St. Helena City Council
June 10, 2025

Chapter 17.12 PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL
A. Filing an Appeal. Any applicant or other interested person dissatisfied with any action taken under this title may appeal such action and decision, in compliance with the following provisions:

1. Appeals from the decision of the community development director or any other administrative official in taking any of the actions authorized by this title shall be made to the planning commission through the community development director, unless otherwise indicated.

2. Appeals from the decision of the planning commission in taking any of the actions authorized by this title shall be made to the city council through the city clerk.

B. Fourteen (14) Day Appeal Period.

1. All appeals shall be made in writing and be accompanied by the appropriate fee, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.04.030, Fees, unless otherwise indicated.

2. Appeals must be received by the community development director or city clerk not later than fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of action from which such appeal is being taken. If the fourteenth calendar day is a weekend or a city holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next working day of the city.

3. No appeal is allowed or shall be heard, and the decision shall be final, after the lapse of the fourteen (14) day appeal period.

4. The appeal period shall commence the day following the date of action or decision.

C. Appeal Letter. The letter of appeal must state:

1. The specific action being appealed;

2. The action which the appellant requests the planning commission or city council to take;

3. The reason for the appeal; and

4. The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant or contact person if there are multiple appellants.

D. Appeal Review. Within three working days of receipt of the appeal, the community development director or city clerk shall examine the appeal and, if it is found to be incomplete, return it by certified mail to the appellant for revision. Appellantshall have five working days to file an amended appeal. Upon failure to file an amended appeal within the five days, the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn.

E. Receipt of Appeal. The receipt of a written appeal shall stay all actions or put all permits or other discretionary approvals that may have been granted in suspension, pending the effective date of the approval authority hearing the appeal.

F. Motion for Appeal.

1. The planning commission or the city council may, by motion adopted by majority vote, initiate an appeal on that approval authority body’s behalf. A motion for appeal must be passed within fourteen (14) days following rendering of the decision appealed; provided, however, that if no regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission or city council occurs within such fourteen (14) day time period, the time for such appeal shall be extended through the date of the next succeeding regularly scheduled meeting. No grounds for appeal need be stated nor must a letter of appeal be submitted.

2. Appeals shall be scheduled for the earliest regular meeting of the hearing body, not less than ten (10) days or more than sixty (60) days after the date of filing a complete appeal application or passing a motion for appeal, consistent with the agenda preparation procedures and schedule of the hearing body.

3. All appeals shall be considered in a public hearing if a public hearing was required for the decision appealed, consistent with the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.04, Common Procedures. All approval authorities hearing appeals shall consider the project in its entirety, or de novo. The planning commission or the city council may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision appealed as deemed just and equitable, provided such action is not contrary to any provisions set forth in this title.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Comment to SH Planning Commission
I’m Michael Haley and I live with my wife Jennifer at 2490 Spring Mountain Road, next door to the property requesting the temporary use permit.

I’ll start with my conclusion, that it is clearly inappropriate and unsafe to have this large of concert events taking place in a residential neighborhood like this. I’ll explain.

I first became aware of the large concert events taking place there several weeks ago when I needed to run out quickly to do something and I was blocked on the driveway—my own driveway—and was not allowed to go down it by someone I did not know who told me to wait. I waited a little while then said to heck with it, this is my driveway and just went. They got mad at me but at that point I didn’t care. I had no idea what was going on.

This is a long narrow one lane driveway through a hill side, with a steep drop on one side and an uphill on the other, and cars approaching from opposite directions often have to back up to one of several turn outs just to get by each other. It serves nine homes in this little neighborhood, and just with that level of traffic I have had several near misses on accidents as there are several blind curves and you have to go slowly to be safe.

I see from the staff report that a total of 13 rather large buses are going to be taking people up here and back, over a period of about an hour and a half. No one will be able to get past those buses without stopping and back up to a turn out if they are encountered directly. If there was an emergency and everyone had to leave, ie a wildfire, all it would take is one or two cars going inadvertently in the opposite direction to jam up the whole road. It wouldn’t matter if there were police and fire, they would be stuck too. It’s a really dangerous situation.

Last year, I believe it was around September, very loud music was playing at what I thought was my neighbors house, it happened three Saturdays within a month. I thought they were having a house party so I just let it go but decided I would go and talk to them if it happened again, then they all disappeared and have been gone all winter. Neither of them, 2500 and what I understand is a guest house next to it, have been occupied since last fall for all appearances and I pass by daily.

The music was so loud that we could hear it in our house even with noise cancelling head phones on, every couple seconds a bass sound that vibrated our windows. This lasted for six hours each time.

I believe that the ag zoning they are using to justify this level of event is is being misused and applied inappropriately.

Agenda Item #11.1.

My wife’s family were farmers in Napa County from the 1870’s and she inherited a vineyard/farmland south of Yountville where we lived for many years. I managed our wine grape growing operation through 14 harvests on about 100 acres of vineyard, working together with her brother next door who had about 140 acres. We decided to sell our property in 2015 and retire, and I have only recently, less than a year ago, moved to St. Helena.

I was a member of the General Plan Steering Committee that produced the current General Plan during the years 2005 to 2008. I also had input to the update of the Winery Definition Ordinance that took place around 2009-10 to my recollection.

My impression of the justification for permitting these large concert events at 2500 Spring Mountain is that it is zoned A 20, which allows for accessory uses for ag land. In simple terms.

I am not familiar with all the thinking and applications of the laws in St. Helena, but I can tell you that in the debates that went on over the WDO and the resulting code that came forth, an accessory use is not the main use of a property. It’s an accessory. The main use is supposed to be agriculture.

It was done so the wineries, which are producing large volumes of wine, could sell their wine.

Events are done to sell wine, and as you all probably well know, they are limited and are permitted with very specific rules, winery by winery, as to number of visitors, hours, number of events, down to number of allowed parking spaces, and etc. The smaller the winery, the more limited the events and numbers allowed.

The large events taking place at 2500 Spring Mt. are hardly an accessory use, they appear to be the main use. It appears from their literature that they are doing weddings, large concerts, and they advertise for others to contract to use their space for events.

I live next door, and I see a small, less than one acre, vineyard on what I believe is the guest house. They say they have olive trees, but I see no signs that any farming is being done, but if so it is minimal. No one in and out of the place all winter and right through the time when Olive trees should be harvested, no signs of any farming, trucks, bins of olives, nothing.

We had 300 Olive trees in our vineyard near Yountville and harvest takes place in the late fall and is very labor intensive. But perhaps they are doing more ag than I know, but in any case their production is obviously small and in no way justifies the large events they are doing as an accessory use.

If they really were harvesting and bottling olive oil and they had events for people to come in and taste their olive oil, perhaps with some food, that would be my concept of an appropriate accessory use for that kind of ag. Not big rock concerts where I doubt very much they are handing out olive oil to the crowd for the hope of future sales.

Agenda Item #11.1.

County rules are not the same as Saint Helena rules, but if you are going to use the word accessory, then I think it needs to be accessory, and not the main use of the property, which is clearly not the case here. From their advertising it appears they are offering to rent the property to outside parties to put on concerts or other events. This is totally inappropriate for a residential neighborhood even under ag accessory rules.

I see that St. Helena has a winery definition ordinance that states that events are only for large wineries. I copied this from the code:
““Winery visitor center” means a day use area including tour and tasting facilities, retail sales of wines and wine-related items, catering shops, cafes, restaurants, delicatessens, and drinking places. Must be conducted within structures specifically designated for such uses. Winery visitor centers are an accessory use to a large winery. (Ord. 23-4 § 5 (Exh. A))” These are very large and intrusive events not at anything even approximating a large winery.

Thank you for considering my opinion, I realize that I may lose on this issue, and I would at least appreciate the following considerations:

1. Please notify us of upcoming events as soon as possible so we can make plans to manage our response.

2. There needs to be some kind of noise limit. In the noise study done for the June 20 event, at our house it will be 96db, according to my conversation with the planner at your office. That is an ear damaging level of noise.

3. There needs to be a limit on how many events take place per year, and I would add on the number of participants. During fire season if, admittedly the low probability event happens of a wildfire, no one will get out of there safely no matter how many firefighters and police you have on duty.

Michael and Jennifer Haley
2490 Spring Mountain Rd.

Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Juli Pringle
To: Public Comment
Cc: Planning Commission; Contact City Council
Subject: [External] Proposed event 2500 Spring Mountain Road Date: Sunday, May 18, 2025 3:59:42 PM
Good Afternoon,
We are writing of our concerns about events at the residence 2500 Spring Mountain Road. As neighbors we received a letter informing us of a concert coming on June 20th with 600 guests attending. It is stated that the attendees will be bused in and out of the event. While this is certainly an inconvenience for us as residents our concern lies with future events planned as 2500 Spring Mountain Road is being advertised as an event space for sale We have endured previous events that we were not notified of last year including concerts and loud music. It was impossible to enjoy being in your own yard in the evening.

Our questions to you all are as follows:

With an event with 600 guests how many total persons are going to be shuttling back and forth? Vendors for catering, lighting, sound, security etc.?
Is our road safe for these shuttle buses and residential traffic? It is a single lane road and we would venture to say that in the case of emergency the neighborhood could not get out with this many people. There is no two way traffic on our road, period.

How many events are allowed per year assuming that this is legal? Would they all require a Temporary Use Permit? As we have stated we have not been notified of any previous events although they are occurring.

Planning Department conditions of approval for this event number 7 states “the city reserves the right to request a day of inspection to verify that all required components are implemented as outlined in this approval.” We strongly recommend and request that the city follows through with this day of inspection.

Who do we call if there is an issue with this or future events? On a weekend? Police? Fire? We do not object to a truly one time event but we do object to the property being used as an ongoing event center. We believe the City needs to guard against the abuse of the Temporary Use Permit to effectively change the zoning. The use of the website Distinct Locations offering up the property for all sorts of events is very disconcerting. We have a quiet rural neighborhood and do not believe that an event center is appropriate for this location.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Terry and Juli Pringle
2484 Spring Mountain Road
St Helena, CA 94574
(707) 337-6362
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment- CODE A20 usage at Monte Olivos, 2500 Spring Mountain Rd.

Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:29:46 PM
Jennifer Haley
2490 Spring Mountain Rd
Saint Helena, CA 94574
RE: Commercial Events at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd, Saint Helena, CA (Monte Olivos private estate residence)
Dear City of Saint Helena Planning Department,
I am a Napa native. My husband and I just bought our home in a very smally neighborhood on Spring Mountain Rd last summer. The reason we bought it, was for the peacefulness and the beauty of living in the foothills of the Napa Valley. Last year, when we began hearing loud concerts at the Monte Olivos private estate, I just thought the family was having extravagant family parties to celebrate birthdays or something. It wasn’t until this year, when Monte Olivos held a large country music concert, which was blocking the one lane road leading our neighborhood and home, that I began to wonder what was actually going on there. I began to check the internet for events on that property. I discovered Monte Olivos was clearly advertising their private estate for commercial wedding and event venues, including concerts for profit. The following are links I found that state large commercial events for profit are being held and advertised.

Ensemble — LITV This link explains what the Ensemble company is, along with its promotion of Live in the Vineyard events, one of which was the country music concert at the Monte Olivos
private estate.

Ensemble — LITV This is a link is the “thank you” announcement written by the owners of Monte Olivos private estate.

Monte Olivos Estate — Distinct Locations Event Venues This link is about the company which promotes weddings and all kinds of venues.

One of the distinct locations being
advertised is the Monte Olivos private estate.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Events — Grove 45 Olive Oil This is a link if you will flip through the pages for Grove 45 and Museion, you will see the advertisement for corporate and private events at
the Monte Olivos private
estate.

My concerns as a full-time resident in our very small neighborhood, which adjoins the Monte Olivos private estate at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd are; All our neighbors including myself share the curving one lane road leading to our driveways. It is difficult as it is when two vehicles need to figure out how to get past each other, let alone a large event driving on this road. If there is an emergency for one of the residences that they have to get down the hill or emergency staff needs to come up the hill during one of Monte Olivos’ events, it is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible.

In my opinion I do not see how a fire engine would be able to get up to the residences where we live on Spring Mountain Road, if there are event vehicles sharing the road at the same time.

When these events have been held at Monte Olivos, and for the upcoming large events one of which is going to be having 600 people attending this year, we haven’t been given any notice when these events are being planned. As a resident of the neighborhood, we could be planning a special family celebration like a small family engagement party, and then find out when our guests can’t drive up or down the shared Spring Mountain Rd, because of a large Monte Olivos event we weren’t aware of.

Noise levels. Two of the Monte Olivos concerts last year were so loud, the base sound permeated inside our home even with our doors and windows closed, and I was using headphones.

I understand the City of Saint Helena has added a new zoning code, A20, and understandably the details of the definition of this new zoning needs to be reviewed to work out the problems it can also bring. Napa County found it necessary to do the same when it was developing its allowed uses and disallowed use.

It is my opinion the Monte Olivos private estate commercial events for profit such as the concerts, corporate events and weddings, are not appropriate for our very private neighborhood. The Monte Olivos was Agenda Item #11.1.

approved by Spring Mountain residences and the City of Saint Helena as a private estate.

The safety issues of living in a very secluded, small and wealthy neighborhood. We feel very safe up here, but with as many of the public and working staff that now is aware of our neighborhood with these large events, it naturally creates the uncertainty we didn’t feel before about the potential for criminal behavior.

It is my opinion that due to these commercial venues for weddings and concerts, etc., that the real estate value for the homes in our small neighborhood will deteriorate due to the loud noise factors these events create. If we had known before we bought our home here last year, these large and loud events were happening as a business, we would have changed our minds about buying up here.

When Napa County residence receive their property bills, and when a person buys a home within the Napa Valley, there is always the reminder statement, about the Right-To-Farm law. I do believe there should be a similar statement on behalf of the new Code A20, so that people thinking of buying property next to, or close to an existing A20 use property have the right to know. That said, I do not feel that a property with a Code A20 use, such as the Monte Olivos private estate property, should be allowed cart blanche by the City of Saint Helena.

Thank you taking the time to understand my personal concerns, and my concerns for our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Haley
Agenda Item #11.1.

Dinner at Bocelli's
Transportation Management Plan (TMP)
Event Overview
Event Name: Dinner at Bocelli's
Date: Friday, June 20th
Time: 3:00 PM – 11:00 PM
Venue: Monte Olivos Estate, St. Helena, Napa County
Expected Attendance: 600 guests
Transportation Narrative
All guest arrivals and departures will be managed through Charles Krug Winery, which will serve as the central hub for parking and loading. At full capacity, approximately 600 guests will be transported to the off-site venue using 9 mini-coaches, each with a seating capacity of 27-35 passengers per wave with the addition of 13 sprinter vans, each with a seating capacity of 14 passenger. In addition to these vehicles there will be an ADA accessible van with a capacity of 10 passengers. Parking availability at Krug exceeds 1000 spaces.

Based on feedback from the neighboring community, we have added additional vehicles, Sprinter vans, which will be able to utilize the front driveway off of Highway 29 if approved by local authorities. These vehicles are approximately 20ft long. This change could significantly reduce the traffic on Spring Mountain Road on the evening of the event.

Coaches will follow a predetermined routing plan to ensure efficient ingress. Each mini-coach measures on average 25 feet allowing for maneuverability along narrow access roads. If guests arrive late or outside of their departure time, a sprinter van will be available to transport guests to Monte Olivos. All vehicles will remain staged on property at Monte Olivos through the end of the event in case of emergency.

We propose law enforcement deployment along Spring Valley Road from 3:00 PM to 11:15 PM to assist with traffic flow and event access control. In addition, we plan to deploy professional flaggers at both Spring Mountain Road and the entrance to Monte Olivios.

These traffic personnel will help manage the two-way flow and support staff and production arrivals, maintaining safety along the narrow access routes throughout the event. They will also be able to clear the road if needed in an emergency situation.

Upon arrival at Monte Olivios, buses will drop off passengers and stage within the property to await the return trip. Return transportation will be similarly organized into two groups, with scheduled departures at 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM. An ADA-compliant vehicle will be Agenda Item #11.1.

available for guests with special needs throughout the evening. Also, accommodations will be made for guests who leave early.

Traffic Management Personnel
Refer to Appendix A for the Monte Olivios TMP Egress Plan, which outlines road signage, traffic flow, and staging logistics.
- Proposed law enforcement deployment: Spring Valley Road, 3:00 PM – 11:15 PM - Flaggers:
- Spring Mountain Road (intersection control)
- Monte Olivos entrance (arrival coordination and safety) - Flaggers will mitigate traffic impacts for residents and maintain clear access for emergency response vehicles.
- All flaggers will utilize two-way radio communication for real-time coordination and incident response.

Shuttle Operations
- Departure: Starting at 4:30 PM from Charles Krug
- Return Waves: 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM from Monte Olivios - Vehicles: 9 Minicoaches, 13 Sprinter Vans
- ADA transport: Available and on-call throughout the event Parking & Access Summary
- Guest Parking: Charles Krug Winery only
- The majority of event staff will also park at Charles Krug Winery and be transported to Monte Olivos via shuttle
- No patron parking permitted at Monte Olivios
- Monte Olivos access restricted to essential working personnel - Bus staging permitted on-site at Monte Olivios
Contingency Planning
- Accommodations will be made for early departures
- Route adjustments are available in collaboration with law enforcement if needed Agenda Item #11.1.

Conclusion
This Transportation Management Plan aims to support guest safety, minimize local traffic impact, and ensure a seamless experience for all event attendees and staff. We welcome collaboration with local stakeholders to finalize and effectively implement the plan.

Appendix A
Monte Olivios TMP Egress Plan – View Online:

MONTI OLIVIOS TMP EGRESS PLAN R0.1 (1).pdf prepared by C. McEndree PE, dated April 17, 2025. This diagram provides scale mapping of road signage placement, bus staging, ingress/egress flow, and key intersections for flagger and enforcement deployment.

Appendix B
Charles Krug Winery Parking Lot Map - View Online:

Krug - 04-23-25 Parking .pdf
Prepared by 100x Hospitality, dated April 23, 2025. This diagram details available parking spaces at Charles Krug Winery.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Written Statement

OVERVIEW
This event will take place at Monte Olivos (25000 Spring Mountain Rd) on Friday, June 20th 2025. The event will consist of a concert by Andrea Bocelli, occurring during a seated family style dinner served by Outstanding in the Field. We are expecting 600 guests, who will be onsite from 4:30pm-10:00pm. Entertainment to end at 9:30pm per permitting requirements, light ambient music to follow from 9:30pm-10:00pm.

TRANSPORTATION
All guest arrivals and departures will be facilitated using small motorcoaches operating between Charles Krug Winery and Monte Olivios. Guests will park at Charles Krug Winery, arriving via private vehicle or rideshare/livery service. Beginning at 4:30 PM, motorcoaches will transport guests from the winery to the event via Spring Mountain Road.

No patron parking will be permitted at Monte Olivos. Parking at Monte Olivos will be limited and restricted to essential working personnel only.

Charles Krug Winery will serve exclusively as the designated parking and transportation hub for the event. Parking personnel will be deployed on-site to manage traffic flow, direct vehicles, and assist guests during arrival and departure.

Staff will also be strategically stationed at Monte Olivos to coordinate the timely dispatch and arrival of coaches, ensuring smooth ingress and egress at the event site as well as assist with local traffic. Once all guests have been transported to Monte Olivios, motorcoaches will stage in preparation for return service.

After the event, shuttles will begin to return guests to Charles Krug Winery starting at 9:30pm.

Final departure estimated for 10:00 pm.

KITCHENS & TENTING
We will be using pop up tents, but there will be no other tenting involved. We will be building three kitchens onsite under the pop tents. The kitchens will utilize propane and wood-fired cooking equipment, consisting of convection ovens, grills, fryers, griddles, and 6-burner stove ovens. No heated cooking equipment will be used under the tenting.

MODIFICATIONS
There will be no modifications to any existing buildings.

There will be generators used onsite to supplement the existing power grid.

There will be some 6’ x 8’ redwood fencing segments to be used to mask back of house areas, but the segments will be anchored to the ground by sandbags. They will not be staked or semi-permanately installed.

Agenda Item #11.1.

STAR WAGON
There will be a “Star Wagon” on property, to be used by Andrea Bocelli and his family. This trailer will fully self-sufficient, with its own water.

RESTROOMS
There will be three restroom trailers from United Site Services (permitted in Napa County) available onsite:

1. 10 stall restroom trailer

2. 8 stall ADA restroom trailer

3. 4 stall restroom trailer

4. 4 stall restroom trailer (used for staff only)

LIGHTING
The dining tables will be lit with string lights down the length of each table. These string lightings will be powered by power drops from generators.

Guest pathways will be lit by 8’ height pin spots (connected to property’s grid power) and battery-powered uplights.

Shuttle drop off areas will be lit by pin spots (connected to property’s grid power).

Kitchens will be lit by both battery powered stand lights and rented lighting–high bay and clip on lights (connected to property’s grid power & power drops from generators).

Two light towers will be utilized for BOH / breakdown purposes (connected to generators).

Key Contacts for Inspection
Outstanding in the Field - food & beverage service
Planning & Permitting
Caroline Hernandez, Outstanding in the Field - 415-260-8979 Health & Fire Inspections
Seth Heitzenrater, Outstanding in the Field - 215-485-7738 100x Hospitality - entertainment & transportation
Andrew Clements - Producer 724.875.1522
Elliott Little - Technical Director 608.201.7337
Mike Medvin - Operations 215.237.6365
Randi Nall- Associate Producer 251.809.5293
David Nelson - Project Manager +52.984.186.6962
Agenda Item #11.1.

Set Up & Breakdown Plan
Wednesday, June 18th (10am-5pm)
Event rentals delivered
Restroom trailers delivered
Staging installed
Thursday, June 19th (10am-5pm)
All back of house areas assembled
Dining tables and chairs set up
Lighting installed
Friday, June 20th (8am-12am)
Final event set up
All vendors arrive for service
Event occurs from 4:30pm-10:00pm
Saturday, June 21st (10am-5pm)
Staging, lighting, and event rentals broken down and removed from property Sunday, June 22nd (10am-5pm)
Staging, lighting, and event rentals broken down and removed from property Monday, June 23rd (10am-5pm)
Waste receptacles and restroom trailers removed from property All vendors full off of property by end of day
Security, First Aid, & Emergency Plan
An on-site Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) will be present, equipped with first aid supplies and basic life support, to respond to any medical needs during the event's duration. Additionally, the appropriate number of security guards will be deployed to oversee guest safety, assist with crowd management, manage emergencies, and monitor the overall security of the event space.

Weather conditions will be actively monitored through a professional meteorological service to ensure timely awareness of any developing hazards.

Monte Olivos will maintain emergency access points on both sides of the property to provide alternative ingress and egress in the event of an emergency. Event staff will be trained on emergency protocols and will communicate via radio or mobile phone to coordinate an efficient and safe response.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Inclement Weather Plan
To ensure the safety and comfort of all attendees, weather conditions will be continuously monitored through a professional meteorological service. This allows the event team to respond quickly to any developing weather concerns.

In the event of inclement weather, guests and staff will be directed to shelter within the two large covered structures on-site. If additional shelter is required, motorcoaches will be available as backup protected spaces. These coaches will also be staged and ready to return patrons to Charles Krug Winery if early evacuation becomes necessary.

Tent Sizes

RECEPTION KITCHEN TENT
(4) 10’x10’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(16) THD Stake 1”x42” Double Head
(4) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC
FIELD KITCHEN TENT 1
(1) 20’x20’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(8) THD Stake 1”x42” Double Head
(1) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC
FIELD KITCHEN TENT 2
(1) 20’x20’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(8) THD Stake 1”x42” Double Head
(1) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC

SCULLERY TENT
(1) 20’x20’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(8) THD Stake 1”x42” Double Head
(1) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC

STAFF & VENDOR TENTS
(2) 10’x20’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(2) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC

STAGE LEFT TENT
(1) 10’x20’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(6) THD Stake 1”x42” Double Head
Agenda Item #11.1.

(2) (AZT) Sidewall 10’Hx20’W U/W
(2) (AZT) Sidewall 10’Hx10’W U/W
(1) Door Exit Slider 10’
(1) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC
(15) Sub-Floor, Black Poly Lay Down 4’x4’

STAGE RIGHT TENT
(1) 10’x20’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(6) THD Stake 1”x42” Double Head
(2) (AZT) Sidewall 10’Hx20’W U/W
(2) (AZT) Sidewall 10’Hx10’W U/W
(1) Door Exit Slider 10’
(1) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC
(15) Sub-Floor, Black Poly Lay Down 4’x4’

FRONT OF HOUSE TENT
(1) 10’x20’x10’ Qwik Top U/W
(6) THD Stake 1”x42” Double Head
(2) (AZT) Sidewall 10’Hx20’W U/W
(1) Door Exit Slider 10’
(1) Tent Fire Extinguisher ABC
(15) Sub-Floor, Black Poly Lay Down 4’x4’
Total Number of Staff & Vendors
Wednesday, June 18th (10am-5pm)
55 staff & vendors onsite throughout the course of the day Thursday, June 19th (10am-5pm)
53 staff & vendors onsite throughout the course of the day Friday, June 20th (8am-12am)
128 staff & vendors onsite throughout the course of the day Saturday, June 21st (10am-5pm)
55 staff & vendors onsite throughout the course of the day Sunday, June 22nd (10am-5pm)
20 staff & vendors onsite throughout the course of the day Monday, June 23rd (10am-5pm)
4 vendors onsite throughout the course of the day
Agenda Item #11.1.

City of St. Helena
City Council
Project: 2500 Spring Mountain Rd.

Temporary Use Permit TUP25-005 /Appeal APP25-002
Staff: Jackie Oneal
Community Development Department June 10, 2025
Agenda Item #11.1.

May 22, 2025, Appeal Application Filed
• Per SHMC 17.12, appeals procedures require a 14-day waiting period before a deciding body’s decision is final
• Appeals must be held at a regularly scheduled meeting • When an appeal is filed, any pending decision is suspended • Due to the constrained timing between the PC approval and the date of the event, the applicants chose to preemptively file an appeal requesting to uphold the PC approval
Agenda Item #11.1.

Temporary Use Permits
• St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) 17.05.110 establishes that the purpose of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) is to provide procedures for short-term activities and uses on privately or publicly owned property with appropriate regulations so that such activities will be compatible with the surrounding areas.
• Pursuant to SHMC 17.22.250 (D)(1), the Community Development Director may refer a TUP application to the Planning Commission when there are factors such as events with attendance over 400 persons. • In February 2025, staff administratively approved one TUP for an unrelated, music and dinner event held on the site, Live in the Vineyard Goes Country. Staff did not receive any complaints about the event at the time it was held.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Aerial View
2500 Spring Mountain Rd.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Background
• The property is developed with a single-family residence and associated accessory structures and an agricultural barn complex that was approved for use as a commercial agricultural olive oil press, processing, and storage facility in 2014
• A-20 zoning does not permit event centers as a by-right or conditional use • 5/19/25 - Staff met with a representative of the property to discuss event history
• 5/27/25 - Staff issued a courtesy notice letter informing that event centers are not permitted in the zoning district and to cease all event activities, except for the approved June 20 Bocelli Dinner event.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Project Description
• Temporary Use Permit application to allow for a private, ticketed, dinner and music event, within the Twenty-Acre Agriculture zoning district on June 20, 2025, with a maximum attendance of 600 persons.
• Guests would be on-site from approximately 4:30 to 10:00 p.m. with live entertainment scheduled to end at 9:30.
• Staff and vendors would be on-site to set-up/break-down from Wednesday, 6/18/25 - 6/23/25 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., with the exception of the day of the event, when staff and vendors will be onsite from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Project Description cont.
• Guests will park at Charles Krug Winery and be transported via 13 minicoach buses each with a capacity of 27-35 passengers. • Passengers will be transported in two waves beginning at 4:30 p.m. with return transportation from 9:30 to 10:00 p.m.
• On-site parking limited to essential personnel, no guests to be parked at 2500 Spring Mountain.

Agenda Item #11.1.

May 20, 2025, Planning Commission
• Planning Commission voted to conditionally approved the TUP application 4-0 (1 commissioner absent)
• Public Comments generally related to concerns about safety, ingress and egress, and concerns related to the ongoing use of the site as an unpermitted event center
• City staff, including Police and Fire, were available to respond to questions • At the meeting, the TUP Ordinance was discussed generally. Staff and PC agreed that the ordinance needs to be strengthened and will be working with the City Attorney to bring forward a Zoning Amendment for the TUP regulations
Agenda Item #11.1.

Event Aerial Site Plan
Agenda Item #11.1.

Event Aerial Stage and Seating Plan
Agenda Item #11.1.

Noise
The City has established maximum allowable thresholds for intrusive noise across specific time periods. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive receptors—primarily residential areas—and represent the maximum ambient levels considered acceptable to avoid adverse impacts on homes and other noise-sensitive land uses:
• Daytime (7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.): 45 dBA
• Evening (7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.): 40 dBA
• Nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.): 35 dBA
St. Helena Police Department issued a Noise Permit to exceed these levels in the day and evening, but not after 10 P.M.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Traffic Management
Agenda Item #11.1.

Safety/Emergency
• On-site paramedic and ambulance (Rock
Medicine/AMR)
• Security Guards On-Site
• Weather Monitoring
• Staged motor coaches in the event of
emergency evacuation
• 2 PD Officers on-site
• Building and Fire Dept. Pre-event site
inspections
Agenda Item #11.1.

Analysis
Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), which exempts the minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment.

A TUP may only be approved after the deciding body has made the following findings:

1. The temporary activity complies with applicable standards identified in Section 17.22.250, Temporary uses; and

2. Maintenance or operation of the temporary activity would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed temporary activity.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Recommendation

1. Determine that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e); and

2. Approve a resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of TUP25-005 in order to allow the Andrea Bocelli dinner and entertainment event with up to 600 guests on the Monte Olivos estate located at 2500 Spring Mountain Road.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Questions?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Dinner at the Bocelli's
Experience a magical weekend in Napa Valley featuring the world-renowned tenor, Andrea Bocelli. Indulge in fine wines, gourmet cuisine, and unforgettable performances in
breathtaking vineyard settings.

Event Date: June 20th, 2025
Event Location: Monte Olivos 2500 Spring Mtn RD, Saint
Helena CA
AC by Andrew Clements
Agenda Item #11.1.

Executive Summary
Event Overview
• Attendance
• Hours of Operation
• Food Program
• Run Of Show (Schedule)
Key Event Details
• Event Map
• Parking and Traffic
• Noise Study
• Emergency Evacuation
Agenda Item #11.1.

Dinner at Bocelli's Overview
Attendees
Total Guests: 600 person dinner, with intermittent musical performances Hours of Operation
Event Doors Open: 4:45 PM (shuttle transportation begins at 4:30pm) Food Experience: 6:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Musical Performances: Intermittent from 6:15 PM-9:30 PM Food and Beverage
• Food curated by renowned St. Helena Chef Elliot Bell from Charlies • Wine experience featuring local wines & Bocelli Family Wines Run of Show
• 6:15 PM - 6:20 PM First Act (5 minutes)
• 6:20 PM - 7:15 PM Intermission (55 minutes)
• 7:15 PM - 7:20 PM Second Act (5 minutes)
• 7:20 PM - 7:55 PM Intermission (35 minutes)
• 7:55 PM - 8:00 PM Third Act (5 minutes)
• 8:00 PM - 8:10 PM ABF Speeches (10 minutes)
• 8:10 PM - 8:50 PM Intermission (40 minutes)
• 8:50 PM - 8:55 PM Auction Intro (5 minutes)
• 8:55 PM - 9:05 PM Fourth Act (10 minutes)
• 9:05 PM - 9:15 PM Guitar Auction (10 minutes)
• 9:15 PM - 9:30 PM Final Act (15 minutes)
Agenda Item #11.1.

Event Operations
Event Maps
Global Map, Dinner & Show Map
Parking and Traffic
Parking at Charles Krug Winery, Shuttles to and From the Event Site Emergency Management
Evacuation Plan, Fire Safety
Noise Study
Noise Predictions and Conclusions
Agenda Item #11.1.

Global Site Map
Agenda Item #11.1.

Dinner & A Show Map
Agenda Item #11.1.

Traffic Management Plan
Agenda Item #11.1.

Emergency Management
On-Site Medical Management: Rock Medicine providing comprehensive on-site medical services, supported by a local ambulance company (AMR)
Medical Locations: A dedicate EMT team by Rockmed will be onsite Fire Safety: Event site has a fully operating Fire Truck stationed onsite and operable during all event hours Emergency Exits: Clearly marked emergency exits with ample signage throughout the venue including an emergency exit out of the property that can be used for Ambulances and CalFire in case of forest fire.

Emergency Busing: 13 Sprinter Van and 9 Minibuses will be staged onsite that can be used in an emergency with enough room to hold. Total capacity of 610 passengers in an emergency scenario.

Emergency Messaging: Pre-recorded emergency messages and live announcements ("VOG") from the Front of House for clear and timely communication
Agenda Item #11.1.

Simplified, Evacuation/Emergency Plan
Purpose: This Emergency Operations Plan outlines procedures to protect the safety of all guests and staff at Dinner at Bocelli’s in the event of severe weather, life-safety threats, or other emergencies.

Emergency Monitoring: A professional meteorologist will provide continuous weather monitoring throughout the event. This service supports real-time decision-making regarding shelter-in-place or evacuation actions as needed.

Shelter-in-Place Procedures: If evacuation is not immediately possible or needed, guests and staff will shelter on-site at Monte Olivos:
• 2 large Permanent indoor structures on the property,
Guests will remain sheltered until the threat has passed or emergency officials provide further instructions.

Evacuation Procedures: If a full evacuation is required, the following transportation resources are available:
• 13 Pre-staged Sprinter vans
• 15 Passengers per van
• 9 Minibuses
• 27- 35 seated passengers per bus
• 15 additional standing passengers per bus in life-safety emergencies • An additional ADA accessible van
• 10 Passangers
• Additional 15 passenger vans on standby
Total evacuation capacity: 610+ people
Because all buses can be staged and loaded at once, evacuation from site can begin in approximately 10 minutes with orderly boarding. Note: Buses are reserved for emergency evacuation only and will not be used to relocate guests unless a full evacuation is ordered.

Fire Safety: Monte Olivos maintains a permanent on-site fire truck to support immediate fire response capabilities on the property until local emergency services arrive.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Noise Study
Noise Prediction at Parcel Perimeter & Nearest Sensitive Receptors at SPL 90dBa Prepared by: RSC Audio Engineering, Peer Reviewed by Saxelby Acoustics and stamped with the Institute of Noise Control Engineering Certification Agenda Item #11.1.

Noise Study Conclusion:

Key Findings
• At ½ mile or more, sound levels drop to 40 dBA or below, aligning with the city’s evening noise threshold (7–10 PM). • Event ends by 9:30 PM, avoiding conflict with the stricter nighttime threshold of 35 dBA. • No mitigation necessary, as modeling shows all predicted levels stay within ordinance limits even with elevated terrain near some homes. However, as a precautionary measure with homes so close to the event site, a noise permit has been received from the Chief of Policy Chris Hartley for the event.

Peer Review Assurance
• Modeling conducted using SoundPLAN NoizCalc 4.0 and ISO 9316-2 standards. • Reviewed and validated by Saxelby Acoustics, who concur that sound levels will be barely perceptible or inaudible beyond ½ mile.

The Dinner at Bocelli’s gala event will operate comfortably within the City’s noise standards and is not expected to cause disruption to surrounding neighbors or the broader St. Helena community.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Pam Samuelson
To: Aaron Barak; Michelle Deasy; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; Paul Dohring; City Manager Cc: Bob Glushko; Pam Samuelson; [email protected] Subject: [External] upcoming city council meeting about 2500 Spring Mtn Road events Date: Thursday, June 5, 2025 9:50:52 AM
Bob Glushko and I have lived at 2494 Spring Mountain Road since March 2002. One of the many joys of living in this part of St Helena has been how blessedly quiet and bucolic our property and neighborhood have been--at least until Mr. Hernandez has turned 2500 Spring Mountain Road into an event facility attracting large crowds and blasting out music that can be heard throughout the neighborhood. I write to you now to join in the opposition to the use of what Mr. Hernandez agreed was to be a residential property into an event venue. We all agree that the noise, congestion of our private road, and the fire danger presented by these events are obnoxious and should not be tolerated by the City of St Helena.

In the fall of 2020 the Spring Mountain Road fire came perilously close to our properties. We were saved by the irrigation pond and by some residents defying evacuation orders to wet down roofs and put out spot fires. Since then, the neighbors agreed to pool resources and thin out the woods to reduce the risk of fire. I miss the more wooded feel of the pre-fire neighborhood, but cleaning the woods as much as possible was the sound idea. Even so we were unable to renew our long-time fire insurance policy this year because insurance companies thought that the neighborhood was too risky to insure. Michael Haley is not the only person in the neighborhood to have experienced loss of insurance coverage. This is an extra reason to be concerned about the Hernandez property being used as a high end event facility. All it would take is one person smoking a cigarette and dropping it to the ground or throwing it into the woods to start a massive fire if the wind picks it up. This would put not only all of the attendees at the Hernandez property at risk, but also all of the houses and their residents at risk too. And we may not be able to get out because of traffic being clogged up on our private road.

Please rescind the temporary permit that Mr. Hernandez has obtained or at least limit it to a one-time use. And only a one-time use.

Others in the neighborhood have asked Mr. Hernandez to be a good neighbor and simply desist from hosting other events. This has not proven successful. Indeed, it seems that he has doubled down on his insistence on being able to use his property in this way. Please don't let him get away with this. It's just not safe.
--
Pamela Samuelson
Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law
Berkeley Law School
Berkeley CA 94720-7200
(o) 510-642-6775
Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Co-Founder, Authors Alliance Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Juli Pringle
To: Michelle Deasy
Cc: [email protected]; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; City Manager; Paul Dohring Subject: Re: [External] Proposed event 2500 Spring Mountain Road Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 4:30:57 PM
To our City of St Helena Council members and our City Manager, We are writing again to bring your attention to the matter of our neighbor at 2500 Spring Mountain Road hosting major events. It is the property of Monte Olivios LLC. At the planning commission meeting on May 20th the commissioners asked the daughter of the owner how the property was held in terms of insurance. She said the property was a trust but it is clearly listed as an LLC. She also said that the advertisement for the property with an event planning website was an error. We believe that the Monte Olivios property was taken off of the site however Grove 45 is still being advertised on the Distinct Properties site and the two entities are affiliated.

The property at 2500 Spring Mountain Road is listed as a single family residential in the tax files. It is also zoned A 20. As we have stated in previous correspondence there are future events on the calendar as of today. We are not notified of any of the events past or future except the Boccelli concert on June 20. Is it acceptable to hold these events and block the access of the residents for the accommodation of the guests? As neighbors we are very concerned for fire safety of all of the residents on our small street. We have a one lane road to access all of our properties. In the event of an emergency it will be virtually impossible to evacuate a large event (or even a medium size of say 200) with the limitations of the road, let alone all of us residents. We are perplexed at Public Works and St Helena Fire signing off on any event with the limitations of the road. The road can be hazardous just driving in and out with the residential traffic and we do not feel safe with an added few hundred people.

How can it legally be possible for a residential property to hold events with hundreds of guests, multiple times without any consideration of the logistics of the neighborhood and/or road access? Or without any conditions as there seems to be with the Boccelli event? How many events are acceptable under the law if this is permissible? There have already been multiple events this year and there are at least 4 more events currently on the calendar we could find online.

We would greatly appreciate your consideration and attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
Terry and Juli Pringle
On May 21, 2025, at 12:01 PM, Juli Pringle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for getting back to me. The property at 2500 Spring Mountain Road is within city limits. We attended a planning commission meeting last night where the issue was discussed.

This is the property of Monte Olivos LLC. They have been having events for the past year and we found out last night that if the event is 400 attendees or less they do not need a TPU.

The issue for us as neighbors is not only the size of the events we have endured but the safety Agenda Item #11.1.

of the neighborhood. We have a one way access road to all of the properties. This is the first time we have been notified of the upcoming event simply due to the size.

We did not intend to live in an area with an event center and neither did our neighbors. It is actively being marketed as an event center and future events are currently scheduled. It is totally inappropriate for this neighborhood due to limited access and safety concerns it raises.

We are in the high fire danger zone per Cal Fire map.

We would appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you very much,
Terry and Juli Pringle
On May 20, 2025, at 9:46 PM, Michelle Deasy
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Juli,
Apologies for the slow response. I am trying to get up-to-speed on this matter. I wanted to ask, is it the case that 2500 Spring Mountain Road is JUST outside of city limits? I am trying to understand where the permit lies.

Michelle
Get Outlook for Android
From: Juli Pringle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 4:10:37 PM
To: Paul Dohring <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; Michelle Deasy <[email protected]>; Kate Spadarotto
<[email protected]>; Billy Summers
<[email protected]>; Public Comment
<[email protected]>
Cc: City Manager <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Contact City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [External] Proposed event 2500 Spring Mountain Road On May 18, 2025, at 3:59 PM, Juli Pringle
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon,
Agenda Item #11.1.

We are writing of our concerns about events at the residence 2500 Spring Mountain Road. As neighbors we received a
letter informing us of a concert coming on June 20th with 600 guests attending. It is stated that the attendees will be bused in and out of the event. While this is certainly an
inconvenience for us as residents our concern lies with future events planned as 2500 Spring Mountain Road is being
advertised as an event space for sale
We have endured previous events that we were not notified of last year including concerts and loud music. It was
impossible to enjoy being in your own yard in the evening.

Our questions to you all are as follows:

With an event with 600 guests how many total persons are going to be shuttling back and forth? Vendors for catering, lighting, sound, security etc.?
Is our road safe for these shuttle buses and residential traffic? It is a single lane road and we would venture to say that in the case of emergency the neighborhood could not get out with this many people. There is no two way traffic on our road, period.

How many events are allowed per year assuming that this is legal? Would they all require a Temporary Use Permit? As we have stated we have not been notified of any previous events although they are occurring.

Planning Department conditions of approval for this event number 7 states “the city reserves the right to request a day of inspection to verify that all required components are implemented as outlined in this approval.” We strongly
recommend and request that the city follows through with this day of inspection.

Who do we call if there is an issue with this or future events? On a weekend? Police? Fire?
We do not object to a truly one time event but we do object to the property being used as an ongoing event center. We
believe the City needs to guard against the abuse of the Temporary Use Permit to effectively change the zoning. The use of the website Distinct Locations offering up the property for all sorts of events is very disconcerting. We have a quiet rural neighborhood and do not believe that an event center is appropriate for this location.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Terry and Juli Pringle
2484 Spring Mountain Road
St Helena, CA 94574
(707) 337-6362
Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Item #11.1.

To: City Council and Planning Dept. re: 2500 Spring Mountain Rd.

I apologize for writing yet another long comment, however as I am just gradually learning about the TUP and A 20 zoning, along with other city zoning codes, I am seeing more problems that need to be addressed.

Point 1. In general, it appears from reading the TUP ordinance that just about anything can be done under a TUP. One could even have an event at their home without a TUP at all.

I could build a stage in my back yard, host a loud party with 399 participants, have audio up to 45 db, which could be heard by the local middle school which is within ear shot of my back yard.

If I only had 399 participants, it appears that I would not even need a TUP. This does not seem right to me.

Monte Olivos has been hosting large events on their residential property for two years or more.

We cannot find any record of them getting TUP’s on line before this year. Does this not require a CUP?
Point 2. If this is being permitted under A 20 zoning, section 17.19.40 number 8 states that:
“8. New roads/common drives/driveways must be maintained so as to guarantee all of the following:
a. Safe two-way year-round passage of emergency vehicles, as defined in St. Helena access road standards, as adopted by the city council.”
That says TWO WAY. This road is a one way road no matter how you frame it, and it appears to me that the city is violating it’s own code in authorizing this event. The fire dept has said they can’t get their full size trucks up this road to my recollection.

Point 3. Also under purpose and applicability of the A 20 zone, it says the following:
“Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20). The A-20 zone is intended to provide for agricultural and residential uses. The purpose of the A-20 district is to preserve agricultural land uses and…. “
These events have little or nothing to do with agriculture. This site is neither agricultural or residential in my observation. As I have stated before, having been a farmer for a long time myself, including growing Olive Trees, there has been zero visible evidence of any farming going on. I think at the least if you are going to permit events based on that it should at least be Agenda Item #11.1.

checked out. The owner stated he has not been there in a year and a half, it is only being used for events.

Point 3. In the staff report for the planning commission meeting that happened on May 20, after listing the legal noise limits in St Helena code, there is this statement:

St. Helena Police Department issued a Noise Permit to exceed these levels in the day and evening
Why is my question? The people most subject to the noise are myself and my immediate neighbors. No one asked us about it. This seems arbitrary to me.

Point 4. My wife came across an old article in the St. Helena Star, Jan 31, 2013, about 2500’s application for a well. It was not allowed in St. Helena at that time to dig a well at that location.

With some trepidation the city council did grant it. I quote relevant passages from the article, link below.

Council allows new home to use groundwater from well | News | napavalleyregister.com “For the first time since enacting a policy requiring most new homes to use the city water system, the St. Helena City Council agreed Jan. 22 to let a new house use groundwater.

The ordinance, enacted last year, was designed to protect the underground aquifer and provide financial stability for the city’s water enterprise. However, councilmembers ruled that a new home qualifies for an exemption from the ordinance.

A single-family home is proposed at 2500 Spring Mountain Road.

Despite the address, the property is actually the site of the old Spring Mountain Estates project, an ill-fated 10-unit subdivision plan that faced withering criticism in 2011 and was eventually abandoned.

The property’s new owners, the Hernandez Family Trust, plan to build a single home, which is allowed under the Woodlands & Watershed Agenda Item #11.1.

zoning designation. The private Bieber Road would provide primary access to the house.

The council voted 4-0 to approve the exemption allowing the new house to use an existing well.

Councilmembers were primarily concerned about the potential for future development on the property, which contains two parcels. The property owners’ representative, Matthew Tippell, said they have no plans to develop the site further.”
So now they are doing what the council feared, expanding the use of the property and the well to a commercial level. We wanted a well and we can’t do that. We live next door. How is this ok? It’s not.

Thank you for considering my further opinion. I am not a land use attorney and I may have gotten some of this wrong. I am confused as to when a TUP applies or when the General Plan designation of Ag applies. Do they both apply? They seem to have different rules.

Michael Haley
2490 Spring Mountain Rd.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Jennifer Haley
2409 Spring Mountain Rd
St. Helena, CA 94574
June 5, 2025
RE: Commercial Events at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd, Saint Helena, CA (Monte Olivos private estate residence)
Dear Saint Helena City Council,
I am a Napa native. My husband and I just bought a home in a quiet neighborhood on Spring Mountain Rd last summer. The reason we bought it, was for the peacefulness and the beauty of living in the foothills of the Napa Valley as full-time residents. Last year, when we began hearing loud concerts at the Monte Olivos private estate, I just thought the family was having extravagant family parties to celebrate birthdays or something, even though we could hear loud music and the sound of large crowds roaring throughout the festivities. It wasn’t until April this year, when the Monte Olivos private estate residence at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd, (the road is also known as the old Bieber Rd), held a large country music concert, that I began to wonder what was actually going on at that property. That day, my husband was trying to drive out but an event shuttle was blocking our driveway to leave.

I began to check the internet for events on that property. To my shock, I discovered Monte Olivos was specifically advertising their private estate for commercial wedding and event venues, including concerts. It is interesting to note that prior to the City of St Helena Planning Commissions meeting in May, links advertising this property for event venues were active. Following the most recent discussion regarding the upcoming Dinner At Bocelli’s event at Monte Olivos estate during that meeting, many of the links are no longer active. The following are links displaying sone of the past and upcoming events at that property.

COUNTRY MUSIC CONCERT EVENT-AT 2500 SPRING MOUNTAIN RD.

Ensemble — LITV This link explains what the Ensemble company is, along with its promotion of Live in the Vineyard events, one of which was the country music concert at the Monte Olivos
Agenda Item #11.1.

private estate on 2500 Spring Mountain Rd. See attachment: 2500 Thank You, for the Monte Olivos’ thank you letter that was on the Ensemble’s website for the country music festival held
at that estate.

My understanding at the Planning Commission’s meeting, the commissioners were not aware of this concert taking place because they had not received a TUP application for it. The Monte
Olivos commercial event planners for the event stated the event had an audience of 450 people.

LITVGC 2025 Main Events Itinerary — LITV This is a link to the April country music event (see Welcome Reception section)
DISTINCTIVE LOCATIONS EVENT VENUE COMPANY- FOR 2500 SPRING

MOUNTAIN RD PROPERTY
Prior to the Planning Commissions meeting, the Monte Olivos private estate was being heavily advertised as one of Distinctive Locations venues locations. Showing previous event photos of
the event with the barns, amphitheater, large dining outdoor venues, etc. Clearly this property sole’s purpose has changed from the original agreement with the city and residents of St
Helena into a for-profit event center for rent.

Since the Planning Commission’s meeting, Monte Olivos LLC has taken down all the ads for the rental of this property, and replaced them with ads for its Grove 45 business, located in
Calistoga.

DINNER AT BOCELLI’S EVENT
Info - A Weekend in Napa This is a link for buying tickets to the Dinner at Bocelli’s taking place at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd. As you scroll down, you will see the event’s prohibited and
allowed list. Smoking is not mentioned as being prohibited at this event. I can’t imagine how with an event for 600 ticket holders plus a busy staff, they can keep an eye on anyone wondering
more into the woods to smoke something. Our very small neighborhood and the one lane road through it, which includes the 2500 property, is in a high fire zone.

With 600 people in attendance at this event plus staff, I just can’t imagine how an event as big as this can be approved. In the case of a fire or fire threat, it would create an emergency on
Agenda Item #11.1.

top of an already existing emergency, trying to evacuate those 600+ off the hill and down the one lane road, as more emergency vehicles are trying to drive up.

As the residents of
this small neighborhood, most likely, we would be a second thought within the commotion, if a thought at all.

As a resident of this neighborhood, insurance companies won’t provide insurance for this location. We ended up only finding insurance through the CA FAIR PLAN.

But my point is,
why is our neighborhood being put at risk by the commercial events being held at the 2500 Spring Mountain Rd property?
The 2500 private estate residence was explained by the family’s daughter who was present, the estate was owned by the Monte Olivos LLC. When asked about their insurance, she thought
they had $3 million in home owner’s insurance. The representative of the event company stated their company had $5 million in insurance, plus event cancellation insurance. Given the
Bocelli event will have 600 paying attendees, the Planning Commission stated the city should buy more insurance to protect itself for this event. It seems to me, since this venue is a money
maker for the producers of this event, that the city’s insurance costs should be reimbursed by those creating and providing the property for the event. I would also put into question, if the
homeowner’s property insurance company knows about this event, the events they held in the past, and events planned for the future. Which comes back to the point of who will actually
be responsible, and can be held responsible for the risks taken for these events.

VINTNER’S LUNCHEON AT MONTE OLIVOS ESTATE
Vintner's Luncheon at Monte Olivos Estate this is another event coming up at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd. Again, this just seems like the property is being used as an event center for another
kind of for-profit event center, other than what this property was intended for, and for which the other residents in our small neighborhood were assured of as part of the city’s approval for
the Monte Olivos estate as a private residence only.

OLE HEALTH FOUNDATION EVENT AT MONTE OLIVOS
Agenda Item #11.1.

OLE HEALTH FOUNDATION ANNOUNCES PLANS FOR ANNUAL VIDA OLE! EVENT, SEPTEMBER 18-20, 2025 — Foundation | CommuniCare+OLE This is another event being held at 2500 Spring
Mountain Rd. as stated in the ad, “A collection of the Up Valley region’s most sought-after restaurants and wineries will kick off the evening by tantalizing our guests at the Sip and Savor
Reception. The vintages (and Tequila) will flow as we move to a gourmet three course dinner. As the sun sets, the live auction will dazzle with its collection of trips, wine collections,…The
after party will feature even more to celebrate, with bites, drinks and dancing.

Again, I can’t imagine how anyone can keep an eye on someone wondering off to smoke something during such a party atmosphere.

My concerns as a full-time resident in our very small neighborhood, which adjoins the Monte Olivos private estate at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd are:
• All our neighbors including myself share the curving one lane road leading to our driveways. It is difficult as it is when two vehicles need to figure out how to get past each other, let alone a large event driving on this road. If there is an emergency for one of the residents that they have to get down the hill, or emergency staff needs to come up the hill during one of Monte Olivos’ events, it is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible. In my opinion I do not see how a fire engine would be able to get up to the residences to fully protect all of us.
• When these events have been held at Monte Olivos, and for the upcoming large events one of which is going to be having 600 people attending this year, none of the residents in our neighborhood have been given any notice when these events are being planned. As a resident of the neighborhood, we could be planning a special family celebration like a small family engagement party, and then only find out when our guests can’t drive up or down the shared Spring Mountain Rd, because of a large Monte Olivos event we weren’t aware of.

It should be mentioned, there is a legality written into the permitting process, that when someone is having any event similar to the ones mentioned above, that the property owner out of courtesy and due diligence, should be contacting their neighbors to let them know in advance such events will be taking place. This has never happened once with any of the events Monte Olivos has held in the past, nor the ones they’ve scheduled in the future. Even with the Planning Commissioners reminding Agenda Item #11.1.

Monte Olivos about this, none of our neighbors have received any notice of these events.
• Noise levels. Two of the Monte Olivos concerts last year were so loud, the base sound permeated inside our home even with our doors and windows closed, and I was using headphones.
• It is my opinion the Monte Olivos private estate commercial events forprofit such as the concerts and dinners, corporate events and weddings, are not appropriate for our very private neighborhood. The Monte Olivos was approved by Spring Mountain residences and the City of Saint Helena as a private estate in 2014. There was a written agreement at that time, the 2500 Spring Mountain Rd private estate residence would remain as a residence only.
• The safety issues of living in a very secluded, small and wealthy neighborhood: We feel very safe up here, but with as many of the public and working staff that we now is aware of attending these events, it naturally creates the uncertainty we didn’t feel before about the potential for criminal behavior.
• It is my opinion that due to these commercial venues for weddings and concerts, etc., that the real estate value for the homes in our small neighborhood will deteriorate due to the loud noise factors and the traffic these events create. If we had known before we bought our home here last year, these large and loud events were happening as a business, we would have changed our minds about buying up here.
• When Napa County residences receive their property bills, and when a person buys a home within the Napa Valley, there is always the reminder statement, about the Right-To-Farm law. I do believe there should be a similar statement on behalf of the new Code A20, so that people thinking of buying property next to, or close to an existing A20 use property have the right to know. That said, I do not feel that a property with a Code A20 use, such as the Monte Olivos private estate property, should be allowed cart blanche by the City of Saint Helena to hold large events. • My concern is also for the larger picture and the future of St Helena. There are layers and layers to the entertainment companies who use the Napa Valley for their enterprises that don’t live here. The more I dug into this, including the events at 2500 Spring Mountain Rd, some of these companies are international entertainment companies, but then there is often the national entertainment industry who are layered in for their enterprises. St Agenda Item #11.1.

Helena and the Napa Valley are headed away from the heart of what has always made this valley so special, into a vast and loud entertainment industry as a new and entitled industry as huge as the wine industry here has become.
• I understand the City of Saint Helena has added a new zoning code, A20, and understandably the details of the definition of this new zoning needs to be reviewed to work out the problems it can also bring. Napa County found it necessary to do the same when it was developing its allowed uses and disallowed use.
• I would suggest it would be a good idea for members of the City Council to drive up our neighborhood road, so you can see for yourselves why these venues at Monte Olivos are unreasonable.

Thank you taking the time to understand my personal concerns, and my concerns for our neighborhood and the future of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Haley

Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Norman Manzer
To: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; City Clerk Subject: [External] Krug Bocelli Concert/Bocelli Dinner Date: Monday, June 9, 2025 11:06:09 PM
Hello Mayor Dohring and Council members,
The Bocelli concerts have the potential to be sensational – and yet, if our local history repeats itself in the wake of the Charles Krug/Blue Note Jazz Festival of 2022, our little town could again have a “Nightmare and a disaster” (a quote from Chief Hartley) ” on its hands. The problems with the Jazz Festival fiasco is a failure by City Hall to have a legitimate procedure to handle events like this. In spite of the more than doubling of our town’s population for that three-day July 20-21-22, 2022 festival (6,000 daily attendees, plus performers, staff, and caterers), it was approved at Staff level without referral to the Planning Commission or City Council. According to former City Planning employee, Aaron Hecock, when a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) is submitted, it is approved routinely within 7-10 days, and there is no system that has the City inform anyone of the TUP request or approval. Not even the City Council.

Fortunately for this Bocelli event, it was referred to the Planning Commision, and now to the Council.

I won’t go into the litany of non-compliance, non-performance by Charles Krug/Blue Note, but none of the No Parking signs promised for Deer Park Road and Silverado Trail were ever posted by the promoter, even though the event started on a normal Friday workday where City Staff should have begun an overview of compliance but did not. Following the gawd-awful event, I spoke with TUP Technician Xinia Gamero and asked, “How many city staff were present to oversee the Jazz Festival event? “She replied, “There were none. We are short staffed.” The City has no idea how many patrons attended – 7,000; 8,000; or more? There was no post-event report required by the City, so most everything is questionable.

The Krug/Blue Note proposal stated there would be 200 Security personnel on duty at all times, yet Chief Hartley said that the promoter told him during the event that they had 70 Security on duty.

The Bocelli event at Krug will seat 4,500 per night. How will parking be handled for the Bocelli event? A limited number of parking spaces are being provided via Krug’s main entrance to VIP and Preferred guests. Perhaps you Agenda Item #11.1.

have noticed that Krug has removed all of the vines on the approximately 25 acres at the corner of Main Street and Deer Park Road to provide parking for 1,000 cars in their newly created dirt parking lot. The only parking entrance is that narrow gate on Deer Park Road that the County has granted a permit for entry/exit to the parking lot. Mind you, there will be 4,500 attendees for each night with a limited number of VIPs at Preferred parking, but the remaining crowd of 4,000(?) will all try to park in those newly created 1,000 parking spaces. Will all of those 4,000 be riding four to a vehicle? Where will the overflow cars park?
When those well-dressed guests arrive in their beautiful clothes and see that former vineyard, dirt parking lot, might they choose a better option of Deer Park Road, Pratt Ave, Park Street, and walk in without slogging through a dirt field on foot in their Gucci shoes? In spite of the CHP being under contract to control traffic, NO requirements have been made to eliminate the potential traffic fiasco for those clogging Deer Park and other roads. Yikes!!! Presumably the CHP will perform as hoped for, but it is still foreseeable that our own SHPD will have to respond to help as they did in 2022 for that prior Krug big event. Chief Hartley stated then that each shift normally has two officers on duty, but he had scheduled three per shift for the Jazz Festival as an extra safety measure. When I asked if the City billed Krug/Blue Note for the SHPD services, he replied, “We did not.”
When the Jazz Festival performers ignored the 10pm noise curfew and people began calling the SHPD Dispatcher, they were told that all three police officers were tied down at the Main Street entrance with traffic problems and could not respond to enforcing the 10pm noise requirement of the TUP. It was later reported that the Promoter ignored that curfew because the entertainers stated that if their sound system was shut off, they would never return.

For starters, shouldn’t City Staff be present from beginning to the end of each day’s performance? Without that supervision, pray tell what lies ahead. Another Jazz Festival fiasco?
And what about the Monte Olivos Bocelli dinner performance for 600 patrons at $3,000/seat plus $271.08 in fees? That event is set for one night, July 20, but the permit application mentions the two days of setup Agenda Item #11.1.

and two days of teardown – all of which make the one-lane driveway serving eight other residences unusable for those other families. How can this be? Our Planning Commissioners all expressed their concern for such a huge commercial event in that residential setting, and yet they voted to approve that TUP. In spite of the Planning Commision’s permit stating that the City reserves the right to terminate the Monte Olivos TUP, would you dare consider doing that with 600 guests paying a total of $1,963,080 for dinner alone?
Let me close by saying thank you for serving on the Council. It is not an easy job. Norm Manzer, St Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Planning
DATE: June 10, 2025
FROM: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Request by Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, for approval of
General Plan Amendment (GPA 2025-001) and Zoning
Map Amendment (ZMA 2025-001) to change the
property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture and to concurrently rezone the site from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A20) to accommodate the future construction of a singlefamily home at 1030 Fulton Lane (APN 009-194-005).

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan
Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are in
compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3; and

2. Adopt the attached resolution approving General
Plan Amendment 2025-001 to update General Plan
Figure 2.1 to change the General Plan land use
designation of the property located at 1030 Fulton
Lane from Service Commercial to Agriculture; and

3. Introduce and waive first reading of the attached
Ordinance for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA 2025-
001 to rezone the property located at 1030 Fulton
Lane from Service Commercial to Twenty-Acre
Agriculture and incorporate these changes into the
General Plan and Zoning Maps.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

On August 5, 2024, the applicant submitted a General
Plan Amendment application to the City regarding a
request to change the General Plan designation on the
subject parcel. On September 10, 2024, the City Council conducted a preliminary review of the proposal to amend the General Plan designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture (see Attachment 1. Staff Report).

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

City Council review and decision for General Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment requests, recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact is anticipated as the applicant's application fees are in the form of a deposit account.

BACKGROUND:

Agenda Item #11.2.

The subject property at 1030 Fulton Lane, located east of the railroad tracks and north of Fulton lane, is approximately 39,092 square feet (.89 acres) and is surrounded by agriculturally designated parcels on three sides. The property has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Service Commercial (SC) and is located within the Urban Limit Line. The parcel is the only commercially zoned property north of Fulton Lane and east of the railroad tracks and has remained vacant since 2010, when a demolition permit was issued to completely demolish a substandard warehouse structure. The site has been designated for commercial uses since the adoption of the 1975 General Plan and has been utilized for various legal non-conforming and conforming uses over the decades including tire shop, woodworking and cabinetry, farm equipment storage, upholstery, and a dance studio, however the site has been under-utilized since the 2010 demolition of the warehouse structure. In 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review request that allowed for the construction of two, two-story office buildings (one approximately 7,350 square feet and the other approximately 3,150 square feet), however, the approval expired and the project never proceeded to construction.

The applicant has submitted for General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) applications to change the property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture and, accordingly, its zoning from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) to accommodate the future construction of a single-family home. Approval of the requests would result in modifications to the General Plan Land Use Diagram (General Plan Figure 2.1), and the City of St. Helena Zoning Map. No development would directly occur as a result of this request. The applicant would have to file a Design Review application for Planning Commission approval prior to proceeding with a building permit.

On May 20, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the requests at a duly noticed public hearing and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve both requests. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for a detailed analysis of both General Plan and zoning consistency analysis (See Attachment 4).

This step is required by St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.06.030(B), which specifies that complete applications received for a proposed General Plan Amendment shall be first presented to the City Council. The Council authorized the processing of the application and referred the matter to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3. Resolution 2024-131).

DISCUSSION:

The City includes a number of A-20 parcels that as a result of land divisions into smaller parcels and residential development, no longer serve as active agriculture uses.

Accordingly, the zoning code provides development standards for A-20 parcels less than 2 acres in size, which references utilizing the development standards for LR-1A zoning. These would be the applicable regulations that would direct the future development of this subject parcel should the GPA and rezoning be approved.

Agenda Item #11.2.

During the May 20, 2025, Planning Commission meeting the Commission raised concerns regarding the creation of an A-20 parcel within the Urban Limit Line and potential conflicts with the General Plan. Specifically, Chair Ponte commented that due to the smaller size of the parcel, a more straightforward approach would be to zone the parcel as LR-1A (Low Density Residential) and also change the General Plan to Low Density Residential however, Staff pointed out that doing so would be considered spot zoning, where there is a lack of continuous zoning among adjacent parcels. The Commission ultimately recommended approval (4-0) of the GPA and zoning amendment as submitted and added that the City Council at a future time study the Fulton Lane corridor and smaller A-20 parcels as a future area to consider updating the land use designation to Low Density Residential.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff has conducted the required analysis and concluded that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Per the City Attorney, this exemption is appropriate because the general plan amendment and rezoning would permit a single-family residence to be developed on the property. In order to avoid piecemealing, which is prohibited under CEQA, applicant shall utilize the same exemption if and when future development is proposed.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1. Draft Resolution (GPA 2025-001)
Attachment 2. Draft Resolution (ZMA 2025-001)
Attachment 3. City Council Resolution 2024-131
Attachment 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, 5/20/2025 Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 Fulton Lane
GPA25-001 and ZMA 25-001
Resolution / Conditions of Approval
June 10, 2025
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO.______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT(GPA2025-001) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE

DESIGNATION FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO AGRICULTURE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1030 FULTON LANE (APN 009-194-005)
PROPERTY OWNER: FULTON JUNCTION PARTNERS, LLC APN:009-194-005 Recitals

1. On September 10, 2024, the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment application (PL24-043) to change the land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture to be processed and referred to the Planning Commission for the subject parcel located at 1030 Fulton Lane; and

2. On August 5, 2024, The Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, filed an application to request a General Plan Amendment (GPA2025- 001) to the property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture.

3. On August 5, 2024, The Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, filed an application to request a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2025-001) to rezone the property from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) to be consistent with the amended General Plan Land Use designation.

4. The proposed change in the General Plan allow for the site to accommodate residential uses and incrementally help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs; and

5. The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the CEQA Guidelines; and

6. The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered the project, staff report, and all testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on May 20, 2025 and made a recommendation to approve the requests 4-0; and

7. A public notice was published in the Press Democrat and mailed to residents; and

8. The City Council considered the General Plan Amendment request in its entirety at a duly noticed public hearing on June 10, 2025. After reviewing materials provided from the Planning Commission public hearing, as well as considering the staff report and record of the proceedings before the City Council, the written evidence submitted for the Council public hearing, and the testimony and other evidence submitted at the Council public hearing, voted to approve the request as described in the title of the resolution.

Resolution
Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 Fulton Lane
GPA25-001 and ZMA 25-001
Resolution / Conditions of Approval
June 10, 2025
A. Now, therefore, the City of St. Helena City Council resolves as follows, based on substantial evidence in the record:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

2. The City Council hereby finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the CEQA Guidelines.

3. The City Council has considered the following guidelines as identified in St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.06.050 to support the motion to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment:
a. To allow for consideration of elements not initially considered at the time of approval of the general plan;
b. To reflect changes in goals, policy, physical, social, or economic conditions; c. To acknowledge when, due to naturally occurring physical constraints or changes, the anticipated land usage per the General Plan is no longer feasible;
d. To take into consideration the consistency of the proposed amendment with the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan, adopted Planning Commission (where applicable) and other existing city policies; e. When considering the reduction of residential density, ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65863 by either finding that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need or by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater density so that there is no net loss in residential density; and f. To ensure that there is no net loss of potential housing units.

4. The City Council approves an amendment of the General Plan (GPA2025-001) to change the land use designation of the subject property located at 1030 Fulton Lane from Service Commercial to Agriculture as shown on Attachment 1.

Attachment 1 is hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment applications were duly and regularly approved by the City Council of the City of St. Helena at a regular meeting on June 10, 2025, by the following roll call vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring:

Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy:

Council Member Aaron Barak:

Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 Fulton Lane
GPA25-001 and ZMA 25-001
Resolution / Conditions of Approval
June 10, 2025
Council Member Kate Spadarotto:

Council Member Billy Summers:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Dohring, Mayor Erika Opp, Deputy City Clerk
Attachments

1. Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 2.1 in the 2040 General Plan) Agenda Item #11.2.

Attachment 1. Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 2.1) Agenda Item #11.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE

ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1030 FULTON LANE (APN 009-194-005) FROM SERVICE

COMMERCIAL TO TWENTY-ACRE AGRICULTURE AND FINDING THE ACTION TO

BE TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
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, on October 24, 2023, the City of St. Helena, California (“City”) adopted Ordinance 2023-4 amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the St. Helena Municipal Code and amending the Zoning Map in order to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment application (PL24-043) to change the land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture to be processed and referred to the Planning Commission for the subject parcel located at 1030 Fulton Lane; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2024, The Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, filed an application to request a General Plan Amendment (GPA2025-001) to the property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture.

WHEREAS, on August 5, 2024, The Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, filed an application to request a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2025-001) to rezone the property from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) to be consistent with the amended General Plan Land Use designation.

WHEREAS, the proposed change in the General Plan and zoning designations will allow for the site to accommodate residential uses and incrementally help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered the project, staff report, and all testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on May 20, 2025, and made a recommendation to approve the requests 4-0; and
Agenda Item #11.2.

WHEREAS, the City gave public notice of the public hearing for the proposed ordinance by publishing in the Press Democrat and mailed notices to residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the GPA in its entirety at a duly noticed public hearing on June 10, 2025. After reviewing materials provided from the Planning Commission public hearing, as well as considering the staff report and record of the proceedings before the City Council, the written evidence submitted for the Council public hearing, and the testimony and other evidence submitted at the Council public hearing, voted to approve the GPA request as described in the title of the resolution introduced at the June 10, 2025 meeting and in the title of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the request to amend the Zoning Map to be consistent with the amended General Plan Land Use designation described in the previous recital.

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. Findings. The City Council has considered the following guidelines as identified in St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.07.070 to support the motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment:
a. To take into consideration the consistency of the proposed amendment with the goals, policies and programs of the general plan, adopted planning commission (where applicable) and other existing city policies; b. When considering the reduction of residential density, ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65863 by either finding that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need or by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater density so that there is no net loss in residential density; c. To ensure that there is no net loss of potential housing units.

Section 3. 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 finds that, pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, the amendment to the Zoning Map is categorically exempt.

Section 4. General Plan Consistency. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan. The proposed ordinance does not otherwise conflict with any of the General Plan’s goals or policies.`
Agenda Item #11.2.

Section 5. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby recommends adoption of the amended zoning map in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is collectively incorporated herein by this reference in order to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.

Section 6. 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 7. 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.

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

Helena City Council on the 10th day of June 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:

APPROVED:_____________________
Paul Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:__________________________
Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst
Attachments:

Exhibit A. Amended Zoning Map
Agenda Item #11.2.

Exhibit A. Amended Zoning Map
Agenda Item #11.2.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Agenda Item #11.2.

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of May 20, 2025
FILE NUMBER: GPA 2025-001 & ZMA 2025-001
SUBJECT: Request by Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, for approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) to change the property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture and to subsequently rezone the site from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) to accommodate the future construction of a single-family home at 1030 Fulton Lane (APN 009-194-005).

REVIEWED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPLICATION FILED:02/12/25 ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE:03/12/25 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 1030 Fulton Lane
APN: 009-194-005
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Service Commercial (SC)
APPLICANT: Brodie Group

BACKGROUND
The subject property at 1030 Fulton Lane, located east of the railroad tracks and north of Fulton lane, is approximately 39,092 square feet (sf) and is surrounded by agriculturally designated parcels on three sides. The property has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Service Commercial (SC) and is located within the Urban Limit Line. The parcel is the only commercially zoned property north of Fulton Lane and east of the railroad tracks and has remained vacant since 2010, when a demolition permit was issued to completely demolish a substandard warehouse structure. The site has been designated for commercial uses since the adoption of the 1975 General Plan and has been utilized for various legal non-conforming and conforming uses over the Agenda Item #11.2.

decades including tire shop, woodworking and cabinetry, farm equipment storage, upholstery, and a dance studio, however the site has been under-utilized since the 2010 demolition of the warehouse structure. In 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review request that allowed for the construction of two, two-story office buildings (one approximately 7,350 square feet and the other approximately 3,150 square feet), but the project never proceeded to construction.

On September 10, 2024, the City Council conducted a preliminary review of the proposal to amend the General Plan designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture (see Attachment 1. Staff Report) as required by St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.06.030(B), which specifies that complete applications received for a proposed General Plan Amendment shall be first presented to the City Council. The Council authorized the processing of the application and referred the matter to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2. Resolution 2024-131).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has submitted for General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) applications to change the property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture and, accordingly, its zoning from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) to accommodate the future construction of a single-family home.

Approval of the requests would result in modifications to the General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 2.1), and the City of St. Helena Zoning Map.

ANALYSIS
CEQA
Staff has conducted the required analysis and concluded that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Per the City Attorney, this exemption is appropriate because the general plan amendment and rezoning would permit a single-family residence to be developed on the property. In order to avoid piecemealing, which is prohibited under CEQA, applicant shall utilize the same exemption if and when future development is proposed.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
The subject property currently has a General Plan land use of Service Commercial (SC). The SC land use designation is intended to provide for service and retail uses, restaurants, service stations, hotels, motels, public and quasi-public uses and similar and compatible uses. The designation is intended primarily for service and retail uses that are automobile-oriented or whose operational characteristics and space needs are not considered appropriate for the Central Business District. The intent is for the SC land use designation to be primarily local resident-serving in character. Strictly touristserving retail uses are prohibited within this designation.

Agenda Item #11.2.

The applicant has requested an amendment to the General Plan land use designation to allow for the site to be re-designated as "Agriculture", which includes agricultural and winery uses with restricted single-family residential and public/quasi-public uses.

Approval of the request would ensure that site's land use designation would be consistent with the amended General Plan, as required by State law, and would also allow the applicant to construct a single-family residence, which is not an allowed use under the current SC designation. Designating the site as Agriculture would create consistency with the land use designations of the surrounding parcels located along Fulton Avenue to the east of the railroad tracks, all of which are currently under the Agriculture land use designation.

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

Although the Agricultural land use designation establishes a minimum parcel size of 5- 40 acres, the lot is an existing lot and would not create new parcels inconsistent with the already established lot density. Due to the lot creation development pattern, it is common to find existing parcels less than 5 acres in the Agricultural land use designation, especially along Fulton Lane and Pratt Avenue. The City’s Zoning Code addresses this variation in parcels sizes through its development standards based upon lot size. For example, A-20 zoned lots lots less than two acres in size are subject to the LR-1A district development standards. An agriculture land use designation and zoning district with a low-density residential use is more environmentally sensitive than a commercial parcel.

Per St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.06.050, in reviewing requests for General Plan amendments, the Planning Commission shall consider the following:

A. Allow for consideration of elements not initially considered at the time of approval of the general plan;
Staff response: When the City adopted its first comprehensive General Plan in 1975, the subject site, as well as surrounding parcels to the north and east, were designated for commercial uses. The 1993 General Plan update changed the land use designation for the surrounding sites to the north and east to agriculture, however the subject site at 1030 Fulton was still being actively utilized for commercial or other legal non-conforming quasi-industrial uses at that time, and the land use designation remained Service Commercial. In 2019, the City adopted the current iteration of the General Plan. Despite many years of the site sitting vacant, a wine warehousing project had been recently approved in 2018 and staff would not have had a reason to recommend rezoning the site at that time. As such, the site remained under the Service Commercial land use designation in the 2040 General Plan Update.

Agenda Item #11.2.

However, the approved wine warehouse project was never constructed and the site has been largely vacant and underutilized for at least 15 years. Staff believes that these conditions were not foreseeable at the time of the last Comprehensive General Plan update and should be considered as reasonable evidence that the current commercial land use designation is no longer feasible for the site.

B. Reflect changes in goals, policy, physical, social, or economic conditions; Staff Response: The Commission should consider the fact that the site has been significantly under utilized for decades which presumably points to poor conditions for the success of the types of uses allowed under the existing land use designation.

C. Acknowledge when, due to naturally occurring physical constraints or changes, the anticipated land usage per the General Plan is no longer feasible; N/A
D. Take into consideration the consistency of the proposed amendment with the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan, adopted Planning Commission (where applicable) and other existing city policies;
Staff response: The 2040 General Plan and Housing Element Update clearly identify goals related to increasing the housing stock while limiting development outside of the Urban Limit Line. Changing the land use designation to one which will allow for residential development is in alignment with those goals. Further, approving the request would specifically correspond to the following 2040 General Plan and Housing Element Policies:

LU1.2 Allow urban development to occur only within the Urban Limit Line LU1.4 In order to minimize and postpose the need for expansion of the Urban Limit Line, encourage infill development within currently developed areas HE1.4 Remove governmental constraints to housing
E. When considering the reduction of residential density, ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65863 by either finding that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need or by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater density so that there is no net loss in residential density;
Staff Response: Designating the site as "Agriculture" instead of Service Commercial will allow for residential use by right on the site and increase potential housing numbers in the RHNA.

Agenda Item #11.2.

F. Ensure that there is no net loss of potential housing units.

Staff Response: There would be no net loss to potential housing, as there are no allowed residential uses under the existing "Service Commercial" land use designation.

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST
Rezoning the site to A-20 is required to be consistent with the agricultural land use designation, however, because the subject parcel is less than two-acres in size, the Low Density One-Acre Minimum (LR-1A) development and design standards would apply (opposed to the A-20 standards). The LR-1A standards allow for the construction of a single-family home; so while the property would have agricultural General Plan and zoning designations, due to the property's size, it would likely not accommodate active agricultural uses.

Per St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.07.070, in reviewing requests for amendments to the zoning map, the Planning Commission shall consider the following:

A. Take into consideration the consistency of the proposed amendment with the goals, policies and programs of the general plan, adopted planning commission (where applicable) and other existing city policies;
Staff response: The 2040 General Plan and Housing Element Update clearly identify goals related to increasing the housing stock while limiting development outside of the Urban Limit Line. Changing the land use designation to one which will allow for residential development is in alignment with those goals. Further, approving the request would specifically correspond to the following 2040 General Plan and Housing Element Policies:

LU1.2 Allow urban development to occur only within the Urban Limit Line LU1.4 In order to minimize and postpose the need for expansion of the Urban Limit Line, encourage infill development within currently developed areas HE1.4 Remove governmental constraints to housing
B. When considering the reduction of residential density, ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65863 by either finding that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need or by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater density so that there is no net loss in residential density;
Staff Response: Rezoning the site to Twenty-Acre Agriculture instead of Service Commercial will allow for residential use by right on the site and increase potential housing numbers in the RHNA.

Agenda Item #11.2.

C. Ensure that there is no net loss of potential housing units.

Staff Response: There would be no net loss to potential housing, as there are no allowed residential uses under the existing "Service Commercial" zoning designation.

Staff believes the proposed Zoning Map Amendment request is appropriate to ensure consistency between the General Plan (assuming the amendment is approved) and will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the A-20 District.

WATER NEUTRALITY
Future development of the project site would be subject to the City's Water Neutrality requirements. However, the approval of the requested General Plan Amendment and subsequent rezoning do not require water neutrality report or analysis. A condition of approval states that any future development will require a floor plan and water neutrality report with the design review application.

ISSUES
Staff has not identified any outstanding issues related to this application that require additional discussion.

CORRESPONDENCE
At the time of agenda publication, staff had not received any correspondence related to this application.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the St. Helena City Council:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendment 2025-001 to update General Plan Figure 2.1 to change the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 1030 Fulton Lane from Service Commercial to Agriculture and Adopt Zoning Map Amendment ZMA 2025-001 to rezone the property located at 1030 Fulton Lane from Service Commercial to Twenty-Acre Agriculture and incorporate these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Staff Report to City Council, September 10, 2024 Attachment 2. City Council Resolution No. 2024-131
Attachment 3. Applicant's Written Project Statement
Attachment 4. Existing Site Plan - 1030 Fulton Lane
Agenda Item #11.2.

Attachment 5. Conceptual Site Plan - 1030 Fulton Lane
Attachment 6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
Agenda Item #11.2.

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

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

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

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

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

17.06. PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

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

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

BACKGROUND:

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

DISCUSSION:

The applicant has submitted a General Plan Amendment (GPA) application to change the property's land use designation from SC to Agriculture (AG) to accommodate the future construction of a single-family home. The AG land use designation includes Agenda Item #11.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Agenda Item #11.2.

General Plan Map
1030 Futon Assessors Map
Aerial View
Project Narrative
Site Plan
Agenda Item #11.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #11.2.

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Council Member Patrick Kenealy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #11.2.

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

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
C i t y o f S t . H e l e n a
Figure 2.1
Adopted Land Use Diagram
St. Helena General Plan
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Central Business
Service Commercial
Mixed-Use
Office
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture
Open Space
Woodlands and Watershed
Napa County General Plan
Agricultural Resource
Agriculture, Watershed and Open
Space
Railroad
Water Features
Urban Limit Line
Study Areas
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.2.

PIQ
1999-0011780
Agenda Item #11.2.

Imagery ©2024 Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2024 50 ft
1030 Fulton Ln
Agenda Item #11.2.

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

Helena zoning code.

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

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

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

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

With the demolition of the pre-existing structure and change in ownership, there is an Agenda Item #11.2.

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #11.2.

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

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

Sincerely,
Erik V. Lundquist
Principal, Land Use Planning & Permitting
Brodie, Inc
480 Gate 5 Road, Suite 100
Sausalito, CA 94965
D: (707) 888- 6386
Agenda Item #11.2.

BROOKS

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

S TATE OF CA L IFOR NIA

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

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

JOB NUMBER :

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

EXISTING CONTOURS

PROPERTY LINE

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

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

SETBACK
10'-0" PG&E

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

FUTURE VINE TRAIL

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

FORCE MAIN
APN 009-194-004
256
255
254

FULTON LANE

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

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

PROPOSED FINISH GRADING

2. S.C.D. FOR DRAINAGE INFORMATION

3. S.C.D. FOR SEPTIC INFORMATION

4. NOT USED
North
SCALE: 1" = 20'
1 SITE PLAN
A1.0
2024-04-04 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Agenda Item #11.2.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Agenda Item #11.2.

January 31, 2025
City of St Helena
℅ Mayor Dohring and Members of the City Council
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
(707) 968-2659
Re: 1030 Fulton Lane - General Plan Amendment and Rezone Request APN: 009-194-005
Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
My client, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, the property owner (“Owner”), acquired the above referenced property with the goal of improving the vacant parcel to create a vibrant and more aesthetically pleasing environment consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. To meet this goal, we are filing a general plan amendment and rezoning application requesting to change the property’s General Plan designation from Service Commercial to Agricultural and, accordingly, its zoning from Service Commercial to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20), consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.06 of the City of St. Helena zoning.

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

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

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

The pre-existing warehouse structure and uses on the property predated the City’s land use planning efforts. As such, the land use designation and associated zoning were enacted consistent with the pre-existing uses rather than to establish a forward-thinking land use Agenda Item #11.2.

consistent with the predominance of agriculture and residential uses in this quadrant of the City.

With the demolition of the warehouse and change in ownership, there is an opportunity to amend the general plan land use designation and rezone the property in keeping with the overall policy direction of the General Plan by retaining the predominance of agriculturally designated lands in this area of the community and preventing the encroachment of commercial development north of the railroad. To help the City achieve its objectives and create neighborhood land use consistency, the owner is requesting that the Planning Commission consider, as directed by the City Council at its meeting on September 10, 2025, and recommend to the City Council consider approval of the requested general plan amendment and rezone.

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

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

Applying the Agricultural land use designation and associated agricultural zone on this property would further the land use policies of the General Plan. The Agricultural land use designation and zone would allow agricultural use(s) and residential usage on the parcel consistent with the prevailing agricultural uses in the northern quadrant of the city east of the Agenda Item #11.2.

railroad tracks, furthering Policy LU5.1 of the Land Use and Growth Management Element. The redesignation reduces the encroachment of non-agricultural land use designations into the periphery of the city.

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

A schematic site plan is included to provide the city with a conceptual site design. Upon the City Council's approval of the general plan amendment and rezone, a subsequent design review application would be filed. The Planning Commission would then consider approval of the design review. Until such time, the property will remain vacant as a newly designated and zone agricultural parcel, as indicated in the attached exhibit.

As such, I respectfully request the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of the general plan amendment and rezone requests.

Sincerely,
Erik V. Lundquist
Principal, Land Use Planning & Permitting
Brodie, Inc
480 Gate 5 Road, Suite 100
Sausalito, CA 94965
D: (707) 888- 6386
Encl: Existing Site Plan
Conceptual Site Plan
Agenda Item #11.2.

ISSUED: A P N : 009 - 19 4- 005
1030 FULTON LOT
1030 FULTON LANE,
ST HELENA, CA 94574

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

JOB NUMBER :

T H E S E D R A W I N G S A R E T H E O R I G I N A L U N P U B L I S H E D W O R KO F T H E A R C H I T E C T A N D M A Y N O T B E D U P L I C A T E D O R U S E DW I T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N P E R M I S S I O N O F T H E A R C H I T E C T .© W A L K E R / W A R N E R A R C H I T E C T S 2025-01-07 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
LEGEND - SITE PLAN:

EXISTING CONTOURS

PROPERTY LINE
(E) TREE TO REMAIN

PG&E EASEMENT
(E) FENCE

FUTURE VINE TRAIL

PATH SHOWN DASHED
(E) GATE
(E) 4' FENCE
(E) WATER METER
(E) JUNCTION POLE
(E) GAS METER
APN 009-194-004
256
255
254

FULTON LANE

RR TRACKS
257
APN 009-030-051
North
SCALE: 1" = 20'
1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
A1.0
Agenda Item #11.2.

BROOKS

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

S TATE OF CA L IFOR NIA

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

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

JOB NUMBER :

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

EXISTING CONTOURS

PROPERTY LINE

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

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

SETBACK
10'-0" PG&E

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

FUTURE VINE TRAIL

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

FORCE MAIN
APN 009-194-004
256
255
254

FULTON LANE

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

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

PROPOSED FINISH GRADING

2. S.C.D. FOR DRAINAGE INFORMATION

3. S.C.D. FOR SEPTIC INFORMATION

4. NOT USED
North
SCALE: 1" = 20'
1 SITE PLAN
A1.0
2024-04-04 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 Fulton.Lane
Resolution
May 20, 2025
CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT(GPA2025-001) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE

DESIGNATION FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO AGRICULTURE AND A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZMA2025-001) TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM

SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO TWENTY-ACRE AGRICULTURE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1030 FULTON LANE (APN 009-194-005)
PROPERTY OWNER: FULTON JUNCTION PARTNERS, LLC APN: 009-194-005 Recitals

1. On September 10, 2024, the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment application (PL24-043) to change the land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture be processed and referred to the Planning Commission for the subject parcel located at 1030 Fulton Lane; and

2. On August 5, 2024, The Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, filed an application to request a General Plan Amendment (GPA2025- 001) to the property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture.

3. On August 5, 2024, The Brodie Group on behalf of the property owners, Fulton Junction Partners LLC, filed an application to request a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2025-001) to rezone the property from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) to be consistent with the amended General Plan Land Use designation.

4. The proposed change in the General Plan and zoning designations will allow for the site to accommodate residential uses and incrementally help the City achieve its Regional Housing Needs; and

5. The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the CEQA Guidelines

6. A public notice was published in the Napa Valley Register and mailed to residents and occupants within 300 feet of the project site in compliance with state and local law; and

7. The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered the project, staff report, and all testimony, written and spoken, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 20, 2025.

Resolution
A. Now, therefore, the City of St. Helena Planning Commission resolves as follows, based on substantial evidence in the record:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 Fulton.Lane
Resolution
May 20, 2025

2. In making the recommendation in this Resolution, the St. Helena Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all the documents referenced in this Resolution and the associated staff reports, City files for this matter, correspondence, presentations, and other materials.

3. The Planning Commission hereby finds that this project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

4. The Planning Commission has considered the following guidelines as identified in St.

Helena Municipal Code Section 17.06.050 to support the motion to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment:
a. To allow for consideration of elements not initially considered at the time of approval of the general plan;
b. To reflect changes in goals, policy, physical, social, or economic conditions; c. To acknowledge when, due to naturally occurring physical constraints or changes, the anticipated land usage per the General Plan is no longer feasible;
d. To take into consideration the consistency of the proposed amendment with the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan, adopted Planning Commission (where applicable) and other existing city policies; e. When considering the reduction of residential density, ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65863 by either finding that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need or by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater density so that there is no net loss in residential density; and f. To ensure that there is no net loss of potential housing units.

5. The St. Helena Planning Commission has considered the following guidelines as identified in St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.07.070 to support the motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment:
a. To take into consideration the consistency of the proposed amendment with the goals, policies and programs of the general plan, adopted planning commission (where applicable) and other existing city policies; b. When considering the reduction of residential density, ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65863 by either finding that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need or by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater density so that there is no net loss in residential density; c. To ensure that there is no net loss of potential housing units.

6. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve an amendment of the General Plan (GPA2025-001) to change the land use Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 Fulton.Lane
Resolution
May 20, 2025
designation of the subject property located at 1030 Fulton Lane from Service Commercial to Agriculture as shown on Attachment 1. Attachment 1 is hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

7. The Planning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve an amendment to the Zoning Map (ZMA2025-001) to change the zoning designation of the subject property located at 1030 Fulton Lane from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture(A-20) as shown on Attachment 2. Attachment 2 is hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment applications were duly and regularly approved by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on May 20, 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

John Ponte Maya DeRosa, AICP
Chair, Planning Commission Community Development Director Attachments

1. Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 2.1 in the 2040 General Plan)

2. Proposed St. Helena Zoning Map
Agenda Item #11.2.

Attachment 1. Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 2.1) Agenda Item #11.2.

Attachment 2. Proposed Zoning Map
Agenda Item #11.2.

City of St. Helena
City Council
Project: 1030 Fulton Lane General Plan and Zoning
Map Amendment; GPA 25-001, ZMA 25-001.

Staff: Jackie Oneal
Community Development Department June 10, 2025
Agenda Item #11.2.

Project Description
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) applications to change the property's land use designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture and, accordingly, its zoning from Service Commercial (SC) to Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) to accommodate the future construction of a single-family home.
• Planning Commission considered the GPA and Zoning Map Amendment requests on May 20, 2025.
• Approval of the requests would result in modifications to the General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 2.1), and the City of St. Helena Zoning Map.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Background
• The ~39,092 square foot property has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Service Commercial (SC) and is located within the Urban Limit Line.
• The parcel is the only commercially zoned property north of Fulton Lane and east of the railroad tracks. Site has been vacant since 2010. • The site has been designated for commercial uses since the adoption of the 1975 General Plan and has been utilized for various legal nonconforming and conforming uses over the decades. • In 2019, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review request that allowed for the construction of two, two-story office buildings (one approximately 7,350 square feet and the other approximately 3,150 square feet), but the project never proceeded to construction.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Background
• On September 10, 2024, the City Council considered a request by the applicant to for preliminary review to amend the General Plan designation from Service Commercial to Agriculture, which was recommended for referral to Planning Commission.
• On May 20, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the requests and adopted a resolution recommending the City Council approve both requests.
• At the May 20, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission raised concerns about creating an A-20 parcel within the Urban Limit Line and requested that a topic for future consideration be that the City Council direct the study of the land use designations of smaller-sized A-20 sites in the City including those along the Fulton Lane corridor to be considered as Low Density Residential.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Aerial View
Fulton Lane
Railroad Tracks
Agenda Item #11.2.

Conceptual
Site Plan
(Not a part of
this request)
Agenda Item #11.2.

Current
General
Plan Map
Agenda Item #11.2.

Proposed
General
Plan Map
Agenda Item #11.2.

Proposed
Zoning
Map
Agenda Item #11.2.

Analysis
• Categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). • Designating the site as Agriculture would create consistency with the land use designations of the surrounding parcels located along Fulton Avenue to the east of the railroad tracks.
• Rezoning the site to A-20 is required to be consistent with the agricultural land use designation, however, because the subject parcel is less than two-acres in size, the Low Density One-Acre Minimum (LR-1A) development and design standards would apply.
• The LR-1A standards allow for the construction of a single-family home.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Recommendation

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3; and

2. Adopt the attached resolution approving General Plan Amendment (GPA 2025-001) to update General Plan Figure 2.1 to change the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 1030 Fulton Lane from Service Commercial to Agriculture; and

3. Introduce and waive first reading of the attached Ordinance for Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2025-001) to rezone the property located at 1030 Fulton Lane from Service Commercial to Twenty-Acre Agriculture and incorporate these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps.

Agenda Item #11.2.

Questions?
Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 FULTON LANE
1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE REQUEST
June 10, 2025
Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 FULTON LANE
2 06.10.2025 Agenda Item #11.2.

1030 FULTON LANE
39,092 square foot vacant parcel
3 06.10.2025 Agenda Item #11.2.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS, CHAPTER 17.06
City of St. Helena, Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning Code 4 06.10.2025
● Initiated by agent on behalf of Owner
● Preliminary review and authorization from City Council ● Refer the matter to Planning Commission for public hearing ● Planning Commission recommendation to City Council
PRELIMINARY REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 - City Council Action authorized the application and provided direction to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.

COMPANION REZONE APPLICATION FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2025

UNANIMOUS PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATION MAY 20, 2025
Agenda Item #11.2.

LAND USES IN THE VICINITY
5 06.10.2025 Agenda Item #11.2.

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION
6 06.10.2025
1030 FULTON
LANE
Agenda Item #11.2.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
1030 FULTON LANE

EXISTING
● Service Commercial (SC) General Plan land
use designation
● Service Commercial Zone and located
within the Urban Limit Line
● Pre-existing structure demolished in 2010
resulted in district establishment
● Intensity of uses allowed in SC Zone is not
appropriate on property

PROPOSED
● Agriculture General Plan Land Use Designation
● Agricultural and residential uses are prevailing
uses in northern quadrant
● Reduces encroachment of non-agricultural
land use designations into the periphery of the
City
● A-20 District (Rezone) consistent with General
Plan
● New SFD, ADU and Garage (Subsequent Design
Review)
7 06.10.2025 Agenda Item #11.2.

EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT
8 06.10.2025
1030 FULTON
LANE
Agenda Item #11.2.

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONE)
1030 FULTON LANE

EXISTING
● Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District
● Consistent with existing General Plan Designation
● Service Commercial Zone and located within the
Urban Limit Line
● Service and retail uses, restaurants, service
stations, hotels, motels, public and quasi-public
uses and similar and compatible uses.
● Primarily automobile-oriented and local
resident-serving in character.

PROPOSED
● A-20 Zoning District, consistent with the predominance of agriculture and residential uses in this quadrant.
● Consistent with General Plan upon amendment
● Intended to provide for agricultural and residential uses. ● The purpose of the A-20 district is to preserve agricultural land uses and provide for future orderly development.
● Restricts the density of residential use and promotes the preservation of agricultural land use.
● The lot is an existing lot and would not create new parcels inconsistent with the already established lot density.
9 06.10.2025 Agenda Item #11.2.

10 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
1030 FULTON LANE
■ Respectfully, we request the City Council’s Approval
■ Find that the requests are in the public’s interest to protect the continuity and cohesiveness of agricultural land uses on the east side of the railroad. ■ Find that the requests further intended purpose of the general plan retaining the predominance of agriculture and residential developments in this quadrant of the City.
■ Designates the land uses with an eye toward the future and the City's goals rather than past uses.

06.10.2025 Agenda Item #11.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Fire
DATE: June 10, 2025
FROM: John Sorensen, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance adding Chapter 8.44 to Title 8 of the St. Helena Municipal Code adopting the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as
recommended by CalFire and to provide authorization for fees for the inspection of properties that are sold in high or very high fire hazard severity zones.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Recommend that the City Council:

1. Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance adding Chapter 8.44 to Title 8 of the St. Helena Municipal Code adopting the fire hazard severity zones; and

2. Provide authorization for fees for the inspection of properties that are sold in high or very high fire hazard severity zone.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To adopt and ordinance to designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The future financial impact is unknown. Many staff hours will be required for inspection and code enforcement
activities in the High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

BACKGROUND:

In September 2021, Senate Bill 63 was approved by Governor Newsom. Senate Bill 63 included an act to amend California Government Code Section 51178. The amendment was effective on January 1, 2022, and directed the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) based on consistent statewide criteria and the severity of the fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. In addition, moderate, high, and very high FHSZs are based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors that have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.

In September 2022, Assembly Bill 211 was approved by Governor Newsom. Assembly Bill 211 amended California Government Code Section 51179 and requires local agencies to designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high FHSZ's within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178. It amended California Government Code Section 51179 and requires local Agenda Item #11.3.

agencies to designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high FHSZ's within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178.

In February 2025, the Office of the State Fire Marshal released the FHSZs in Local Responsibility Area map for review. The map is attached to this staff report and identifies moderate, high, and very high FHSZs within the City of St. Helena. The Office of the State Fire Marshal developed the Area map for review.

DISCUSSION:

Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map
The Office of the State Fire Marshal developed the recommended City of St. Helena FHSZ Map using a science-based and field-tested model that assigns a hazard score based on the factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. The fire hazard severity model for wildland fire has two key elements: probability of an area burning and expected fire behavior under extreme fuel and weather conditions. Many factors are considered, such as fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for an area.

California's updated FHSZ maps classify areas into Moderate, High, and Very High hazard levels based on factors like terrain, vegetation, fire history, and climate conditions. These classifications have different impacts depending on the zone classification. Below is a breakdown of what each zone means for developers and/or residents:

Moderate FHSZ
 Disclosure of the FHSZ classification required at time of sale High FHSZ
 New construction will be required to adhere to Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) standards of the California Building Code (effective January 1, 2026)  Disclosure of the FHSZ classification required at the time of sale Very High FHSZ
 Increased CEQA review requirements for projects
 New subdivisions in to be designed with multiple evacuation routes to ensure safe egress during a wildfire
 Subdivisions in very high FHSZ may need to include built-in fuel breaks to slow the spread of a wildfire
 Subdivisions in very high FHSZ must include provisions for defensible space, requiring vegetation clearance within a specific distance of structures  New construction and renovations in designated zones must adhere to WUI Chapter 7-A standards of the California Building Code.
 Homeowners in very high FHSZ must maintain defensible space around their homes, requiring clearing/maintaining of vegetation within a 100-foot radius (or to the property line).
 Disclosure of the FHSZ classification required at time of sale Agenda Item #11.3.

The FHSZ Map was created by CAL FIRE under the direction of the State Fire Marshal without the local jurisdictional input or influence. Under California Government Code Section 51179(b)(3), "A local agency shall not decrease the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency, and, in exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph (2), may only increase the level of fire hazard severity zone as identified by the State Fire Marshal for any area within the jurisdiction of the local agency." In other words, local agencies are not permitted to decrease or remove areas from the CAL FIRE recommended fire hazard severity zone map, but they may designate areas as a higher hazard than what the CAL FIRE map indicates. The proposed ordinance seeks to adopt the CAL FIRE map for the City of St. Helena FHSZ without any changes.

Inspection Fees
If the City is requested or required to conduct any inspections of real property located in High or Very High-Risk Hazard Severity Zones, the City may charge a fee for such inspections. The City Council shall set and update the fee by resolution as a separate action item.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

ST HELENA - Ordinance Adopting High Fire Severity Zone Map-c1 BBK EXHIBIT A -FHSZ_City_LRA_ MAP StHelena
Agenda Item #11.3.

83578.00005\43673811.1
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA ADDING CHAPTER 8.44 TO TITLE 8 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING

THE FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES AS RECOMMENDED BY CALFIRE AND TO

PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION FOR FEES FOR THE INSPECTION OF PROPERTIES

THAT ARE SOLD IN HIGH OR VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE WHEREAS, the Legislature has declared in Government Code section 51175, subdivision (a), that: fires are extremely costly, not only to property owners and residents, but also to local agencies; fires pose a serious threat to preservation of public peace, health and safety; it is necessary for cities, counties, special districts, state agencies and federal agencies to work together to bring raging fires under control; and preventative measures are needed to ensure preservation of the public peace, health and safety; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature has declared in Government Code section 51175, subdivision (b), that prevention of fires is not a municipal affair, but instead is a matter of statewide concern; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 51175 et seq. authorizes the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CALFIRE”) to recommend Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the City of St. Helena (“City”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 51179, the State Fire Marshal has published maps depicting areas designated as Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, has recommended that local agencies adopt these zones through local ordinance and Government Code section 51179, subdivision (a) requires the City to designate by ordinance Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days after receiving recommendations from CALFIRE; and
WHEREAS, the City received from CALFIRE a map titled the “City of St. Helena – Napa County Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones” dated February 24, 2025 (“CALFIRE MAP”), attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Chief has reviewed the map and believes it accurately represents the Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Severity Zones within the City and the City desires to adopt the map; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 51179, subdivision (e), CALFIRE has prepared a model ordinance that among other things, allows a fire chief to designate Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and requires building officials to enforce provisions of Title 24 California Code of Regulations, California Building Code, Part 2, Chapter 7A, in all Fire Hazard Severity Zones; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 51181, the State Fire Marshal is required to periodically review areas in the state identified as Very High Fire Hazard Agenda Item #11.3.

83578.00005\43673811.1
Severity Zones, and, as necessary, make recommendations on revisions to said zones; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted Section 1102.19 of the Civil Code requiring either, on or after July 1, 2021, any seller of any real property located in a High or Very High Risk Fire Hazard Severity Zone to provide a disclosure notice to any buyer of any real property stating the property is in compliance with a local vegetation management ordinance or for any buyer of real property to obtain said documentation when any seller of real property fails to provide the same; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution permits a City to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with the general laws, including imposing reasonable fees for services provided by the City.

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

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated into this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Amendment. Chapter 8.44 is hereby added to the City of St. Helena Municipal Code as follows:
§ 8.44.010 Fire Hazard Severity Zones:

The City of St. Helena – Napa County Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CALFIRE Map February 24, 2025) is hereby adopted by the City for the purposes of identifying Moderate, High, and Very High Risk Areas within the Fire Hazard Severity Zones and for application of the provisions of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure. § 8.44.020 Inspection Fees for Real Properties in High or Very High Risk Hazard Severity Zone:

If the City is requested or required to conduct any inspections of real property located in High or Very High Risk Hazard Severity Zones, the City may charge a fee for such inspections. The City Council shall set and update the fee by resolution.

SECTION 3. Maps. Pursuant Section 2 of this Ordinance, the map attached as Exhibit A is hereby adopted.

SECTION 4. Posting. The City shall post a notice at the office of the Napa County Recorder, Napa County Assessor, and Napa County Planning Agency identifying the Agenda Item #11.3.

83578.00005\43673811.1
location of the Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the CALFIRE MAP adopted pursuant to this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Transmittal. The City shall transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase added by this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases are declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective.

Section 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

Section 8. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall publish or post the Ordinance in accordance with California Government Code section 36933.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final passage and adoption.

INTRODUCED on June 10, 2025, and PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of St. Helena on __________________, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: ____
Councilmember Barak: ____
Councilmember Deasy: ____
Councilmember Spadarotto: ____
Councilmember Summers: ____
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
Agenda Item #11.3.

83578.00005\43673811.1
ATTEST:
______________________________
Erika Opp, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #11.3.

83578.00005\43673811.1

EXHIBIT A FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
Agenda Item #11.3.

City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:36,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2
Mi 0 1
Very High High Moderate
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal St. Helena 29 UNINCORPORATED
NAPA CO.

UNINCORPORATED
NAPA CO.

February 24, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF ST. HELENA – NAPA COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024
Agenda Item #11.3.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Finance
DATE: June 10, 2025
FROM: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Approval of a Resolution Adopting the FY 2025- 26 and FY 2026-27 Biennial Budget.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

May 13, 2025 - Presentation of the Draft FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Draft Biennial Budget.

May 27,2025 - Approval of a Resolution Adopting the FiveYear Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025-26 to 2029-30.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose is to approve a resolution adopting the FY
2026-26 and FY 2026-27 Biennial Operating and Capital
Improvement Budget document.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fiscal impacts are described throughout the report and in the FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 Biennial Operating and
Capital Improvement Budget document (Attachment 2).

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.

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 e. Enhance Quality of Life
Agenda Item #12.1.

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

2. Alignment with staff workplan tied to City Council Goals

3. Conservative Revenue Assumptions

4. Insurance cost increases

5. Labor cost increases

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.

May 13, 2025 - City staff presented the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Draft Budget to the City Council for consideration. 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 on nominal escalators. Any additional one-time expenditure requests made by departments beyond what was requested in FY 2023-24 will be brought to City Council during either the mid-year or mid-cycle reports for consideration.

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 Agenda Item #12.1.

detailed projected expenditures for each department and fund. After receiving feedback from the City Council, staff prepared 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 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 and FY 2026-27 Escalators
Category FY 2025-26 % Change FY 2026-27 % Change
Revenues
Property Tax 4.5% 4.5%
Sales Tax (1) -0.9% 1.0%
Transient Occupancy Tax 3.0% 2.0%
Other Revenues 4.0% 3.8%
Expenses
Salaries & Benefits 3.2% 3.0%
Health Insurance 4.5% 7.0%
CalPERS Unfunded Liability 17.2% 3.0%
Services and Supplies -18.7% 2.0%
Maintenance -14.5% 4.0%
Insurance 18.8% 10.0%
(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.

Agenda Item #12.1.

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 Proposed FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 budgets. While the updated methodology increases General Fund salary and benefit 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 which are reflected in the General Fund revenues.

General Fund Revenues
The proposed FY 2026 General Fund Revenues is estimated at $20.61 million and is broken down as follows:
 Property Tax (35%) $7.32 million
 Sales Tax (26%) $5.38 million
 Transient Occupancy Tax (20%) $4.18 million
 Other Revenue (19%) $3.90 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%.

The following budget reductions were made to reduce the impact on the General Fund reserves:

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 (1) 50,000
Election Expense 90,000
Non-Profit Grant Contributions 45,000
Agenda Item #12.1.

Transfer from General Fund to 4th of July Fund 40,000
Total Budget Reductions 1,889,672
(1)Reduction has been reduced by $50,000 since it was last presented to City Council on May 13, 2025 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 $762,045.  $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.
 $106,000 increase in Police Department for Dispatch Services contract with the City of Calistoga.
 $82,417 increase in other insurances (property, general liability, and difference in condition).
 $43,284 increase in personnel costs for 25% share of School Resource Officer - St. Helena Unified School District has agreed to reimburse the City for the remaining 75% share.

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 Activities 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
Notable changes that have been made to the Proposed Budget since it was last presented to City Council on May 13, 2025 are included in the chart below:

Table 4 - Adjustments to Draft Budget
Description FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27
Revenues
Sales Tax 257,946 277,729
Contributions from Government 159,630 164,419
Expenses
Increase Chamber Contribution 50,000 50,000
Move Sidewalk Program to Measure T/U (50,000) (50,000)
Agenda Item #12.1.

School Resource Officer 212,830 219,223
Dispatch Services Contract 716,371 716,371
Dispatch Personnel & Ancillary Costs (610,375) (610,375) Record Liability for Vine Trail St. Helena
to Calistoga Amendment in FY 2024-25
(1)
(350,000) -
Vine Trail - St. Helena to Yountville Cost
Share per May 27, 2025 Adopted CIP - 300,000
Total Adjustments to Proposed
Budget 448,750 (183,071)
(1) This action reduces the June 30, 2025 Unassigned Fund Balance by $350,000, but the funds have not yet been authorized for payment.

Below is an updated General Fund Balance for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27including the adjustments detailed above:

Table 5 - Updated FY 2025-26 General Fund Balance with Additional Staff Recommendations
Fund Balance %
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30/2025 10,915,126
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2026 20,771,956
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2026 22,183,691
Revenues Less Expenses (1,411,735)
Estimated Unassigned Fund
Balance/Net Position @ 6/30/2026 9,503,391 42.8%
Table 6 - Updated FY 2026-27 General Fund Balance with Additional Staff Recommendations
Fund Balance %
Estimated Ending Fund Balance 6/30/2026 9,503,391
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2027 21,402,954
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2027 23,021,620
Revenue Less Expenses (1,618,666)
Estimated Unassigned Fund
Balance/Net Position @ 6/30/2027 7,884,725 34.2%
The Estimated Fund Balance percentage is based on the Estimated Fund Balance divided by the total Expenses.

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 Agenda Item #12.1.

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:
 Base Salary - 3% inflation-based COLA.
 Benefits - 4.5% 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 7 - FY 2025-26 Budget Reductions
Description Amount
Contract Services 311,047
Personnel Costs 115,500
Total Budget Reductions 426,547
The FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget includes the below one-time expenditures:

Table 8 - 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 Three Aerators 26,000
Wastewater Treatment Pavement at WWTP Facility 50,000
Total One-time Requests 120,500
CARES Utility Subsidy Program Funding Update
As presented in the May 13, 2025 Budget Presentation to City Council and further detailed in the May 27, 2025 Finance Committee Recommendation Report, a key update has been made to the funding structure of the CARES Utility Subsidy Program, which provides financial assistance to eligible utility customers. Per City Council direction, total program funding has been increased from $85,000 to $150,000. The original $85,000 remains budgeted in the General Fund, while the additional $65,000 is now allocated from the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds.

Agenda Item #12.1.

To comply with Proposition 218, only specific revenue sources—late payment penalty revenues and investment earnings—collected in excess of amounts projected in the 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study will be used to support the additional $65,000.

The following table outlines the programmed revenue estimates from the rate study:

Table 9 - 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study Revenues Description FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27
Water Enterprise
Finance Charges 18,000 18,000
Investment Earnings 57,362 71,696
Wastewater Enterprise
Finance Charges - -
Investment Earnings 34,477 35,916
If the actual revenues from these sources exceed the amounts shown above and surpass the $65,000 threshold, the General Fund contribution will be reduced accordingly. Conversely, if the collected revenues fall short, the General Fund will cover the difference to ensure the program remains fully funded.

Table 10 - Updated FY 2025-26 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 (8,129,776)
Revenues Less Expenses 999,568
Reserved for Capital Contribution (637,879)
Estimated Fund Balance/Operating
Reserve @ 6/30/2026 6,864,478 10 Months
Estimated Debt Coverage 1.36
Table 11 - Updated FY 2026-27 Water Fund Balance with Additional Staff Recommendations
Operating Reserve
Estimated Ending Fund Balance
6/30/2026 6,864,478
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2027 9,892,941
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2027 (8,300,633)
Revenues Less Expenses 1,592,308
Reserved for Capital Contribution (1,444,494)
Estimated Fund Balance/Operating
Reserve @ 6/30/2027 7,012,292 10 Months
Agenda Item #12.1.

Estimated Debt Coverage 1.43
Table 12 - Updated FY 2025-26 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 (5,290,625)
Revenues Less Expenses 455,408
Reserved for Capital Contribution -
Estimated Fund Balance/Operating
Reserve @ 6/30/2026 2,491,296 5.7 Months
Estimated Debt Coverage 1.30
Table 13 - Updated FY 2026-27 Wastewater Fund Balance with Additional Staff Recommendations
Operating Reserve
Estimated Ending Fund Balance
6/30/2026 2,491,296
Estimated Revenues @ 6/30/2027 5,999,162
Estimated Expenses @ 6/30/2027 (5,529,559)
Revenues Less Expenses 469,603
Reserved for Capital Contribution (198,000)
Estimated Fund Balance/Operating
Reserve @ 6/30/2026 2,762,899 6 Months
Estimated Debt Coverage 1.33
Concluding Remarks
The City continues to experience persistent budget shortfalls caused by expenditures increasing 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

8.1% ($1.89 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.

Therefore, until stable revenue sources can be created, expectations will need to be modulated.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

Agenda Item #12.1.

GOAL:

Goal 1: Strengthen Financial Sustainability
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 6: Improve Employee Recruitment, Retention, & Morale DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution Approving Biennial Budget for FY26 and FY27
FY 26 and FY 27 Proposed Budget
Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__
Resolution Authorizing Adoption of Biennial Budget for the City of St. Helena for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27.

RECITALS
A. The City is required to adopt estimates of revenues and expenditures on a fiscal year basis; and
B. Per Municipal Code 2.12.060.B.9, the City Manager supervises the preparation of a detailed, proposed municipal budget and submit to the Council each year; and
C. On May 13, 2025, staff presented a FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 General Fund, Water Enterprise Fund, and Wastewater Enterprise Fund preliminary forecast to the City Council, which included the proposed revenues and expenses; and D. The preliminary forecast showed an excess of expenses of revenues requiring use of reserves to provide a balanced budget and escalators for FY 2026-27 revenues and expenses, which would also require use of reserves; and E. On May 23, 2025, City Council provided additional feedback to City staff to utilize reserves to balance the budget and to coordinate with the Chamber of Commerce to include funding for marketing and community collaborations in the FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 budget; and
F. On May 20, 2025, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65401, the Planning Commission found the proposed Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City’s General Plan; and G. Based on City Council direction, staff revised the draft budget further taking into consideration City Council goals, City Council discussion, and the operational needs of the City; and
H. These revisions included providing additional funding for the Chamber of Commerce, increasing funding for the CARES program, and inclusion of a cost share for a School Resource Officer; and
I. On June 10, 2025, staff determined the appropriations needed for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and 2026-27 and prepared a Proposed Budget for City Council Review which includes recommended funding for Non-Profit organizations; and J. The City of St. Helena shall submit its budget document to the Government Finance Officers Association “Distinguished Budget Presentation Award”; and K. It is City practice, at the end of each fiscal year, to appropriate all available fund balances to a reserve in each fund in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); and
Agenda Item #12.1.

L. The City provides a policy for subsequent modification of such appropriations.

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

1. Revenue estimates and appropriations by fund and department are shown in “Exhibit A”, a copy of which is attached and hereby made part of this Resolution, is hereby adopted.

2. Any remaining Capital fund projects and encumbrances will be rolled into the next fiscal year.

3. Department Heads may authorize the transfer of appropriations within a department, except transfers: (1) that would purport an increase in the number of regular personnel, and (2) that would decrease appropriations for capital outlay.

4. The City Manager may transfer appropriations between departments so long as total appropriations are not increased within a fund.

5. The City Council has the overriding authority to control the use of revenues and the appropriations of funds and therefore may modify this policy at any time. The total appropriations in any fund may not be increased except by the City Council.

6. All changes in appropriations will be authorized on a “Budget Adjustment Form.” All increases in appropriations will be authorized by Council.

7. Any expenditure must be made in accordance with Title 3, Chapter 3.04 of the Municipal Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows:

1. All available fund balances as of June 30th for each fiscal year in the biennial budget, as determined upon completion of the annual audit, are appropriated in a reserve in each fund in accordance with GAAP;

2. The City Manager and Administrative Services Director are authorized to make changes to the budget document that enhance the presentation of the document in such a way to meet the criteria set forth by the Government Finance Officers Association “Distinguished Budget Presentation Award” but shall not make any material changes to budget appropriations approved by the City Council; and

3. Deficits in available fund balances are adjusted by an appropriation from the existing reserves.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on June 10, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Council Member Summers:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Erika Opp, Acting City Clerk Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2026 & 2027
Mayor | Paul Dohring
Vice Mayor | Michelle Deasy
Council Member | Aaron Barak
Council Member | Kate Spadarotto
Council Member | Billy Summers
www.cityofsthelena.org | 1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574 Agenda Item #12.1.

Introductory Section
Budget Page 1
Agenda Item #12.1.

City of St. Helena, California
Budget for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27

CITY COUNCIL
Paul Dohring
Mayor
Billy Summers
Council Member
Kate Spadarotto
Council Member
Aaron Barak
Council Member
Michelle Deasy
Vice Mayor
Budget Page 2
Agenda Item #12.1.

City of St. Helena, California
Budget for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27

CITY ADMINISTRATION
Administrative Staff
Andrew Bradley, Acting City Clerk
Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Dave Jahns, Community Services Director
Lesley Milton, Deputy City Manager
John Sorensen, Fire Chief
Christopher Hartley, Police Chief
Joseph Leach, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Anil Comelo
City Manager
Ethan Walsh
City Attorney
Budget Page 3
Agenda Item #12.1.

City of St. Helena, California
Budget for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27
Boards and Commissions
Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee
Jeff Farmer, Chair
John Zimmerman, Vice Chair
Shannon Nolan
Richard Seiferheld
Glenn Smith
Emma Leggat, Alternate
Tony Rabin, Alternate
Board of Library Trustees
Deborah Boeschen, Chair
Gillian Casey, Vice Chair
Courtenay Fletcher
Jonathan Furuta
Dana Johnson
Juana Navarro
Jack Stuart
Finance Committee
Mark Smithers, Chair
Garry Rose, Vice Chair
Arlene Corsetti
Gregg Dawley
Richard Garber
George Schisler
Christopher Warner
Budget Page 4
Agenda Item #12.1.

City of St. Helena, California
Budget for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27
Boards and Commissions, Continued
Parks & Recreation Commission
Doug Boeschen, Chair
Jim Anderson, Vice Chair
Courtney Andrain
Stephanie Smithers
John Thompson
Planning Commission
John Ponte, Chair
Christopher Warner, Vice Chair
Autumn Anderson
Sue Furdek
Hector Lopez
Water & Wastewater Advisory Committee
Brent Randol, Chair
Garry Rose, Vice Chair
Jay Kouba
Mario Trinchero
Peter White
Carl Myers, Alternate
Budget Page 5
Agenda Item #12.1.

City of St. Helena
1088 College Ave. | St. Helena, CA 94574
(707) 967-2792 | cityofsthelena.gov
Budget Message
June 5, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am pleased to present to you the Biennial OperaƟng Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 and the FY 2025-26 Capital Budget for the City of St. Helena.

This document outlines a proposed budget balancing strategy that addresses the community's immediate service needs, while posiƟoning St. Helena to enhance delivery of projects and services in the coming years. As such, it represents a responsible spending plan for the upcoming fiscal year and considers City Council’s Goals, economic outlook, exisƟng and future financial commitments, mulƟ-year capital planning, and invesƟng available resources in strategic prioriƟes.

Budget Balancing Strategy
 Thoughƞul reducƟon of about $1.89 million in expenses  Labor cost increase limited to inflaƟon factor of 3%
 Defunding two execuƟve level posiƟons
 Use of approximately $1.4 million in reserves
The Proposed Budget, which includes a total of $1.89 million (8.1%) in budget cuts, reflects our current fiscal reality because of conƟnued resource limitaƟons. I hasten to add that while staff will strive to minimize impacts on residents, the budget cuts will inevitably impact service delivery and maintenance of City assets. Therefore, the City's long-term fiscal health must be addressed through more sustainable approaches to the community's service prioriƟes. In that regard, the outcome of proposed hotel developments and potenƟal tax measure(s) will determine whether the City can meet community expectaƟons and/or address the need for infrastructure improvements. The proposed budget also provides an opportunity to advance public discussions on how to most effecƟvely fund City services.

This comprehensive budget for all funds is intended to serve as a policy document, a financial plan, a communicaƟons device, and an operaƟons guide. As with the prior year budget, this annual financial plan implements the City Council’s goals and strategic prioriƟes for the efficient delivery of community services.

Moreover, the City’s goals and objecƟves are aligned with both the City of St. Helena’s Vision and Mission.

The City Council goals are as follows:
 Goal 1: Strengthen Fiscal Resilience
 Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability  Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Prudent Management of Water Resources  Goal 4: Provide EffecƟve Community InformaƟon & OpportuniƟes for Engagement  Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
 Goal 6: Improve Employee Recruitment, RetenƟon, & Morale  Goal 7: OpƟmize OrganizaƟonal EffecƟveness
 Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Budget Page 6
Agenda Item #12.1.

With General Fund (GF) revenues and expenditures for the first of the two years, esƟmated to be approximately $22,183,691 and $23,021,620 respecƟvely, the proposed budget anƟcipates the use of approximately $1.4 million from reserves to balance the budget.

The FY 2026-27 projecƟons are above, and it is anƟcipated that approximately $1.6 million will need to be withdrawn from reserves to balance the second-year budget. With these projected withdrawals, it is esƟmated that on July 1, 2026, the General Fund reserve will be 42.8% and drop to 34.2% on July 1, 2027; and while the balances for both years are above the Council policy of 30%, conƟnued withdrawals from reserves would be imprudent. It is imperaƟve therefore that the City explore alternate revenue stream(s) to fund services to the community and maintain City assets.

Budget Drivers
The City conƟnues, like other public and private organizaƟons throughout the naƟon, to be impacted by significant recruitment and retenƟon challenges. The largest driver for expenditures in the proposed budget, not surprisingly, is the cost of employee compensaƟon, especially compensaƟon increases. To minimize the impact of such increases, the budget balancing strategy calls for an inflaƟon adjustment of 3% (average inflaƟon in 2024) which while keeping City employees well below the median for the market of similarly classified posiƟons in compeƟng jurisdicƟons, will enable the City to manage its expenditures.

In addiƟon to the staffing cost increase, there is a projected increase to general liability insurance of 20% and 15% increase to property insurance.

Proposed Budget
The proposed General Fund baseline operaƟng budget totals $22.2 million in FY 2025-26 and $23.0 million in FY 2026-27. The FY 2025-26 General Fund budget is a 6.5% decrease over FY 2024-25 adjusted budget, and the FY 2026-27 General Fund budget is a 3.8% increase over FY 2025-26. In accordance with the FY 2025-26 General Fund Estimated Net Position
Estimated Unassigned Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2025 10,915,126 Estimated Revenue @ 6/30/2026 20,771,956 Estimated Expense @ 6/30/2026 (22,183,691)
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures (1,411,735)
Estimated Unassigned Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2026 9,503,391 Percent of Expenses Based on Total Net Position 42.8% FY 2026-27 General Fund Estimated Net Position
Estimated Unassigned Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2026 9,503,391 Estimated Revenue @ 6/30/2027 21,402,954 Estimated Expense @ 6/30/2027 (23,021,620)
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures (1,618,666)
Estimated Unassigned Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/2027 7,884,725 Percent of Expenses Based on Total Net Position 34.2% Budget Page 7
Agenda Item #12.1.

direcƟon of the City Council, this budget represents a spending plan that balances providing services to residents, businesses, and visitors within the limits of available resources. The City Council Goals/PrioriƟes adopted on May 9, 2023, were a key consideraƟon during development of this budget.

Budget Overview
It must be noted and reiterated that while the City has a stable financial posiƟon. in the future the City must account for significant infrastructure/deferred maintenance costs, employee recruitment and retenƟon challenges, as well as the potenƟal for a recession. These challenges will require a modulated approach to address projected deficits and significant budget demands. While the City will need to grapple with the ongoing deficit, there are exciƟng opportuniƟes/occurrences on the horizon that will improve the City’s long-term wellbeing and financial posiƟon. They are consistent with City Council goals and are listed below:

1. Sale of City ProperƟes – The City received strong responses to its Request For Proposals (RFP) to sell two City properƟes. Staff is currently working with a finalist and will bring to City Council on June 24, 2025, an Exclusive NegoƟaƟon Agreement (ENA) which will describe the key terms for the sale of the two properƟes. A hotel has been proposed for the Main Street site and will generate approximately $1.5 million each year once it is built in approximately FY 2030. AddiƟonally, the sale will create housing (on the Railroad site) and provide a one-Ɵme cash infusion likely in FY 2027 which can be allocated towards several needs including reducing long-term debt such as the pension obligaƟon.

2. The relocaƟon of City Hall and Police Department to the Napa Valley College (NVC) site, has provided the community and staff with a more funcƟonal and beƩer environment to receive and provide services. The City may have an opportunity to purchase or enter into a long-term lease of the NVC property. If the City is able to establish City Hall at the NVC site for the long-term, it opens the opportunity to envision other uses for some of the underuƟlized City properƟes. PotenƟal uses include housing, hospitality, and/or retail which could generate addiƟonal one-Ɵme and/or ongoing revenue.

3. During the last two years, staff has been diligently working on the design and RFP processes related to several CIP projects. Over the next two years, many of those projects will be delivered (i.e. constructed) including several criƟcal water-wastewater infrastructure projects. These include Napa InterƟe Transmission Main Replacement, Bell Canyon Intake Tower RehabilitaƟon, Tank 2 RehabilitaƟon, and a number of pipeline rehabilitaƟon projects for both the water distribuƟon system and sewer collecƟon system.

4. Since November 2023, staff has been invesƟgaƟng soluƟons to the discolored water challenge that has plagued the City for several decades. Staff track the incidents of discolored water as reported by residents, which is part of the comprehensive data collecƟon process to ascertain trends. For the first Ɵme in the 30 plus years of history of the discolored water, staff is determined to minimize, and eventually eliminate, these occurrences. In collaboraƟon with the State’s Division of Drinking Water and water treatment professionals since the beginning of 2025, staff has made changes to the water treatment processes to beƩer manage the sources of discoloraƟon, i.e. iron and Budget Page 8
Agenda Item #12.1.

manganese, in the source water. AddiƟonally, staff has implemented a rigorous water quality sampling/tesƟng program to track those minerals throughout the system. While it is anƟcipated that incidents of discolored water will occur this year (e.g. residual minerals in the pipes, “breakthrough” minerals geƫng through the treatment process, minerals in customer’s plumbing, etc.), we are commiƩed to a higher level of communicaƟon with customers on the nature of each complaint and both short- and long-term strategies to address the seasonal discolored water.

Below is a brief summary of the formaƟon of the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Budget document.

FY 2025-26 & FY 2026-27 Budget Development
During the budget development process, staff was guided by the following consideraƟons:
 Alignment with City Council Goals
 ConservaƟve Revenue AssumpƟons
 Insurance Cost Increases
 One-Ɵme vs. reoccurring costs
Key Points
Noteworthy aspects of the proposed budget are as follows:
 Proposed FY 2025-26 General Fund Revenues is esƟmated at $20.61 million and is broken down as follows:
o Property Tax (35%) - $7.32 million
o Sales Tax (26%) - $5.38 million
o Transient Occupancy Tax (20%) - $4.18 million
o Other Revenue (19%) - $3.90 million
 Proposed General Fund Expenses are esƟmated at $22.18 million, which includes $176,000 in oneƟme expenses.  Expenditure cuts totaling over $1.89 million (8.1%) have been proposed.  The General Fund operaƟng budget for FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 have been balanced using $1.4 million and $1.6 million respecƟvely in withdrawals from reserves; ending the second year with a net fund balance of approximately 34% in compliance with the 30% City Council reserve policy.  The Proposed Budget includes $75,000 in Nonprofit Grant Awards ($45,000 less than the historic amount of $120,000) and $125,000 in funding for the Chamber of Commerce ($50,000 than current fiscal year.
 AllocaƟons totaling $90,000 for exisƟng nonprofit grant agreements which include: Boys & Girls Club, Rianda House, and UpValley Family Centers in the amount of $30,000 each.  Several unfunded needs exist, including but not limited to:
o CorporaƟon Yard Flood Hazard MiƟgaƟon
o New roadways and bridges
o Walking trails
o CompeƟƟve compensaƟon for employees
o Cost of a permanent City Hall
 The proposed budget includes freezing 1 FTE as Assistant City Manager, freezing 1 FTE as City Clerk, and temporarily underfunding a Management Analyst as an AccounƟng Technician.

Budget Page 9
Agenda Item #12.1.

General InformaƟon
Capital Improvement Plan
The City adopts a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to plan and program resources necessary for the acquisiƟon, design, and/or construcƟon of significant City projects. The CIP projects repair or develop community infrastructure or meet community needs, provide faciliƟes to support City operaƟons, and support City Council prioriƟes.

A capital project is considered a one-Ɵme expenditure but oŌen the projects take mulƟple years to deliver and fully fund. While plans are developed for at least a 20-year horizon, funding for the projects within the CIP is approved by Council annually as part of the budget approval, or project funding can be approved by a separate City Council acƟon when funding adjustments are necessary outside the normal budget cycle. The Proposed Budget includes a CIP for the next five-year period with capital projects totaling $67.07 million. Of this amount, $14.42 million is budgeted in FY 2025-26.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Mayor and City Council for your leadership. Preparing the City’s annual financial plan is a shared effort involving to a large extend the City execuƟve team and City Council. The City Council has played a criƟcal role in establishing and prioriƟzing organizaƟonal goals and objecƟves. I have seen first-hand the amount of Ɵme, care, and personal sacrifice each of you makes for the benefit of the community. The St. Helena community should be proud of your leadership and commitment to service. I am also profoundly thankful for our highly moƟvated ExecuƟve Leadership Team and the enƟre staff of the City for their commitment to providing outstanding services to our community.

For the budget process I want to acknowledge the hard work, technical experƟse, and incalculable number of hours worked by AdministraƟve Services Director, Mandy Kellogg to create this document and all the analysis that went into it. Simultaneously, Director Kellogg also served as the point person for labor negoƟaƟons with the City’s three bargaining groups and as the staff liaison to the Finance CommiƩee - which was hugely Ɵme-consuming. Her dedicaƟon and diligence has been unbelievable. I also want to acknowledge the important contribuƟons of Erika Opp, MarƟn Beltran, Stephanie Killingsworth, and Ciara CaoueƩe. This year, we have also performed considerable amount of work related to long-range financial planning; in this regard, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the huge amount of analysis performed by former Assistant City Manager, Dr. April MiƩs with the guidance of a couple of residents including former Council Member Kenealy and former Vice Mayor Hall.

Respecƞully submiƩed,
Anil Comelo
City Manager
Budget Page 10
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
The purpose of the City of St. Helena’s budget is to serve as a “blueprint” for providing City services and as a working financial plan for the next two fiscal years. It also represents the official organization plan by which City policies, priorities, and programs are implemented. It provides a means to communicate to the residents, businesses, and employees how the City’s financial resources are used to provide services to the community. The budget includes both the operating costs to manage the City and the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) that the City plans to undertake during the next five fiscal years.

A BRIEF OVERVIEW
Location
The City of St. Helena is located in the center of heart of the Napa Valley, 65 miles north of San Francisco. St. Helena is bisected by the Sulphur and York Creeks that are year-round tributaries of the Napa River, which lies along the eastern border of the City. St. Helena is also bounded to the wet and east by the Howell and Mayacamas Mountains, respectively. St. Helena serves as the regional economic and social anchor for the nearby unincorporated communities of Angwin and Deer Park as well as a commercial development near the intersection of Zinfandel Lane and State Highway 29.

History
The community of St. Helena began developing into a commercial center for nearby farmers and ranchers in the 1830s as a result of a land grant from Mexico to General Mariano Vallejo. By the 1860s, the Napa Valley Railroad Company, precursor to future branches of the Central Pacific Railroad and Southern Pacific Railroad Companies, was extended north from Napa to include stops in Yountville, Oakville, Rutherford, and St. Helena. The arrival of the railroad coincided with the expansion of St. Helena’s commercial base as nearby vineyards began to flourish leading to the creation of a business district along Main Street.

St. Helena’s emergence as a commercial center in the Napa Valley led to its incorporation as a City on March 24, 1876 and reincorporated on May 14, 1889. St. Helena’s incorporation was the first in Napa County and helped facilitate continued commercial and residential growth in the City over the next several decades.

Growth and development in St. Helena became stagnant beginning in the 1920s following the enactment of Prohibition. In 1930, the United States Census estimated St. Helena’ population at 1,582. St. Helena’s population grew modestly over the next few decades reaching 3,193 by 1970.

It was between 1970 and 1980 when St. Helena experienced its most significant period of growth as its population increased by over half to 4,898 by 1980. According to United States Census Bureau reports, the population is estimated to be 6,105.

The City from its inception has served as a rural agricultural center and, over the years, has become an important business center for the wine industry. As a result of the thriving wine industry, and the area’s scenic qualities, the City receives many visitors each year. The City strives Budget Page 11
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
embrace and maintain its historic, small-town character, beautiful national environment, and high quality of life.

Demographics
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of St. Helena has an estimated population of 5,272 people and covers approximately 5 square miles. St. Helena is 70.8% White alone, 25.8% Hispanic or Latino, 0.7% Black or African American, 1.4% Asian, and 11.1% Two or More Races. The median home price in St. Helena is $1.96 with 66.6% of housing being owner occupied.

Local Economy
The City of St. Helena’s local economy remains closely tied to the wine industry, with the broader Napa County economy heavily supported by the hospitality sector—the region’s largest employer. However, statewide sales tax projections have been revised downward in response to economic indicators affecting core revenue-generating industries, including tourism, transportation, and construction.

St. Helena is particularly vulnerable due to its reliance on high-end tourism and luxury consumer spending. Over 50% of the City’s total sales tax revenue is derived from food products, with wineries accounting for nearly 46% of that share. A strong U.S. dollar has deterred international visitors by making travel to Napa Valley more expensive, while domestic consumers have become more cautious in their discretionary spending amid inflationary pressures and economic uncertainty. Boutique hotels, fine dining, and wine tasting venues have reported softer demand, resulting in weaker taxable sales.

Beyond tourism, the transportation and construction sectors are also underperforming. High interest rates, cost escalations, and project delays have stalled development, while rising fuel costs and regulatory shifts—such as increased EV adoption and stricter emissions standards—are putting financial pressure on local businesses. Uncertainty surrounding state and federal policies has further dampened investment in these sectors.

At the household level, rising costs in essential areas—particularly housing, healthcare, and insurance—are limiting disposable income and shifting consumer spending away from nonessential goods and services. While inflation in food and dining moderated in 2023, previously elevated rates in 2022 temporarily boosted sales tax revenues. With inflation now tapering, this effect is diminishing, further tempering revenue expectations.

Given the convergence of these factors, a more conservative approach to sales tax forecasting is warranted to ensure continued fiscal prudence and long-term budgetary stability for the City.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Napa County had an unemployment rate of 4.3% in February 2025, which is the same as the previous year (February 2024). Comparatively, California has an unemployment rate of 5.4%, and 4.1% for the nation for the same period.

St. Helena’s largest sales tax drivers are Property Tax, Sales Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) which typically accounts for 88% of all General Fund revenues. The top ten principal Budget Page 12
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
property tax payers are: Treasury Wine Estates, Spring Mountain Hotel LLC, Sutter Home, C.

Mondavi and Sons, Palmer City-Core, US Viticulture Farmland LLC, Castellucci Antonio & Rita TR, Schoendorf, Joseph & Nancy, Duckhorn Wine Company, and Madrona Estate Vineyard LLC.

Sales tax receipts are divided into 6 categories and noted below.

General Retail
Clothing
Furniture
Appliances
Drug Store
Florist
Misc. Retail
Miscellaneous
Health
Government
Food Products
Restaurants
Food Markets
Liquor Stores
Wineries
Tasting Rooms
Transportation
Auto Parts
Auto Sales
Service Stations
Construction
Bldg. Materials
Business to Business
Office Equipment
Business Services
Chemical Products
Heavy/Light Industry
Leasing
Historically Food Products has been the driver for sales tax followed by General Retail, Transportation, Construction, Business to Business, and Miscellaneous. The top 25 sales tax generators as of June 30, 2024 (in alphabetical order) are:

Azteca Market
Brown’s Auto Parts
Central Valley Builders Supply
Culinary Institute of America
Elyse Walker
Farmstead Restaurant
Goose & Gander
Gott’s Roadside
Harlan Estate Winery
Harvest Table
Los Alcobas
Martin Design
Merryvale Vineyards
Napa Valley AG Supply
Napa Valley Petroleum
OK Tire Store
One True Vine
Safeway Stores
Sager Ford
Shamrock Building
Sunshine Foods
The Charter Oak Restaurant
Tra Vigne Restaurant
Tre Posti Catering
Treasury Wine Estates

FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The City is a General Law city and operates under the Council-Manager form of government.

Decision-making authority under this system is equally distributed among a five-member City Council that includes a directly elected mayor. Elections are conducted by general vote; the Mayor serves a two-year term while the four Council Members serve staggered four-year terms.

Key duties of the City Council include making policies, adopting an annual budget, enacting ordinances, appointing committee members, and hiring the City Manager.

Budget Page 13
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
The St. Helena City Council meetings are conducted on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month beginning at 6:00 p.m. and are typically held in the Vintage Hall Board Room at the St.

Helena High School, located at 465 Main Street. Meetings are open to the public and are also broadcast on local public access television. Council agendas and minutes are posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and are made available on the City’s website, www.cityofsthelena.gov.

BUDGET ORGANIZATION
As indicated in the Table of Contents, the City of St. Helena’s budget document consists of several sections. A corresponding title page divides each section.

Introductory Section
City Council, Administrative Team, and Boards/Commissions/Committees provides a summary of the City Council members executive staff, and lists the various Boards, Commissions, and Committees in St. Helena.

The City Manager’s Budget Message to the City Council highlights key priorities and issues for the upcoming budget year as well as provides an overview of significant budgetary items and trends for the City as a whole.

Budget Adoption Resolution provides a copy of the budget resolution adopting the FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 Operations Budget.

The Reader’s Guide to the Budget provides the reader with a brief overview and introduction to the City of St. Helena as well as an explanation on how to understand, read, and use this Budget document.

Fund Balance Summary provides an easy-to-read overview of the City’s expenditures/expenses and revenues for each of the City’s funds.

Schedule of Transfers provides a summary of all transfers authorized in the adopted budget by fund.

Description of Revenue Sources provides five-year historical trends for the General Fund and Enterprise Funds.

Allocation of City Positions provides a summary of staffing positions by department.

Organization Chart provides a summary of the organization of the City as a whole.

Budget Page 14
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
General Fund provides an overview of General Fund revenues and expenditures, five-year historical data for each General Fund funding source, General Fund expenditure summary by department, and a summary of the net position for the General Fund.

Administrative Departments provides details on the City Council, City Administration (City Manager and City Clerk), Administrative Services (Finance, Human Resources, and Information Technology), Attorney, Planning, and Non-Departmental budgets.

Community Services provides details on the Library and Parks & Recreation budgets.

Public Safety provides details on the Fire and Police budgets.

Public Works provides details on the Public Works Administration, Government Buildings, Storm Drains, Streets, Trees, Parks, and City Garage budgets.

Water Fund provides details on the Water Distribution and Water Treatment budgets.

Wastewater Fund provides details on the Wastewater Collection and Wastewater Treatment budgets.

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) provides a summary of the City Council adopted 5-year CIP. The CIP functions as a budgeting and planning tool which supports actual appropriates that are made through the budget adoption process. The City’s FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 CIP consists of 31 projects in five divisions totaling approximately $34.09 million. Majority of the total CIP budget is for critical Water CIP projects that were included in the recently completed Water and Wastewater Rate Study.

Other Funds provides a summary of the debt service funds, permanent funds, and special revenue funds.

Appendix provides supplementary information including City Financial Policies, City Council Goals and Work Plan, City’s Vision and Mission Statements, a summary of Budget increases from the prior fiscal year and their relation to City Council Goals, and the City’s “add back” is for City Council prioritization if additional General Fund resources become available.

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION, TRANSFERS, AND CONTROL
Upon adoption of the budget by the City Council, the responsibility of implementing each department’s budget lies with each Department Head, with oversight by the Director of Administrative Services and ultimate responsibility resting with the City Manager. Department Heads are expected to operate their departments within the appropriations established in the budget.

Budget Page 15
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
This budget is arranged by department, fund, and function. The level of budgetary control is established at the fund level. Department Heads may authorize the transfer of appropriations within a department, except transfers: (1) that would purport an increase in the number of regular personnel, and (2) that would decrease appropriations for capital outlay. The City Manager may transfer appropriations between departments so long as total appropriations are not increased within a fund. The City Council has the overriding authority to control the use of revenues and the appropriations of funds and therefor may modify this policy at any time. The total appropriations in any fund may not be increase except by the City Council.

All changes in appropriations will be authorized on a “Budget Adjustment Form” and all increases in appropriations will be authorized by Council. Any expenditure must be made in accordance with Title 3, Chapter 3.04 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

The budget is reviewed and presented to City Council on a quarterly basis with a more extensive mid-year budget review. During the quarterly budget review by City Council, consideration is given to necessary adjustments for new programs, projects, and other adjustments to ensure that expenditures and revenues are in line with the budgeted projections.

A carefully designed system of internal accounting and budgetary controls is used to ensure that revenues and expenditures/expenses are tracked and used as intended. These controls are designed to provide reasonable, but not necessarily absolute, assurance with respect to the reliability of financial and budgetary records for use in the preparation of financial statements, as well as accountability for all City assets. At the end of each fiscal year-end, all operating budget appropriations lapse. City Council adopted finance policies can be accessed at:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/bc-citycouncil/page/council-adopted-policies.

BUDGETARY BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
The City of St. Helena’s annual operating budget is prepared in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), using the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period, while expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the liability is incurred. Budgets for proprietary funds are prepared on a full accrual basis where revenues are recognized when earned, and expenses are recognized when they are incurred. Each of the City’s funds is considered a separate accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts that records assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenue, and expenditures/expenses. Funds are established and segregated for the purpose of recording specific programs or attaining certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions, or limitations. The General Fund accounts for all the general revenue of the City not specifically levied or collected for other City funds and for Budget Page 16
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
expenditures related to rendering the general services provided by the City. Special Revenue Funds are used to account for specific revenues that are legally restricted to expenditures for a particular purpose. The Capital Improvement Project Funds are used to account for the acquisition or construction and improvement of major capital projects. Internal Service Funds (Garage Fund) are used to account for the financing of services provided by one department to other departments of the government, on a cost reimbursement basis. Enterprise Funds (Water and Wastewater) are used to account for revenues and expenses related specifically to those enterprises. The budget is prepared on a line-item basis by department and fund.

FINANCIAL REPORTS – Top 4
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report: The Annual Annual Financial Report (ACFR) is a detailed report that covers the financial statements for the City prepared by an independent auditor in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as promulgated by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The ACFR utilizes the same basis of accounting, modified accrual for the General Funds and full accrual for proprietary funds, as the annual budgeting document. The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report consists of three sections:

Introductory, Financial, and Statistical. The Introductory section orients and guides the reader through the report. The Financial section presents the City’s basic financial statements as well as notes to the statements and the independent auditor’s report. The Statistical section provides additional financial and statistical data, including data about financial trends that may better inform the reader about the City’s activities. The City received the prestigious “Award of Financial Reporting Achievement” award presented by GFOA for the FY 2023-24 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF): The LRFF is prepared annually and provides a current and long-range financial assessment of revenues, expenditures, fund balance, and emergency reserves. The primary objective is to provide the City Council and the community with a financial forecast and identify any significant issues that may need to be addressed in the annual budget development process.

Popular Annual Financial Report (PAFR): The PAFR extracts information from the ACFR to produce a high-quality report specifically designed to be readily accessible and easily understandable to the general public and other parties without a background in public finance.

The City received the “Award for Outstanding Achievement in Popular Annual Financial Reporting” presented by GFOA for the FY 2019-20 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

Three-Year Goals and Work Plan: The City’s three-year goals and work plan is a detailed planning document developed as a blueprint for the City’s future. The plan defines the City Council’s goals Budget Page 17
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
and defines a specific work plan to achieve each goal. The goals and work plan are updated and published periodically.

All financial reports can be found on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/finance/page/financial-reports.

Budget Page 18
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET

GLOSSARY OF COMMON BUDGET AND FINANCIAL TERMS
ACCOUNT Financial reporting unit for budget, management, or accounting purposes.

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE The amounts owed to others for goods and services received.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Amounts due from others for goods furnished and services received.

ACCRUAL BASIS The basis whereby transactions and events are recognized when they occur, regardless of when cash is received or paid.

ACTUAL PRIOR YEAR Actual amounts for the fiscal year preceding the current fiscal year which precedes the budget fiscal year.

ALLOCATION Component of an appropriation earmarking expenditures for a specific purpose and/or level of organization.

ALLOTMENT That portion of an appropriation which may be encumbered to spent during a specified period.

AMORITIZATION Payment of a debt by regular intervals over a specific period of time.

APPROPRIATIONS An authorization by a legislative body (e.g. City Council) that provides legal permission to make expenditures and incur obligations for specific purposes.¹
ASSET Resources owned or held by a government which have monetary value.

ASSESSED VALUATION Official government value placed upon real estate or other property as a basis for levying taxes.

BOND A written promise to pay a specific amount of money at a specific date in the future together with a periodic interest as a special rate. Two types are used: General Obligation and Revenue.

BOND INDEBTEDNESS Outstanding debt by issues of bonds which is repaid by ad valorem or other revenue.

BUDGET AMENDMENT A procedure authorized by some City Councils that allows Department Heads to make adjustments to expenditures within their own department and allow the City Manager to make adjustments to expenditures within or between departmental budgets by revising budget appropriations. Note: City Council approval is always required for additional appropriations from a fund balance or new revenues sources.
¹ “Appropriations subject to limitation,” for purposes of each agency’s Gann limit, means “any authorization to expend during a fiscal years the proceeds of taxes levied by or for that agency and the proceeds of state subventions to that agency.” Cal. Const. Art.

XIIIB, section 8(b).

Budget Page 19
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
BUDGET DEFICIT Amount by which the government’s budget outlays exceed its budget receipts for a given period, usually a fiscal year.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE The amounts spent for assets that will be used for more than one year.

See CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITALIZATION
THRESHOLD.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM
Annual appropriations in a City’s budget for capital improvement projects such as street or park improvements, building construction, and various kinds of major facility maintenance. Capital improvement projects are often multi-year projects that require funding beyond the one-year periods of the annual budget.

CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLD The dollar value at which government elects to capitalize tangible or intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period.

DEBT SERVICE The payment of principal and interest on borrowed funds such as bonds.

DEBT SERVICE FUND A fund established to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, general long-term debt principal and interest.

Sometimes a debt service fund is referred to as a sinking fund. Debt financing is most commonly used to address temporary short-term cash flow problems and to provide funding for improvements with long lives.

Borrowing long-term for operational or short-term capital needs is not advised.²
ENCUMBRANCE Prior to actual spending, an obligation charged against a budget indicating that a commitment has been made or an order placed for goods and services not yet received or paid for. After an encumbrance has been made, the money is not then available for other transactions.

EQUITY FUNDING Funding is accomplished with available resources, and does not include leveraged resources. Project funding is dictated by the availability of cash.

EXPENDITURE A decrease in net financial resources. Expenditures include current operating expenses that require the current or future use of net current assets, debt service and capital outlays.

EXPENSE A decrease in net total assets. Expenses represent the total cost of operations during a period regardless of the timing of related expenditures.

FIDUCIARY FUNDS Trust and Agency funds.
² Be aware that Article XVI, section 18 of the California Constitution prohibits a City from borrowing more money than it can repay in a single fiscal year from its general fund without a two-thirds vote of the electorate. Common exceptions to this borrowing restriction are the special fund doctrine; and the lease purchase agreement.

Budget Page 20
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
FISCAL POLICY A government’s policies with respect to revenues, spending, and debt management as these relate to government services, programs, and capital investment. Fiscal Policy provides an agreed-upon set of principles for the planning and programming of government budgets and their funding.

FISCAL YEAR The 12-month period used by the City of St. Helena begins with July 1, and ends with June 30 of the designated fiscal year (i.e., FY 2019-20 ends on June 30, 2020).

FIXED ASSETS Assets of long-term character which are intended to be held or used for more than one fiscal year. Examples are land, buildings, machinery, and furniture.

FORCE ACCOUNT Construction of maintenance activities performed by the City’s own personnel, rather than by outside labor.

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) Number of positions calculated on the basis that one FTE equates to a 40-hour workweek for twelve months. For example, two part-time positions working 20 hours for twelve months also equals one FTE.

FUNCTION Group of related programs crossing organizational (departmental) boundaries and aimed at accomplishing a broad goal or major service.

FUND A fiscal and accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts in which cash and other financial resources, all related liabilities or balances, and changes therein are recorded and segregated to carry on specific activities or attain certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions, or limitations.

FUND BALANCE A term used to express the excess of assets over liabilities (equity). It also represents the accumulated net resources of a fund available for reservation, designation, or for appropriation.

GENERAL FUND General operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.

GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Bonds where the City pledges its full faith and credit to the replacement of bonds. These bonds are secured by the General Fund of the City.

GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Projects funds.

GRANTS Contributions of cash or other assets from another governmental agency (usually) to be expended or used for a specified purpose, activity or facility.

LEASE PURCHASE Contractual Agreements which are termed leases, but whose lease amount is applied to the purchase.

LONG TERM DEBT Debt with a maturity of more than one year after the date of the issue.

OPERATING DEFICIT The excess of operating expenditures over operating revenues.

OPERATING SURPLUS The excess of operating revenues over operating expenditures.

Budget Page 21
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
ORDINANCE A formal legislative enactment by the City Council. If it is not in conflict with any higher form of law, it has the full force and effect of law within the boundaries of the City.

RESERVES Accumulated funds legally restricted or otherwise designated by a City Council for specific purposes.

RESOLUTION A special or temporary order of the City Council requiring less formality than an ordinance.

REVENUES Total amount of income received, earned, or otherwise available for appropriation.

SURPLUS An excess of revenues over expenditures.

TAXES Compulsory charges levied by a government for the purpose of financing services performed for the common good.

TRANSFERS Payments from one fund to another ideally for work on services provided, or to cover operating expense shortfalls.

USER FEES Payments of charges for direct receipt of a public service by the party benefiting from the service.

Budget Page 22
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET

ACRONYMS
AV Audio Visual
AWWA American Water Works Association
BMP Best Management Practices
CAFR Comprehensive Annual Finance Report
CCAC City Clerk Association of California
CCC California Conservation Crews
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Project
CLA California Library Association
CLETS California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System CLSA California Library Services Act
COPS Citizen’s Options for Public Safety
CSL California State Library
CSO Community Services Officer
CSMFO California Society of Municipal Finance Officers
DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education
DBP Disinfection By-Products
DMV Department of Motor Vehicles
DPW Department of Public Works
EAP Employee Assistance Program
EIR Environmental Impact Review
Budget Page 23
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERAF Education Review Augmentation Fund
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FF Firefighter
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GAAS Generally Accepted Auditing Standards
GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board
GFOA Government Finance Officers Association
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GO General Obligation
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene Pipe
HSP High Service Pump
HVAC Heating & Air Conditioning
ICMA International City/County Management Association
IT Information Technology
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LSWTP Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant
MDC Mobile Data Center
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MSD Metropolitan Sewer District
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Budget Page 24
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
NBC North Bay Cooperative Library System
NCTPA Napa County Transportation Planning Agency
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NLS Northnet Library System
NSIB Napa Special Investigation Bureau
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

OES Office of Emergency Services
PERS Public Employees Retirement System
PLF Public Library Foundation
POF Police Officers Foundation
REMIF Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund
RIMS Records Integrated Management System
RLS Robert Louis Stevenson Middle School
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SBW Stonebridge Well
SCADA Supervising Control and Data Acquisition
SCBA Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus
SNAP Solano & Napa Partners
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TID Tourism Improvement District
TOT Transient Occupancy Tax
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
Budget Page 25
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
Funds
101 GENERAL FUND: The primary reporting vehicle for current government revenues and operations, this fund accounts for all financial resources not required by law or City Council actions to be accounted for in another fund.
209 HOME GRANT: This fund is used for expenditures and grant reimbursements through the HOME Investments Partnership Program from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for owner-occupied residential rehabilitation program to assist low-income homeowners who’s primary residences are in need of repairs. This program is referred to as the, “HOME Grant.” The City of St. Helena has an agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Napa for the administration of this grant.
211 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GRANT (EPAG): This fund is used for expenditures and grant reimbursements for Environmental Protection Agency Grant (EPAG) funded programs or projects. 212 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHSG): This fund is used for expenditures and grant reimbursements for Department of Homeland Security Grant (DHSG) funded programs or projects. 213 GANG VIOLENCE SUPRESSION GRANT: This fund is used for expenditures and grant reimbursements for gang violence suppression.
216 PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEES: Section 22.5 of the City Code establishes this fund to accumulate revenues from fees on building permits to be used solely for equipment and facilities' costs for Police and the Fire Departments. Vehicles, capital equipment, and building improvements are approved uses. 218 PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: This fund is used to account for State Aid for libraries and related expense account for proceeds from the State of California under the California Library Services Act and related expenditures.
219 CLSA LIBRARY RESTORATION: This fund was established as a special revenue fund to account for proceeds from the State of California under the California Library Services Act and related expenditures. 222 PARK DEVELOPMENT: A special revenue fund for Ballpark State Grant, Proposition 12 Park per capita funding, other park grants, and park donations. These funds are restricted for park improvements and development.
223 SKATE PARK LIGHTING: This fund is used to account for donations and is used to fund the expenses incurred in maintaining the Skate Park lights.
224 PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS): A special revenue fund used to account for transactions related to supporting front line police officers.

Budget Page 26
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
225 STATE GAS TAX 2105: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of revenue received as a result of Proposition 111. Funds are restricted for use in the same manner as Section 2106/07. In addition, Proposition 111 established a "Maintenance of Effort" provision requiring cities to continue to provide matching street related expenditures from the General Fund equal to the average amount expended over the past 3 years.
226 STATE GAS TAX 2106: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of gas tax revenue received under the California Streets and Highways Code Section 2106. Apportionments are based on vehicle registration, assessed valuation, and population. Funds are restricted to any street or road purpose that include: construction, maintenance and allocated overhead related to streets, roads, bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic signals, right-of-way landscaping, traffic signs, bike paths adjacent to streets and roads.
227 STATE GAS TAX 2107: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of gas tax revenue received under the California Streets and Highways Code Section 2107. Apportionments are based on population. Uses of funds are the same as those listed for fund 225. 228 STATE GAS TAX 2107.5: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures of gas tax revenue received under the California Streets and Highway Code Section 2107.5. Apportionments are based on population. Funds are restricted for use in covering the costs of street related engineering and administrative expenses. Cities with a population of less than 10,000 may use these funds for acquisition of rights-of-way and construction of its street system. 229 STATE GAS TAX 2103: Section 2103 was added beginning with the 2010-11 fiscal year to allocate funds from a new motor vehicle fuel excise tax that replaces previous city and county allocations from the Proposition 42 sales tax on gasoline. This is the change known as the “fuel tax swap of 2010.” Section 2103 funds are allocated to cities and counties on a per capita basis. Funds must be used for street and highway pavement maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction and storm damage repair. For Proposition 42 purposes, maintenance means patching, overlay, and sealing. Reconstruction includes overlay, sealing, or widening of the roadway to bring the roadway width to the desirable minimum pavement width consistent with accepted design standards for local streets and roads. However, widening of a roadway does not include widening for increasing the traffic capacity of a street or road. 230 RMRA: Section RMRA was added beginning with the 2017-18 fiscal year which includes funds from the following taxes enacted by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017: the 12 cent gasoline excise tax, 20 cent diesel fuel excise tax, transportation improvement fees and transportation loan repayments. 235 MEASURE A: This fund is used to account for proceeds received under Measure A, the countywide flood management plan. This Ordinance imposed a one-half of one percent transaction and use tax in the County and established a Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Expenditure Plan. Any amendments to the use of this tax as established by the Joint Powers Agreement, resolution 98-118 shall be recommended to the Napa County Flood Control, Water Conservation District, Financial Oversight Committee and the Technical Review Committee for approval. This Tax is scheduled to expire in 2018.

Budget Page 27
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
237 EMERGENCY FLOOD RELIEF: This fund is for allocations for disaster assistance relating to flood damage.
238 TRAINING DEVELOPMENT: This fund was established to account for proceeds from the Police Officers Standards and Training fund to cover the costs of Police officer's training. Proceeds come in the form of reimbursements.
240 MEASURE T: At the General Election held on November 6, 2012, the voters of Napa County approved a ½-cent sales tax increase known as Measure T, which was implemented on July 1, 2018. Measure T funding is to be used for maintenance, reconstruction, and/or rehabilitation of streets, roads, and transportation infrastructure within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curbs and gutters, curb ramps, lighting, traffic signage, striping, and local roadway drainage. 241 MEASURE T CLASS I TRAILS: This funding is a match from the City that is required in order to receive Measure T funding. Each year the City must dedicate the appropriate funds equal to 6.67% of Measure T revenues earned that year, which will be used for Class 1 Bike Facility projects identified in the adopted Countywide Bicycle Plan.
277 PROP 56 GRANT: This fund is used to account for expenditures and reimbursements related to the Tobacco Grant Program, which provides funding to promote a healthier California by reducing illegal sales and marketing of cigarettes and tobacco products to minors. 278 BSCC GRANT: This funding was approved by the State of CA to assist with compliance checks and enforcement efforts of those diverted from the state prison system. The St. Helena Police Department will use these funds to address crime impacts in the community, strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and the community, create greater transparency for the organization, and implement best practices for law enforcement.
279 ASSET FORFEITURE: A special revenue fund for monies from adjudicated crime cases restricted for public safety purposes.
280 COMMUNITY ACTIVITY FUND: This fund is used to account for donations received to be used towards youth community activities within the community. Activities include the Teen Center. Beginning in FY 2019, this fund is no longer active and activity is accounted for in the General Fund Recreation budget. 283 TREE CITY USA: This fund was established in fiscal year 1996/97 to account for expenditures related to the maintenance and planting of trees located on City right of ways and in parks within the City. The City is seeking a designation from the Arbor Foundation for this effort. Revenue sources include General Fund transfers and private donations.
286 BOCCE BALL LEAGUE: This fund is used to account for the costs of running Bocce league services to the general public on a continuing basis. The intent is to recover costs through user charges and fees. The fund, therefore, is operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise.

Budget Page 28
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
287 HARVEST FESTIVAL: This fund is used to account for revenues from registration fees and donations and is used to fund the expenses incurred in administering the Harvest Festival. 288 FOURTH OF JULY: This fund is used to account for donations and is used to fund the expenses incurred in administering the Fourth of July fireworks show.
289 RECREATION PROGRAMS: Used to account for revenues from registration fees or other income from recreation programs and funding the expenses incurred in providing those programs. Council established this fund to monitor the ability of the recreation programs to be self-sustaining excluding costs associated with the Recreation Director. Beginning in FY 2021, this fund is no longer active and activity is accounted for in the General Fund Recreation budget.
290 TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TID): The Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District was created in 2010 and is funded through an assessment on hotel room nights implemented and collected by lodging businesses throughout Napa Valley. The intent of the assessment is to support local activities and products that promote, support and enhance locally based tourism and hospitality efforts. Revenue is currently 2% of taxable room rent. These funds are directed by the Tourism Board created by the County MOU.
291 SB-1186 STATE FEES: Effective January 1, 2013 an additional state fee of $1 was added to the business license application and renewal fee for, (1) the purpose of increasing disability access and compliance with construction-related accessibility requirements, and (2) developing educational resources for businesses to facilitate compliance with federal and state disability laws. This fee sunsets on December 31, 2018. 295 N.O.A.A.: This fund is used to account for monies used toward the compensation and mitigation project known as the Northern Napa River Tributary Stream Surveys. 329 STABO TRUST: This fund is used to account for proceeds and expenditures toward the upkeep of Stabo Park located on Hunt Avenue.
375 MADELINE MURRAY TRUST FUND: The proceeds from a non-expendable trust established in 2000 as a bequest from the Madeline Murray, through the Madeline Murray and Bertha Tranah Foundation.

The funds are to be used for new equipment purchases for the Police Department. The Fire Department also receives funding from the Madeline Murray and Bertha Tranah Foundation but it is given directly to the St. Helena Volunteer Fire Department, a non-profit organization. 380 FRIENDS & FOUNDATION, ST. HELENA PUBLIC LIBRARY: This fund is used to account for grant monies to the St. Helena Public Library from the 501(c)(3) support organization FFSHPL and related expenditures. 381 RYAN LIBRARY TRUST: A non-expendable trust established in 1941 as a bequest from the estate of John Joseph Ryan. Only earnings on investments may be appropriated for library expenditures.

Expenditures are restricted to any and all costs of maintaining the library. The fund represents the earnings on investments that are available for expenditure. The non-expendable principal is held separately.

Budget Page 29
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
382 MARTIN ESTATE TRUST: This is a non-expendable trust established in 1968 as a bequest from the estate of Leo H. Martin. Only earnings on investments may be appropriated for library expenses. These expenses are limited to extending, improving and enlarging the selection of books on California and Napa County History. The fund represents the earnings on investments that are available for expenditure. The non-expendable principal is held separately.
384 TWEED TRUST – ENHANCEMENT DISTRIBUTION: A trust established in 2000 as a bequest from Dorothy L. Tweed and governed by the Wood Endowment administrative framework. This fund is the expendable annual 4% distribution from the Tweed Enhancement Account of the net fair market value of assets. Funds are to benefit the library and provide support to enhance and enrich basic library services and to enhance the interior of the building. All funding requests are approved by the Library Board of Trustees and the City Council.
420 FIRE STATION BONDS: Long-term debt associated with the issuance of the 1996 Fire Station Bonds is accounted for here. The bonds, bearing interest from 5.0% to 6.75% are payable January 1 and July 1 of each year through the year 2016. Principle matures each July 1 at $65,000 to $175,000 from 1998 through 2016. Debt service is financed through property tax assessments on all property within the City. Rates are established annually by the City Council and must be certified to Napa County Auditor/Controller by August 15 of each year.
421 GO BONDS (MEASURE H): The object and purpose of the Bonds is to finance the costs of the municipal improvement projects of the City (the "Improvements"), consisting of drinking water system improvements, including but not limited to Bell Canyon Spillway repairs, water main rehabilitation and replacements, valve replacements, Bell Canyon Phreatic Surface Monitoring, lower reservoir rehabilitation, and replacing pipes to increase fire flow, sewer system improvements, including but not limited to replacing pipes and making Crinella Lift Station improvements, stormwater system improvements, including but not limited to replacing pipes, drains, culverts and other components of the system, and recycled water system improvements, including but not limited to providing pump station and pipes to distribute recycled water, all as acquired or constructed by the City to protect local water quality/supply, improve drought resilience, keep sewage, pollution, trash and chemicals from local rivers, creeks and streams, and protect safe, sustainable, local water sources. 443 SOUTH S.H. DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT: Fund established to account for a Subdivision Reimbursement Agreement wherein a developer installed an oversized storm drain improvement and the City by ordinance 89-11 set up the South St. Helena Drainage Improvement Benefit Zone to assess property owners benefiting from the improvement to pay the costs associated with the storm drain. As fees are collected, they are remitted to the developer less 1.5% for City administrative costs. 561 WATER ENTERPRISE: This fund is used to account for the costs of providing water services to the general public on a continuing basis. The intent is to recover costs through user charges and fees. The fund, therefore, is operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise.

Budget Page 30
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
571 SEWER ENTERPRISE: This fund is used to account for the costs of providing sewer services to the general public on a continuing basis. The intent is to recover costs through user charges and fees. The fund, therefore, is operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise. 582 CITY GARAGE: This Internal Service Fund is designed to account for the total costs of maintaining the fleet of vehicles and automotive equipment owned by the city. Costs are allocated to the various user departments based on time and materials used within those user departments. 592 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT: This Internal Service Fund is designed to account for the total costs and set aside funds for future replacement costs of equipment. This includes vehicles, computers and other equipment as identified. As equipment is identified, user departments will be allocated costs based on estimated costs of replacement.
593 FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT: This Fund is designated to account for funds set aside for future replacement costs and maintenance costs of Fire Department equipment. Funds included are received from Fire Department Strike Team Revenues received for use of fire apparatuses and equipment during Strike Teams Incidents.
700 FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL RESERVE: his fund is used for the expansion, major repair or replacement of the flood control facilities located near Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. This fund is required to be in effect for the term of the City's State Revolving Loan, which is currently through 2028. 713 CIVIC IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate restricted funds from new development’s proportionate share of the depreciated replacement cost of a range of facility types including City Hall, corporation yard facilities, as well as library and recreation facilities. 733 CIVIC CIP: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Civic Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).
734 PARK IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed residential development solely for park land acquisition and park improvements. 740 TRAFFIC MITIGATION IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development to finance circulation improvements to reduce the impacts of traffic generated by new development within the City.
741 STREETS CIP: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Streets Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).
742 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new development’s proportionate share of planned drainage system improvements. 744 HOUSING IMPACT FEES: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development in order to defray the costs of providing affordable housing in the City. Beginning in FY 2019, this fund is no longer active and activity is accounted for in Fund 751 Affordable Housing.

Budget Page 31
Agenda Item #12.1.

READERS GUIDE TO THE BUDGET
745 PARKING IN-LIEU: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development to pay for all or a portion of the costs associate with providing new parking facilities in the City. 751 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development in order to defray the costs of providing affordable housing in the City. 752: MEASURE E: Measure E went into effect on January 1, 2019, increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax from 12 to 13 percent to fund workforce housing. The additional 1% is placed in this fund and all revenues are restricted to programs and services for affordable and workforce housing. Affordable and workforce housing services and programs funded from Measure E include activities to increase, improve, and preserve the City’s supply of rental and for-sale housing for households earning up to 120% of area median income.
763 WATER CIP: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Water Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).
764 WATER IMPACT: This fund is used to accumulate funds from new or proposed development to pay for water system capital improvements needed to support new development. 773 WASTEWATER CIP: This fund is used to account for transactions as they relate to Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).
774 WASTEWATER IMPACT: This fund was established to account for the costs of constructing and improving the wastewater treatment plant and sewer collection system in order to support new development.

Budget Page 32
Agenda Item #12.1.

Budget Page 33
Agenda Item #12.1.

Budget Page 34
Agenda Item #12.1.

Budget Page 35
Agenda Item #12.1.

Budget Page 36
Agenda Item #12.1.

# DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 Streets CIP - Measure T/U Class 1 Trails 85,000
2 Harvest Festival 33,100
118,100
9 Streets CIP 1,600,500
1,600,500
10 TID Assessment Admin Fee 6,820
6,820
11 Streets CIP 300,000
11 Water CIP 797,702
11 Wastewater CIP 2,635,600
3,733,302
12 General Fund Utility Interfund Charge 822,825
822,825
13 General Fund Utility Interfund Charge 657,737
657,737
14 Stormwater CIP 10,000
10,000
15 Stormwater CIP 200,000
200,000
7,149,284
(1) Transfers may decrease based on total activity at year end 741

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM
421 773
421 763
FROM: 2022 GO Bonds
421
FROM: WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
571 101

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
FROM: STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT FUND
742 741

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM STORM DRAIN IMRPROVEMENT FUND
FROM: FLOOD CONTROL FUND
700 741

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM FLOOD CONTROL FUND
FROM: WATER ENTERPRISE FUND
561 101

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM WATER ENTERPRISE FUND

TOTAL TRANSFERS

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM GENERAL FUND
FROM: TID
290 101

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM TID FUND
FROM: MEASURE T (1)
240 741
TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM MEASURE T FUND (1)
FROM: TO:

FROM: GENERAL FUND

SCHEDULE OF TRANSFERS
Fiscal Year 2025/2026
101 241
101 287
Budget Page 37
Agenda Item #12.1.

General Fund 118,100
Measure T 1,600,500
TID 6,820
2022 GO Bonds 3,733,302
Water Enterprise Fund 822,825
Wastewater Enterprise Fund 657,737
Flood Control 10,000
Storm Drain Improvement Fund 200,000
7,149,284
= 1,487,382
= 33,100
1,520,482
= 85,000
= 2,110,500
= 797,702
= 2,635,600
5,628,802
TOTALS: 7,149,284
Measure T Class 1 Trails 241
Water CIP 763
Wastewater CIP 773
Subtotal Capital
Streets CIP 741

CAPITAL
SUMMARY TRANSFERS IN:

OPERATIONS
General Fund 101
Harvest Festival 287
Subtotal Operations
TOTALS:
742 =
700 =
290 =
421 =
561 =
571 =
240 =

SCHEDULE OF TRANSFERS
Fiscal Year 2025/2026
SUMMARY TRANSFERS OUT:
101 =
Budget Page 38
Agenda Item #12.1.

# DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 Streets CIP - Measure T/U Class 1 Trails 300,000
2 Harvest Festival 33,100
333,100
13 Streets CIP 1,381,800
1,381,800
16 TID Assessment Admin Fee 7,161
7,161
11 Civic CIP 12,361
12,361
11 Water CIP 544,189
11 Wastewater CIP 1,120,000
1,664,189
12 General Fund Utility Interfund Charge 822,825
822,825
13 General Fund Utility Interfund Charge 657,737
14 Wastewater CIP 160,099
817,836
15 Stormwater CIP 10,000
10,000
5,049,272
(1) Transfers may decrease based on total activity at year end FROM: WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
571 101

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
571 773
FROM: WATER ENTERPRISE FUND
561 101

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM WATER ENTERPRISE FUND
FROM: 2022 GO BONDS
421 763
TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM 2022 GO BONDS FUND
421 773
420 733
TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM 1996 GO BONDS FUND
FROM: GENERAL FUND
101 741
101 287

SCHEDULE OF TRANSFERS
Fiscal Year 2026/2027
FROM: TO:

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM GENERAL FUND
FROM: MEASURE T (1)
240 741
TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM MEASURE T FUND (1)
FROM: TID
290 101

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM TID FUND
FROM: 1996 GO BONDS
FROM: FLOOD CONTROL FUND
700 741

TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM FLOOD CONTROL FUND

TOTAL TRANSFERS
Budget Page 39
Agenda Item #12.1.

General Fund 333,100
Measure T 1,381,800
TID 7,161
1996 GO Bonds 12,361
2022 GO Bonds 1,664,189
Water Enterprise Fund 822,825
Wastewater Enterprise Fund 817,836
Flood Control 10,000
5,049,272
= 1,487,723
= 33,100
1,520,823
= 12,361
= 1,391,800
= 544,189
= 1,280,099
3,528,449
TOTALS: 5,049,272

SCHEDULE OF TRANSFERS
Fiscal Year 2026/2027
SUMMARY TRANSFERS OUT:
101 =
240 =
290 =
700 =
561 =
571 =
420 =
421 =
TOTALS:

Subtotal Operations
SUMMARY TRANSFERS IN:

OPERATIONS
General Fund 101
Harvest Festival 287
Subtotal Capital
Civic CIP 733
Streets CIP 741
Water CIP 763
Wastewater CIP 773

CAPITAL
Budget Page 40
Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA

DESCRIPTIONS OF REVENUE SOURCES
FISCAL YEAR 2025‐26 AND 2026‐27

GENERAL FUND
Property Taxes ‐ Real property within the City is taxed at 1% of assessed value as determined by the County Assessor. The City’s share of this tax is approximately 16%. For fiscal year 2025‐26 a growth factor of 4.5% has been applied.  The growth factor has been applied to the FY 2024‐25 adjusted budget, which was budgeted based on historical average. An additional growth factor of 4.5% has been applied to the FY 2026‐27 estimated revenue. Napa County is using the Teeter Plan for collectionsthat providesthe City with 100% of the taxes assessed with the County in turn keeping all delinquent penalties and interest collected. This category includes revenues for Property Tax Secured, Property Tax Unsecured, Prior Year Property Tax, Homeowner Property Tax, Real Property Transfer Tax, and In Lieu VLF.

6.22 6.64 6.87 7.02

7.32 7.65
‐

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00

7.00 8.00

9.00 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Millions
Property Tax
Budget Page 41
Agenda Item #12.1.

Sales Tax and Sales Tax in Lieu ‐ The City receives 1.5% of retail sales made within the City limits.

Sales tax in St. Helena is derived from a diversity of commercial operations such as wineries, tasting rooms, retail shops, restaurants, building supply, and car dealers. FY 2025‐26 estimates for sales tax are based on the most likely model presented by Avenue Insights & Analytics, the City’s sales tax consultant, and FY 2026‐27 estimate are also based on the most likely model.

5.93 5.77 5.65

5.42 5.38 5.45
‐

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00

7.00 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Millions
Sales Tax
Budget Page 42
Agenda Item #12.1.

Transient Occupancy Tax – The City has a tax rate of 13% on all overnight stays when occupying a room, rooms, or other living space in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging if the stay is for a period of 31 days or less. The tax is paid by the guests staying at these accommodations. 1% of the Tax Rate is for Measure E, which is restricted to affordable and workforce housing services and program activities to increase, improve and preserve the City's supply of rental and for‐sale housing for households earning up to 120% of area median income.

Because Measure E restricts the use of tax revenue from the 1% increase to programs and services for affordable and workforce housing, it is a "special tax." All revenues are placed in a separate account and are not included in the chart below, which is related to General Fund only.

4.44 4.08 4.05 4.02

4.18 4.26
‐

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Millions
Transient Occupancy Tax
Budget Page 43
Agenda Item #12.1.

Business License Tax ‐ This revenue is generated by a license tax paid by all businesses operating within the City. Revenues are projected to remain flat for FY 2025‐26 and FY 2026‐27.

Building & Planning Revenue  ‐  This category includes revenues for Building Permits, Building Inspection and Administrative Fees, Planning Application and Permit Fees, and Short‐Term Rental Permit Fees.
112.66
189.42
163.92
179.39 180.35 180.35
‐

20.00 40.00

60.00 80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
180.00
200.00
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Thousands
Business License
618.15
653.65
763.76
687.41
662.25
687.85
‐
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Thousands
Building and Planning
Budget Page 44
Agenda Item #12.1.

Other  ‐  This category includes revenues for Franchise Taxes, Charges for Services, Fines and Forfeits, Development Fees, Intergovernmental Fees, Interest and Rents, and Miscellaneous General Fund Revenues. The significant increase in the FY 2020‐21 and FY 2021‐22 revenues received is due to Emergency Relief related to reimbursements for expenses incurred by the LNU Lightning Complex Fire and Glass Fire.

2.85 1.44

2.18 1.93

3.06 3.18
‐

0.50 1.00

1.50 2.00

2.50 3.00

3.50 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Millions
Other
Budget Page 45
Agenda Item #12.1.

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water Enterprise Service Charges ‐ Revenues charged to users of the municipal sewer system.

The City engaged Raftelisto conduct a Water and Wastewater Rate Study in FY 2021‐22. The new rates were implemented in September 2023 and the next rate increase in the amount of 8% is scheduled for July 1, 2025. An additional rate increase of 8% is scheduled for July 1, 2026. Funds are used to pay for debt service payments, operations and maintenance, and capital projects. ‐

2.00 4.00

6.00 8.00

10.00 12.00
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Millions
Water Enterprise
Budget Page 46
Agenda Item #12.1.

Wastewater (Sewer) Enterprise Service Charges ‐ Revenues charged to users of the municipal sewer system. The City engaged Raftelis to conduct a Water and Wastewater Rate Study in FY 2021‐22. The new rates were implemented in September 2023 and the next rate increase in the amount of 4% isscheduled for July 1, 2025. An additional rate increase of 4% isscheduled for July 1, 2026. Funds are used to pay for debt service payments, operations and maintenance, and capital projects.
‐

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00

7.00 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Millions
Wastewater Enterprise
Budget Page 47
Agenda Item #12.1.

STAFF OVERVIEW
DEPARTMENTS FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 CURRENT +/- CITY ADMINISTRATION 4.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 (1.00) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 7.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 PLANNING/BUILDING 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
POLICE 17.75 18.75 18.75 19.00 15.00 15.00 (4.00)
FIRE 10.15 14.12 14.12 14.12 14.12 14.12 0.00
LIBRARY 6.95 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 5.98 0.00
RECREATION 6.85 7.85 7.85 8.85 7.85 7.85 (1.00)
PUBLIC WORKS-ADMINISTRATION 6.50 9.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.00 STREET/SEWER/PARKS/TREES/GOVT BLD 9.50 9.90 11.60 11.60 11.10 11.10 (0.50) WATER DISTRIBUTION 3.00 3.00 2.90 2.90 2.40 2.40 (0.50) WATER TREATMENT PLANT 3.00 2.30 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 3.00 2.30 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 TOTAL FTE'S 82.70 91.70 93.70 93.95 86.95 86.95 (7.00)
Authorized positions for fiscal year 2025-26 and 2026-27 are 90.95 FTE's. Part-time positions make up 12.95 FTE's of the total FTE's. Not included in the above figures are 1 Mayor, 4 Council Members, 5 Planning Commissioners, Recreation Program Instructors or Tree Maintenance Workers who are hired on an as needed basis.

STAFFING COMPARISON BY DEPARTMENT

IN FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS
CITY OF ST. HELENA

A L L O C A T I O N O F C I T Y P O S I T I O N S
Fiscal Year 2025-26 and 2026-27
A significant part of the City's Operating Budget is salaries and benefits. Funding for employees who in turn provide services to our citizenry make up 49.1% of the total operational budget; amounting to $17.6 million (including Unfunded Liability for PERS). The following graph identifies full-time equivalent (FTE) positions by department. 4%
8%
7%
17%
7% 16%
9%
10%
13%
3%
3%
3% CITY ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES

PLANNING/BUILDING
POLICE
FIRE

LIBRARY

RECREATION
PUBLIC WORKSADMINISTRATION

STREET/SEWER/PARKS/

TREES/GOVT BLD

WATER DISTRIBUTION

WATER TREATMENT
PLANT

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT
Budget Page 48
Agenda Item #12.1.

Reallocated
FTE's
(1.0)

1.0 -
Change in
FTE's
(1.0)
(1.0)
(4.0)
(1.0)
(7.0)
Reallocation Totals
Total Positions
City Administration Assistant City
Manager
Freeze position in FY 2025-26 and
2026-27
City Administration City Clerk Freeze position in FY 2025-26 and 2026-27
Police Department Dispatcher Dispatch Services moved to the City of Calistoga
Comments
Public Works Underground Utilities Lead Maintenance
Worker
Freeze position in FY 2025-26 and
2026-28
FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 Changes to Staffing Levels
Department Position
CITY OF ST. HELENA

STAFFING SUMMARY
Fiscal Year 2025-26 and 2026-27
Program Manager to assume City
Clerk duties
FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 Reallocation of Positions
Department Position Comments
Community Services Program Manager
Funding reallocated to City
Administration
City Administration City Clerk
(Program Manager)
Budget Page 49
Agenda Item #12.1.

Residents of St. Helena
Mayor and City Council
Boards and Commissions City Manager
Administrative
Services Director
Finance Manager
Accounting
Technicians I/II
(4)
Management
Analyst
HR Technician
City Clerk
(Program Manager)
Administrative
Analyst
Community
Development Director
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Planning Permit
Technician III
Building Official
Building Permit
Technician I
Director of
Community Services
Deputy Community
Services Director City
Librarian
Senior
Librarian
Librarian I/II
Library
Associate I/II
Library
Associate (2)
Recreation
Manager
Recreation
Supervisor
Recreation
Assistant
Seasonal
Recreation
Fire Chief
Assistant Chief
Fire Inspector
Full Time
Firefighters (6)
Part Time Fire
Fighters
Police Chief
Lieutenant
Sergeants (2)
Officers (8)
Dispatch
Supervisor
Property & Evidence
Technician
Dispatchers (4)
Public Works Director
(ACM)
Assistant Public
Works Director Project Manager
Financial Analyst Environmental
Services Technician II
Administrative
Assistant
Engineering
Technician II
Deputy City Manager
Public Works
Assistant Operations
Manager
Chief Wastewater
Plant Operator
Plant Operator I/II (2)
Chief Water Plant
Operator
Plant Operator I/II (2)
Underground Utilities
Superintendent
Lead Maintenance
Worker (not funded)
Maintenance Workers
I/II (3)
Building & Streets
Superintendent
Maintenance Workers
I/II (3)
Parks & Trees
Superintendent
Lead Maintenance
Worker
Maintenance Worker
I/II (3)
City Attorney
Mid-Management positions
Non-Management positions
Executive positions
City of St. Helena City-Wide
Organizational Chart
Budget Page 50
Agenda Item #12.1.

General Fund
The General Fund is used to account for resources
traditionally associated with government, which are not required legally or by sound financial management to be accounted for in another fund.

Budget Page 51
Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA

GENERAL FUND REVENUES
7,320,384
35%
5,375,271
26%
4,175,069
20%
3,901,233
19%
FY 2025-26 $20,771,956
Property Tax Sales Tax TOT Other Revenue
7,647,882
36%
5,447,967
25%
4,258,521
20%
4,048,584
19%
FY 2025-26 $21,402,954
Property Tax Sales Tax TOT Other Revenue
-

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00

7.00 8.00

9.00 Property Tax Sales Tax TOT Other Revenue Millions
FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 General Fund Revenue Comparison
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Adjusted Budget FY 2026 Draft Budget FY 2027 Draft Budget Budget Page 52
Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA

GENERAL FUND YEAR EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT

7%
2%
5%
8%
2%
7%
5%
6%
14%
23%
21%
FY 2025-26 $22,183,691
8%
2%
5%
8%
2%
7%
5%
6%
14%
23%
20%
FY 2026-27 $23,021,620
-

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00 Millions
General Fund Revenue Year Over Year Expenditures
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Budget Page 53
Agenda Item #12.1.

Actual Actual Actual Actual Adjusted Proposed Proposed
Account Description 2021 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 101-30-10-00-00 Property Tax-Secured 4,491,375 4,557,240 4,845,720 5,153,320 5,286,600 5,524,497 5,773,099 101-30-11-00-00 ERAF Shift to State 465,733 496,468 577,641 434,928 417,126 435,897 455,512 101-30-20-00-00 Property Tax-Unsecured 22,927 145,360 151,958 167,382 175,156 183,038 191,275 101-30-30-00-00 Prior Year Property Tax 4,323 9,361 192 274 1,775 300 500 101-30-90-00-00 Real Property Transfer Tax 171,689 154,175 153,359 146,307 161,113 155,000 160,000 101-32-05-00-00 In Lieu VLF 810,122 841,911 897,205 957,067 964,260 1,007,652 1,052,996 101-32-20-00-00 Homeowner Property Tax 12,492 14,983 14,803 14,362 14,195 14,000 14,500 5,978,661 6,219,497 6,640,879 6,873,640 7,020,226 7,320,384 7,647,882 101-30-40-00-00 Retail Sales/Use Tax 2,945,506 3,620,282 3,584,494 3,534,189 3,355,951 3,326,182 3,358,939 101-30-42-00-00 Public Safety Sales Tax 69,493 76,783 82,610 91,100 84,315 86,676 89,103 101-30-44-00-00 Measure D 1,723,186 2,232,251 2,099,644 2,027,714 1,980,646 1,962,413 1,999,925 4,738,185 5,929,316 5,766,748 5,653,003 5,420,912 5,375,271 5,447,967 101-30-50-00-00 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,558,565 4,434,291 4,070,799 4,051,038 4,011,583 4,172,569 4,256,021 101-30-51-00-00 Transient Tax Penalty 15,689 10,463 7,525 2,291 9,488 2,500 2,500 1,574,254 4,444,754 4,078,324 4,053,329 4,021,071 4,175,069 4,258,521 101-30-60-00-00 Franchise Tax 210,659 278,659 459,034 641,451 588,224 611,753 636,223 210,659 278,659 459,034 641,451 588,224 611,753 636,223 101-30-61-00-00 Comcast PEG Access Fees 21,994 23,195 22,962 22,365 23,400 23,000 23,000 101-30-75-00-00 Fire Inspection Fees 1,375 - - - - - -
101-31-23-00-00 Other Fire Fees 2,850 5,350 - - - - -
101-33-30-00-00 Sales Of Maps/Publications 108 11 - - 156 - - 101-33-50-00-00 Police Services 7,002 53,324 21,244 19,536 26,000 25,000 25,000 101-33-60-00-00 Administrative Fees - 75 - - - - -
101-33-70-00-00 Planning Fees 6,000 - - - - - -
101-33-80-00-00 Engineering Fees - 75 - 150 - - -
39,329 82,029 44,206 42,051 49,556 48,000 48,000
101-31-40-00-00 Vehicle Code Fines 24,974 68,562 53,777 29,176 39,416 40,993 42,632 101-31-50-00-00 Other Police Fines 8,917 26,483 19,916 13,112 26,000 15,000 15,600 101-31-55-00-00 A/R Late Penalty 144 276 2,002 1,942 520 520 520 101-33-63-00-00 Civil Penalties - - - - - - -
101-33-85-00-00 Public Works Violation - - - - - - -
101-34-20-00-00 Library Fines & Fees - - - 12 - - -
34,035 95,321 75,695 44,242 65,936 56,513 58,752
101-30-70-00-00 Application & Permit Fees 3,375 1,375 11,650 2,825 2,000 2,000 2,000 101-30-80-00-00 Business License 149,069 112,534 189,072 163,777 179,044 180,000 180,000 101-30-81-00-00 Business License Penalty 619 129 347 146 350 350 350 101-31-20-00-00 Building Permits 587,287 504,179 492,736 594,940 500,000 520,000 540,800 101-33-15-00-00 Short Term Rental Permit 20,250 33,750 18,000 20,250 20,250 20,250 20,250 101-33-74-00-00 Planning App & Permit Fees 111,100 78,838 131,265 145,750 165,000 120,000 124,800 101-33-84-00-00 Public Works App & Permit Fees 54,300 58,350 62,975 63,175 61,450 40,000 41,600 101-33-86-00-00 Well Permit Fee - 1,300 650 - 1,300 1,200 1,200 926,000 790,456 906,694 990,863 929,394 883,800 911,000 101-33-81-00-00 Public Works Land & Dev Fees 20,800 13,600 7,200 9,600 7,500 7,500 9,984 20,800 13,600 7,200 9,600 7,500 7,500 9,984
Sales Tax
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
Property Taxes
Fines and Forfeits
Charges for Service
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Taxes
Transient Occupancy Taxes
Other Taxes
Other Taxes
Charges for Service
Fines and Forfeits
Licenses and Permits
Development Fees
Development Fees
Licenses and Permits
Budget Page 54
Agenda Item #12.1.