of April 2025 and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the 13th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:__________________________ APPROVED:_____________________ Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst Paul Dohring, Mayor
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 229 of 1338 ends

-1-

17.22.030 Accessory dwelling units.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22.

B. Effect of Conforming. An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this section will not be:

1. Deemed to be inconsistent with the city’s general plan and zoning designation for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

2. Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

3. Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

4. Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition as defined in subsection (C) of this section. This does not prevent the city from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.

C. Definitions. As used in this section, terms are defined as follows:
“Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

1. An efficiency unit, as defined by Section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code; and

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 230 of 1338 ends

- 2 -
“Complete independent living facilities” means permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
“Efficiency kitchen” means a kitchen that includes each of the following:

1. A cooking facility with appliances.

2. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the ADU.
“Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential unit that satisfies all of the following:

1. Is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size;

2. Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure.

An enclosed use within the residence, such as an attached garage, is considered to be part of and contained within the single-family structure;

3. Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure;

4. If the unit does not include its own separate bathroom, then it contains an interior entrance to the main living area of the existing or proposed single-family structure in addition to an exterior entrance that is separate from the main entrance to the primary dwelling;

5. Includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in this subsection (C); and

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 231 of 1338 ends

- 3 -
“Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.
“Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
“Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
“Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.

D. Approvals. The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this section:

1. Building Permit Only. If an ADU or JADU complies with each of the general requirements in subsection (e) below, it is allowed with only a building permit in the following scenarios:
a. Converted on single-family lot: one ADU as described in this subsection and one JADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling on it, where the ADU or JADU:
i. Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; within the existing space of an existing single-family dwelling; or (in the case of an ADU only) within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to one hundred fifty (150) additional square feet. For purposes of this subsection, “within the existing space” includes a structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions. ii. Has exterior access that is independent of that for the single-family dwelling.
iii. Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
iv. The JADU complies with requirements of California Government Code Section 66333–66339.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 232 of 1338 ends

- 4 -
b. Detached on single-family lot: one detached, new-construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling (in addition to any JADU that might otherwise be established on the lot under subsection (D)(1)(a) of this section), if the detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
i. The side and rear yard setbacks are at least four feet. ii. The total floor area is eight hundred (800) square feet or smaller. iii. The peak height above grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in subsection (E)(2) of this section.
c. Converted on multifamily lot: One or more ADUs within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU complies with state building standards for dwellings. Under this subsection (D)(1)(c), at least one converted ADU is allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling, up to a quantity equal to twentyfive percent (25%) of the existing multifamily dwelling units. d. Detached on multifamily lot: no more than two detached ADUs on a lot with a proposed multifamily dwelling, or up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, if each detached ADU satisfies all of the following limitations:
i. The side and rear yard setbacks are at least four feet. If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side yard setback of less than four feet, the city will not require any modification to the multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the ADU.
ii. The peak height above grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in subsection (E)(2) of this section.
iii. If the lot has an existing multifamily dwelling, the quantity of detached ADUs does not exceed the number of primary dwelling units on the lot.

2. Process and Timing.
a. An application for an ADU or JADU is considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 233 of 1338 ends

- 5 -
b. The city must approve or deny an application to create an ADU or JADU within sixty (60) days from the date that the city receives a completed application. If the city has not approved or denied the completed application within sixty (60) days, the application is deemed approved unless either:
i. The applicant requests a delay, in which case the sixty (60) day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay; or ii. When an application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the city may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or JADU until the city acts on the permit application to create the new singlefamily or multifamily dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU will still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. c. If the city denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the city must provide the applicant with comments that include, among other things, a list of all the defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant within the sixty (60) day time period established by subsection (D)(3)(b) of this section.
d. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU is reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

E. General ADU and JADU Requirements. The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs:

1. Zoning.
a. An ADU subject only to a building permit under subsection (D)(1) above may be created on a lot in a residential or mixed-use zone. b. An ADU permitted under subsection (D)(2) above may be created on a lot that is zoned to allow single-family dwelling residential use or multifamily dwelling residential use.
c. In accordance with Government Code section 66333(a), a JADU may only be created on a lot zoned for single-family residences.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 234 of 1338 ends

- 6 -

2. Height.
a. Except as otherwise provided by subsection (E)(2)(b) and (E)(2)(c) below, a detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit may not exceed 16 feet in height. b. A detached ADU may be up to 18 feet in height if it is created on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and the ADU may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. c. A detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling that has more than one story above grade may not exceed 18 feet in height.
d. An ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may not exceed 25 feet in height or the height limitation imposed by the underlying zone that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ADUs subject to this subsection (E)(2)(d) may not exceed two stories. e. For purposes of this subsection (E)(2), height is measured from existing legal grade or the level of the lowest floor, whichever is lower, to the peak of the structure.

3. Fire Sprinklers.
a. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence.
b. The construction of an ADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

4. Rental Term. No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is shorter than thirty (30) days. This prohibition applies regardless of when the ADU or JADU was created.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 235 of 1338 ends

- 7 -

5. No Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU may be rented, but, except as otherwise provided in Government Code section 66341, no ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot).

6. Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site water-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last ten (10) years. Refer to the county of Napa’s environmental health department regulations.

7. Owner Occupancy.
a. An ADU that is created under this section on or after January 1, 2020 is not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement.
b. As required by state law, all JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy requirement of this subsection (E)(7)(b) does not apply if the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

8. Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the county recorder’s office and a copy filed with the community development director. The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the city and must provide that:
a. The JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling. b. The JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 236 of 1338 ends

- 8 -
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the community development director, providing evidence that the JADU has in fact been eliminated. The community development director may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the community development director’s determination consistent with other provisions of this code. If the JADU is not entirely physically removed, but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this code.
e. The deed restriction is enforceable by the community development director or his or her designee for the benefit of the city. Failure of the property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the city is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit.

9. Rent Reporting. In order to facilitate the city’s obligation to identify adequate sites for housing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65583.1 and 66330, the following requirements must be satisfied:
a. With the building permit application, the applicant must provide the community development director with an estimate of the projected annualized rent that will be charged for the ADU or JADU.
b. Within ninety (90) days after each January 1 following issuance of the building permit, the owner must report the actual rent charged for the ADU or JADU during the prior year. If the community development director does not receive the report within the ninety (90) day period, the owner is in violation of this Code, and the community development director may send the owner a notice of violation and allow the owner another thirty (30) days to submit the report. If the owner fails to submit the report within the thirty (30) day period, the community development director may enforce this provision in accordance with applicable law.

10. Building and Safety.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 237 of 1338 ends

- 9 -
a. Must Comply With Building Code. Subject to subsection (E)(10)(b) of this section, all ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code requirements.
b. No Change of Occupancy. Construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in California Building Code Section 310, unless the chief building official makes a written finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the ADU could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.

Nothing in this subsection (E)(10)(b) prevents the city from changing the occupancy code of a space that was uninhabitable space or that was only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use in accordance with this section.

F. Specific ADU Requirements. The following requirements apply only to ADUs that require an ADU permit under subsection (D)(2) of this section:

1. Maximum Size.
a. The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU subject to this subsection F is eight hundred fifty (850) square feet for a studio or one-bedroom unit and one thousand (1,000) square feet for a unit with two bedrooms. No more than two bedrooms are allowed.
b. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling.
c. Application of other development standards in this subsection F, such as FAR or lot coverage, might further limit the size of the ADU, but no application of the percent-based size limit in subsection (F)(1)(b) above or of an FAR, front setback, lot coverage limit, or open-space requirement may require the ADU to be less than eight hundred (800) square feet.

2. No ADU may cause the total gross floor area of the underlying zone to be exceeded, with the provision that all lots may have an ADU up to 800 square feet.

3. Lot Coverage. No ADU subject to this subsection F may cause the total lot coverage of the lot to exceed the maximum lot coverage for the zoning district in Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 238 of 1338 ends

- 10 -
which the ADU is proposed as established in Table 17.16.030(B), Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts, subject to subsection (F)(1)(c), above.

4. Setbacks.
a. ADUs that are subject to this subsection (F) must conform to 4-foot side and rear setbacks. ADUs that are subject to this subsection (F) must conform to the front setback as required by the underlying zoning district, subject to subsection (F)(1)(c), above.
b. No setback is required for an ADU that is subject to this subsection (F) if the ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing, nonconforming, enclosed structure.

5. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by subsection (C) of this section, is required for an ADU.

6. Parking.
a. Generally. One off-street parking space is required for each ADU. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking, as defined by subsection (C) of this section.
b. Exceptions. No parking under subsection (F)(7)(A) of this section is required in the following situations:
i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined by subsection (C) of this section.
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
iii. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure under subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section. iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
v. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 239 of 1338 ends

- 11 -
vi. When the permit application to create an ADU is submitted with an application to create a new single-family or new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the lot satisfies any other criteria listed in subsection (F)(7)(b)(i) through (v), above.
c. No Replacement. When a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 240 of 1338 ends

- 12 -

8. Historical Protections. An ADU that is on real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

G. Fees. The following requirements apply to all ADUs that are approved under subsections (D)(1) or (D)(2), above.

1. Impact Fees.
a. No impact fee is required for an ADU that is less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet in size. For purposes of this subsection (G)(1), “impact fee” means a “fee under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code § 66000(b)) and a fee under the Quimby Act (Gov. Code § 66477). “Impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service. b. Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit (e.g., the floor area of the ADU, divided by the floor area of the primary dwelling, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling).

2. Utility Fees.
a. If an ADU is constructed with a new single-family home, a separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility and payment of the normal connection fee and capacity charge for a new dwelling are required. For detached ADUs where there is a demonstrated adequate sewer capacity acceptable to the city engineer and cleaning/review of the sewer lines has been performed with closed circuit television technology, and an application has been submitted to the city engineer to substantiate capacity calculations, a separate connection for the ADU is not required.
b. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, converted ADUs on a single-family lot that are created under subsection (D)(1)(a) of this section Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 241 of 1338 ends

- 13 -
are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility, nor is a connection fee or capacity charge required. c. Except as described in subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section, all ADUs and JADUs that are not covered by subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section require a new, separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility for any utility that is provided by the city. All utilities that are not provided by the city are subject to the connection and fee requirements of the utility provider. i. The connection is subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the burden created by the ADU, based on either the floor area or the number of drainage-fixture units (DFU) values, as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system.
ii. The portion of the fee or charge that is charged by the city may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

H. Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

2. Unpermitted ADUs JADUs Constructed Before 2020.
a. Permit to Legalize. As required by state law, the city may not deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
i. The ADU or JADU violates applicable building standards; or ii. The ADU or JADU does not comply with the state ADU or JADU law or this section.
b. Exemptions.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 242 of 1338 ends

- 14 -
i. Notwithstanding subsection (H)(2)(a) of this section, the city may deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020, if the city makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to comply with the standards specified in Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.
ii. Subsection (H)(2)(a) of this section does not apply to a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 243 of 1338 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Planning
DATE: April 22, 2025
FROM: Jackie Oneal
SUBJECT: Introduction and waive first reading of an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2025-001)
to amend Chapter 17.22.030 of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code to comply with recent changes to State
law that impose new limits on local authority to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units (“JADUs”) and provide other clean ups to the Code language for the purpose of clarity and
consistency.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

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

1. Find that, pursuant to the California Public
Resources Code Section 21080.17, the ordinance
is statutorily exempt from CEQA which exempts the
adoption of an accessory dwelling unit ordinance to
implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the
California Government Code; and

2. Approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(ZOA 2025-001) to amend Section 17.22.030 of the
St. Helena Municipal Code regarding ADU
regulations.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To amend Chapter 17.22.030 of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code to comply with recent changes to State
law that impose new limits on local authority to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units (“JADUs”) and provide other clean ups to the Code language for the purpose of clarity and
consistency.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND:

Recent changes to State law (AB 2533 and SB 1211) impose new limits on local authority to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (“JADUs”). AB 2533 focuses on unpermitted ADUs and JADUs. The primary regulatory changes from AB 2533 include:

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 244 of 1338 ends

 Expands existing prohibitions to denial to include JADUs  Expands existing amnesty program for unpermitted ADUs and JADUS by changing the construction cut-off date from 1/1/2018 to 1/1/2020  Replaces the existing exception to denial with a requirement that local agencies find that correction is necessary to comply with habitability standards in the Health and Safety Code section 17920.3, Substandard Buildings (exception to denials were previously based on building code)
SB 1211 focuses on replacement parking requirements and the number of ADUs permitted on multifamily properties. The primary regulatory changes from SB 1211 include:
 Expands existing prohibitions to off-street parking requirements. No replacement parking requirement for uncovered parking spaces demolished or replaced with an ADU
 Adds new definition for “Livable Space” a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation  Increases the number of detached ADUs allowed on a lot with existing multifamily. Up to 8 detached ADUs or as many as there are primary dwelling units on the lot, whichever is less
In order to ensure the zoning code is not in conflict, on April 1, 2025, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to the zoning ordinance (ZOA 2025-001) and recommended the City Council approve the ordinance amendment (see Attachment 1).

The Planning Commission conveyed in their discussion that they do not see ADU’s as a solution for housing. This comment does not relate to the adequacy or inadequacy of the ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.22.030 provides development regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units. The proposed Ordinance will amend Section 17.22.030 of the City of St. Helena Municipal Code to address these key areas:
 Definitions
 Approvals
 General ADU and JADU Requirements
 Specific ADU Requirements
 Fees
 Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures
Adopting the proposed ordinance, prepared in collaboration with the City Attorney, ensures that the City’s ADU ordinance (Attachment 1) will be valid under AB 2533 and SB 1211.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 245 of 1338 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, which is California’s ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as defined by section 66313. Therefore, the adoption of the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that it implements state ADU law.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1. Ordinance - Accessory Dwelling Units - 04222025 Attachment 2. Clean Copy Ordinance - Accessory Dwelling Units - 04222025 Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 246 of 1338 ends

-1-
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS IN THE CITY, AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 21080.17 WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes cities to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that, among other things, amend various sections of the Government Code to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, in 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amend state ADU law;
WHEREAS, AB 2533 and SB 1211 take effect on January 1, 2025, and for the City’s ADU ordinance to remain valid, it must be amended to reflect the requirements of AB 2533 and SB 1211; and
WHEREAS, the City now proposes to amend a provision of its Zoning Code, Title 17, to reflect AB 2533’s and SB 1211’s changes to state law; and WHEREAS, staff and the City Attorney prepared the proposed ordinance, including any additional information and documents deemed necessary for the Planning Commission to take action; and
WHEREAS, the City gave public notice of the public hearing for the proposed ordinance by publishing in the Napa Valley Register; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at a Regular Meeting on April 1, 2025, on the proposed Ordinance during which public hearing the Planning Commission received comments from City staff and members of the general public and recommended approval to the City Council through Resolution No. _____; and
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 247 of 1338 ends

- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 22, 2025, 2025 on the proposed Ordinance, during which public hearing the City Council received comments from City staff and members of the general public; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the requested amendments to Section 17.22.030 of the St. Helena Municipal Code through approval of this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated as though set forth in this section.

Section 2. Amendment. Subsection E of Section 17.22.030 of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout):

17.22.030 Accessory dwelling units.

B. Effect of Conforming. An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this section will not be:

1. Deemed to be inconsistent with the city’s general plan and zoning designation for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

2. Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

3. Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

C. Definitions. As used in this section, terms are defined as follows:

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 248 of 1338 ends

- 3 -
“Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:

1. An efficiency unit, as defined by Section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code; and

2. A manufactured home, as defined by Section 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code.
“Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.
“Complete independent living facilities” means permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. All such facilities are to be separate and distinct from those included in and provided for any other dwelling unit or accessory structure on the parcel, except as otherwise specifically provided (e.g., utility connections may be shared as provided in subsection (G)(2) of this section; a junior accessory dwelling unit may share sanitation facilities). “Cooking facility” means a stove with at least two burners, a sink and permanent refrigeration.
“Efficiency kitchen” means a kitchen that includes each of the following:

1. A cooking facility with appliances.

2. A food preparation counter or counters that total at least fifteen (15) square feet in areaand storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the ADU.

3. Food storage cabinets that total at least thirty (30) square feet of shelf space.
“Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential unit that satisfies all of the following:

1. Is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size; Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 249 of 1338 ends

- 4 -

2. Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure.

An enclosed use within the residence, such as an attached garage, is considered to be part of and contained within the single-family structure;

3. Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure;

5. Includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in this subsection (C); and

6. Includes a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure. “Livable space” means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, cooking, eating, or sanitation. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. “Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
“Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.
“Primary residence” means a single-family dwelling or multifamily residential dwelling that either exists on or is proposed for a lot zoned for single-family or multifamily residential use.
“Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
“Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 250 of 1338 ends

- 5 -
“Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.

D. Approvals. The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this section:

1. Generally. Except as described in subsection (D)(2) of this section, an ADU is allowed with only a building permit if it complies with each of the requirements in subsections E, F, and G of this section.Building Permit Only. If an ADU or JADU complies with each of the general requirements in subsection (e) below, it is allowed with only a building permit in the following scenarios:

2. Partial Exemption for Certain ADUs and JADUs. An ADU or JADU in any of the four scenarios that are described in subsections (D)(2)(a) through (D)(2)(d) of this section is exempt from the design and development standards in subsection F of this section and is allowed with only a building permit if it complies with each of the requirements in subsections E and G of this section.
a. Converted on single-family lot: only one ADU as described in this subsection or and one JADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling on it, where the ADU or JADU:
i. Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; within the existing space of an existing single-family dwelling; or (in the case of an ADU only) within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to one hundred fifty (150) additional square feet. For purposes of this subsection, “within the existing space” includes a structure that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions. ii. Has exterior access that is independent of that for the single-family dwelling.
iii. Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
iv. The JADU complies with requirements of California Government Code Section 66333–6633965852.22.
b. Detached on single-family lot: one detached, new-construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling (in addition to any JADU that Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 251 of 1338 ends

- 6 -
might otherwise be established on the lot under subsection (D)(1)(a) (D)(2)(a) of this section), if the detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
i. The side and rear yard setbacks are at least four feet. ii. The total floor area is eight hundred (800) square feet or smaller. iii. The peak height above grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in subsection (E)(2) (E)(9) of this section.
c. Converted on multifamily lot: multiple One or more ADUs within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU complies with state building standards for dwellings. At Under this subsection (D)(1)(c), at least one converted ADU under this subsection is allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling, up to a quantity equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing multifamily dwelling units.
d. Detached on multifamily lot: no more than two detached ADUs on a lot that haswith a proposed multifamily dwelling, or up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, if each detached ADU satisfies all of the following limitations:
i. The side and rear yard setbacks are at least four feet. If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side yard setback of less than four feet, the city will not require any modification to the multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the ADU.
ii. The peak height above grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in subsection (E)(2) (E)(9) of this section.
iii. If the lot has an existing multifamily dwelling, the quantity of detached ADUs does not exceed the number of primary dwelling units on the lot.

2.3. Process and Timing.
a. An application for an ADU or JADU is considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 252 of 1338 ends

- 7 -
b. The city must approve or deny an application to create an ADU or JADU within sixty (60) days from the date that the city receives a completed application. If the city has not approved or denied the completed application within sixty (60) days, the application is deemed approved unless either:
i. The applicant requests a delay, in which case the sixty (60) day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay; or ii. In the case of a JADU, when theWhen an application to create a junior accessory dwelling unitan ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the city may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or JADU until the city acts on the permit application to create the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU will still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. c. If the city denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the city must provide the applicant with comments that include, among other things, a list of all the defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant within the sixty (60) day time period established by subsection (D)(3)(b) of this section.
d. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU is reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

E. General ADU and JADU Requirements. The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs:

1. Zoning.
a. An ADU subject only to a building permit under subsection (D)(1) above may be created on a lot in a residential or mixed-use zone. b. An ADU permitted under subsection (D)(2) above or JADU may be created on any a lot that is zoned to allow single-family dwelling residential use or multifamily dwelling residential use (i.e., residential, mixed-use, and agriculturally zoned parcels).

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 253 of 1338 ends

- 8 -
c. In accordance with Government Code section 66333(a), a JADU may only be created on a lot zoned for single-family residences.

23. Fire Sprinklers.
a. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence.
b. The construction of an ADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 254 of 1338 ends

- 9 -

34. Rental Term. No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is shorter than thirty (30) days. This prohibition applies regardless of when the ADU or JADU was created.

45. No Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU may be rented, but, except as otherwise provided in Government Code section 66341, no ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the primary residencelot and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot).

56. Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site water-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last ten (10) years. Refer to the county of Napa’s environmental health department regulations.

67. Owner Occupancy.
a. An ADU that is created under this section on or after January 1, 2020, but before January 1, 2025, isare not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement. b. Unless applicable law requires otherwise, all ADUs that are created on or after January 1, 2025, are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. cb. As required by state law, all JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy requirement of this subsection (E)(7)(b) does not apply if the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

78. Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU orcertificate of occupancy for a JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the county recorder’s office and a copy filed with the community development director. The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the city and must provide that:

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 255 of 1338 ends

- 10 -
a. The ADU or JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling. b. The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the community development director, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The community development director may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the community development director’s determination consistent with other provisions of this code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed, but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this code.
e. The deed restriction is enforceable by the community development director or his or her designee for the benefit of the city. Failure of the property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the city is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit.

89. Income Rent Reporting. In order to facilitate the city’s obligation to identify adequate sites for housing in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65583.1 and 6633065852.2, the following requirements must be satisfied:
a. With the building permit application, the applicant must provide the community development director with an estimate of the projected annualized rent that will be charged for the ADU or JADU.
b. Within ninety (90) days after each yearly anniversary of theJanuary 1 following issuance of the building permit, the owner must report the actual rent Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 256 of 1338 ends

- 11 -
charged for the ADU or JADU during the prior year. If the community development director does not receive the report within the ninety (90) day period, the owner is in violation of this Code, and the community development director may send the owner a notice of violation and allow the owner another thirty (30) days to submit the report. If the owner fails to submit the report within the thirty (30) day period, the community development director may enforce this provision in accordance with applicable law.

9. Height.
a. Except as otherwise provided by subsections (E)(9)(b), (E)(9)(c), and (E)(9)(d) of this section, a detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multifamily dwelling unit may not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height.
b. A detached ADU may be up to eighteen (18) feet in height if it is created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multifamily dwelling unit that is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155, and the ADU may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of twenty (20) feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. c. A detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling that has more than one story above grade may not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.
d. An ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height or the height limitation imposed by the underlying zoning district that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ADUs subject to this subsection (E)(9)(d) may not exceed two stories.
e. For purposes of this subsection (E)(9), height is measured above existing legal grade to the peak of the structure.

10. Building and Safety.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 257 of 1338 ends

- 12 -
a. Must Comply With Building Code. Subject to subsection (E)(10)(b) of this section, all ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code requirements.
b. No Change of Occupancy. Construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in California Building Code Section 310, unless the chief building official makes a written finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the ADU could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.

F. Specific ADU Requirements. The following requirements apply only to ADUs that are approvedrequire an ADU permit under subsection (D)(1) (D)(2) of this section:

1. Maximum Size.
a. The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU subject to this subsection F is eight hundred fifty (850) square feet for a studio or one-bedroom unit and one thousand (1,000) square feet for a unit with two bedrooms. No more than two bedrooms are allowed.
b. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling.
c. Application of other development standards in this subsection F, such as FAR or lot coverage, might further limit the size of the ADU, but no application of FAR, lot coveragethe percent-based size limit in subsection (F)(1)(b) above or of an FAR, front setback, lot coverage limit, or open-space requirements may require the ADU to be less than eight hundred (800) square feet.

2. No ADU may cause the total gross floor area of the underlying zone to be exceeded, with the provision that all lots may have an ADU up to 800 square feet.

23. Lot Coverage. No ADU subject to this subsection F may cause the total lot coverage of the lot to exceed the maximum lot coverage for the zoning district in Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 258 of 1338 ends

- 13 -
which the ADU is proposed as established in Table 17.16.030(B), Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts, subject to subsection (F)(1)(c), above.

45. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by subsection (C) of this section, is required for an ADU.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 259 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 260 of 1338 ends

- 15 -

8. Historical Protections. An ADU that is on real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

G. Fees. The following requirements apply to all ADUs that are approved under subsections (D)(1) or (D)(2), above.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 261 of 1338 ends

IH. Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

Page 262 of 1338 ends

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced within thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption by the City Council at a Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 263 of 1338 ends

- 18 -
second reading and shall be posted and published in accordance with the California Government Code.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St.

Helena City Council on the _____day of _____ 2025 and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:__________________________ APPROVED:_____________________ Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst Paul Dohring, Mayor
Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 264 of 1338 ends

-1-

17.22.030 Accessory dwelling units.

B. Effect of Conforming. An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this section will not be:

1. Deemed to be inconsistent with the city’s general plan and zoning designation for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

2. Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

3. Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.

1. An efficiency unit, as defined by Section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code; and

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 265 of 1338 ends

1. A cooking facility with appliances.

1. Is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size;

2. Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure.

An enclosed use within the residence, such as an attached garage, is considered to be part of and contained within the single-family structure;

3. Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure;

5. Includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in this subsection (C); and

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 266 of 1338 ends

D. Approvals. The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this section:

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 267 of 1338 ends

2. Process and Timing.
a. An application for an ADU or JADU is considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 268 of 1338 ends

E. General ADU and JADU Requirements. The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs:

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 269 of 1338 ends

- 6 -

4. Rental Term. No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is shorter than thirty (30) days. This prohibition applies regardless of when the ADU or JADU was created.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 270 of 1338 ends

- 7 -

7. Owner Occupancy.
a. An ADU that is created under this section on or after January 1, 2020are not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement.
b. As required by state law, all JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy requirement of this subsection (E)(7)(b) does not apply if the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 271 of 1338 ends

10. Building and Safety.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 272 of 1338 ends

F. Specific ADU Requirements. The following requirements apply only to ADUs that require an ADU permit under subsection (D)(2) of this section:

2. No ADU may cause the total gross floor area of the underlying zone to be exceeded, with the provision that all lots may have an ADU up to 800 square feet.

3. Lot Coverage. No ADU subject to this subsection F may cause the total lot coverage of the lot to exceed the maximum lot coverage for the zoning district in Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 273 of 1338 ends

- 10 -
which the ADU is proposed as established in Table 17.16.030(B), Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts, subject to subsection (F)(1)(c), above.

5. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by subsection (C) of this section, is required for an ADU.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 274 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 275 of 1338 ends

- 12 -

8. Historical Protections. An ADU that is on real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

G. Fees. The following requirements apply to all ADUs that are approved under subsections (D)(1) or (D)(2), above.

Page 276 of 1338 ends

H. Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 277 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #10.6.

Page 278 of 1338 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Administration/Planning
DATE: May 13, 2025
FROM: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Introduction and waiver of the first reading of an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2025-002)
to amend Table 17.16.030B and Chapter

17.34.050(A)(2)(f) of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding exempting uncovered balconies, porches,
decks and other structures from gross floor area.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

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

1. Find that pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section
15061(b)(3) the project is Exempt; and

2. Approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(ZOA 2025-002) to amend Table 17.16.030B and
Chapter 17.34.050(A)(2)(f) of Title 17 of the St.

Helena Municipal Code.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To amend the St. Helena Municipal Code zoning
ordinance Table 17.16.030B and Chapter

17.34.050(A)(2)(f) in order to exempt uncovered balconies, porches, decks and other structures from gross floor area.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this zoning ordinance amendment.

BACKGROUND:

In 2020, the City of St. Helena initiated a General Plan implementation action and began a three-year process of completing a comprehensive update to the zoning code.

The process included the formation of a zoning code subcommittee, numerous public meetings and discussions prior to the code adoption by the City Council on October 23, 2023. During the drafting of the updated development standards, there was direction received from residents and subcommittee members that the residential development standards were too generous and allowing for homes to develop to maximum floor area ratio, which in many cases was out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the zoning code consultant recommended deleting the floor area ratio standards in the code and instead utilizing a maximum building gross floor area for single family based on a range of lot sizes which slightly reduced allowable floor area in residential districts.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 279 of 1338 ends

A few weeks following the formal code adoption and while staff was preparing to send the final code changes to the code publisher, staff and the code consultant noticed that there was an inconsistency between how the code directs how to measure gross floor area (SHMC Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b)) and subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) of Section 17.16.030 which notes that a balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides is exempt from gross floor area. The consultant advised that adding the word "uncovered" would help clarify that this gross floor area exemption applies only to uncovered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that are unenclosed on at least 3 sides. The change to subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) was viewed by staff as consistent with the other language in the code regarding balconies, porches, decks and similar structures, and that the edit that would provide additional clarity for users of the code and internal consistency to the document. This belief was based on Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b) which explains in determining floor area calculation "in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection [shall be included in the floor area calculation]."
To ensure the interpretation was consistent throughout 17.34.050, staff also included an edit to 17.34.050(2)(f), that noted uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks were included in the provisions of "Excluded from Floor Area". It is important to also clarify that semi open patio coverings such as pergolas are considered "uncovered" and do not count towards gross floor area.

This is also consistent with how the Zoning Code provides direction on measuring lot coverage (SHMC 17.34.060(A)) which makes it clear that "unroofed" and "uncovered" decks, patios, porches and landings and balconies are excluded from the calculation of lot coverage (Attachment 2).

As additional background, the pre-2023 code included a definition of "floor area" in SHMC 17.04.160 (Attachment 3) which is very similar to the current code

17.34.050(1)(b). Notably, both state that where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection.

Further it is important to clarify that the pre-2023 code had a provision in

17.40.070(C)(4) (Attachment 5) that exempted a balcony, porch, deck or other structure where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed from the F.A.R. provisions.

When the new code was published online in 2024, it included the staff edits noted above post the adoption hearing which can also be viewed in the attached redline ordinance which is the subject of this zoning ordinance amendment (Attachment 1).

In the fall of 2024, an applicant processing a Design Review application, Mr. Hale, noticed this change from the October 2023 adopted code. The City subsequently received a letter from an attorney representing Mr. Hale questioning the inclusion of these changes in the code and asking that they be removed from the code if they were Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 280 of 1338 ends

inadvertently included (Attachment 5). In response, the City Attorney sent a letter to Mr.

Hale's attorney (Attachment 6) on February 3, 2025, explaining that staff viewed these changes as a clerical level edit for clarification purposes but that the City would remove the changes from the code and bring the edits to the Planning Commission and Council for formal consideration.

On March 3, 2025, the City Attorney confirmed the staff edits made to the code and directed the code publisher to reverse the changes that week which is now reflected in the republished code. The current applicable sections of the zoning code can be found in the weblinks below:

Footnote 5 in Table 17.16.030B
https://sthelena.municipal.codes/Code/17.16.030
Chapter 17.34.050 (A)(2)(f)
https://sthelena.municipal.codes/Code/17.34.050
On April 15, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended approval (4-0) of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment which is now under consideration by the City Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on desiring to maintain the intent of the October 2023 zoning code update which did reduce overall residential building gross floor area.

To assist the reader in understanding some of the terms of calculating development area, visual graphics that define floor area ratio and lot coverage are included as Attachments 8 and 9 respectively.

DISCUSSION:

Staff finds that the proposed amendments help bring internal consistency to the code and assist the user in understanding the intent of 17.34.050(A)(1), Areas included in Floor Area Calculation. The Planning Commission recommended the proposed ordinance amendments be adopted.

However, if the City Council desires not to approve the changes to the code and allow covered porches and balconies to be exempt from gross floor area, staff suggests that direction be provided to instead delete SHMC 17.34.050(1)(b) which currently provides guidance that where no walls exist, areas covered by the roof are included in floor area calculation. This will provide clarity in the current code.

Issues:

Outdoor building elements such as porches and patios with roofs can result in more overall massing.

Two public speakers at the April 15th Planning Commission meeting were not in favor of the proposed ordinance change as they believed making a property owner choose between a larger covered outdoor area and an interior expansion was too limiting. The Planning Commission noted in the April 15, 2025 meeting that they would wholistically Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 281 of 1338 ends

review potential areas for future zoning ordinance amendments in a study session later this year as part of a staff update on implementation of the new zoning code.

Correspondence:

Public comment has been received previously from Mr. Hale which is included in Attachment 7. The two public comments (Mr. and Mrs. Hale) posted to the April 15, 2025 Planning Commission agenda can be viewed at agenda weblink below. https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=5390 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This ordinance is exempt from review under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1-Ordinance - Covered porches and floor area Attachment 2-SHMC Measuring Lot Coverage
Attachment 3-Pre-October 23, 2023 zoning code definition of floor area Attachment 4-Pre-October 23, 2023 zoning code
Attachment 5-K. Philippakis Letter to CDD re 17.16.030 (12-06-2024) Attachment 6-Letter to K Philippakis re Zoning Code-c1-c1 Attachment 7. Public Comment_Hale 2-18-2025
Attachment 8 -Measuring Floor Area Graphic
Attachment 9 Lot Coverage Graphic
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 282 of 1338 ends

ORDINANCE NO._____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AMENDING TABLE 17.16.030B OF CHAPTER 17.16 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) AND AMENDING CHAPTER 17.34.050 A.2 (f) OF TITLE 17 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING EXEMPTING

UNCOVERED BALCONIES, PORCHES AND DECKS FROM GROSS FLOOR AREA WHEREAS, Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) includes development standards and also rules of measurement for calculating gross floor area; and
WHEREAS, SHMC section 17.34.050 (A)(1)(b) establishes that in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof shall be included in the floor area calculation; and
WHEREAS, End Note 5(b)(iv) of SHMC Table 17.16.030B (Residential Development Standards) currently states balconies, porches and decks are exempt from gross floor area; and
WHEREAS, Adding “uncovered” to End Note 5(b)(iv) is necessary to clarify an “uncovered” balcony, porch, deck or other structure unenclosed on at least 3 sides is exempt from gross floor area; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend SHMC Table 17.16.030 B, End Note 5(b)(iv) and section 17.34.050A.2 (f) to ensure internal code consistency with what building elements are exempted from including in the calculation of residential gross floor area as authorized by SHMC section 17.34.050 (A)(1)(b); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at a Regular Meeting on April 15, 2025, on the proposed Ordinance during which public hearing the Planning Commission received comments from City staff and members of the general public and recommended approval to the City Council through Resolution No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 13, 2025 on the proposed Ordinance, during which public hearing the City Council received comments from City staff and members of the general public; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the requested amendments to Table 17.16.030B End Note 5(b)(iv) of Chapter 17.16 (Development StandardsResidential Districts) and amending Chapter 17.34.050 A.2 (f) of the St. Helena Municipal Code through approval of this Ordinance.
83578.00012\42255084.1
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 283 of 1338 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated as though set forth in this section.

Section 2. Amendment. Please see Exhibit A1 attached to this ordinance which includes Table 17.16.030B, End Note 5(b)(iv) and SHMC Chapter 17.34.050 A.2 (f) of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout).

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St.

Helena City Council on the 13th day of May, 2025, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst Paul Dohring, Mayor
83578.00012\42255084.1
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 284 of 1338 ends

Exhibit A1

17.16.030 Development Standards
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts establishes the development standards for the Residential Zoning Districts. The numbers in the figure below to corresponding regulations in the table.

Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Density 1 du/ac 1 2 1 to 5 du/ac 2 5.1 to 16 du/ac 16.1-28 du/ac Lot Size
Min. Lot Area 1.0 ac 7,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft 7,000 sq ft 3 3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
Min. Lot Width 70 ft 70 ft 45 ft 45 ft
32 ft for small lot
development
32 ft for small
lot development
❶
Lot widths ≤45 ft:

Max. 35%
Lot widths >45 ft:

Max. 40%
Max. Lot Coverage
(includes accessory
structures)
35% 35%
55% for new
small lot
development
55%
None
Max. Primary Building
Footprint (excludes
accessory structures)
None Refer to Table

17.16.030.C
None
1,400 sq ft for
detached small
lot detached
❷
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 285 of 1338 ends

Residential Zoning Districts 17.16.030
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Refer to Table

17.16.030.C for
lots <1 acre Max. Building Gross
Floor Area (all floors)
5 Max. 6,069 sq ft
for lots ≥1 ac in
area
Refer to Table

17.16.030.C
Refer to End
Note 4 None
Max. Building Height
Principal Structure 30 ft 30 ft/2 stories 30 ft/2 stories 42 ft/3 stories Ground floor
max. ceiling
height 15 ft
30 ft/2 stories
for small lot
development
Accessory Structure 6 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft
Setbacks
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft
15 ft; 25 ft for
3rd floor and
above
Min. Front Setback
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
12 feet for small
lot development
10 ft for small
lot development
❸
Min. Garage or
Carport Setback
from Building
Façade
None None 5 ft None ❹
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
15 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
Min. Street Side
Setback 30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
15 ft ❺
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 286 of 1338 ends

17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
10 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
10 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
5 ft setback
applied with the
combined
setback below
Combined
interior side
setbacks: 15 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
Min. Interior Side
Setback, ground
floor 15 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
15 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height Combined
interior side
setbacks: 20 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
10 ft ❻
5 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
5 ft for structures
Min. ≤25 ft in heightInterior Side
Setback, upper
floors
9 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
9 ft for structures
>25 ft in height
9 ft when
adjacent to an LR
or MR district
None ❻
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
Min. Rear Setback
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
10 ft ❼
Min. Setback from Min. 50 ft from top of bank of Napa River Abutting Waterway Min. 20 ft from top of bank of all other waterways ❽
Landscaping and Open Space
Private Ground
Floor Open Space
for Multi-Family
Development
n/a n/a Min. 80 sq ft/unit Min. 60 sq
ft/unit
Min. Dimension for
Private Open Space
for Multi-Family
Development
n/a n/a 6 ft 6 ft
Lot widths ≤45 ft:

Min. 150 sq ft/lot
Common Usable
Open Space for
Multi-Family
Development
n/a n/a
Lot widths >45 ft:

Min. 200 sq ft/lot
Min. 150 sq
ft/lot ❾
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 287 of 1338 ends

Residential Zoning Districts 17.16.030
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Min. 15 ft 15 ft Dimension for
Common Usable
Open Space
n/a n/a 20 ft for small lot
development
20 ft for small
lot development
❿
Max. Paved/
Hardscaped Area
25% of a front
setback area
25% of a front
setback area
30% of a front
setback area
30% of a front
setback area
35% of lot area 35% of lot area
Min. Landscaped
Area 7 25% for small lot
development
25% for small lot
development
Min. 25% of lot
area
Min. 25% of lot
area
Required Buffer
Abutting
Agricultural Use
n/a
A landscaped buffer min. 15 ft width with street trees at 30 ft on center
End Notes:
1 Greater residential densities are allowed under state law if a site meets the standards for two-unit development as described in Chapter 17.31, Two-Unit Projects. 2 Densities existing as of January 1, 2023, are permitted to remain. 3 Parcels created by lot line adjustments may be less than 1 acre provided the number of parcels does not increase and that no lots are less than 7,000 square feet. 4 Max. building gross floor area (all floors) for single-family residences including accessory structures is as follows:

Lots < 6,000 sf: 1,995 sf
Lots 6,000 – 9,999 sf: 2,945 sf
Lots 10,000 – 14,999 sf: 3,705 sf
Lots 15,000 – 19,999 sf: 3,971 sf
Lots ≥ 20,000 sf: 4,000 sf
5 The following additional standards apply for existing development and new construction in the LR-1A, LR, MR, and HR zoning districts:
a. The max. building gross floor area may be increased by 400 sf for construction of an ADU. b. The following buildings and areas are exempt from max. building gross floor area:
i. One covered parking space with a max. floor area of 200 sf; ii. Non-habitable accessory buildings with a max. floor area of 120 sf; iii. A non-habitable basement or attic; and
iv. An uncovered balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides. 6 Additional standards for accessory buildings are described in Section 17.22.020, Accessory Uses. 7 Landscaped setback and buffer areas count toward this requirement.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 288 of 1338 ends

Rules of Measurement 17.34.040

17.34.050 Measuring Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio
Areas included in floor area measurement. The floor area is measured as the sum of the gross horizontal floor areas of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings. Areas included and excluded from floor area are listed below.

1. Included in Floor Area Calculation.
a. All habitable space (as defined in the Building Code) that is below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of party walls separating such buildings or portions thereof. b. In cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection. c. Interior walkways or corridors, interior courtyards, walkways, paseos, or corridors covered by a roof or skylight.
d. All floors of enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts.

2. Excluded from Floor Area.
a. Mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed two percent of the building's gross floor area.
b. Bay windows or other architectural projections where the vertical distance between the lowest surface of the projection and the finished floor is 30 inches or greater.
c. Any areas that satisfy the landscape and open space base zone requirements. d. In the case of a multi-story building that has covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts, the horizontal area of such features shall be counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent.
e. In non-residential buildings, areas used for off-street parking spaces or loading spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles that are located below the finish grade of the property.
f. Arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas that are located at or near street level and are accessible to the general public but are not designed or used as sales, display, storage, service, or production areas, as well as uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 289 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 290 of 1338 ends

g. Outside areas used for sales and/or display (e.g., plant nurseries, building materials, auto sales, wine production, etc.).
h. A building or structure consisting of nonusable floor space such as a garage, carport, or storage shed.
i. Unfinished attics, crawlspaces, and basements shall not be included unless converted and finished as usable floor space.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 291 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 292 of 1338 ends

Attachment 2 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 293 of 1338 ends

Attachment 3 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 294 of 1338 ends

Attachment 4 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 295 of 1338 ends

KATHERINE PHILIPPAKIS
[email protected]
D 707.967.4154
December 6, 2024
Via E-Mail
Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena
1088 College Ave
St. Helena, CA 94574
Email: [email protected]
Re: Section 17.16.030, St. Helena City Code
Dear Ms. DeRosa:

Our office represents Mr. Daniel Hale, who recently filed an application relating to the remodeling of a single-family residence for one of his clients. During the course of the review for that project, his attention was called to End Note 5(iv) of Section 17.16.030 of the St. Helena City Code. In the codified version of the ordinance, as available online, the note provides that the following are exempt from floor-area ratio requirements:
iv. an uncovered balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.

However, when reviewing the redline draft of the ordinance and related materials that were presented to the City Council for adoption at its October 10 and October 24, 2023 meetings, we noted that the draft ordinance did not contain the word “uncovered.” Specifically, the draft ordinance that was before the Council provided as follows:
iv. a balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.

As I’m sure you can appreciate, the addition of the word “uncovered” to the statute in question makes a significant difference in its meaning. We have always been under the impression that patios and the like were exempt from the floor area ratio unless they were enclosed. The addition of the word “uncovered” means that most of the patios and porches in St.

Helena (which are covered) will be counted toward the floor area ratio, making many of the existing homes nonconforming, and preventing many other homes from increasing their Attachment 5 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 296 of 1338 ends

Maya DeRosa
December 6, 2024

Page 2 ends

footprint. We are at a loss to understand where and when the change occurred, as the Minutes from both meetings do not reflect any changes to the draft ordinance that was before the Council.

By this letter, we respectfully request copies of the legislative history for the ordinance in question, including the materials relating to the first and second readings of the revised ordinance containing the word “uncovered,” along with any Minutes referencing the reasons for the change. If the word was inadvertently added to the City Code, as we suspect may have happened, we respectfully request that it be removed immediately.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,
Katherine Philippakis
CC:

Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Anil Comelo, City Manager
Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 297 of 1338 ends

83578.00008\43219654.1
Ethan J. Walsh
Partner
(916) 551-2825
[email protected]
Best Best & Krieger LLP | 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500, Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 325-4000 | Fax: (916) 325-4010 | bbklaw.com February 3, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Katherine Philippakis
Farella Braun & Martell
One Bush Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Re: Inquiry re Section 17.16.030 St. Helena Municipal Code Dear Ms. Philippakis:

As you know, Best Best & Krieger LLP serves as City Attorney for the City of St. Helena, and the City has asked that I respond to your letter to Community Development Director Maya DeRosa on behalf of your client Dan Hale dated December 6, 2024 regarding End Note 5(b)(iv) of Section 17.16.030 of the St. Helena Municipal Code. End Note 5(b) of Section 17.16.030 provides that certain buildings and areas are exempt from the calculation of gross floor area, for purposes of determining compliance with the maximum building gross floor area as provided in the City’s Zoning Code. We do acknowledge that while the version of the Municipal Code published online includes the word “uncovered” in subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b), that word was not included in the redline version of the Zoning Code adopted by City Council in October 2024.

City staff made this edit to End Note 5(b) of Section 17.16.030 as a cleanup of the Code to clarify that this gross floor area exemption applies only to uncovered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that is unenclosed on at least 3 sides. This is consistent with the remainder of the updated Zoning Code, which provides in Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b), which explains that in determining the floor area calculation, “[i]n cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection [shall be included in the floor area calculation].” This is also in keeping with guidance provided in the Zoning Code for measuring lot coverage, which makes clear that “unroofed” and “uncovered” decks, patios, porches, landings and balconies are excluded in the calculation of lot coverage. (See SHMC §17.34.060(A).) Staff viewed this as a clerical edit that would provide additional clarity for users of the code and internal consistency to the document. However, after discussion with our office, the City has decided it is more appropriate to remove the word “uncovered” from End Note 5(b)(iv) the Zoning Code, and bring forward this edit forward for formal consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date.

Attachment 6 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 298 of 1338 ends

83578.00008\43219654.1
Katherine Philippakis
February 3, 2025

Page 2 ends

Best Best & Krieger LLP
Thank you for your letter, and I hope this provides clarification. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Ethan J. Walsh
of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
EJW:ew
cc: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 299 of 1338 ends

From: Daniel Hale
To: Public Comment; Erika Opp
Subject: [External] public comment for 18 FEB Planning Commission and 25 Feb City Council meetings please.

Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 11:39:01 AM
Attachments: letter plea 15 FEB 2025 (dragged).pdf
letter plea 15 FEB 2025 (dragged) 2.pdf
rough time line outline (dragged).pdf
rough time line outline (dragged) 2.pdf
Erika,
I would like to submit the following public comments to be posted on agenda for both the 18 Feb 2025 Planning Commission and 25 Feb 2025 City Council meetings.

Please call text or email with any questions.

Thank you,
Daniel Hale
PO Box 644
Saint Helena, CA 94574
707.227.4322
Attachment 7 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 300 of 1338 ends

Citizens of St Helena, St Helena City Council, St Helena Planning Commission, While working on a project I discovered that a critical section of Municipal Code had been altered after its approval by City Council in Oct 2023. It was not published until 1 Oct 2024. A timeline of events has been attached. I asked members of city staff how that occurred. Instead of answering the question the choice was made by the Planning Director and City Manager to coordinate a fabricated smear campaign. It is clear that effort was undertaken to sidestep the serious obligation to answer the reasonable question that pointed to improper activities that city management chose to embark upon. To be most clear, I can assure you the result of that smear has been personally and professionally excruciating. However, it will not succeed in eliminating the city’s responsibility or accountability.

It is in NO WAY what I believe my city should accept as a proper way for city management to conduct business. However, I believe this case illustrates a critical flaw in both the culture and understanding of the roles of city management, but also inescapably the city council in their role of taking the responsibility to oversee, shape and correct (when needed) actions and activities undertaken by city management. I believe these habitual conducts and culture are holding this city back. I believe these are CORRECTABLE conditions. I have no doubt those can be challenging tasks. I also have no doubt that WE as a city will not thrive until WE undertake that required effort.

I asked this very simple question on 17 October 2024 in the course of normal business:
“Can you clarify and illustrate how and when that material change (the word “uncovered”) was inserted AFTER code was legally approved?”
To be most concise here is the crux of this issue:

From approved code draft (approved by City Council first and second reading See 10 Oct 2023 and 24 Oct 2023 CC meeting minutes) : See section 5. iv. “A balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides” From now published Municipal Code (published 1 Oct 2024): See section 5.iv. “An uncovered balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides” (note critical and MATERIAL Insertion of the word “UNCOVERED”. This alteration has far reaching consequences. I will welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate at an appropriate future agenda item when it comes to pass in proper course.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 301 of 1338 ends

I have no power. I am calling upon and pleading to my city council to appropriately intervene. I am calling upon the citizens of St Helena to express to their representatives that they believe that altering and replacing the legally approved resolution behind closed doors and without correct and legal notice and public discussion is an activity that matters to them. Reckless vendettas and retributions, spreading false accusations and making false police reports by city management designed to intimidate a citizen going about his trade is not the way I believe the city of St Helena should be run. I am alerting St Helena citizens that now published (altered) code now counts porches toward their allowed square footage. I am alerting them that now published (altered) code has thrown many of their homes into non conformance and their assumed ability to expand has been sneakily curtailed without consent or consideration. I am calling on the city manager and the planning director to reverse their vendetta, take responsibility for the deeds they have chosen to undertake, and do what they should to correct them. I am putting light on the fact that we (as citizens) are paying for the city attorney who is being directed by staff to produce specious dodges instead of putting the energy and resources into correcting a critical error in judgement and conduct.

I know I am not the only one some version of this game plan has been applied. But in what manner is it serving our city?…And who is next? What is the true cost? Who asks the next awkward question? What retribution awaits them? Enough is enough.

Meanwhile my clients project and my livelihood is being held hostage. PLEASE do something… Sincerely,
Daniel Hale 1851 Madrona Avenue St Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 302 of 1338 ends

Timeline/outline events relating to 1443 Madrona project 4 prelim meetings with Planner Aaron Hecock up to the beginning of September 2024 Had worked through any issues and all seemed in conformance…All set to submit/ no issues 9 Sept 2024 Planner Hecock leaves City employment just as Design Review package is submitted (9 Sept) pay fee of $7100 (expected to cover through Planning Commission hearing and if not used up will receive refund) All goes on hold waiting for interim planner
Check in with Xinia Gamero on expectation to relay to client when project may get back in the queue and on PC calendar. I meet Planner Galbraith in office and I “welcome to the team and look forward to working with you.” 2 Oct 2024 Meet with Planner Galbraith
Tour project site and meet in office at City Hall to present and discuss plan Wait for comments/issues letter
11 Oct 2024 The Issues letter from Galbraith (11 Oct 2024) presents alternate interpretation to Planner Hecock on several material points: building setbacks/heights garage connected/definition of cupola and also make discovery of improperly (after code approval) “inserted” language in relation to porches (“uncovered” porches) Changed interpretations and applications of code will require revision of plans. 17 October 2024, I Meet with planner Galbraith to walk through areas of concern in issues letter. He and I were the only ones present in this meeting.
17 Oct 2024 request detail on anatomy of code change(s) from both planner Galbraith and cc’d Maya DeRosa 18 October 2024 Meet again with planner Galbraith on Friday, 18 October 2024.

I called Planner Galbraith (as call logs demonstrate) requested to come by and show him 3 alt approaches before I offer solution to clients after city has already assured conformance. He invites me to City Hall and he assures me all 3 are viable options. He also volunteered that he had checked the record and that “yes code was in fact changed but said that M DeRosa assured him that she would answer that “query”…. That has yet to occur I see M DeRosa at the COSH booth at SH Harvest festival and I pleasantly reiterate to M DeRosa the importance to please follow up on clarity on code change question. Her response was “I am not here to talk shop” (M. DeRosa) (while in COSH booth). City manager Comelo pulls M DeRosa to back of tent and they whisper…I leave the area. 22 Oct 2024 I find out that Planner Galbraith has quit (I believe on Tuesday 22 Oct 2024) 22 Oct 2024 I receive telephone call from Officer Randal Stephenson inquiring about an “incident” on the previous Thursday. I say “what incident”….. he comes to my house and informs me a report has been made that I had threatened Planner Galbraith. I inform him that is completely false and and that it did not happen I threatened no person and also that I met with Planner Galbraith the next day (18 Oct 2024) when he invited me to City hall offices where we had another cordial meeting to talk about the project. Officer Stephenson says…”well If I thought it was real I would have contacted you right after I got the report”. He was also surprised to hear that I had met again with Galbraith and he said “So clearly he wasn’t feeling threatened.” There was absolutely no evidence that he felt threatened in our meeting. and there was no one else present at any of our meetings. Officer Stephenson also clarified that he had not yet spoken to Planner Galbraith and that he was not the one who had filed the complaint.

He would not say who did.
23 Oct 2024 some combination of M DeRosa and Anil Comelo send out false and slanderous letter to members of St Helena City Council and also the city attorney in an attempt to create a fabricated narrative and deflect from City obligation to answer a legitimately asked and critical code change question and also effectively nullify my ability to conduct business in SH. In what jurisdiction is it appropriate procedure or due process to send such a letter Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 303 of 1338 ends

personally attacking the character of a private citizen after Police have determined the “incident”: did not occur? I asked for and retained a copy of the police report and it is blank. I have not been able to get any notes on the reported “incident” and have seen no evidence that Planner Galbraith expressed that I had threatened him. None of our interactions nor the record reflect any hostility or disrespect.

Project again stalls awaiting third assignment to a planner. 6 Dec 2024 As I continue to have no answer(and cannot operate my legal trade) to question on changed code language. Having received no answer I retain Attorney Farella Braun and Martel (make no mistake at certain cost) to ask Code language change question on my behalf
Again receive no response from City (updated see now 3 Feb 2025 letter from City Atty) 10 Dec 2024 Project assigned to Planner Alchin with M Group in Santa Rosa Wait for a second issues letter from planner Alchin.
12 Dec 2024 We schedule and have a zoom meeting 12 Dec 2024 and go over a (now 3rd) interpretation/application of code. Changed interpretations and applications of code will require revision of plans. 8 Jan 2025 Follow up meeting have recalibrated plan and she has confirmed (verbally) we are now in complete conformance but project is again stalled as city is demanding I must now pay additional fees $8000 to cover extra required submissions. These extra submissions are due to the City changing planners and with each planner interpretation and application of the code to include the improper changing of code from the approved draft document and have cost me and my client much in both time and resources.

I have informed Planner Alchin and M DeRosa of my concerns of the appropriateness of requiring additional fees and have asked to discuss my concerns but have received no response. 3 Feb 2025 receive response from City Atty confirming that code language was improperly changed sometime between code draft 10 Oct 2023/24 Oct 2023 was approved and code was published 1 Oct 2024 To be clear planner Hecock, planner Galbraith and planner Alchin have been a pleasure to engage with.

I have compiled the record of all these events should you wish to see any of them.

Please call text or email with any questions
Daniel Hale
1851 Madrona Avenue St Helena CA 94574
7072274322
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 304 of 1338 ends

Figure 17.34. Figure 17.34.050: Measuring Floor Area
Attachment 8 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 305 of 1338 ends

Figure 17.34.060: Determining Lot Coverage
Attachment 9 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 306 of 1338 ends

City of St. Helena
City Council
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2025-002) to amend
Title 17 of St. Helena Municipal Code pertaining to
exempting uncovered balconies, porches and decks from
gross floor area
Staff: Maya DeRosa
Community Development Department May 13, 2025
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 307 of 1338 ends

Purpose of ZOA
• This zoning ordinance amendment item is simply a
clean up of the zoning code to have internal
consistency between development standards and
definitions pertaining to covered roofs for porches,
balconies, patios, and decks and how it relates to gross floor area.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 308 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 309 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 310 of 1338 ends

Questions?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 311 of 1338 ends

Questions?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 312 of 1338 ends

Patios and decks with pergola type open roofs
do not count towards gross floor area
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 313 of 1338 ends

Background
• In 2020, the City of St. Helena initiated a General Plan implementation action and began a three year process
of completing a comprehensive update to the zoning
code.
• Direction received from residents and subcommittee
members that the residential development standards
were too generous-new homes were developing to
maximum floor area ratio which in many cases was out
of character with the surrounding neighborhood.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 314 of 1338 ends

Background
• The zoning code consultant recommended deleting the
floor area ratio standards in the code and instead
utilizing a maximum building gross floor area for single family based on a range of lot sizes which slightly
reduced allowable floor area.
4 Max. building gross floor area (all floors) for single-family residences including accessory structures is as follows:

Lots < 6,000 sf: 1,995 sf
Lots 6,000 – 9,999 sf: 2,945 sf
Lots 10,000 – 14,999 sf: 3,705 sf
Lots 15,000 – 19,999 sf: 3,971 sf
Lots ≥ 20,000 sf: 4,000 sf
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 315 of 1338 ends

Background
• Post the formal code adoption in October 2023, staff and the code consultant noticed an inconsistency between how the code directs to measure gross floor area (SHMC Section

17.34.050(A)(1)(b)) and subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) of Section 17.16.030 which notes that a balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides is exempt from gross floor area.
• Code consultant advised that adding the word "uncovered" would help clarify that this gross floor area exemption applies only to uncovered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that is unenclosed on at least 3 sides
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 316 of 1338 ends

Background
• The change to subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) was viewed as a clerical level edit that would provide additional clarity for users of the code and internal consistency to the document
• This was based on Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b) which explains in determining floor area calculation "in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection [shall be included in the floor area calculation]. "
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 317 of 1338 ends

Current adopted Zoning Code
Rules of Measurement 17.34.040

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 318 of 1338 ends

Background
• For consistency, staff also included an edit to 17.34.050 (2)(f), that noted uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks were included in the provisions of "Excluded from Floor Area". • Provides consistentency with how the Zoning Code provides direction on measuring lot coverage (SHMC 17,34,060(A) ) which makes it clear that "unroofed" and "uncovered" decks, patios, porches and landings and balconies are excluded from the calculation of lot coverage.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 319 of 1338 ends

Pre-2023 Zoning Code
• The pre-2023 code included a definition of "floor area" in SHMC 17.04.160
• Very similar to the current code 17.34.050 (1) (b).
• Notably both state that where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 320 of 1338 ends

Events post code publishing
• Published zoning code in 2025 included staff edits noted post the October 23, 2024 adoption hearing (see attached redline ordinance )
• Late 2024 -Mr. Hale, a local designer, noticed this change to footnote 5 of development standards table
• Mr. Hale hired an attorney to request the City remove those changes from the ordinance
• City Attorney sent a letter to Mr. Hale's attorney noting that staff viewed these changes as a clerical level edit for clarification purposes but that the City would in turn bring an item for formal consideration.
• City Attorney confirmed the staff edits then directed the code publisher to reverse the changes March 3, 2025 which is now reflected in the republished code.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 321 of 1338 ends

ANALYSIS
• Recap: The pre-2023 zoning code had the same definition as current code of what is to be included in floor area; however the prior code implementation focused on the
residential development standards exceptions which did
not state the porches, balconies and decks must be
“uncovered”.
• Staff finds that the proposed amendments help bring
internal consistency to the code and assist the user in understanding the intent of 17.34.050 A (1), Areas
included in Floor Area Calculation.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 322 of 1338 ends

Recommended Redline Changes:

Table 17.16.030 B, End Note to Building
Gross Floor Area
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Max. Building Gross
Floor Area (all floors)
5 Refer to Table

17.16.030.C for
lots <1 acre
Refer to Table

17.16.030.C
Refer to End
Note 4 None
Max. 6,069 sq ft
for lots ≥1 ac in
area
Max. Building Height
Principal Structure 30 ft 30 ft/2 stories 30 ft/2 stories 42 ft/3 stories Ground floor
max. ceiling
height 15 ft
30 ft/2 stories
for small lot
development
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 323 of 1338 ends

Recommended Redline Changes: Table

17.16.030 B, End Note 5(b)(iv)
End Notes:
1 Greater residential densities are allowed under state law if a site meets the standards for two-unit development as described in Chapter 17.31, Two-Unit Projects. 2 Densities existing as of January 1, 2023, are permitted to remain. 3 Parcels created by lot line adjustments may be less than 1 acre provided the number of parcels does not increase and that no lots are less than 7,000 square feet. 4 Max. building gross floor area (all floors) for single-family residences including accessory structures is as follows:

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 324 of 1338 ends

Recommended Redline Changes:

17.34.050 A.2.(f)

2. Excluded from Floor Area.
a. Mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed two percent of the building's gross floor area. b. Bay windows or other architectural projections where the vertical distance between the lowest surface of the projection and the finished floor is 30 inches or greater.
c. Any areas that satisfy the landscape and open space base zone requirements.
d. In the case of a multi-story building that has covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts, the horizontal area of such features shall be counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent.
e. In non-residential buildings, areas used for off-street parking spaces or loading spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles that are located below the finish grade of the property.
f. Arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas that are located at or near street level and are accessible to the general public but are not designed or used as sales, display, storage, service, or production areas, as well as uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 325 of 1338 ends

What is the difference between lot coverage
and gross floor area?
Gross
Floor
Area
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 326 of 1338 ends

What is the difference between lot coverage
and gross floor area?
Lot Coverage Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 327 of 1338 ends

If the City Council prefers not to approve the proposed redline changes to the code, staff suggests that direction is provided to instead:
• Delete SHMC 17.34.050 (1)(b) which currently provides guidance that where no walls exist, areas covered by the roof are included in floor area calculation.
• This will eliminate the inconsistency with the current code Alternatives to Staff Recommendation
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 328 of 1338 ends

Alternative Direction:

Delete

17.34.050 A

1. (b)
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 329 of 1338 ends

Questions from public
Does this
change require
homeowners to
chose between
having covered
outdoor spaces
and interior
area?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 330 of 1338 ends

Questions from public
Will this affect
historic homes,
many of which
have large wrap
around
porches?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 331 of 1338 ends

Questions from public
Q. If covered porches and balconies count towards lot coverage, why count them towards gross floor area?
A. The pre-2023 zoning code definitions of lot coverage and floor area already assumed covered roofs count towards these standards; this is not a new requirement/ interpretation. There is no “double counting”, and the rationale to have covered roofs count towards gross floor area is further supported by the lot coverage rules.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 332 of 1338 ends

Summary of Rationale for Code
Amendment
• Pre-2023 zoning code definition of gross floor area included covered roofs
• Current zoning code definition of gross floor area includes covered roofs
• Pre-2023 zoning code and current code definition of lot coverage exempts “unroofed” and “uncovered” decks, patios, porches, landings and balconies from calculation of lot coverage • Current code has inconsistency in floor area definition regarding what is included in floor area calculation and residential development standards table footnote of what is exempt from gross floor area
• The City has been processing building permits for residential remodels with covered outdoor spaces post code adoption and not encountered issues with projects exceeding gross floor area Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 333 of 1338 ends

Recommendation
Introduction and waive the first reading of an ordinance to:
1) Find that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) the project is Exempt; and
2) Approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(ZOA 2025-002) to amend Table 17. 16.030B and
Chapter 17.34.050A2(f) of Title 17 of the St. Helena
Municipal Code.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 334 of 1338 ends

Questions?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 335 of 1338 ends

Page 336 of 1338 ends

From: Michelle Covell
To: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers Cc: Charles Covell; Xinia Gamero; Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment Regarding Zoning code "Uncovered" topic Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 4:10:27 PM
Attachments: image002.png
To:

City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Department Staff, and Citizens of St. Helena I would like to respectfully raise concerns regarding the recent insertion of the word “uncovered” in End Note 5.

As presented in the staff report—prepared, reviewed, and approved by Community Development Director Maya DeRosa—and later confirmed by the City Attorney at the April 15, 2025, public hearing, this change has been characterized as a “clerical edit.” Definition:

A "clerical edit" refers to minor, non-substantive corrections such as fixing typographical, grammatical, or formatting errors that do not alter a document's meaning or intent.

However, the addition of the word “uncovered” significantly changes the interpretation of the exemption. It alters how square footage is calculated, reducing the allowable buildable area for homeowners. This is not a mere correction—it has real implications.

Director DeRosa clarified that this change does not prohibit porches or patios, but it does mean that homeowners must now choose between covered outdoor areas and additional livable space. For existing homes, current porches and patios will now count against allowable square footage, reducing flexibility for future remodels or expansions.

We understand the policy goal: to discourage oversized new construction deemed out of character with existing neighborhoods. However, this approach—framed as a minor edit—compromises the very character we’re trying to preserve.

Historic homes in St. Helena, especially those in the Historic Preservation Overlay, often feature Italianate or Queen Anne architecture with welcoming front porches and wrap-around verandas.

From the Masonic Lodge’s covered balconies to the classic porches on Adams, Charter Oak, and Allyn streets, these design elements are integral to our town’s identity. They’re not just decorative— they're functional spaces where neighbors gather, families connect, and visitors fall in love with our community.

By including only “uncovered” spaces in the exemption, this change disproportionately affects not just large homes, but modest, historic, and mid-century homes alike. It undermines property owners’ ability to make reasonable, small additions to accommodate growing families or evolving needs.

More critically, this change blurs the line between two distinct zoning concepts:

Lot Coverage (which already includes porches and patios in its calculations), and Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 337 of 1338 ends

Maximum Buildable Square Footage (which, historically, has exempted covered outdoor spaces).

Calling this a clerical correction is misleading. This is a policy shift—and one that deserves full public process, transparency, and thoughtful deliberation.

This change also risks rendering many existing homes nonconforming and may discourage future investment or home improvement. It runs counter to efforts to maintain housing diversity and affordability in our community.

I believe the root of this issue lies in an oversight by a consultant, which was then adopted by staff without adequate analysis or public input. Once the error was pointed out by a professional, the issue became politicized instead of being resolved through open, honest discussion. The staff report, while technical in tone, lacks clarity and fails to distinguish key terms—making it difficult for residents and decision-makers alike to grasp the true impact.

We’ve seen the consequences of past oversights—our water system being a prime example. Let’s not repeat history.

If you are in a position to vote on this matter, I thank you for your service and the time you dedicate to our town. I urge you to carefully review the differences between the original and amended code, understand the implications of the word “uncovered,” and consider the distinction between Lot Coverage and Maximum Buildable Area.

Try applying the new calculations to your own home. If you would like any assistance in this, I am more than happy to help.

Let’s ensure our decisions are informed, transparent, and in alignment with the values and character of our town.

Questions for Consideration:

In the spirit of transparency and good governance, I respectfully request that the following questions be addressed by staff and commissioners before any final decisions are made regarding the insertion of the word “uncovered” into the zoning exemption:

1. What is the distinction between the Lot Coverage Calculation and the Maximum Buildable Square Footage Calculation?
Understanding how these two measurements function independently—and together—is essential to evaluating the impact of this change.

2. If covered porches, patios, and pergolas already count toward Lot Coverage, what is the rationale for having them also count against the Maximum Buildable Area? Is there a clear benefit that justifies this double-counting?

3. Does this change require homeowners to choose between having covered outdoor spaces and interior livable area when remodeling or expanding? If so, how does that align with community goals for livability, family growth, and sustainable home design?

4. Could this insertion render existing homes legally nonconforming? If yes, what are the implications for homeowners, particularly regarding future renovations or Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 338 of 1338 ends

additions?

5. How will this affect historic homes, many of which feature generous wraparound porches and outdoor areas?
Will this discourage investment in maintaining and restoring historic properties—the very homes that define our town’s architectural character?

6. For homes that become legally nonconforming, what options would a homeowner have if they wanted to make modest changes, like adding a small room or a covered porch? Would they be required to remove interior space to stay within code?

7. As we face hotter summers and increased energy demands, why would we disincentivize porches and patios that offer shade and help reduce energy consumption? Shouldn't our zoning policies encourage passive cooling and sustainable design?

8. Was the insertion of this word truly a clerical edit, or was it a more substantive change that may have been made in error?
If it was not clerical, should the process behind its inclusion be further examined to ensure accountability and trust in the code revision process?

9. Lastly, given the limitations on public comment—three minutes per speaker, with no opportunity to respond to discussion—should the structure of these hearings be revisited? If the goal is to foster public participation and benefit from the insight of experienced professionals in the community, should there be more opportunity for dialogue during these critical discussions?
Respectfully,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 339 of 1338 ends

Page 340 of 1338 ends

Public comment 2

5.13.2025
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect
St Helena resident for 10 years
As I review the staff report, the PC hearing presentation, the documents attached, the timeline of events, and the past public comments I’ve made when the revised code was up for adoption, I cannot sit back and not put in writing my thoughts and analysis of this crucial and pivotal point we are in.

For the last ten years, I have worked on many projects, and applied the zoning codes.

When it was brought to my attention in March about the insertion of the word “uncovered” to this exemption, my first thought was, what is an uncovered porch? What is an uncovered patio? Is it just a concrete slab? That does not even make sense.

Definition:

Porch: a covered shelter projecting in front of the entrance of a building.

After reading the article in the St. Helena Star, I was shocked by the events described. Dan Hale had reached out to inform me about significant zoning code changes and the importance of public awareness, especially among those familiar with zoning terms.

I was surprised to learn that Dan was not interviewed for the article.

I spoke with Director DeRosa on March 20, 2025, and had a cordial conversation regarding the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ in the exemption. I asked where and why this change was made. She explained that it was a clerical edit intended to clarify the intent of the code, referencing specific definitions and sections. Director DeRosa stated she was neutral on the matter but emphasized the need for consistency in the code. As someone familiar with the code’s history and application, I found her explanation unclear.

She said she would send me the relevant definition to clarify the reasoning behind the edit.

After reviewing the definition, I attempted to understand the rationale behind inserting the word ‘uncovered’ but found none.

On March 21, I followed up with Director DeRosa via email to clarify my interpretation of the code and definition. I explained that there is no inconsistency between the definition and the exemption, emphasizing that the definition is accurate and that the exemption clearly refers to ‘buildings and areas.’ I also cited relevant code sections and included a graphic plan to demonstrate that the insertion of ‘uncovered’ is not a clerical edit, but one that significantly affects calculations.

Director DeRosa responded on March 24, stating she would review the materials in more detail. I followed up on April 4 to check on the status, and she replied later that day, explaining that, based on stakeholder interviews, there was a concern that new residential rebuilds are out of context with neighborhood scale and massing. She concluded by stating that staff’s role is now to await direction from the Planning Commission at the April 15 hearing. However, she did not address the specific concerns I had raised in my previous correspondence.

If you have not yet reviewed the staff report, accompanying letters and documents, or Dan Hale’s timeline of events, I would appreciate the opportunity to offer some commentary. I have thoroughly read and analyzed all of these materials, including the presentation from the Planning Commission hearing
Planning Commission Hearing 4/15/25
Director Derosa presents a slide show in addition to her formal Staff Report, written, reviewed, and approved by her.

In her opening slide, Director DeRosa presented the background of the zoning code changes, noting that the process took three years to develop. She highlighted public feedback indicating that the residential standards were too ‘generous,’ and that new homes were often being built to the maximum floor area ratio, which in many cases was out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.

Please note - there were other public comments from residents, stakeholders, and professionals that DID NOT say the standards were “too generous.” I attached my public comments for reference from the adoption hearing of the proposed code changes.

Please refer to the zoning map below. The larger new homes that have been considered out of character with surrounding neighborhoods—particularly the few controversial examples I’m aware of—are generally located within the green-shaded areas of the map, corresponding to the A-20 zoning district.

In contrast, the orange and yellow-shaded areas represent the LR, HR and MR zoning designations, which are characterized by smaller lots and are situated closer to the town center. This visual distinction is important when considering the context and impact of zoning changes.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 341 of 1338 ends

After three years of work on the zoning update and following the formal adoption of the code in October 2023, staff and the code consultant identified an inconsistency. The consultant recommended adding the word ‘uncovered’ to clarify the gross floor area exemption. It is important to note that this change occurred after the formal adoption of the code.

Director Derosa said “When we publish any new code, the code publisher reaches out and asks questions of staff about, did you really mean this, what is the intention of it, should we change it. So, the consultant was acting as the code publisher, like “I think this would improve the clarity of the code.”
This raises a significant issue: after the code was formally adopted, the word ‘uncovered’ was added to the exemption without formal review or public input. Did staff review and discuss the consultant’s suggestion? Was there any deliberation on how this change would impact the code? What was the process behind this decision? Is this legal? As we have heard over and over, this was seen as a clerical edit. This is misleading.

This slide highlights an inconsistency between the rules of measurement and the exemption. The rules of measurement specify that the floor area calculation includes, ‘in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof, excluding two feet on each side for a standard roof projection.’ This contradicts the exemption, which previously excluded structures like balconies, porches, or decks where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed, as shown in the screen capture of the former code prior to the 2023 adoption. Also shown below is the amended code that was approved, and with the redline of the “uncovered” that is being recommended by staff in the meeting today.

Please take note of the words “existing development” and the zones this applies to. It does not include A-20.

Please take note of the change to the end of the two notes: the former code says, “atleast one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed, and the amended says “unenclosed on at least three sides.” These are significant.

PRE-2023 CODE, AKA FORMER CODE.

Amended adopted 2023 code with redline of the proposed insertion Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 342 of 1338 ends

Director DeRosa explained that the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ was intended to ensure consistent interpretation. Instead of deleting the contradictory rules of measurement, the addition of ‘uncovered’ to the exemptions was proposed to achieve consistency. Deleting the rules of measurement b would have been a clerical edit. Inserting the word uncovered changes the policy, historically, and as it was adopted in 2023.

The second bullet point under slide “Background” on right, is a very confusing way to present Lot Coverage. She indicates that the Lot Coverage measurement already excludes unroofed and uncovered decks, patios, porches, landings, and balconies from the calculation.

However, she does not clearly state that Lot Coverage calculations do include covered structures such as porches, patios, and decks, which is the big distinction between calculating FAR or maximum buildable area. Lot Coverage is a distinct metric with its own maximums, and it includes these covered areas, as the term ‘Lot Coverage’ implies. This calculation looks at the bird’s-eye view of the property, as shown in the table below with highlighted maximums.

The timeline presented by Director DeRosa is important to consider alongside the timeline provided by Dan Hale in his public comment. According to Director DeRosa, the code rewrite took three years with public input and was formally approved. Following adoption, edits were made, and the revised code was published with these staff edits. However, Dan Hale was working on a project based on the code as adopted in October 2023, with no public notification of these post-adoption changes or opportunity for public input on the edits.

In the fall of 2024, after developing a project with no issues in review with Planner Aaron Hecock, Hale submitted his application.

During the Design Review process, he discovered the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ in the exemption for maximum buildable areas, which caused his project to fall out of conformance. In his timeline, he sought clarification on how this change was made, but after months of trying to obtain answers, he was forced to hire an attorney. The use of the word ‘subsequently’ in the second bullet point implies that Dan Hale only noticed the change and then hired an attorney. However, as his public comment notes, he had been attempting to get answers on his own before resorting to legal counsel. Moreover, it appears that someone filed a police report claiming threats, and an article in the St. Helena Star portrayed his actions unprofessionally.

In December, Dan Hale’s attorney (as seen in the Farella Braun + Martel letter in the staff report documents) sent a letter to Director DeRosa requesting clarification on the origin of the word ‘uncovered.’ The letter explained how the insertion of this word significantly alters the code, both historically and as adopted.

In February, the city’s attorney responded (see BBK letter in the staff report documents). The letter highlighted that staff had initially viewed the change as a clerical edit or ‘cleanup’ of the code. However, after discussions with the attorney’s office, the City decided to remove the word ‘uncovered’ and proceed with the process involving the Planning Commission and City Council. And so, here we are.

Here is the letter from BBK.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 343 of 1338 ends

On February 27, 2025, an article titled ‘Citizen, Staff Clash Over Zoning Change’ was published in the St. Helena Star. The first paragraph refers to a ‘minute section’ of the St. Helena city code, but this is not a minor issue. The section in question is significant and impacts many people. After considering the background information provided, the article may appear in a different light than it would have otherwise.

The analysis suggests that both the pre-2023 code and the adopted October 2023 code had the same definition. The use of the word ‘however’ seems to imply that there was an issue with the absence of the word ‘uncovered’ in both versions. The second point claims that these edits bring internal consistency to the code, helping users understand the intent of that section.

However, several questions arise: As noted in the ‘background’ slides, community input focused on concerns about large homes not aligning with the character of the town. These homes are typically located in the A-20 zoning district, as shown on the zoning map. Yet, the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ impacts the light orange Medium Density Residential (MR) zone as highlighted in the exemption. Does this inserted word affect any of those “large homes” that were in the public input? The presentation continues to show slides of the location of the end note 5. I highlight that this is in the zoning districts at the top of the table, which does not have A-20.

Slide titled “Alternatives to Staff Recommendation”
Director Derosa’s comment is “The staff report does also bring up, because this is a quasi-policy discussion, so if the planning commission wanted to be more generous in how we allow people to utilize gross floor area, we could do the opposite of MY recommendation but it would be, staff would still recommend in that case of not wanting to add the “uncovered” we would still, to have the internal consistency with the code, we should go ahead and delete 17.34.030 1 b which currently provides guidance that where no walls exist, areas covered by the roof are included in floor area calculation.” Slide below, “This is the redline that we would take out, again, this would be if you want to go a completely different way with this.” A troubling aspect of this issue is that Director DeRosa states she is ‘agnostic’ about the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ and would be comfortable with either outcome. However, her presentation heavily favors her recommendation, with only about one minute dedicated to the ‘Alternatives to Staff Recommendation.’ What does alternatives to staff recommendation mean? This slide, in particular, warrants close attention—it addresses the ‘clerical edit.’ Removing the item on the rules of measurement would resolve the identified inconsistency in the current code. However, inserting the word ‘uncovered’ is not a clerical adjustment. It materially alters how calculations are made for properties in the Medium Residential zones (the orange areas on the zoning map). It affects how porches and patios are designed—potentially eliminated—to preserve interior living space for families, placing additional burdens on homeowners.

Strikingly, the A-20 zone (green areas on the map), which was cited in the background as the source of public concern during stakeholder meetings, is not meaningfully addressed in this analysis. One must ask: does the general public understand the zoning map well enough to grasp why some homes can expand significantly while others face new restrictions? I attended the Planning Commission hearing on April 15, 2025—Tax Day and the Tuesday following St. Helena’s spring break, a time when most families are unlikely to be closely following Planning Department agendas, staff reports, or public comments. Is that a coincidence?
I listened to the presentation, delivered my public comment, and stayed to observe the commissioners’ deliberations. It quickly became clear that the terminology and calculations—such as those related to lot coverage and building area—had become confusing and were being used interchangeably. The discussion seemed overly technical and difficult to follow. I attempted to raise my hand for clarification, but public comment had already closed.

Watching this formal review of a significant zoning code change unfold in a state of visible confusion raised serious questions for me about the legality and transparency of the process. Volunteer commissioners—many without backgrounds in city planning or architecture—were being asked to weigh in on complex technical changes with long-term consequences. I want to be clear that I mean no disrespect to any commissioner. I appreciate their unpaid commitment and civic service, and I am not seeking to single anyone out. I simply offer the following quote and observations for those who have not viewed the hearing, to provide an objective lens through which to assess the decision-making process that led to what can be simply summarized as a unanimous vote.

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 344 of 1338 ends

At the conclusion of the April 15, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, I spoke with Director DeRosa. I asked whether the commissioners fully understood the distinctions between key terms like Lot Coverage and Maximum Buildable Area—formerly known as Floor Area Ratio in the MR district. She responded that she had met with commissioners and coached them on these differences. I expressed concern that, during the hearing, commissioners appeared to use these terms interchangeably while making a significant decision.

Director DeRosa reiterated, as she had told me in a March phone call, that she was “agnostic” about this matter. I asked again how, as the Director of Planning and someone who understands these definitions, she could classify the insertion of the word “uncovered” as a mere clerical edit. Her response referred back to the community input—the concern that large homes are out of character for St. Helena.

However, that explanation does not align with the facts. The homes in question—those considered oversized—are generally located on larger lots in the A-20 zoning district. The insertion of the word “uncovered” affects the smaller lots closer to town. As I stated in my initial public comment: this is not a clerical edit. This is a substantive change that impacts how families design and live in their homes.

Why am I taking the time to prepare and deliver another public comment? Because this issue is about more than whether a single word should be inserted into a code section. I want to hear the truth.

This public comment is meant to challenge the narrative that has been presented—one that appears, at times, misleading and disingenuous. This is about transparency, accuracy, and accountability in how code changes are introduced, implemented, and communicated to the public.

The St. Helena Star published an article after the Planning Commission hearing suggesting this issue had reached a “peaceful resolution” and that porches “now count.” But I ask you: Is this a peaceful resolution? Did you read my first public comment and the big questions that need clarification?
It would be easier for me to stay silent—not raise questions, not speak up, not challenge a flawed process. But I can’t do that.

Because the process, as I witnessed it, is broken. And the consequences are real. I raise my hand to speak on behalf of others who oppose this change but may not feel empowered or as knowledgeable to speak. I demand answers. The truth.

Why is the word “uncovered” really being inserted?
Who is responsible for allowing this to go this far, without public process or input? Why does local media coverage appear one-sided or incomplete? Who determines that this code section is “minute” when it has clear and broad impacts? Words matter. Code is law. Why does it appear that the highly paid professionals are not taking this more seriously? And finally, I ask:

Is it not concerning that the individual who identified an unauthorized code insertion was later portrayed negatively? Who filed that police report?
If anyone object to future edits in the zoning code, will they be similarly silenced? If individuals raising questions are met with retaliation or false accusations, that’s a serious ethical and potentially legal concern.

These are not just rhetorical questions. They are about the integrity of the public process, the trust in our institutions, and the right of citizens to engage without fear of retaliation.

There is a stigma: don’t get on the bad side of the Planning Department or the Planning Commissioners. Once you do, it can feel like you have a target on your back. Many believe it’s safer to stay quiet, to let others speak out, so you don’t end up in the public eye—or worse, face subtle retaliation on future projects. This is real.

We need to change that. We need genuine public input—especially from professionals who understand the terminology and the real-world impact of these policies. Our voices must be heard, acknowledged, and respected, not dismissed or blacklisted. Public hearings should foster collaboration, not reinforce power imbalances.

We need professionals in decision-making roles to stay within their authority, to answer questions honestly, and to communicate transparently and in a timely manner. No one wants to hire an attorney just to get clarity—but that becomes the only option when the process lacks openness and accountability. Thank you for taking the time to listen.

A quote from a commissioner deliberating at the 4.15 Hearing.

I’m looking at this from having grown up here all my life, born and raised here....I think of what St Helena was, and I know everything has to modernize, but I’m looking at lot coverage. If you get a birds eye view, and there’s a roof on it, I tend to think the rule of taking two feet off, and counting it as square footage, will reduce bulky big mansions. Now from a working-class view, a roof is kind of expensive, and no light gets through it, and that’s different than a trellis and what we saw here.

But I think that, look, we already have in our city, where they want something 3 floors high, that includes low-income housing, yet we want to individual mansions to not include these covered bird-eye view, lots..... In order to keep our small town small, is trying to reduce the coverage, and there’s two ways to do it, and I discussed with Maya, as we saw from the square footage to, but I tend to think that the advice of using covered or rooved is important, that if sunlight goes through it that it doesn’t count as square footage, and that reduces the mass. Because some of these lots that we’ve been looking at, at least since I’ve been here almost a year now, they’re pretty large lots, wineries and all that.... I’m a builder, if you want to build something beautiful uncovered, unwalled I should say, because that’s the word play here we’re looking for, we really need clarity in moving forward, if there are not going to be three walls... I tend to like the recommendation of clarifying this, and hitting it all in what do we want in the General Plan of St Helena to look like, I mean like I said it does reduce it, they want to reduce anything that has to do with low-income housing and anything affordable, then why not this be it as well, to keep it small as we can when it comes to the rules.

Councilmember Lester Hardy said (in addressing Mr. Eastman’s comments regarding FAR vs Setbacks, approx. 2hrs 24 minutes in the video:)
“I think this is an area that merits some care and thought before we make a final determination, what we really want in standards and how they’re going to work. We need to look at what is proposed, thinking that what we will see ultimately is a built environment where some significant number of property owners will build to the limits of whatever envelope is allowed. That’s just how things work in our context. And if we think about that, and we don’t like what that looks like in our imaginations, then you know that’s a reason to think about doing some things differently. And if we look at it, and given the way which we’ve limited that envelope and the other key elements of the standards that we think we’re going to like that environment as it builds out, then we’re good. But I, my own situation, is that I haven’t really thought about it enough to be sure I have a clear sense in my own mind how to grapple with the kinds of questions that Mr. Covell has presented. And as I say, it looks to me like it has different consequences in different settings and I don’t think we should ignore that. So that raises a kind of larger and problematic question about how we manage our process moving forward. I did have a conversation with Director DeRosa earlier today about this and I know there is a lot of interest in getting this all done, and I appreciate and tell anyone who talks to me about this, that perfection can’t be the goal, that doesn’t work, but I think we want to take enough time to be sure on the more challenging questions that have come up through comments and discussions that we’ve taken enough time to be sure we’re comfortable with the answer…. I think when things get hard, I think that’s when we need to slow down. If the decision is difficult and it’s not easy or obvious, that’s when we need to take a little bit more time.”
Key takeaways as I interpret Councilmember Hardy:
• Don’t make a change unless you are sure you understand the depth of every word that you are making into law.
• “a lot of interest in getting this all done” – Don’t change something just to get it done, unless you know for sure what you are changing works better than the previous code, and are ready to face the repercussions.

I think this is good advice coming from a lawyer.

This is an excerpt from my public comment made two years ago, 5.10.23.

I attached these two comments for your reference as I believe they are relevant still today.

They were written as the code was being presented for adoption.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 345 of 1338 ends

Page 346 of 1338 ends

Public comments Re: Zoning Dra and Joint Meeng held 5/10/2023 My name is Michelle Liu Covell and I am a resident of St Helena since 2015.

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, Staff, and the public.

There are a few points I would like to address regarding the comments made during the meeng held 5/10/23. This is mainly regarding the FAR vs Building Footprint item towards the end of the meeng.

To reference the recording, this begins about 2 hour 19 minutes where Roger Eastman, of Lisa Wise Consulng, addresses FAR for residenal zones in response to Mr. Covell’s public comment. I have transcribed Mr. Eastman’s comment below.
“The decision was made long me ago, working with staff to eliminate FAR from the residenal zones.

FAR is a blunt instrument for controlling building form for the best of mes and a lot of codes in today’s best pracces are eliminang FAR from residenal zones. So you will sll see [it] in the commercial zones, and a lot of the form-base code work that I do, where form is a principal code that you’re trying to drive, FAR is just too blunt of an instrument, so it’s not included. The comment was made that maybe the 2000 SF was too small and that we should eliminate that and we should go back to FAR. Perhaps the answer is, especially given the situaon where Mr. Covell had at 2200 SF home, can we not just rely on the setbacks for the zone and just leave it at that? It’s just one opon that I have not discussed with Director DeRosa but maybe instead of that building footprint limitaon, which in their case, would require a second story, because you can certainly build up but it is more expensive of course, he can certainly build up rather than out, so it becomes do we just rely on the setbacks to limit the footprint, or do we sck to we don’t want the footprint to grow anymore than it is, therefore require the building up, and he wouldn’t have to lose 200 SF. That’s his nonconforming building. So that’s really the queson for you. For someone like Mr. Covell to build up if he wants to expand his home to allow him to expand within the footprint of the setback.”
His points in summary as I interpret it:
• FAR is not a good approach in residenal zoning
• Perhaps the 2000 SF Max Building Footprint is also not a good approach • Perhaps le:ng the setbacks be the only limitaon is a be;er approach Mayor Dohring menoned he is a visual learner. Let me provide some graphics of these three approaches.

FAR APPROACH:

The current residenal zoning code uses FAR to calculate how much building area can be on a parcular parcel. FAR is Floor Area Rao. In simple terms, it is a percentage. I have copied the MR FAR table below for your visual and provided a graphic example. For example, if you have a 10,000 SF lot, the FAR is .31 (31% of 10,000 sf) and you are allowed 3,100 SF of gross floor area. This approach does not define the building “footprint” but just the max square footage of the building.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 347 of 1338 ends

Here is a graphic of the FAR approach based on a 45 x 200 lot, a 100 x 200 lot, and a 200 x 200 lot, with the areas highlighted above. Red line is building setbacks, black line is parcel outline.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 348 of 1338 ends

MAX FOOTPRINT APPROACH:

From the Dra Zoning Code October 2022 the suggested change in the code was to put a Max. Primary Building Footprint based on lot widths, which removes the parcel area out of the equaon, and gives you a Max. building footprint size based on your lot width. If your lot width is greater that 45, your max building footprint is 2000 SF. You could have a lot that is 45 wide by 200 long (9000sf) or a 100 wide by 200 long (20,000 sf), or a 200 wide by 200 (40,000 sf just less than an acre), your Max. building footprint is 2000 sf. See graphic.

The Max. 2000 SF building footprint approach forces you to build up, a second floor, if you would like to expand your exisng home. In exisng older homes, foundaons and walls were not built with this kind of “future proofing” of building up. To go up, these exisng homes could need major foundaon retrofits and rebuilding structural walls to handle the added loads of a second story, which in some cases, you might as well tear down the house. Surgery to exisng homes can be more costly than just starng from scratch, and building anything in this valley is extremely expensive. Not just construcon costs, but all of the design and permi:ng fees that go along with it.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 349 of 1338 ends

SETBACKS APPROACH:

Mr. Eastman said FAR is a blunt instrument and is not included in today’s best pracces. He suggests instead of a building footprint limitaon, maybe just rely on setbacks to limit the footprint.

Here’s a graphic for that. No FAR, no building footprint limitaon, just the setbacks, and maximum lot coverage.

The red lines show the MR zone setback, 20 front and rear setback, and 10 sideyard, and using a 40% Max. Lot coverage for MR per the dra code:

My point of these graphics and pause on the two minutes of discussion, is to give you a visual sense of how codes – laws - can significantly impact people, proper+es, and communi+es. If you are unable to visualize these significant differences in the words that are wri0en, then please pause and take a moment to try to gain that visual before deciding it should become law.

I’d like to take a moment to discuss social impacts of just this code item. I offer a playout of the op+on of maximum footprint 2000sf.

A middle-class family of two working parents with 2 children, with aging parents, working in covid mes remong from home, has a 3-bedroom 2-bathroom house, 2000 sf of habitable space here in St Helena, with 1 bedroom converted to a home office, 1 bedroom for the children, 1 bedroom for the parents.

There is no space for the grandparents to stay, and the parents would like to have another child. They would like to add 500 sf to their home. With this max 2000 sf footprint, they would need to build up.

With construcon costs of $800/SF, construcon costs come in around $400,000.00. As a rough esmate of professional and permit fees around $200,000 (architect, structural engineer, civil engineer, energy consultants, surveyor, reports etc) and their home is luckily not deemed historic, to add 500 SF, they’re looking at $600,000.00. In this valley, they already are facing extreme costs to live here, to eat here, to support local, and to try to make their $1million 1960s flipper ranch home work. These are the Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 350 of 1338 ends

“affordable modest” homes of this town currently. How many people can afford to make this addion? Not many.

So what happens? People move farther away, they take their money to buy a bigger house, and work farther away. Let’s say remote work stops for them and they have to start commung back to the valley for their jobs. Traffic congeson gets worse, polluon gets worse. This change to this code just pushed out a young family trying to make it work here.

More families move away. Schools close. Businesses cannot find employees to fill the jobs we need.

Does this sound familiar? We are already living in ripple effects that have been caused by policy makers in this town. Poor foresight and poor planning. Water, lack of funds, etc. This is happening not just in this town, but all over. We are part of the larger urban fabric.

I ask you, are you qualified to make these types of changes? Do you feel like you have a good enough understanding of the codes to understand the repercussions and ripple effects that these laws have on people? Zoning code is Urban planning; Urban planning affects society in so many ways. IT IS NOT JUST WORDS.

Councilmember Lester Hardy said (in addressing Mr. Eastman’s comments regarding FAR vs Setbacks, approx. 2hrs 24 minutes in the video:)
“I think this is an area that merits some care and thought before we make a final determinaon, what we really want in standards and how they’re going to work. We need to look at what is proposed, thinking that what we will see ulmately is a built environment where some significant number of property owners will build to the limits of whatever envelope is allowed. That’s just how things work in our context. And if we think about that, and we don’t like what that looks like in our imaginaons, then you know that’s a reason to think about doing some things differently. And if we look at it, and given the way which we’ve limited that envelope and the other key elements of the standards that we think we’re going to like that environment as it builds out, then we’re good. But I, my own situaon, is that I haven’t really thought about it enough to be sure I have a clear sense in my own mind how to grapple with the kinds of quesons that Mr. Covell has presented. And as I say, it looks to me like it has different consequences in different se6ngs and I don’t think we should ignore that. So that raises a kind of larger and problemac queson about how we manage our process moving forward. I did have a conversaon with Director DeRosa earlier today about this and I know there is a lot of interest in ge6ng this all done, and I appreciate and tell anyone who talks to me about this, that perfecon can’t be the goal, that doesn’t work, but I think we want to take enough me to be sure on the more challenging quesons that have come up through comments and discussions that we’ve taken enough me to be sure we’re comfortable with the answer…. I think when things get hard, I think that’s when we need to slow down. If the decision is difficult and it’s not easy or obvious, that’s when we need to take a li9le bit more me.” Key takeaways as I interpret Councilmember Hardy:
• Don’t make a change unless you are sure you understand the depth of every word that you are making into law.
• “a lot of interest in ge:ng this all done” – Don’t change something just to get it done, unless you know for sure what you are changing works be;er than the previous code, and are ready to face the repercussions.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 351 of 1338 ends

I think this is good advice coming from a lawyer.

As Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, staff, as you partake in this law decision making – do you feel qualified to make a ruling on this? If not, recuse yourself. Please don’t just vote if you’re unsure. Be 100% sure.

Wring zoning codes should be done by people who understand historically, visually, economically, and socially the impacts that will come out of it.

Once you put this zoning code into effect, it applies to everyone. It is unclear whether there will even be any recourse. If anyone has a special case, or an undue hardship, they may have to go through a Variance process if even allowed. If a code turns out not well thought-out, the city will need to try to amend this code. In either case, this is me-consuming and costly, not just the processing fees, but also the professional fees. This will have made it harder for people to build, to live, and to thrive here. This will push out the low income, middle class, and any diversity.

If the goal is to make things easier, please do so. Really understand what you are doing. The words become Law, and that has ripple effects that will reverberate for years to come.

Here is screen cap of the Variance fees for reference, not including what professional fees cost to do the drawings/reports/documents for the submi;al.

My background: I am an architect licensed in California; I have been working in St Helena since 2015 with my husband Charles Covell. Prior to that, I worked in San Francisco for another 10 plus years in single family residenal, master planning, hospitality, higher educaon, and commercial projects. I have a Masters in Architecture from CCAC and a Bachelors in Environmental design and Architecture from UC Berkeley.

I can visualize these words. My queson is, can you? Even with my background, I am not an urban planner, and I do not claim to know the answers. However, I can see within just a few minutes of the meeng yesterday, that visuals are needed, and the team making these proposed law changes need to talk more about what they are wring. And if you are unsure of something, don’t write it into law. (I am the lady with the very well-behaved toddler at the joint meeng yesterday) Thank you for your me. RespecSully, Michelle Liu Covell Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 352 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 353 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 354 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 355 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 356 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 357 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 358 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 359 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 360 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 361 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 362 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 363 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 364 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 365 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 366 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 367 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 368 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 369 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 370 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 371 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 372 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 373 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 374 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 375 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 376 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 377 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 378 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 379 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 380 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 381 of 1338 ends

Page 382 of 1338 ends

From: Michelle Covell
To: Paul Dohring; Xinia Gamero; Erika Opp; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; Maya DeRosa
Cc: Charles Covell; Natalia Mattingly
Subject: RE: [External] Item 11.1 ZOA
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 10:39:31 AM
Attachments: image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image003.png
20230512-PUBLIC COMMENTS PART 2- MICHELLE LIU COVELL.pdf 20250514-EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE MAYA-MLC.pdf
20250514-ISAAC PUBLIC COMMENT MLC.pdf
Hi all,
Thank you for your time yesterday.

I am including several additional comments in this email. 20250514 – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE MAYA – MLC : This is a pdf of the correspondence I had with Maya as referenced in my Public comment 2.
20230512 – PUBLIC COMMENT PART 2 – MICHELLE LIU COVELL: This is a comment from 2 years ago that accompanies the other comment I posted yesterday from two years ago. I had two comments for that particular hearing. I feel that this comment is apropos to the moment that we are in again.

It may not have reached people two years ago, however I hope it reaches people today. Again I truly respect the service all of you do.
20250514 – ISAAC PUBLIC COMMENT MLC: This is a drawing my son did, as he expressed wanting to put in a public comment. I have included a statement that he asked me to write, and helped describe what he drew. He is only 5, and he has sat through all of these meetings, and he felt like providing a public comment.

Also, for the comment that I submitted yesterday late in the evening, titled “presentation WITH COMMENTS”, as you can imagine I was a bit short on time to get this item in before the council meeting. I do have some typos, however, I feel like most of them you can follow the intent. I do want to make a clerical edit on page 10 of 29, where I say “In which case I pointed out that foundations of old homes are “future” proofed and would require significant structural upgrades…” My typographical edit should say “are not.” I do hope that did not cause any confusion, my sincere apologies.

Respectfully,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 383 of 1338 ends

1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Please note we have updated our email address, please use this email address moving forward.

From: Michelle Covell
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 5:42 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Xinia Gamero' <[email protected]>; 'Erika Opp' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Maya DeRosa' <[email protected]>
Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Item 11.1 ZOA
I WOULD LIKE TO include this as a public comment.

Thank you,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Please note we have updated our email address, please use this email address moving forward.

From: Michelle Covell
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:40 PM
To: [email protected]; Xinia Gamero <[email protected]>; Erika Opp <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Item 11.1 ZOA
Hello, I received this message below.

I would like to know if this means that the City Council meeting is still being held, that we are still reviewing the topic, only that the City Attorney is recommending to continue action on this item to a future public hearing?
Just to be clear, there still is a meeting tonight? And this topic will still be discussed? Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 384 of 1338 ends

And there will still be ability for public comment?
Thank you
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Please note we have updated our email address, please use this email address moving forward.

From: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:55 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 11.1 ZOA
Good day, I wanted to inform you that the City has received public comment on the above item that is worthy of further research. Therefore the City Attorney will be recommending at the meeting tonite that we continue action on this item to a future public hearing. I wanted to share this information with you in advance of the meeting so you could plan your schedule accordingly this evening.

Best regards,
Maya

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

Page 385 of 1338 ends

Page 386 of 1338 ends

Public comment: Re: Zoning code updates and Joint Meeng on 5/10/23 – Part 2 5/12/2023
My apologies, I have a li%le more I'd like to say in addion to the public comment I emailed yesterday.

Since I don’t think I can be as eloquent in 4 minutes at the podium, I have a few addional thoughts I wanted to share as I think of the zoning code dra0, and the larger context this fits into.

I am fairly new to this town, moved here in 2015. I know many of you who are serving roles in this community as Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, and Staff, have been here much longer, and have witnessed more of the evoluon that has happened in this li%le town, as well as in Napa Valley.

I apologize that I have taken a long me to submit my comments in this process. In my busy schedule of being an architect, running a pracce and business, being a mom of a toddler (in covid mes), I have waited a long me to put effort in a%ending meengs, digesng the material, and pu9ng my thoughts together. I had assumed many others would make comments, and it would all work out in the end.

In the one Spotlight town meeng at the Cameo that I was able to a%end recently (again with my toddler), the current Vice Mayor Eric Hall was presenng the state of St Helena, the economic issues, that past decisions, and the situaon we are in now.

My key take-aways of that:
• Wow, we live in such a beauful town, in such a prosperous valley, and the town is one natural disaster from going bankrupt and becoming a ghost town. • Some things have got to change.
• This town lacks diversity, diversity in all facets just to name a few – socioeconomics, types of businesses, age, housing.

As I think of the proposed revisions of the zoning code, I'm not saying there aren’t good edits. I honestly have not read all of it. Again apologies, my free me is very limited, and I don’t really jump to the idea of reading zoning code in the li%le spare me that I have. But this is why we have you! When I have trouble thinking through complex issues such as this zoning code, I try to zoom out and think of the larger picture, and put it into simpler ideas. As we may have learned in grade school, and are maybe re-learning it with our children’s homework now, I think of the science experiment of creang a habitat, with the goal of making it thrive and last as long as you can. I think my project was a fish tank in school, and I had put some goldfishes, plants, water snails, and gravel in there, and then it was set to survive. Others in the class brought in their habitats. Press play, the clock cks, and we waited to see whose project lived the longest. We learned the more biodiverse, the more lifecycle loops that come in full circle, the be%er the habitats did, the longer they survived, and the be%er it thrived.

Our town is on the brink of failing. Empty storefronts, shortage of workers, lack of funds, unaffordable housing, lack of low-income housing, lack of diverse shops and restaurants that are affordable for everyone, and closing schools, are signs of an unbalanced habitat. I mean honestly, the bigger picture of the world right now has a lot of unbalances. Failing banks, not a good sign. I can’t even start.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 387 of 1338 ends

There is a saying a colleague just reminded me of, "If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with pleasantly tepid water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water unl it boils to death." I think we all recognize the water is ge9ng warmer.

I have another example. Fake grass. Not long ago, fake grass was the new fad. And maybe people sll think it is. Fake grass is a material that probably in producon puts a lot of carbon into the air. In order to install it well, my understanding is that you have to excavate and remove your top soil, install several inches of compacted gravel, and then lay the fake grass in. (I’ve never installed it so I am only conceptualizing what I hear about it) This is great right? We are saving water. I get it. Everyone should do it, right? Imagine all of St Helena was mandated by some policy to install fake grass in order to conserve water. We're doing the right thing, right? What did we just do? We created a heat island. Fake grass does not photosynthesize, it doesn't take in carbon dioxide, sequester it in the ground, and produce oxygen. Fake grass doesn't a%ract pollinators. Say a person who installed fake grass sells their property. The new owner wants to plant nave water wise plants, and now has to excavate this fake grass and gravel to dump it into a landfill. To undo the damage is very hard. We cannot try to solve for one thing, without thinking about the others.

I write this to you, as you all signed up and worked hard to get to the posions that you hold. No one assigned you. You chose to take this posion on. And I applaud you for your energy and efforts, and I appreciate your drive to make this city a be%er place. My hope with my comments is to offer everyone a moment to take a step back to see the zoning code changes in a larger context. To not be afraid to ask quesons, to seek clarificaons, to decide to take more me if needed to review, and to get more informaon and research about the changes, to queson them unl they are ve%ed out fully. Think outside of the box. Do your due diligence. Don't assume someone else is figuring it out, and that you just have to vote like them.

We do need change. This town needs change, in a thoughIul and measured way. The zoning code edits can help, and they can also hurt. Please take enough me, and gather the professionals needed, vet it all out, before you make it into law, do your homework, before you press play.

One person can affect change. Each of you can affect change.

I affected change in St Helena. The speed limit between Madrona/Fulton to Pra%, heading northbound was 35mph. Heading south, coming into town, it is 25mph. Two speed limits on the same stretch of road. I’m sure you all have thought as you drove north, oh yes, I can finally speed up a0er Fulton/Madrona. There are four pedestrian crosswalks a0er the speed limit sign of 35. Two at Crinella, one at Elmhurst, one at Pra%. There is a middle school just west of this stretch of road, and a community of many young families on the east. I watched many mes in fear, as kids walked home from school, young li%le middle-schoolers, crossing that street, with giant trucks and speeding cars, and I was terrified.

I just became a mom 3.5 years ago. Any other child out there, feels like they’re my child. I understand the deep love for a child a mom can have. I thought, I’m going to do something about this.

I wrote emails and made phone calls to the public works dept, city manager, talked to the Mayor at the me. I made a map and diagram, pointed to the sign, the four crosswalks, the school, took a picture of the 35mph sign with the crosswalk just beyond. I followed up, months and months trying to get an understanding of what steps could be done to reduce the speed limit. I had long conversaon with Mayor Ellsworth, and he recommended that I join the commi%ees, come to meengs that he was working on, Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 388 of 1338 ends

and that speed limit signs are expensive, and there are a lot of bureaucrac hoops that you have to jump through to get a speed limit sign changed. I accepted all of the challenges.

One day I called the Police department, and asked about the situaon, and someone politely told me that they only enforce the signs, but that Caltrans is the jurisdicon who could change the sign. I picked up the phone and I called Caltrans signs and maintenance. A person said I need to speak with the north bay signage supervisor Mr. Guerrez. I called him, and let him know my concerns, and emailed him with the diagrams I had done. He said he would send it up through engineering. Months passed, and I would gently check in with him. He would respond le9ng me know that he didn’t forget about me, and that engineering was making progress with it. Even more months passed, and it had been over a year since my first inquiry with Public Works about this sign.

I was at work when my husband texted me a photo of a 25mph sign. It took me a moment to realize what it was, and my jaw dropped. Caltrans had a crew out there, installing zebra striping, pedestrian crossing signs, and the 35mph was replaced with a 25mph. I texted Mr. Guerrez the picture of the sign and a big thank you, I told him he made my year. I was floored that I made that happen, li%le ol’ me. I talked to Mr.

Guerrez, expressed so much gratude that he helped me reduce the speed limit. He menoned that the speed limit change actually wasn’t part of the engineering, and that he had made that change because it was obvious that it should not be 35mph. He said to me, “You know, I have kids too.” What I want to bring to everyone’s a%enon is that when you think with your heart, doing the right thing follows. As you sit in that chair, holding that pen, having that mic, you hold the power to affect change, so much change. I hope you’re not looking over your neighbors’ shoulder thinking they’re doing the homework so I don’t have to. Are you convinced you’re ready to put your name on it? Michelle L. Covell
I would like to make an edit the to my previous comment submi%ed.

My Bachelor’s degree is in Architecture, at the school of Environmental Design at UC Berkeley, with High Honors
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 389 of 1338 ends

Page 390 of 1338 ends

1 Michelle Covell
From: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 11:34 AM
To: Michelle Covell
Cc: Charles Covell
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area
Attachments: LWC_PC Meeting and Open House Flyer_English and Spanish_081120.pdf Hi Michelle, thank you for your email below. Yes, I did review and I understand your concern about limitations on what can be built on a lot related to covered outdoor spaces. But it is also important to note that roofed decks, patios, porches and balconies count towards Lot Coverage as well (SHMC 17.34.060 A-defines what is exempt from Lot Coverage). So you already have that limitation on buildable area.

For further background, you may recall early in the zoning code update process a Recommendations Memo was prepared and discussed following stakeholder interviews that happened in early 2020 about what needed to change in the code. This was presented to a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on May 5, 2020 for further public review and comment. (see link here https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=630)It is from this early phase in the code that there was direction to reduce the overall buildable areas in residential districts. All aspects of what contributes to scale and massing was considered. Because the original zoning code already noted that areas covered by a roof count towards gross floor area, our intention in the clerical edits to the code about “unroofed” porches, etc was only to bring consistency throughout the code. I have copied below a section of the consultants Recommendation Memo:

Stakeholder Interviews
As the first step in community outreach, LWC conducted a series of one-on-one and small-group stakeholder interviews between February 19 and March 4, 2020. A total of 33 individuals were interviewed at the Carnegie Library or over the phone. Interviewees included local businessowners, architects, civic leaders, developers, and appointed and elected officials. The interviews were the first step in understanding the range of issues to be addressed during the Zoning Code update, with the goal of gathering insight and perspective from a variety of codeusers and decision-makers.

At the interviews, stakeholders discussed the need for more creative housing types, density and strategic infill; observations about new residential rebuilds that are out of context with neighborhood scale and mass; the need for a reduction in allowable floor area ratio (FAR); the lack of clarity in design review findings; and the overly restrictive list of uses permitted in the Downtown.

Staff’s role at this point is to receive direction from the Planning Commission at the 4/15 meeting. If the Commission determines that they do not want to have “uncovered” added to End Note 5(b)(iv), staff recommends that they direct staff to also delete in the Rules of Measurement section, SHMC 17.35.050 A (1)(b) which currently provides guidance that where no walls exist, areas covered by the roof are included in floor area calculation. This would eliminate the inconsistency with the current code.

Happy to discuss further.

Have a great weekend,

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 391 of 1338 ends

2 1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected]| http://cityofsthelena.gov/planning PLEASE NOTE: We have transitioned to .gov for our email address and website. My new email is [email protected] From: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 9:23 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; Michelle Covell <[email protected]> Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area
Hi Maya have you any chance to review my email and any response? Thanks.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Date: 3/24/25 3:14 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area
Thank you Michelle for your comments below. I will review these in more detail in the days ahead.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected]| http://cityofsthelena.gov/planning PLEASE NOTE: We have transitioned to .gov for our email address and website. My new email is [email protected] From: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area

Hi Maya,
Thanks for sending this definition of ‘Floor Area’ over.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 392 of 1338 ends

3 I understand there are different ways to calculate / determine ‘floor area’, some departments look at net and some look at gross, and I understand that in some calculations, they include roof eaves. For example Napa County’s floor area is defined to include roofs – and this goes into the calculation for fire sprinklers, for example commercial buildings under 3600 sf (including roof overhangs), don’t require fire-sprinklers.

I think what concerns me is that as I read the FAR calculations MR from 2017 (screen capped below) prior to the consultant rewriting the code, the FAR calc has a specific section C, that says “the Following buildings and areas are exempt” from the FAR, number 4. a Balcony, porch, deck and other structure where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed. It acknowledges the subtraction of this floor area from the FAR calculation.

Adding the word “uncovered” to item 4 changes what is exempt. Now covered porches/decks are NOT subtracted from the FAR calculation.

The addition of the word “uncovered” significantly changes the objective of the FAR calc, and reduces the amount of interior livable space a project can develop.

The definition that you scanned in for “floor area” is not wrong.

But it does not explain the edit to the FAR exemptions. The FAR as originally codified allowed you to subtract Porches/decks that is acknowledged as an area, and it did not specify, on purpose, whether those were covered or uncovered, that it was just exempt.

I have a graphic below to help hopefully visualize the significance of this.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 393 of 1338 ends

4 I took this off the web as it shows a color coated diagram of a house with a covered front porch and back porch.

Floor Area per the definition would include the orange, the blue and the grey. No problem.

FAR calculation:

With the original code – the porches are exempt, do not need to include that blue area in your FAR calculations.

The Code (with the amendment to include “uncovered” item 4) - Because the Porches are covered, that area has to be included in your FAR calc, and since the FAR allowance did not increase, now you’d have to shrink the whole design.

This makes people have to choose between having porches/outdoor covered decks, vs interior living space.

As we are very fortunate to live in St Helena, and the reasons why many people move to live here, is to enjoy this excellent weather and the beautiful community.

Forcing people to develop uncovered porches or decks, so that it doesn’t have count towards the FAR calculation is a very unfortunate change to the code.

I strongly support not including the word “uncovered” to item 4.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 394 of 1338 ends

5 I also strongly urge the review of these “clerical” changes with a fine lens of scrutiny, and hope that the community’s reliance on our professionals to understand how impactful misedits are to this already expensive endeavor of building and permitting.

Respectfully,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Please note we have updated our email address, please use this email address moving forward.

From: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 5:51 PM
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 395 of 1338 ends

6 To: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: Definition of floor area

Hi Michelle, great to talk to you today! Hope I helped address some of your questions about the zoning code and please note the date of 4/15 at 6 pm for when we will have a Planning Commission meeting with the formal code amendments related to covered porches and what is not included in gross floor area calculations. That packet and materials should be published by 4/7.

You asked about the wording in the prior code, I have attached the page with the definition of floor area.

Have a great rest of your week and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any other questions.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 396 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 397 of 1338 ends

Page 398 of 1338 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 399 of 1338 ends

Page 400 of 1338 ends

Subject: Deep Concerns Regarding Planning Commission Recommendation on Code Amendment Dear Members of the St. Helena City Council and Planning Commission, On April 15, the St. Helena Planning Commission considered an amendment to the municipal code that will soon come before the City Council for a final and binding decision. I feel compelled to express serious concern about both the process and the substance of that meeting.

The hearing offered a troubling example of how fundamental misunderstandings—or outright disregard—of the City’s municipal code can lead to decisions with far-reaching and unintended consequences.

Commissioners used the foundational code principles of lot coverage and maximum building square footage interchangeably. Meanwhile, the staff report omitted any discussion of this distinction or how the insertion of the word “uncovered” would effectively nullify one of these key standards. This revealed not only confusion about the differences between these critical metrics, but also a lack of understanding of how they interact within the broader framework of our zoning regulations.

Although some Commissioners expressed concern that the City should not "fiddle" with isolated portions of the code as issues arise, paradoxically, that is exactly what occurred. A material policy change was recommended without discussion of its broader impact on related code sections, nor any meaningful consideration of its effect on built projects or the character of our city. This alteration exacerbates an already problematic rule changed in the previous code update—one that treats applicants inconsistently and fails to account for how porches function in various architectural contexts (one side open, two sides open, three sides open, or wrap-around conditions), all of which perform critical mass-mitigating functions and create vital engagement and interplay between indoor and outdoor spaces.

Public comment—both in writing and in person—was respectful and grounded in thoughtful analysis. These contributions clearly explained how the proposed amendment would undermine the intent and application of the municipal code, citing real-world examples. Unfortunately, this input appeared to be insufficiently considered. The Commission’s unanimous recommendation, based largely on a staff report that failed to fully explore the ramifications of the change, did not reflect the kind of informed, responsive decisionmaking that St. Helena residents deserve.

This process raises fundamental questions about whether the City is adhering to its own rules and procedures. If there is an intent to recalibrate the development standards reflected in footnote * of Table

17.16.030, that process must be undertaken transparently, deliberately, and legally. The current approach —retrofitting policy to justify or sanitize a prior, ill-considered and improperly executed code alteration— undermines public trust and the integrity of our institutions.

I urge the Council and Planning Commission to recommit to the principles that guided the communityinvolved code reform process completed just last year—principles rooted in transparency, inclusive public input, and a comprehensive understanding of how individual code changes shape the broader built environment. Porches, in particular, are not trivial design features—they are foundational to the architectural and cultural identity of St. Helena. Amending code language hastily and without full consideration of the consequences dishonors both the process and the product of that hard-won reform.

Ultimately, when public input is dismissed and procedural safeguards are overlooked, it discourages civic participation and weakens the quality of our local decision-making. I do not believe that serves St.

Helena, its citizens, or its future. I respectfully request that the City Council reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation and initiate a transparent, comprehensive review of the relevant code sections.

Sincerely, Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 401 of 1338 ends

Page 402 of 1338 ends

From: Joshua Parke
To: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; Public Comment; Xinia Gamero Subject: [External] 5.13.25 Agenda Item 11.1
Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:28:03 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 6.53.11 PM.png
Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 6.52.50 PM.png
Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 5.13.25 PM.png
All Current City Council Members,
The insertion of the term “uncovered” within table 17.16.030(B) is unfortunately one issue of many around a complex subject matter that becomes entangled within other aspects of the code and creates a great deal of conflict the deeper you look. It’s very difficult to explain all the potential implications and consequences of code changes in this context without being concerned you’re quickly losing your readers attention and causing them to be disinterested and move on. That said it all matters a great deal, and unfortunately most won’t realize to what degree until they are faced with the unintended consequences down the line.

In the interest of being succinct, this agenda item is in no way close to being ready for a vote. If you were to vote yes you are still in direct conflict with the unadulterated adopted zoning code update (more on that below). If you vote yes and adopt the proposed version you are throwing a great many properties into noncompliance. If you vote yes and adopt the proposed version many properties will be very much within their rights to enclose their porches to become interior conditioned space since you will be defacto counting them toward FAR, and the city won’t be entitled to impact fees . If you vote no and accept the staff recommendation of eliminating 17.34.050(1)(b) you will be eliminating a nonsensical line item of code but you will be creating ambiguity and not resolving the issue at hand.

It took a year for the council adopted version of the zoning code to be published online. In the period of time between its adoption and the online published version the available version of the newly adopted code was the print version adopted by the council on October 24, 2023. During this time many projects began planning stages and many were changed due to it’s adoption. Unfortunately when the published version of code came available online there were changes that were not anticipated and approved through a formal process. Yes errata changes were incorporated, however more than these were inserted. Yes the insertion of “uncovered” into 17.16.030(B) was one, however it was not the only one and voting one way or the other on the agenda item does not solve the issue of code being changed without formal process, or the issue around counting specific porch configurations toward FAR. The foundation of how porches are calculated toward interior space (FAR) was also changed in 17.34.050(B)(4) and this has not been addressed.

Within Rules of Measurement the definition of how you are to determine what counts toward FAR was also changed and this hasn’t acknowledged or dealt with. Here is the official council adopted code version:

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 403 of 1338 ends

Note B(4)
Here is the current version posted on the city website:

This change was not a part of the errata sheet. Note that the unapproved change for B(4) as it has been changed completely. This is not a clerical adjustment it’s a complete change in policy and it has far reaching consequences within the code. Not only has “covered” been introduced but so has “nonresidential” and rather than simply being able to use a reference of one long unenclosed dimension it has been changed to a minimum of three sides unenclosed (very few porches are unenclosed on three sides). This change has not been noted at any point by the city attorney and this change is not acknowledged or addressed within the agenda item presented by staff.

Wouldn’t the appropriate step to take in this instance be to simply aknowdege that a mistake was made and revert 17.16.030(B) to match the council adopted language within the Rule of Measurement in 17.34.050(B)(4)? This would certainly be the simplest approach and would not throw existing properties into noncompliance. It would also be relatively easy to interpret and would not create a situation where exterior uninhabitable areas are counted toward the interior habitable space of FAR.

Upon reading the staff report for the agenda item and the city attorney’s response to the issue it appears at face value that one is to understand the addition of the term “unenclosed” as a singular clerical edit beyond the errata sheet for the purpose of providing clarity. The staff statement of purpose for the meeting reads the intent of the adoption of the agenda item is to:

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 404 of 1338 ends

This does not make sense as the current version of code already exempts uncovered balconies, porches, decks and other structures from gross floor area. What the proposed change does do is add the restriction of covered porches becoming an addition to FAR. In addition to this while the verbiage of the report insinuates that the justification is to lessen density of lot development, section 17.34.050(A)(2)(f) is a section that specifically refers to commercial property, not residential. It’s worth noting that saying “covered porch” is confusing as the very definition of “porch” within the code is :
“Porch” means a roofed approach to a doorway usually extending from the exterior wall of the structure and requiring ground supports.

We don’t count garages, or accessory structures or other exterior built conditions toward FAR because they are not conditioned habitable space and are counted toward lot coverage. How does it make sense to count exterior porches toward interior habitable space? It’s very clear that the planning commission did not understand what it was voting on when this recommendation was pushed through. There is so much wrong with so many aspects of this it’s absurd. This is one small part of the new zoning code that creates a great deal of conflict within the code but it is not the only one. We need a streamlined approach to citizens being able to bring discovered issues before council. Having to pay a 10K fee to place any zoning code amendment on the agenda calendar does not further a mission toward betterment.

I do not have a project I am planning in St Helena. I’m simply reaching out on this matter as it is clear that mistakes were made that need to be addressed and I think as a council it should be your priority to make sure that proper processes are followed and that the information you are relying on is true and forthright.

As someone who does plan projects with varying degrees of complexity I can say that having code change on a whim behind closed doors without procedures is a massive legal liability for professionals, and for municipalities. It is essentially a moving target of law for a process that takes an immense amount of time and consideration.

Yours Truly,
Joshua Parke
Design Principal | Zwischen Studio
206.218.5615
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 405 of 1338 ends

Page 406 of 1338 ends

From: Charles Covell
To: Michelle Covell; Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers Cc: Xinia Gamero; Public Comment; Erika Opp
Subject: RE: [External] Public comment for Today"s City Council Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:04:38 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
My public comment:

Members of City Council:

I am writing to express my strong support for the recent public comments made by Mr. Hale and Mrs. Covell, as well as any others who oppose the proposal to exclude porches from floor area exemptions. I believe this change represents a significant and unjustified shift in long-standing policy, one that would erode homeowners' rights and undermine the character of our community.

It appears that the Community Development Director has circumvented both legal precedent and due process in advancing this proposal. Unfortunately, this action has gone largely unnoticed by the public. At the recent Planning Commission meeting where this change was reviewed, only my wife and I were present to voice our objections. Despite some commissioners expressing reservations, the proposal was still approved unanimously and forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

This vote, in my view, was based on a misrepresentation of the issue.

The current proposal would overturn an already weakened policy established during the 2023 revision of the zoning code, which redefined porches as structures open on all three sides, a more restrictive definition than the previous one allowing walls on up to three sides. Now, the exemption of porches from floor area calculations—a sensible and well-established standard—is also under threat.

I find it troubling that the Community Development Director, who described herself as "agnostic" on the issue in a conversation with me, has nonetheless actively promoted this change. If neutrality were truly her position, a minor correction to the “rules of measurement” section would have sufficed. Instead, we are faced with a sweeping policy shift that contradicts the intent and spirit of our community planning documents.

The justification offered—namely, the goal of “reducing massing”—is not supported by the General Plan 2040 or the 2016–2019 Housing Element. These documents emphasize sustainability, livability, and the promotion of human interaction—goals that are best served, not hindered, by the inclusion of welcoming, covered porches.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject this proposal. It is unnecessary, misaligned with our broader planning goals, and detrimental to the quality and character of our neighborhoods. Covered porches are an essential feature of livable, community-oriented design and should not be penalized through restrictive floor area calculations.

Charles Covell
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 407 of 1338 ends

Principal
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
From: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:30 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Charles Covell <[email protected]>; Erika Opp <[email protected]> Subject: Public comment for Today's City Council
Hello,
I have another public comment to add. It is dated today’s date. I am including a public comment dated 20230510 – for reference. It was written when the code was up for adoption, and there was a joint hearing.

Please add to the agenda.

Thank you,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 408 of 1338 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Finance
DATE: May 13, 2025
FROM: Martin Beltran, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Sections 13.04.100 and 13.04.130 of Article 1, Chapter

13.04, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code and
Section 13.20.020 of Chapter 13.20, Title 13 of the St.

Helena Municipal Code Regarding Changes to Utility
Billing Cycle for Water Service and Sewer Service from BiMonthly to Monthly Billing, revise the bill due date provisions, and eliminate references to delinquency
penalties.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends the City Council introduce and waive
the first reading of the Ordinance amending Sections

13.04.100 and 13.04.130 of Article 1, Chapter 13.04, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code and Section

13.20.020 of Chapter 13.20, Title 13 of the St. Helena
Municipal Code Regarding Changes to Utility Billing Cycle for Water Service and Sewer Service from Bi-Monthly to
Monthly Billing, revise the bill due date provisions, and eliminate references to delinquency penalties.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To update the utility billing cycle from bi-monthly to a monthly cycle, revise the bill due date provisions, and eliminate references to delinquency penalties.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated annual impact as approximately $45,000 reduction in water revenues and $21,000 in wastewater
revenues as a result of eliminating penalties assessed on delinquent bills.

BACKGROUND:

The City currently operates on a bi-monthly utility billing cycle for water and sewer services. Under this system, customers receive bills every two months, with payments due thirty (30) days from the billing date.

In response to customer feedback, industry best practices, and internal operational assessments, staff has evaluated potential changes to streamline billing and enhance customer service. This proposed transition is made possible by the City’s smart meter replacement project. These meters provide real time water usage data, allowing for Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 409 of 1338 ends

more timely billing and better usage monitoring—benefiting both customers and City operations.

DISCUSSION:

Three recommended changes to Title 13 of the City's Municipal Code are being presented to City Council for consideration.

1. Amendment to change to a monthly billing cycle effective July 1, 2025. It is important to emphasize that this change has a net-zero impact on customer costs as to the amount paid remains the same, but is collected 12 times per year rather than 6 times.

2. Reducing the utility bill due date from 30 to 21 days.

3. Eliminate late penalties and interest charges on delinquent utility bills.

New Billing Cycles
This transition reflects our commitment to excellent customer service. Monthly billing will make understanding and managing your utility charges easier while enabling greater operational efficiency across City departments. In addition, monthly billing provides more timely information about water use and more frequent opportunities to identify and repair household leaks that might otherwise go undetected.

Benefits of monthly billing include:
 Smaller, more manageable payments: Spreading out costs over 12 payments per year instead of six.
 Better budgeting: Consistent payment cycles with other monthly expenses. Your water bill will now arrive at a similar frequency with most other utility bills such as gas and electric, making your monthly budget that much simpler.  Enhanced clarity: Detailed monthly insights into your water usage through the “Eye on Water” smart meter portal. Monitoring your water use can help you understand consumption habits and manage water costs.
 Real-time tracking: Stay informed about your daily water consumption via the “Eye on Water” smart meter portal. Help promote water conservation by allowing customers to more quickly detect leaks or other increased water use, reducing the possibility of a high water bill.

Due Date Change: 30 Days to 21 Days
Reducing the utility bill due date from 30 days to 21 days aligns more closely with standard industry practices and better supports the transition to a monthly billing cycle.

This change encourages timely payment while still offering a reasonable payment window.

The revised billing period will improve alignment of due dates and payments as well as improve billing statement accuracy by allowing ample time for payments to be posted to the accounts. Improved billing accuracy will reduce customer complaints that were previously received when the City billed on a monthly basis due to payments not shown Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 410 of 1338 ends

on the billing statement because of the previous overlap of the due date and bill period.

Under the revised model, billing statements will more reliably reflect account activity from the previous billing period, helping to provide a clearer view of the customer’s account balance.

Past Due Fees
The current provision states that utility bills are due and payable upon presentation and are considered delinquent after thirty (30) days. Upon delinquency, the City is authorized to impose the following enforcement measures:

1. A delinquency penalty of ten percent (10%) of the outstanding amount;

2. An interest charge of one percent (1%) per month, or fraction thereof, on the delinquent balance, calculated from the original delinquency date until paid in full.

The proposed ordinance amendment would eliminate the past due fees and the intent is to:
 Reduce the financial burden on residents who may experience temporary hardship;
 Align with broader statewide efforts to improve equity in utility billing The City will continue to encourage timely payments and offer structured payment plans to help customers stay current on their account. The City will continue to follow State policies, such as SB 998 (Water Shutoff Protection Act), which emphasizes customer protection.

Customer Transition Plan
In order to provide awareness of the recommended transition to monthly billing, a mailer was sent to all utility bill customers on May 1st and the upcoming May utility bill will include an insert of the planned changes. The City will also utilize the various approaches in its communication to inform all utility customers of the upcoming changes, including direct mail and e-bill notices, updates via the City’s Newsletter, website, and social media channels.

Please note there will be a bill in July and August. Under the bi-monthly billing cycle the last bi-monthly bill will be issued mid-July for the period of May 1 - June 30, 2025.

Payment will be due 30 days from the issue date of the bill. Customers will receive their first monthly bill mid-August for the period of July 1 to July 31, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

N/A
GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 411 of 1338 ends

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Ordinance amending billing cycle-c1
Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 412 of 1338 ends

65448.00100\43775773.1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 13.04.100 AND

13.04.130 OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 13.04, TITLE 13 OF THE ST.

HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE AND SECTION 13.20.020, OF CHAPTER

13.20, TITLE 13 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

CHANGES TO UTILITY BILLING CYCLE FOR WATER SERVICE AND

SEWER SERVICE FROM BI-MONTHLY TO MONTHLY BILLING,

REVISE THE BILL DUE DATE PROVISIONS, AND ELIMINATE
REFERENCES TO DELINQUENCY PENALTIES.

WHEREAS, Chapter 13 (Water Service System) Section 13.04.100.F (Rules and Regulations Generally) of the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) establishes the guidelines for bills for water charges and the billing cycle; and WHEREAS, Chapter 13.04.130.D (Enforcement—Discontinuance of service upon delinquency) of the SHMC establishes the billing due date, procedures for delinquent water bills, and provisions for the disconnection of water service; and WHEREAS, SHMC section 13.20.020.C sets forth the billing due date and outlines the procedures for handling delinquent sewer accounts; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend SHMC section 13.04.100, 13.04.130, and

13.20.020 to update the utility billing cycle for water service and sewer service from bimonthly to monthly billing, revise the bill due date provisions, and eliminate references to delinquency penalties. and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the requested amendments to Sections 13.04.100 and 13.04.130 of Article 1, Chapter 13.04, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code and Section 13.20.020, of Chapter 13.20, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code through approval of this Ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated as though set forth in this section.

SECTION 2. Amendment of Sections 13.04.100 and 13.04.130 of Article 1, Chapter 13.04, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 413 of 1338 ends

65448.00100\43775773.1
Sections 13.04.100, subparagraph F and 13.04.130, subparagraph D of Article 1, Chapter 13.04, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout):

13.04.100.F. Bills for Charges. All bills for water charges will be rendered by the city bi-monthly monthly. All bills shall become due and payable upon presentation and shall be paid at the office of the finance department.

13.04.130.D Failure to Pay Bill. Bills are due and payable upon presentation and delinquent after thirty (30) twenty-one days. Upon failure of any consumer billed or the owner of any premises to pay any water service charge prior to the delinquency, the following action or actions shall be taken by the city to enforce such payment after such bill becomes delinquent:

1. Impose a penalty for delinquency of ten percent (10%) of the amount then delinquent;

2. Assess interest in the amount of one percent per month or fraction thereof on the amount delinquent from the date on which the bill remittance first became delinquent until paid;

3. 1. If a payment by a customer has been delinquent for at least sixty (60) days, the city may disconnect the premises from the water system for nonpayment of water bills following proper notice. Water shutoff shall occur consistent with the disconnection of water service for nonpayment policy adopted by a resolution of the city council;

4. 2. Cause an action at law to be brought on behalf of the city against the person responsible for payment of such bill to recover the amount of such bill and the cost of such action including reasonable attorney fees incurred in an amount fixed by the court;

5. 3. Any person wishing to appeal penalties and interest imposed in this section shall adhere to provisions in accordance with Section 13.04.180, Appeals.

SECTION 3. Amendment of Section 13.20.020 of Chapter 13.20, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

Section 13.20.020, subparagraph C of Chapter 13.20, Title 13 of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout):

C. Failure to Pay Bill. Bills are due and payable upon presentation and delinquent after thirty (30) twenty-one (21) days. Upon failure of any consumer billed or the owner of any premises to pay a sewer charge prior to the delinquency, the following action or actions shall be taken by the city to enforce such payment after such bill becomes delinquent:

Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 414 of 1338 ends

65448.00100\43775773.1

1. Impose a penalty for delinquency of ten percent (10%) of the amount then delinquent;

2. Assess interest in the amount of one percent per month or fraction thereof on the amount delinquent from the date on which the bill first became delinquent until paid;

3.1. At the city’s election, cause an action at law to be brought on behalf of the city against the person responsible for payment of such bill to recover the amount of such bill and the cost of such action, including reasonable attorney fees incurred in an amount fixed by the court.

4.2. Any person wishing to appeal penalties and interest imposed in this section shall adhere to provisions in accordance with Section 13.04.180, Appeals.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. CEQA. This ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City.

The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance is exempt from review under CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced on July 1, 2025, and a summary of this ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Council voting for and against the ordinance in the St. Helena Star, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of St. Helena.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the 13th day of May 2025, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the ____th day of _____, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Deasy: _____
Councilmember Barak: _____
Councilmember Spadarotto: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 415 of 1338 ends

65448.00100\43775773.1
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:

CITY OF ST. HELENA
___________________________________
Erika Opp, Acting City Clerk
I, ERIKA OPP, ACTING CITY CLERK of the City of St. Helena, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2025. That thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Deasy: _____
Councilmember Barak: _____
Councilmember Spadarotto: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
Agenda Item #11.2.

Page 416 of 1338 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Public Works
DATE: May 13, 2025
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed approval of a Resolution approving the annexation of the property known as 1766
Sulphur Springs Ave, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024),
into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the annexation of the territory into the St.

Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1 MSD.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council approved Resolution 2025-023 on March 11,
2025, requesting to set a public hearing for May 13, 2025, to consider objections to the proposed annexation, as
required by state law.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Commence a public hearing to consider objections to the proposed annexation into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1. Consideration and approval of a Resolution approving the annexation of the proposed annexation is
found to be beneficial to the property.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

Any property that wishes to connect and utilize the sanitary sewer system in the City of St. Helena must be annexed into the Municipal Sewer District No. 1. All applications for annexations shall be approved by the City Council pursuant to the requirements of state law (SHMC § 13.20.040). State law details the requirements in Health and Safety Code Section 4600. City Council approval of the annexation is the formal administrative process to change the property’s tax rate area code from septic to sanitary sewer. The process for a property to be annexed requires that a resolution be adopted ordering a public hearing by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the City Council (HSC § 4643). The resolution is required to contain the following information and finding:
(a) Describe the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed. (b) Designate the proposed annexation by an appropriate number. (c) Declare that the area to be annexed to the district will be benefited by such annexation.

Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 417 of 1338 ends

(d) Name the time and place for the hearing of objections by any person interested in the proposed annexation, to the inclusion in the district of any land described in the resolution.

Once adopted, the resolution, together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against it, must be published for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation and published in the City. The first publication shall not be more than 60 days nor less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing.

At the time established for the public hearing, the City Council will hear and consider any objections to the annexation and exclude any territory which in the Council’s opinion will not be benefited by the annexation. After making changes to the boundaries of the area to be annexed, if any, the City Council may then adopt a resolution approving the annexation of the Property into the District which will require at least four affirmative votes. Upon a determination by the Council that the Property will be benefited by the annexation, certified copies of the resolution will then be recorded and filed in the manner and with the same force and effect as provided in Section 4613. Upon recordation of the resolution, the Property annexed becomes a part of the District and is subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the benefits of the District.

If the City Council approves the resolution following the public hearing on May 13, 2025, City staff will then process the annexation with Napa County and the State Board of Equalization to change the tax rate area code for the property. Staff will work with the applicant to collect outstanding fees and obtain required permits.

DISCUSSION:

The public hearing notices to consider objections to the proposed annexation on May 13,2025, were first published in the Napa Valley Register on April 10, 2025, and the second on April 17, 2025. Additionally, notices of the public hearing and the Resolution were distributed within the area to be annexed not earlier than the 60th day or later than the 30th day prior to the hearing.

At the time established for the hearing, City Council will hear and consider any objections to the annexation and exclude any territory which in the Council’s opinion will not be benefited by the annexation. After making changes to the boundaries of the area to be annexed, if any, the City Council may then adopt a Resolution approving the annexation of the property into the District, which will require at least four affirmative votes. Upon a determination by the Council that the property will be benefited by the annexation, certified copies of the Resolution will then be recorded (HSC § 4613). Upon recordation of the Resolution, the property annexed becomes a part of the District and is subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the benefits of the District (HSC § 4648).

City Council is requested to consider the annexation from the following parties into the District:

Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 418 of 1338 ends

1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024), MSD Annexation No. 151
The parcel map and legal description for the property are attached. Staff request City Council to consider the applicant's annexation request and consider a Resolution approving the annexation. If the City Council approves the Resolution following the hearing, City staff will then process the annexation with Napa County and the State Board of Equalization to change the tax rate area code for the property. Properties will then become eligible to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not applicable.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
1766 Sulphur Springs Legal Description
1766 Sulphur Springs Parcel Map
Resolution
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 419 of 1338 ends

ORDER NO: 00302713-CRS

Page 3 of 14 ends

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The land referred to in this report is situated in the City of Saint Helena County of Napa, State of California, and is described as follows:

Commencing on the northwestern line of Sulphur Springs Road, distant thereon North 46 degrees 50 minutes East 359.0 feet from the intersection thereof with the center line of Crane Avenue; running thence North 40 degrees 15 minutes West 200.26 feet; thence South 46 degrees 50 minutes West 120.95 feet; thence South 43 degrees East 200.0 feet to the northwestern line of Sulphur Springs Road; thence North 46 degrees 50 minutes East, along last mentioned line 111.34 feet to the point of commencement.

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 009-350-024
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 420 of 1338 ends

1270.37'±
'-~a
~"-' V 3'a v...,

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

21. N43'41'W
N46'42'20"E
S89'26'W
R=/70.70'
S4J'18'W
R=230'
S69'22'W
R=830'
N88'34'W
R=430'
R=430'
R=440'
R=440'
S85'18'W
R=270'
S4fi04'W
S4fi04'W
N4fi34'10"E
N89'26'W
N46'43'E
S4fi26'30"W

13.53'
116.38'
243.73'±
L=/37.44'

21.93'
L=104.64'

69.61'
L=319.66'
293.21'
L=31.03'
L=176.61'
L=255.81'
L=3.75'
162.07'
L=/84.96'

82.50'
213.34'
295.57'
216.65'±
170.00'
170.00' S4'T02'W
1409.31'

DETAIL B
SCALE:1"=200'
S45'45'W
LIA 2005-19
@

11.64 Ac.±
624.54'±
S46'34'10"E ,
/
111.!,-• I
20' 20'
I N4fi49 E
5R/S93-3
@
5 .JJ
z3P /t.11.,,-2 I
p11'1 z3P I
@2~~1-54 :

12.90Ac.± I

DETAIL A
SCALE=/" 100'
I
I
I
)
SULPHUR SPRINGS AVE.
920.82

COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP
PTN. RANCHO CARNE HUMANA
R.M. BK. D OF PATENTS, PG. 127
N4fi44'53"E 1274.57'
213.84' 1254.57'
23R/S17

16.25 Ac.±
0 0 0

5.03 Ac. 5.03 Ac.
3000 "' .34'
.00
85001 SEE DETAIL A
fiJ 1
----
6i!J 2
Tax Area Code
3000, 3002
85001
,7 ,,
~
'5?'0, V,
@
9-35
@
i-:
(/') I
_ _ s~~~ __________________ _ AYf _ _
N4'T02 E
@)

13.88 Ac.±
350-29 TRA CHG 12-31-15

REVISION DATE
S42'19'42"£
408.JO'
i
I 1
9-35
1766 Sulphur Springs Ave
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 421 of 1338 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

CONSIDERATION AND PROPOSED APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1766 SULPHUR SPRINGS AVENUE, ST.

HELENA, CA (APN 009-350-024), INTO THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1, ANNEXATION NO. 151.

RECITALS
A. The property at 1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024), will benefit from annexation into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151; and B. A public hearing regarding this proposed annexation was ordered on March 11, 2025, and held on May 13, 2025, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Helena; and
C. All annexation fees have been paid; and
D. The City has complied with all laws applicable to these annexation proceedings, including without limitation Health & Safety Code Section 4641.

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

1. The territory described in the attached parcel map, commonly known as 1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024), is hereby ordered annexed.

2. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be recorded with the official records of the County of Napa, pursuant to section 4647 of the Health & Safety Code.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 13, 2025, by the following vote:

Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 422 of 1338 ends

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
Council Member Aaron Barak: _____
Council Member Kate Spadarotto: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ _____________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor City Clerk
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 423 of 1338 ends

Page 424 of 1338 ends

City Council
May 13, 2025
Agenda Item 11.3
Public Hearing – Sewer Annexation
1766 Sulphur Springs Ave
Joe Leach, PE, Director of Public Works
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 425 of 1338 ends

• Public Hearing for the purposes of annexing parcels into the St Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1.
• Consistent with St Helena Municipal Code 13.20.040
• Once approved, filing with Napa County and State Board of Equalization • Initial step to connect to sewer system
- applicants responsible for all connection costs
- may be eligible for reimbursement for mainline extension - may be required to reimburse another property owner for previous mainline extension.

Scope of Action
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 426 of 1338 ends

1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 427 of 1338 ends

Adopt Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena to approve the annexation of the property known as:
• 1766 Sulphur Springs Avenue, St. Helena, CA (APN 009-350-024), into the St.

Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, MSD Annexation No. 151.

Recommended Action
Agenda Item #11.3.

Page 428 of 1338 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Finance
DATE: May 13, 2025
FROM: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Presentation of FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Proposed Operating Budget.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Review and provide staff with recommendations for the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Operating Budget.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 22, 2025 - City Council approved FY 2025-26 NonProfit Funding.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose is to receive feedback from the City Council on the Proposed FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Operating
Budget.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Financial Impacts are described throughout the report and in Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND:

Preparation of the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Biennial Operating Budget began in January 2025 and is a culmination of input from the City Council, Executive Staff, and Department Staff.

The Proposed FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Biennial Operating Budget is being presented to City Council for review and feedback. The budget will be brought back to City Council on June 10, 2025 for adoption and will incorporate Council feedback and changes.

Per Municipal Code 2.12.060.B.9, the City Manager supervises the preparation of a detailed, proposed municipal budget submitted to the City Council with adoption no later than June 30th.

The following is a brief summary of the formation of the budget document.

FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 Budget Development:

During budget development process, staff was guided by the following considerations:

1. Alignment with City Council Goals:
a. Strengthen Fiscal Resilience
b. Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability c. Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources d. Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 429 of 1338 ends

e. Enhance Quality of Life
f. Improve Employee Recruitment, Retention, & Morale
g. Optimize Organizational Effectiveness
h. Implement Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects

2. Alignment with City Council Workplan tied to Goals

3. Conservative Revenue Assumptions

4. Insurance Cost Increases

5. Change to Labor Costs

6. One-time vs. reoccurring costs
February 25, 2025 - Staff presented the FY 2023-24 Audited Financials and the FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget Report. The presentation focused related to the audited financials showed a gain of $1.2 million to the General Fund balance as a result of revenues received compared to actual expenditures. Based on the performance during FY 2023-24 the General Fund Reserves grew to $15.2 million as of June 30, 2024. Staff then presented the FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Budget which showed a revenue increase of over $360,000 from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget. In addition, there were several unanticipated expenses that resulted in an additional expenditure request of $389,000, resulting in an overall use of General Fund Reserves in the amount of $4.6 million. Of the $4.6 million in reserve use, $1.8 million reflects expenses carried over from FY 2023-24. These costs were budgeted and encumbered during that fiscal year but were not spent by June 30, 2024.

April 22, 2025 - On February 28th the Non-Profit Grant Application period ended. City staff received 25 applications for a total of $268,709 in funding requests. Per the NonProfit Grant Policy, applications were reviewed for completeness and all applications were presented for funding recommendations to the council committee. On April 22nd the City Council approved $74,948 in Non-Profit funding for community enrichments programs for FY 2025-26. This is a reduction in the funding level for non-profits which historically has been $125,000. In addition, City Council approved three-year agreements for programmatic expenses for Boys and Girls Club, Rianda House Senior Center, and UpValley Family Centers. The agreements authorize $30,000 per year (unchanged from previous years) to each organization for a total of $90,000 authorized in FY 2025-26 and an additional $90,000 in FY 2026-27.

DISCUSSION:

The FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget takes into consideration the City Council goals, budget priorities, and strategies as listed in the Background section of this report. The budget document provides detailed projected revenues and provides detailed projected expenditures for each department and fund. After receiving feedback from the City Council, staff will prepare the final budget utilizing the escalators outlined in Table 2.

In submitting budget requests, department heads have included most one-time costs in their FY 2025-26 requests and the FY 2026-27 requests were primarily based off of Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 430 of 1338 ends

nominal escalators. Any additional one-time expenditure requests made by departments beyond what was requested in FY 2026-27 will be brought to City Council during either the mid-year or mid-cycle reports for consideration.

Table 1 - FY 2025-26 Escalators
Category Escalator

REVENUES
Property Tax 4.5%
Sales Tax (1) -1.9%
Transient Occupancy Tax 3%
Other Revenues 4%

EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 3%
Health Insurance 10%
CalPERS Unfunded Liability 3%
Services and Supplies 4%
Maintenance 4%
Insurance 10%
(1) Based on the projections from Avenue Insights & Analytics.

Indirect Cost Allocation Plan Summary
The City engaged Clear Source Financial Consulting to develop an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan aimed at improving transparency and equity in how administrative costs are distributed. The plan establishes an interfund service charge to the utility enterprise funds (i.e. Water and Wastewater) to reimburse the General Fund for centralized oversight, management, and other unbilled support services.

Clear Source presented the following key recommendations:
 Replace the current direct allocations from General Fund administrative departments (City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Finance/Admin, Human Resources) with a single, consolidated interfund service charge to the Water and Wastewater funds, as determined by the Cost Allocation Plan.  Continue direct allocation of Public Works personnel from Administration and other operational divisions, based on annual assessment of individual job duties.  Maintain direct charging for additional specific costs incurred by the City, such as legal services, IT support, and building maintenance, when those costs are clearly tracked or invoiced.

Preliminary results reveal a shift in cost burden: contributions from the utility funds toward administrative overhead will decrease, increasing the General Fund’s share by $218,384. These recommendations are reflected into the draft FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 budgets. While the updated methodology increases General Fund salary and benefit Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 431 of 1338 ends

costs for the identified departments, this is offset by the maximum allowable interfund transfers from the Water and Wastewater funds as calculated in the plan.

General Fund
Revenues
The proposed FY 2026 General Fund Revenues is estimated at $20.37 million and is broken down as follows:
 Property Tax (36%) $7.32 million
 Sales Tax (25%) $5.13 million
 Transient Occupancy Tax (21%) $4.18 million
 Other Revenue (18%) $3.74 million
Expenses
City Council and staff recognize that maintaining a healthy fund balance is critical to preserving the City’s long-term financial integrity. Unanticipated needs, demands, and opportunities will inevitably arise over the next 12 months, and it is fiscally prudent to ensure adequate reserves are in place to respond effectively. In addition, with growing economic uncertainty and the potential for a recession, sustaining strong reserves positions the City to navigate potential revenue shortfalls or increased service demands without compromising essential operations or long-term fiscal stability.

The recommendations below have taken into consideration the following:
 Council's interest in maintaining a reserve fund balance greater than 30%;  Maintaining conservative revenue and expense projections; and  Reducing overall expenditures by 5%.

FY 2026 proposed expenses include increases from FY 2025 as follows:
 Base Salary - 3% inflation-based COLA.
 Benefits - 4% increase in healthcare premiums.
 Unfunded Liability - 17.2% increase.
 Insurance - 20% and 15% increase to General Liability and Property Insurance, respectively.
 Personnel - Permanently funding the previously authorized temporary over hire of a Police Officer.

In addition, the following budget reductions were made to reduce the impact on the General Fund reserves:

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 432 of 1338 ends

Table 2 - FY 2026 Budget Reductions
Description Amount
Contract Services 655,407
Personnel Reductions 530,076
Transfer from General Fund to Street Capital
(Measure U MOE) 379,189
Transfer from General Fund to Equipment
Replacement 100,000
Chamber Contribution 100,000
Election Expense 90,000
Non-Profit Grant Contributions 45,000
Transfer from General Fund to 4th of July Fund 40,000
Total Budget Reductions 1,939,672
It should be noted that the above reductions are offset by various increases, thus there is a lower net reduction in expenses. Below are some examples of adjustments and increases that off-set the above reductions totaling approximately $612,761.  $218,000 shifting administrative salaries to GF from cost allocation plan  $192,569 increase in mandatory unfunded liability payment  $119,775 increase in workers compensation insurance
 $82,417 increase in other insurances (property, general liability, and difference in condition)
The FY26 Proposed Budget includes the following one-time expenditures:

Table 3 - One-time Expenditures
Department Description Amount
Community
Development
Surplus Property Negotiations 25,000
Library Internet Equipment 3,000
Parks & Recreation Sesquicentennial Event 50,000
Fire Department Paint One Side of Fire Department
Building
25,000
Government Buildings Library HVAC Pump 10,400
Government Buildings Fire Department Electrical Repairs 10,000 Storm Drains Pipeline Inspection Device 13,000
Total One-time Requests 176,400
The addition of the items presented in Table 3 to the Draft FY 2025-26 budget, updates the estimated expenses to $22 million with use of fund balance of $1.70 million. Table 4 provides the updated estimated FY 2025-26 Net Position.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 433 of 1338 ends

Table 4 - Updated General Fund Balance with Additional Staff Recommendations Fund Balance %
Estimated Ending Fund
Balance 6/30/2025 11,087,266
Estimated Revenues @
6/30/2026 20,367,376
Estimated Expenses @
6/30/2026 (22,062,534)
Revenues Less
Expenses (1,695,157)
Estimated Unassigned
Fund Balance/Net
Position @ 6/30/2026
9,392,109 42.6%
The Estimated Fund Balance percentage is based on the Estimated Fund Balance divided by the total Expenses.

In addition to the items already included in the draft budget, staff has prepared the following list of additional items for consideration:

Table 5 - Considerations
Description Amount
Comp and Class Study 60,000
115 Trust Contribution for CalPERS Unfunded Liability 500,000 Prefund Major Building Improvements & Betterments 200,000 Prefund Purchased Vehicles & High Cost Long-live
Equipment 100,000
Total Additional Costs Not Included in Budget 860,000
Water and Wastewater Funds
Revenues
Water and Wastewater FY 2026 proposed revenues are projected at $9.13 million for water and $5.75 million for wastewater. The proposed water revenues include a 16% reduction from the projections included in the 2023 Rate Study, which was adopted on May 9, 2023, to account for the decline in the baseline water usage. The rate study assumed an annual baseline water usage of 1,300-acre feet, however actual annual usage is closer to 1,100-acre feet.

Expenses
FY 2026 proposed expenses include increases from FY 2025 as follows:

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 434 of 1338 ends

 Base Salary - 3% inflation-based COLA.
 Benefits - 4% increase in healthcare premiums.
 Unfunded Liability - 17.2% increase.
 Insurance - 20% and 15% increase to General Liability and Property Insurance, respectively.
 Utilities - 16.1% increase which is primarily attributed to higher electricity costs at the Wastewater Treatment plant.

Similar to the General Fund, several budget reductions were made to the Water and Wastewater budgets, which include the following:

Table 6 - FY 2026 Budget Reductions
Description Amount
Contract Services 311,047
Personnel Costs 115,500
Total Budget Reductions 426,547
The FY 2026 Proposed Budget includes the below one-time expenditures:

Table 7 - One-time Expenditures
Department Description Amount
Water Distribution Jackhammer for Excavator 7,000
Water Distribution Vibratory Plate Attachment 7,000
Water Distribution Valve/Hydrant Gate Valve 7,000
Wastewater Collections Portable Cement Mixer 3,500
Wastewater Collections Flow Monitoring Device 10,000
Wastewater Collections Hose Trailer, Reel and Hose 10,000 Wastewater Treatment Repair of Three Aerators 26,000
Wastewater Treatment Pavement at WWTP Facility 50,000
Total One-time Requests 120,500
Table 8 provides a summary of the Estimated Fund Balance of the Water Operations Fund as of June 30, 2026 and Table 9 provides a summary of the estimated fund balance of the Wastewater Operations Fund as of June 30, 2026.

Table 8 - Updated Water Fund Balance with Additional Staff Recommendations Operating Reserve
Estimated Ending Fund
Balance 6/30/2025 6,502,789
Estimated Revenues @
6/30/2026 9,129,344
Estimated Expenses @
6/30/2026 (8,237,374)
Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 435 of 1338 ends

Revenues Less Expenses 891,970
Capital Contribution (530,281)
Estimated Fund
Balance/Operating
Reserve @ 6/30/2026
6,864,478 10 months
Estimated Debt Coverage 1.34
Table 9 - Updated Wastewater Fund Balance with Additional Staff Recommendations
Operating Reserve
Estimated Ending Fund
Balance 6/30/2025 2,035,888
Estimated Revenues @
6/30/2026 5,746,033
Estimated Expenses @
6/30/2026 (5,332,877)
Revenues Less Expenses 413,156
Capital Contribution -
Estimated Fund
Balance/Operating
Reserve @ 6/30/2026
2,449,044 5.5 Months
Estimated Debt Coverage 1.29
Concluding Remarks
The City continues to experience persistent budget shortfalls caused by expenditures increaseing much faster than revenue growth. As a result, staff has proposed thoughtful budget cuts in an effort to narrow the gap. Despite the significant cuts of approximately 8.3% ($1.94 million) in year one of the two year biennial budget cycle, reserves will need to be used to balance the budget in each year. While difficult choices are being made, the City must contend with significant capital infrastructure needs, despite having limited and often insufficient funding and staffing resources to address them. City Council, staff, and the community need to grasp with the magnitude and persistent nature of these challenges and recognize that successful project management and delivery must be realistic, strategic, and focused on prioritizing the most critical needs.

Based on direction received from City Council, staff will update the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 budget document for presentation at the June 10, 2025 City Council Meeting.

Next Steps
 Provide direction to staff regarding the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 draft budget document.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Page 436 of 1338 ends

St. Helena City CouncilMay 13, 2025

St. Helena City Council
May 13, 2025