St. Helena City Council
July 22, 2025

83578.00101\43881105.1
- 3 -
Best Best & Krieger LLP
iv. A balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.”
Zoning Code Section 17.16.030 endnote 5(b) [emphasis added].

Based on the method described in Section 17.34.050, and specifically the language in Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b) (quoted on pg. 2 of this memo in italics), all areas that are covered by a roof, excluding two feet on each side, should be included as part of the floor area for purposes of determining maximum gross floor area, even if that area is not enclosed by walls. Based on this language alone, any covered balconies, porches or decks would be covered by a roof, and therefore would be included in the determination of gross floor area.

However, endnote 5 includes “additional” standards that apply in the residential zoning districts, including the statement that certain areas are “exempt” from the maximum gross floor area calculation, including “[a] balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.” (Zoning Code Section 17.16.030 endnote 5(b)(iv).) The question we have been asking is whether the exemption for balconies, porches, decks or other structures that are unenclosed on three sides is intended only to apply to uncovered balconies, porches, decks or other structures, or if it is also intended to apply to covered balconies, porches, decks or other structures.

Based on the language in the Zoning Code discussed in this memo, I believe that the exemption in endnote 5(b)(iv) is intended to specifically exempt covered balconies, porches, decks or other similar structures that are unenclosed on at least three sides. The reason for this conclusion is that uncovered balconies, porches or decks would not be included in the calculation of floor area in the first place, so there would be no need to exempt them from the calculation.

Uncovered balconies, porches and decks are not enclosed by walls, they are, by definition, not covered by a roof, they do not constitute interior walkways, and are not enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts. Therefore, uncovered balconies, porches or decks are not included as part of the floor area as described in Section 17.34.050(A), and there is no need to specifically exempt them from that calculation. If the exemption were interpreted to only apply to uncovered balconies, porches or decks the language in endnote 5(b)(iv) would be surplusage (i.e., unnecessary or excess), since those uncovered structures are not part of the base calculation.

General rules of statutory construction hold that statutory or codified language should be interpreted in a way that does not render portions of the text to be surplusage if it is possible to do so.

In light of this general rule of statutory construction and the overall context of the sections described above, I think the most reasonable interpretation of endnote 5(b)(iv) is that it is intended to exempt covered balconies, porches, decks and similar structures that are not enclosed on three sides from the calculation of gross floor area within the listed residential districts.

CONCLUSION
As we have discussed, I do still plan to bring an item to the City Council to discuss the policy issues raised by these provisions of the Zoning Code. Based on the direction Agenda Item #12.2.

83578.00101\43881105.1
- 4 -
Best Best & Krieger LLP
received from Council, we plan to work to draft clarifying language to avoid future confusion related to this issue.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Figure 17.34. Figure 17.34.050: Measuring Floor Area
Attachment 8 Agenda Item #12.2.

City of St. Helena
City Council
Discussion and direction regarding treatment of uncovered balconies, porches and decks in determining gross floor area under the Zoning Code
Staff: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
July 22, 2025
Agenda Item #12.2.

Background
• In 2020, the City of St. Helena initiated a General Plan implementation action and began a three year process
of completing a comprehensive update to the zoning
code.
• In response to feedback from residents and
subcommittee members, City removed floor area ratio
standards for residential districts, instead establishing a maximum building gross floor area standard.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Background
• Utilizing a maximum building gross floor area for single family based on a range of lot sizes which slightly
reduced allowable floor area.
• The maximum gross floor area for the MR District is set forth in 17.16.030, endnote 4.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Background
• The “Rules of Measurement” set forth at Section 17.34.050(A)(1) provide "in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection [shall be included in the floor area calculation].”
• In contrast, subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) of Section 17.16.030 (which includes development standards in residential districts) notes that a balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides is exempt from gross floor area.
• This creates a potential inconsistency when applied to covered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that are unenclosed on at least 3 sides
Agenda Item #12.2.

Background
• There has been a significant amount of public dialogue on this topic.
• After significant public dialogue on this topic and additional review of the code language, the City’s position is that the exceptions set forth in End Note 5 apply to covered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that are unenclosed on at least 3 sides.
• However, given the extent of public discussion and potential inconsistencies within the Zoning Code, staff is seeking direction from Council on whether to include or exclude covered porches from gross floor area.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Analysis
Reasons for Inclusion of Covered Balconies, etc. in
Determination of Gross Floor Area
• Concerns about residential neighborhoods being developed with new homes that replace existing, more modest homes, with those new homes maximizing the buildable envelope allowable on those residential lots.
• Roofed areas can contribute to the overall massing of a structure, and add to the perceived size of the building. If those areas contribute to the perceived massing of the building, they should be included in the calculation of gross floor area.
• Would serve as an additional limitation on the overall size of homes and associated structures within the residential
neighborhoods.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Analysis
Reasons for Excluding Covered Balconies, etc. in
Determination of Gross Floor Area
• Covered balconies are consistent with the character of St. Helena, and including them as part of gross floor area discourages their use, because home owners are forced to choose between covered outdoor area and interior living space.
• Covered outdoor areas should be encouraged because they help with natural cooling of the interior of homes, and provide for shaded outdoor areas.
• Will result in some existing homes becoming legal nonconforming uses, which could prevent future expansion.
• Will restrict some existing homeowners’ ability to add on to their homes to address a change in life circumstance.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Questions?
Agenda Item #12.2.

Questions?
Agenda Item #12.2.

From: kara smith
To: Public Comment; Erika Opp
Subject: [External] Public comment regarding the word “uncovered” in the zoning code for the St. Helena City Council agenda
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 4:12:45 PM
I am writing as a concerned citizen of St. Helena regarding the word “uncovered” in the zoning code.

I am adamantly against adding the word "uncovered" and have questions regarding this:

Why was this word inserted?
What other words were inserted without process?
My husband and I have lived here for 11 years and over time have renovated our 1960's modest ranch style house. Complying with codes is complicated and oftentimes frustrating.

Penalizing residents who are trying to make outdated smaller homes up to modern living standards by limiting livable space due to "uncovered" porches and pergolas seems completely outrageous, especially without explanation.

Who would have a porch that is not covered? This seems like a basic standard to an exterior of a house and why should it penalize one's overall conditioned livable space as it relates to their lot size? Why would we penalize someone who has a covered outdoor patio to provide shade in a place where temperatures soar? Not to mention the additional shade that would be provided towards home exteriors and energy efficiency?
None of this makes sense, which is why we ask WHY is this considered a clerical error? And WHY does the city not seem to want to have an open discussion with the citizens who are asking for answers?
Thank you!
Kara Smith
St. Helena Resident
--
kara smith
Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Item #12.2.

From: Kendra Craven
To: Public Comment
Subject: Why?
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 9:15:51 AM
Let’s not forget that the city workers are supposed to be doing their jobs in service to the community.

We must have open discussions and fact based changes regarding building codes.

Kendra Craven
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #12.2.

From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Public comment for City Council Agenda - July 22nd - re: zoning - porch item Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:25:07 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Just Why?
Michelle Liu Covell, Architect, neighbor, concerned resident As I’ve met with friends, neighbors, and even a few council members recently, I’ve been asked one question more than any other: Just why?
Why is the City suddenly redefining what counts as maximum building floor area to include covered porches—without transparent public discussion? Why did the word “uncovered” quietly slip into an exemption that once clearly exempted certain covered spaces, with no clear process or explanation? We were told this was a simple “clerical edit.” But anyone paying attention knows this is no minor technical fix—it’s a fundamental policy shift. One that significantly impacts homeowners’ rights and could have lasting social and economic consequences for the city.

A local resident and applicant asked a basic question about this change and waited nine months for a clear answer. And in the end? He was right all along. A memorandum from the City Attorney to the Director of Community Development dated June 13, 2025, confirmed that “covered balconies, porches and decks should not be counted toward maximum gross floor area in residential zones.” Instead of receiving a straightforward reply, the resident faced stonewalling, confusion, and—most troubling—an incident where the police were called. Not by the person he met with, but by someone else entirely. No official police report was filed. No accountability followed. Just silence.

Then came a letter from the city manager “documenting” the incident—without firsthand knowledge or factual backing. Why? Why escalate a situation rather than address the real issue: the lack of transparency in how our zoning code is being altered? Why go as far as to call for barriers at City Hall to keep this applicant from simply getting an answer to the question: why? Why was such a significant policy change buried in a convoluted staff presentation at the April 15th Planning Commission hearing? A presentation that conflated key terms like “lot coverage” and “maximum building floor area,” confusing both the public and the commissioners. Why do some commissioners speak vaguely about “massing” and “bird’s eye views,” while skimming past the numbers and mechanics of what’s actually being changed? And perhaps most importantly: why didn’t the Planning Director step in to correct the misuse of terms during the hearing? Why didn’t the City Attorney clarify—much earlier—that this wasn’t a clerical edit at all?
By adding the word “uncovered, or changing the rule from “one open side” to “three open sides” for a porch to be excluded from floor area calculations, the City isn’t just tweaking definitions. It’s Agenda Item #12.2.

fundamentally rewriting how homes are valued, built, and regulated—without proper community input, public education, or any serious evaluation of the long-term ripple effects.

Why are we here? Why are residents forced to piece together major zoning shifts through delayed emails, vague agendas, and opaque procedures? Why were background slides on this issue curated to include only selected public comments—while others were conveniently left out? These questions aren’t rhetorical. They demand real answers from City staff and the Planning Department. Residents deserve transparency and truth. We deserve a public process that values participation—not one that hides behind legalese and administrative sleight-of-hand.

The issue at hand may be porches. But the real concern is process. And that’s something every homeowner, neighbor, and citizen should care about.

This town is a special place. Our community is full of amazing, engaged people. I get it—no one’s racing to read the zoning code. But as an architect, I can’t tell you how often I hear, “Why can’t I do this with my house?” It’s then my job to painfully explain what a zoning section means, and believe me—it’s not fun for me either.

That’s why I’m raising awareness now—before the rules are cemented without your input—so that you don’t have to ask me later, “Why does my porch count against my conditioned living space?” So I ask again—on behalf of many in this community—just… why? And if we can finally get a truthful answer to that question, the next one becomes just as urgent:

How are we going to fix this? And who will lead the way? If you are curious as well, please send in a simple question – Why? – to [email protected]
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #12.2.

From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Public comment number 2 - for City council July 22 re: porch zoning item Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:33:47 PM
Attachments: image009.png
Hi Erika,
I made a YouTube video. I’d like to submit this as a public comment for the porch item. https://youtu.be/q82k3nJbkh8?feature=shared
Title: To Residents of St. Helena – An important issue will be coming to City Council soon. _______________
I would like to include a comment that was brought to my attention after I had finished the video A-20 zoned parcels would also be held to this updated exemption if it moves forward.

HR, MR, LR, LR-1A, as well as A20 – under 2 acres.

Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
Agenda Item #12.2.

1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #12.2.

Concerns Regarding Proposed Zoning Text Amendments – “Uncovered” Porch Michelle Liu Covell
Re: Item 12.2 – City Council Meeng 7/22/25
To add to Mr Walsh’s Staff report, under the “Discussion” por&on:

I support excluding covered paos, porches, and decks from the calculaons of gross floor area, and here’s why.

Impacts on Homeowners and Property Rights
• Exisng homes with larger outdoor covered areas may be rendered legally non-conforming, or lose significant development potenal under the proposed changes. • These changes limit homeowners’ flexibility, making it difficult or even impossible to add exterior covered spaces unless they meet the strict definion of a trellis. • Property values may decline, parcularly if future buyers are restricted from adding interior square footage or covered outdoor space—both of which are o1en crical for family growth and livability. • If allowable addions shrink from, for example, 800 square feet to just 200 square feet, home improvement may no longer be financially viable, discouraging investment in exisng homes. • Historic homes with large wrap-around porches—built before current codes—could become legally nonconforming. This may deter potenal buyers from preserving these homes if they are prevented from expanding either indoors or outdoors.
• For young families or mulgeneraonal households (e.g., those bringing in aging parents), such limitaons significantly reduce the ability to adapt homes for evolving needs—potenally forcing families to relocate to more flexible communies.
• Homeowners may enclose exisng porches, since those spaces already count toward square footage.

Without the ability to expand elsewhere, these formerly outdoor areas may be converted into interior living space out of necessity.

Erosion of Public Trust
• Residents are concerned about losing property rights without meaningful engagement or consent. There is growing frustraon and distrust when significant decisions are made by individuals who may not reside in or understand the town's character.
• The process undermines community trust, especially when policy shi1s appear to come from external influences rather than local consensus.

Design, Livability, and Environmental Consequences
• Porches serve an essenal role in breaking up massing, providing passive cooling through shading, and supporng energy-efficient design.
• By discouraging porches, we risk the following negave outcomes:
o Flat, monotonous facades with diminished architectural interest o Increased solar heat gain, leading to higher reliance on air condioning systems o Reduced opportunies for casual social interacon—porches create semi-public spaces where neighbors can connect informally
o Less inving, less walkable streetscapes
o A shi1 in priority toward private backyards, further weakening neighborhood connecvity o Diminished character and identy of historic homes and neighborhoods, many of which rely on porch architecture to maintain human scale and aesthec interest • In The Death and Life of Great American Cies, Jane Jacobs famously described porches as fostering “eyes on the street”—a concept central to neighborhood safety, community-building, and social cohesion.

These in-between spaces connect private and public life, making streets feel alive and secure.

Local Climate and Cultural Relevance
• In our warm valley climate, outdoor living is essenal. Covered exterior areas offer protecon from intense sun and allow residents to enjoy the outdoors year-round. • These spaces are not just architectural features—they are cultural gathering spaces where people host neighbors and connect socially. Curtailing these spaces limits the community’s ability to live in ways that reflect our regional lifestyle.

Concerns About the Policy Process
• The staff report suggests the change was prompted by community input regarding large, out-of-character new homes.

Agenda Item #12.2.

o However, if the concern stemmed from a single project on Firhill (zoned A-20, over 2 acres), that site is unaffected by this exempon change. Applying this broadly based on a few specific examples seems unwarranted.
• It is unclear whether public stakeholders explicitly called for covered exterior spaces to be counted toward square footage. There is no direct evidence that such a recommendaon was made or supported widely.
• The General Plan does not indicate a goal of reducing massing by counng exterior covered areas. On the contrary, it encourages the preservaon of character and community, which porches help to facilitate. • Porches are vital in shaping the “intersal space” between public and private realms—spaces that contribute directly to our town’s livability and charm.

Procedural Concerns
• This zoning amendment should have gone through a formal process, including Planning Commission review, public hearings, and City Council consideraon. • Instead, the change was presented as a clerical correcon rather than a significant policy change, liming public transparency and engagement.
• The staff report is misleading in both tone and substance. • The revised term “uncovered porch” contradicts its definion in the building code.

Agenda Item #12.2.

From: Joshua Parke
To: Paul Dohring; Xinia Gamero; Erika Opp; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers Subject: Item 12.2
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8:29:17 AM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-07-22 at 7.42.08 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-07-22 at 7.42.44 AM.png
For public comment please.

Good morning,
After reading over this report several times it’s unfortunately very clear that the information presented is completely inaccurate. Section 17.34.050 which is attached to the staff report as Attachment No. 2 and is a fundamental basis of the argument was changed after the adopted council approved version of the code. Ethan is aware of this and must have forgotten. It was one of the central points of our conversation, yet for some reason it’s referenced without acknowledgment of it being changed erroneously by staff after the code was adopted.

This means that the timeline presented in this report regarding LWC advice for clarifications and when they were applied does not line up.

The verbiage was changed from:
“Unenclosed Porches. Porches where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed” to
“Unenclosed Porches. Covered porches for nonresidential uses where a minimum of three sides are unenclosed” These are the rules of measurement that dictate how the calculations are done and they were changed after the code was adopted to read as “three sides are unenclosed” and for “nonresidential uses”
This is being used as a fundamental argument for why the other sections were changed without acknowledging that this section was changed erroneously.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Now council is being directed to have a large ambiguous conversation around perception of building mass and then give permission for multiple sections of the code to be re-written with no guardrails. Was a broad policy discussion around this requested? This is a lot of money to spend on attorneys fees and staff time taken going through another lengthy process that isn’t necessary.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Item #12.2.

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

Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Item #12.2.

Public Comment:

I understand that there is an item on the agenda today regarding changes to the code that were made after final approval without regard to the legal process. I want to highlight that there are numerous changes reflected in the published code that have not yet been reviewed or discussed publicly. Although the list of these changes has been requested from staff multiple times, it has not been provided.

While many of these revisions are being described as “clerical edits,” including the one under consideration today, even minor changes—such as the insertion of a single word or a comma—can materially alter the meaning and application of the code. The recent addition of the word “uncovered” is a clear example of a small change with significant impact.

Transparency in this process is essential. There is a process to make these changes and this process is there for a reason and must be followed. Residents, architects, and property owners rely on the published code to make informed decisions about home purchases, remodels, additions, and new construction.

When the code is in flux or not clearly documented, it undermines public trust and makes it impossible for stakeholders to plan with confidence.

Agenda Item #12.2.

From: Deborah Claymon
To: Erika Opp; Public Comment
Subject: Do Not Proceed w/ Building Code Change related to outdoor space Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 11:41:44 AM
City Council and City Manager:

In short — Please listen to the informed voices from our local architects and builders, residents and real estate professionals — and please reverse any changes to building codes related to covered outdoor space and related issues
Changes to building codes should be legal, public and well-researched.

If a problem has been discovered, an error made — FIX IT EXPEDITIOUSLY for the benefit of all. Obfuscation and delay should not be tolerated.

Housing challenges for our town should be addressed in other ways.

Thank you
Deborah Claymon Boeschen
Agenda Item #12.2.

From: Charles Covell
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment: Agenda Item 12.2 treatment of covered balconies, porches, etc. 7/22/25 Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 1:28:34 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Honorable Council Members:

I am writing in opposition to the proposed change that would eliminate the exemption for covered porches, balconies, and other open-air structures from the calculation of gross floor area for residences. This proposition does not align with the language of the 2040 General Plan and 2019 Housing Element documents that were developed to guide the 2023 updates to the St Helena Municipal Code, Chapter 17 Zoning.

The original mandate of the 2040 General Plan (Sec LU2.E) called for updates to zoning standards to “to encourage the following criteria (among others) …setbacks, building massing and configuration consistent with older parts of neighborhoods.” (Italics mine). Notably, this section does not reference floor area, nor does it instruct the city to require these characteristics—only to encourage them.

Absent is any call for the reduction of allowable floor areas, not to mention the regulation of openair structures like porches.

This language was a call for thoughtful, contextual design, not a mandate to limit architectural expression or flexibility.

Porches, if anything, can be an important tool for building designers to assist in the General Plan goal of consistency of scale and massing. They soften and break up building mass and scale, not to mention support the General Plan goals of sustainability and enhancing the character of neighborhoods. Look at some of St Helena’s most iconic old homes and explain how they would have the same appeal or character without their porches. It is difficult to imagine any principled opposition to such features.

Building scale and massing is sufficiently addressed by other rules already added to the new code.

Lot coverage rules exist to restrict the total buildable footprint, including porches. The 2023 zoning code update reduced it from 40% to 35%. Street frontage, setback lines, height limits and step back rules further limit and confine massing to a fixed envelope, with or without those masses being covered porches.

I urge the Council to vote NO on this proposal and preserve the longstanding exemption for most covered porches and balconies from residential floor area calculations. Let’s maintain the tools that allow good design, contextual scale, neighborly charm, and ultimately our residents to thrive in St.

Helena.

Sincerely,
Charles Covell
Principal
707.968.9280
Agenda Item #12.2.

1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #12.2.

From: Charles Covell
To: Public Comment
Subject: Second Public comment: Agenda Item 12.2 treatment of covered balconies, porches, etc. 7/22/25 Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 2:00:46 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Honorable Council members,
I am adding this public comment in response to the staff report issued online by city council dated July 22, 2025. This report provided some possible clarity into why we are still all here discussing the creation of a change to the recently adopted code that would effectively downzone most residential properties by including porches in the calculation of maximum floor area. The term “downzoning” refers to changes to the code that would erode property values and development rights.

The matter before the council tonight is reminiscent of past attempts originating with city staff and its consultants to downzone residential areas. These efforts date to at least 2023, when the draft zoning code was released for public review. In May of that year, I wrote a public comment about the draft’s insertion of a limitation on primary residence footprints in the medium density zone of only 2000 square feet, regardless of lot size. Thanks to the efforts of engaged residents and professionals, that provision was ultimately removed, and more historically consistent standards were retained.

This attempt, as we know, was originally couched as a “clerical edit” and is now being brought to council with a full staff report (the third different one written about the topic this year.) Is there authorization for an ongoing effort to slip downzoning provisions into the code? In the ‘Discussion’ section of the report, Mr. Walsh lists three policy perspectives as argument in favor of the code edit.

Included in the third bullet point is the opinion that: “this could result in homes that…are less expensive on resale…”
Regardless of how it would impact home prices, this statement acknowledges that indeed this is a very material change to the language that should be of significant interest to most homeowners in town, and the very opposite of a clerical edit. It also does not appear to have been an innocent mistake.

Shouldn’t such a measure first demonstrate that it will achieve a certain desired result? Shouldn’t such a change that touts the reduction of property values be subject to public awareness and discussion? or even subject to a citywide referendum like a sales tax increase would be? It certainly has the potential to financially impact residents’ finances more significantly than a half-cent or even one-cent sales tax.

It is only inferable from the staff report that the goal of this move may have been to (somehow) make housing more affordable, though we have not seen that explicitly stated. We all know that housing affordability is a real and serious issue. There remains a lot of creative thinking and deliberation to address it. However, will removing the floor area exemption to build open-air covered structures and porches from homeowners really solve affordability? Might it not further drive up prices due to scarcity?
Agenda Item #12.2.

California is probably the nation’s greatest test case that more regulations do not lower housing costs. It seems like a desperate gambit that limiting residential floor areas will lead to more housing being built, however unjust but well-intentioned the effort to do so might be.

But this only presumes that solving housing affordability was an impetus to pursuing this policy so relentlessly. Has this been stated plainly, and be in response to direction provided by the General plan or other official means? Has any evidence been provided to show that this would even work? I would also like to note here that a few “stakeholder” comments (opinions) in a workshopping session have also been cited as justification during this process by staff and its consultants. Should these comments constitute the legitimate underpinnings of a major material policy change at the expense of homeowners? Who gets to choose which comments are heeded and which ones ignored? I ask as having been one of the original stakeholders interviewed at the start of this process, who incidentally did not cite any need to reduce homeowner floor areas.

Please vote no on the proposal.

Thank you.

Charles Covell
Principal
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #12.2.

From: John Skupny
To: Public Comment
Subject: Iten 12.2 - 439-479
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 3:06:47 PM
To the City council et all,
I firmly object to the direction of considering covered porches as part of the footprint of any house in St. Helena.

As a resident for over forty years, homeowner, and business owner in St. Helena, I do not want you to diminish the value of anyone’s home or my home by designating our square footage and thus diminish our FAR potential.

How about you do some real forward thinking and planning so that we do not have to ensure the zoning tragedy
at the corner of Fir Hill and Madrona. A disgusting, over blown, obscene McMasion and scar on our town.

Work for us, not against us!
John G. Skupny
1961 Vineyard Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
707-695-2537 mobile
Agenda Item #12.2.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Public Works
DATE: July 22, 2025
FROM: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution authorizing the execution of a license agreement with
Tauzer Apiaries, Inc., for access to a portion of City
property at 1 Chaix Lane for the placement and
maintenance of honeybee hives.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve the attached resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

On May 13, 2025 City Council requested further public
input and engagement regarding benefits and concerns for the proposed adoption of a Resolution authorizing the
execution of a license agreement with Tauzer Apiaries,
Inc. for access to a portion of City property at 1 Chaix Lane for the placement and maintenance of honey bee hives.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Authorize a license agreement between the City and
Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. for permission to place and maintain honey bee hives on a vacant portion of City-owned
property located at 1 Chaix Lane.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

BACKGROUND:

The City of St. Helena has received a request from Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. for permission to place and maintain honey bee hives on a vacant portion of City-owned property located at 1 Chaix Lane. This area, approximately 12,824 square feet in size, is depicted in Exhibit A attached to the proposed License Agreement. The area is designated specifically for the placement of the honey bee hives, as outlined in yellow on the attached exhibit.

Staff has worked with Tauzer for the last 2 years, issuing an annual Encroachment Permit for the use of the area, and have found the staff and management of Tauzer to be cooperative, collaborative and responsible in the management of the hives and care of the surrounding environs.

DISCUSSION:

Terms of the Agreement:

1. Parties:

Agenda Item #12.3.

o City of St. Helena (the City), a California municipal corporation with its principal place of business at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574.
o Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. (the Licensee), a California corporation with its principal place of business at 23011 County Road 103, Woodland, CA 95776.

2. License Area:
o The license grants the Licensee access to a 12,824 square foot portion of City property located along Chaix Lane, as outlined in Exhibit A. o This area will be used solely for the placement, maintenance, and inspection of honey bee hives.
o The designated placement locations for the hives are specifically marked in yellow on the map provided in Exhibit A.

3. Consideration:
o The Licensee will pay the City a fee of $500.00 per year, due on July 1st of each year. This fee compensates the City for the use of the property and ensures ongoing maintenance and oversight of the arrangement.

4. Term and Effective Date:
o The Agreement will be effective starting on January 28, 2025, and is expected to remain in force annually, subject to renewal or termination under the terms set forth in the agreement.

Comments and Responses:

Commenting Party: "Community Forest Advocates" and others Issue Raised Summary of Concern Tauzer Apiaries, Inc.

Response

1. Pathogen transmission
from commercial hives to
native bees
Introduction of commercial
hives from outside the area
may bring diseases and
parasites harmful to both
local managed and wild
pollinators.

Tauzer agrees that
pathogen spillover is a
valid concern but
emphasizes that such risks
are primarily associated
with unmanaged or feral
colonies. Their hives are
regularly inspected,
treated, and managed
under strict health
protocols.

2. Forage competition due
to high hive density
Hosting up to 120 hives
could place unsustainable
demand on local forage,
particularly given the
mowing practices at the
spray fields which have
reduced floral resources.

Tauzer indicates that the
proposed hive density is
within typical limits for
similar landscapes in
California. They adjust hive
numbers seasonally based
on forage availability and
ecosystem health
Agenda Item #12.3.

Issue Raised Summary of Concern Tauzer Apiaries, Inc.

Response
assessments.

3. Chemical residue
exposure
Bees may carry pesticide,
herbicide, and insecticide
residues from agricultural
areas like Central Valley
orchards.

Tauzer outlines a rest
period policy before
relocating hives from
pollination contracts,
allowing time for
detoxification. They cite
research showing such
residues degrade naturally
and do not pose long-term
threats when proper
management is in place.

4. Scale of the proposal
The number of hives (120)
is perceived as
disproportionate to the size
of the area and the town’s
ecosystem.

Tauzer affirms the number
is consistent with other
well-managed sites and
emphasizes flexibility in
adjusting hive counts
based on environmental
feedback.

5. Lack of environmental or
financial benefit to the City
Risk to pollinators and
native ecology is not
justified by the modest
financial return or unclear
benefits to the local
environment.

Tauzer highlights the
broader agricultural and
ecological benefits of
responsible beekeeping,
such as supporting
pollination services,
preserving working lands,
and demonstrating
compatible land
stewardship practices.

The public comment provided by the "Community Forest Advocates" and others raises thoughtful ecological considerations around pollinator health, land use intensity, and chemical exposure. Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. has provided a detailed, science-based response that addresses these concerns through their operational standards, health protocols, and environmental safeguards. While the financial gain to the City may be limited, the proposed partnership offers broader environmental and agricultural value.

The City will receive $500 annually from Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. in exchange for the use of City-owned property. This fee is considered reasonable based on similar agreements for land use and provides an opportunity for the City to generate revenue from a currently underutilized portion of property.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the License Agreement with Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. to allow for the placement, maintenance, and inspection of honey bee hives on City-owned property at 1 Chaix Lane. The terms of the agreement are fair, and Agenda Item #12.3.

the use of the land aligns with the City’s goals of promoting environmentally sustainable practices and ensuring responsible land management.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Exempt.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

ST. HELENA - Bee Hive License Agreement Complete
Resolution Authorizing Tauzer Apiaries, Inc Agreement
ST. HELENA - Bee Hive License Agreement Signed
PP Presentation License Agreement COSH & Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. 2025 FW_ Beehive Proposal_Asmuth1
Asmuth Attachment_Parasite Transmission Between Hives and Spillover to Non‐Apis Pollinators
Info. Beescape Chaix Lane
Info.Avenues towards reconciling wild and managed bee proponents. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Info.TA Pollinator Seed Mix
Info The Role of Professional Beekeeping in Northern CA_ A Pollinator Fact Sheet Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
1 LICENSE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN
CITY OF ST. HELENA AND
TAUZER APIARIES, INC. FOR

ACCESS TO CITY PROPERTY TO HOST BEES
This License Agreement (“Agreement") is entered into effective January 28, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of St. Helena, a California municipal corporation with its principal place of business at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574 (“City”), and Tauzer Apiaries, Inc., a California corporation with its principal place of business at 23011 County Road 103, Woodland, CA 95776 (“Licensee”). City and Licensee are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City owns certain real property located at 1 Chaix Lane, St. Helena, CA 94574, APN 030-250-018-000, (the “City Parcel”), adjacent to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility.

B. Licensee desires to obtain, and City desires to grant, a license from City to Licensee to access and use an approximately 12,824 sq. ft. vacant area located along a portion of the City Parcel generally located at 1 Chaix Lane boundary of the City Parcel depicted in Exhibit A (“License Area”), solely for the placement, maintenance, and inspection of honey bee hives.

Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

C. The terms of this Agreement shall govern Licensee's use and access to the License Area.

In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference.

2. Grant of License. City hereby grants to Licensee a license for access and entry onto the License Area, subject to all of the terms and conditions hereof, for valuable consideration of $500.00 per year, due on July 1st of each year. The License Area includes the 12,824 sq. ft. area of the City Parcel with the placement locations for the honey bee hives outlined in yellow (“designated placement locations”), as depicted in Exhibit A.

3. Term. The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until terminated. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the license to use granted under this Agreement is revocable and terminable pursuant to Section 12.

4. Use of the License Area. The License Area shall be utilized by Licensee solely for the purpose of placing, maintaining, and inspecting honey bee hives (“Activities”). Licensee may Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
2 place between 96-120 honey bee hives, with a maximum of 120 honey bee hives, only in the designated placement locations in the License Area. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, rotate the placement of the honey bee hives throughout the year as follows: (A) the honey bee hives shall be placed on the designated placement location on the west side of the City Parcel from November to January and (B) the honey bee hives shall be placed on the designated placement location on the east side of the designated placement location on the east side of the City Parcel from April to October. Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain the License Area and repair any damage to property done by Licensee or any of its employees, agents, customers, or sublicensees. Licensee’s Activities shall not interfere with City’s use of its property. Licensee shall not park, repair, refuel, or permit to be parked, repaired, refuel any vehicle or mechanized equipment in the License Area, except for the sole exception of facilitating the Activities. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, take any appropriate action to ensure that the honey bee hives will be at least 100 feet from an occupied structure, entrance, exit, or any area where the public and/or the City’s officers, agents, employees and contractors may be. Any License or permission granted hereunder is non-exclusive, subject to the discretion, approval and direction of the City throughout the term and duration of the License and the City retains the authority, in accordance with this Agreement, to supervise, control, and/or terminate any Activities conducted. The City hereby designates Joseph Leach, Public Works Director and City Engineer, or his designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“City's Representative”). Licensee shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the City's Representative or his designee, unless otherwise instructed by the City in writing. Licensee shall not use, and Licensee shall prohibit any of its sublicensees from using the License Area other than for the Activities described herein. City acknowledges that the Licensee’s hives require isolation from other hives and agrees not to license the City Parcel to others for the purpose of hosting or maintaining bee hives. Licensee is fully responsible for maintaining the beehives and determining whether other bee hives or operations are on neighboring properties. The City may inform Licensee of other bee hives or operations on neighboring properties, but is not obligated to do so.

5. Compliance with Laws. Licensee shall, at its sole expense, conduct and cause to be conducted all activities in the License Area in compliance with all laws, regulations, codes, ordinances and orders of any governmental or other regulatory entity, whether or not in the contemplation of the Parties. Licensee agrees to conduct the Activities at all times in a safe and prudent manner with full regard to the public safety and to observe all applicable regulations and requests of the City and other government agencies responsible for public safety. Licensee shall, at its sole expense, procure and maintain in force at all times during its use of the License Area any and all licenses, permits, or approvals necessary to conduct the Activities.

6. Restrictions on Use of the License Area. Licensee shall not use or permit the License Area to be used in any manner which would violate any lawful access to, and use and operation of, the License Area. Licensee shall not commit any waste or permit or suffer any waste to be committed on the License Area. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain and preserve the natural environment in its present state.

7. Condition of Access Not Warranted; “AS IS”. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City does not warrant or represent the License Area granted by this Agreement is safe, healthful or suitable. Licensee acknowledges that it has inspected and accepts the License Area in its present Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
3 condition as suitable for the use for which this Agreement is granted. LICENSEE’S USE OF THE LICENSE AREA IS SOLELY AT ITS OWN RISK. LICENSEE SHALL NOT FILE ANY

ACTION, CLAIM OR LAWSUIT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION OR OTHER RELIEF AGAINST CITY IN CONNECTION WITH USE OF THE LICENSE AREA. The City is not responsible for the safety or any personal injury to Licensee, its employees, agents, or sublicensees, or for the property of Licensee, its employees, agents, sublicensees in the event of theft, damage or loss, occurring from the Activities or use of the License Area.

Licensee initials_______

8. Release. Licensee does hereby release and forever discharge City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers, attorneys, successors, and assigns from any and all manner of actions, at law or in equity, suits, debts, liens, promises, liabilities, claims, demands, damages, losses, costs, known or unknown, fixed or contingent (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Claims”), which Licensee now has or may hereafter have in connection with the License Area, use of the License Area or this Agreement. By releasing and forever discharging claims, both known and unknown as provided above, Licensee expressly waives any rights under California Civil Code section 1542, which provides:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT

KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT

THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY

AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR
OR RELEASED PARTY."
Licensee initials_______

9. Insurance. Without in any way limiting Licensee’s liability pursuant to the “Indemnification” section (Section 11) of this Agreement, Licensee must maintain insurance in the following minimum amounts and coverages for the License Area:

A. General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverages for Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Independent Contractors, Broadform Property Damage, and Products Liability and Completed Operations; Automobile Liability Insurance with proof of coverage for $1,000,000 provided on ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Symbol 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Symbol 8), and non-owned autos (Symbol 9), per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. The Workers Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of City.

Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
4 B. General Liability Insurance and Automobile Liability Insurance policies must provide the following:
(i) Name as Additional Insured the City of St. Helena, its officers, agents, and employees.
(ii) That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional Insureds, with respect to any claims arising out of this Agreement, and that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought.

C. All insurance shall be provided under an occurrence basis.

D. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such general annual aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limits specified above.

E. Before commencing any Activities under this Agreement, Licensee shall do the following: (a) furnish to City certificates of insurance, and additional insured policy endorsements with insurers with ratings comparable to A-:VIII or higher, that are authorized to do business in the State of California, and that are reasonably satisfactory to City, in form evidencing all coverages set forth above. Failure to maintain insurance shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.

10. Hazardous/Toxic Materials. Licensee shall use the License Area in compliance with all federal, state or local environmental, health and/or safety-related laws, regulations, standards, permits currently existing or as amended or adopted in the future from time to time which are or become applicable to Licensee or the License Area ("Environmental Laws").

Licensee shall not cause or permit or allow any of its agents, contractors, employees, or sublicensees to cause or permit, any hazardous or toxic materials to be stored, generated, treated or disposed of on or about the License Area. As used herein, “hazardous and toxic materials” means any chemical, substance or material which is now or becomes in the future listed, defined or regulated in any manner by any Environmental Law based upon, directly or indirectly, its detrimental properties or effects.

11. Indemnification. Licensee shall indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by City), reimburse and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors from and against any and all demands, claims, legal or administrative proceedings, losses, costs, penalties, fines, liens, judgments, damages and liabilities of any kind (collectively, “losses”), arising in any manner out of: (a) any injury to or death of any person or damage to or destruction of any property occurring in, on or about the License Area, or any part thereof; (b) any failure by Licensee, or any of its employees, agents, customers, or sublicensees, to faithfully observe or perform any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement; (c) the use of the License Area or the Activities conducted thereon by Licensee, its employees, agents, customers, or sublicensees; or (d) any and all Losses arising in connection with this Agreement. This indemnity shall specifically exclude any injury or damage that results from the sole negligence or the intentional or willful misconduct Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
5 of the City, its officers, directors, agents, or employees. City shall notify Licensee of any asserted claim with respect to which City may be indemnified against hereunder and shall deliver to Licensee copies of all process and pleadings pertaining thereto. The foregoing indemnity shall include, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ and consultants’ fees, investigation and all other reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the indemnified parties. Licensee’s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Licensee and City and their respective officers, agents, employees, and contractors. Licensee shall have an immediate and independent obligation to defend City from any claim which actually or potentially falls within this indemnity provision. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

12. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by providing at least sixty (60) days’ written notice to the other party pursuant to Section 15. From the date of termination in the notice, Licensee shall have up to thirty (30) days to remove the hives from the License Area and restore, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, the License Area to its original condition. Further, the City may terminate this Agreement and the License for safety/emergency reasons without prior notice to Licensee. It is within the sole discretion of the City to determine if and when safety/emergency concerns exist which require immediate attention.

If this Agreement and the License is terminated for safety/emergency reasons, the City shall take appropriate, immediate action in the License Area, including the removal and destruction of the honey bee hives. The City shall incur no liability or obligation upon exercising any of the termination rights listed herein.

13. Cure. In the event that the Licensee violates any provision of this Agreement, Licensee shall immediately notify City pursuant to Section 15. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, cure all deficiencies within seven (7) days from the date of discovering the deficiencies.

City shall take appropriate action to ensure that Licensee has cured all deficiencies and is in compliance with the Agreement. If City discovers that Licensee is not in compliance after Licensee has taken action to cure all deficiencies, City shall immediately terminate this Agreement and Licensee shall remove the honey bee hives from the License Area and restore the License Area to its original condition pursuant to Section 12. Licensee shall not have the ability to cure if the deficiencies are found to constitute safety/emergency concerns; in which case, the safety/emergency provisions in Section 12 shall control.

14. Possessory Interest Taxes. Licensee recognizes and understands that this Agreement may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that Licensee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest under applicable law. Licensee agrees to pay taxes of any kind, including possessory interest taxes, if any, that may be lawfully assessed on Licensee’s interest under this Agreement or use of the License Area pursuant hereto and to pay any other taxes, excises, licenses, permit charges or assessments based on Licensee’s usage of the License Area that may be imposed upon Licensee by applicable law.

15. Notices. Except as otherwise provided herein, any notices given under this Agreement shall be addressed as follows:

CITY:

City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
6 1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Attn: Anil Comelo, City Manager
LICENSEE:

Tauzer Apiaries, Inc.
23011 County Road 103
Woodland, CA 95776
Attn: Trevor Tauzer, Owner
Notice shall be deemed made (a) upon the date when it is deposited with the U.S. Post Office, if sent by first-class or certified mail, or (b) upon the date personal delivery is made.

16. Authority to Enter Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this Agreement so as to bind each respective Party to perform the conditions contemplated herein.

17. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

18. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute, breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any provisions of this Agreement, the successful or prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.

19. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any lawsuit brought to enforce this Agreement shall be brought in the appropriate court in Napa County, State of California.

20. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be deemed a waiver or binding unless executed in writing by the Party making the waiver.

21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relative to the subject matter herein and supersedes any prior or written statements or agreements between the Parties. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by both Parties.

22. Assignments. Licensee shall not transfer or assign, voluntarily, involuntarily, directly or indirectly, Licensee's interest under this Agreement. This Agreement is personal to Licensee and shall not be assigned by Licensee without prior written consent by City, and any attempt to assign this Agreement by Licensee without City’s consent shall be void. City may Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
7 assign this Agreement to a successor owner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each and every term and condition of this Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of both Parties.

23. Invalidity. The illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the remainder of this Agreement.

24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument.

25. Captions. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs of this Agreement are for the convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement or of any part or parts of this Agreement.

26. Construction. In all cases, the language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any Party, it being agreed that the Parties or their agents have all participated in the preparation of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
By: _________________________________
Anil Comelo, City Manager
Approved as to Form:

By:__________________________________
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
TAUZER APIARIES, INC.

By: _________________________________
Trevor Tauzer, Owner
Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
Exhibit A
License Area
The City Parcel is identified as APN 030-250-018-000. The License Area and the designated placement locations for the honey bee hives are below.

Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.00000\42697612.3
2 Agenda Item #12.3.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE

EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF ST. HELENA AND TAUZER APIARIES, INC. FOR
ACCESS TO CITY PROPERTY TO HOST BEES.

RECITALS
A. The license agreement grants the licensee access to 12,824 square foot portion of City property located along Chaix Lane; and
B. The license agreement specifies that this area will be used solely for the placement, maintenance, and inspection of honey bee hives; and
C. The licensee will pay the City a fee of $500.00 per year, due on July 1st of each year.

This fee compensates the City for the use of the property and ensures ongoing maintenance and oversight of the arrangement; and
D. The Agreement will be effective starting on January 28, 2025, and is expected to remain in force annually, subject to renewal or termination under the terms set forth in the agreement; and

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

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

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a License Agreement between Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. and the City for permission to place and maintain honey bee hives on a vacant portion of City-owned property located at 1 Chaix Lane; and

3. Fee is provided as follows:

Fee Details Fee Frequency Amount
Fee is required on July
1 st of each year. $500 Fiscal Year $500
Total $500
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on July 22, 2025 by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Agenda Item #12.3.

Vice Mayor Deasy: __________
Councilmember Barak: __________
Councilmember Spadarotto: __________
Councilmember Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_______________________ _______________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor City Clerk
Agenda Item #12.3.

LICENSE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN
CITY OF ST. HELENA AND
TAUZER APIARIES, INC° FOR

ACCESS TO CITY PROPERTY TO HOST BEES
(“Effective
This
Date”),
License Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into effective January 28, 2025. by and between the City of St. Helena.a California municipal corporation with its principal place ofbusiness at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574 (“City”), and Tauzer Apiarics, Inc, a California corporation with its principal place of business at 23011 County Road 103, Woodland, CA 95776 (“Licensee”). City and Licensee are sometimes individuallyreferred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement. ?EEJIALé’
A. City owns certain real property located at l Chaix Lane, St. Helena, CA 94574, AFN 030-250—018—000, (the “City Parcel”). adjacent to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility.

B. Licensee desires to obtain, and City desires to grant, a license from City to Licensee to access and use an approximately 12,824 sq. ft. vacant area located along a portion of the City Parcel generally located at l Chaix Lane boundary of the City Parcel depicred in Exhibit A (“License Area”), solely for the placement, maintenance,and inspection of honey bee hives. ExhibitA is attached heretoand incorporatedherein by this reference.

L. The terms of this Agreement shall govern Licensee‘suse and access to the License Area. in consideration of the mutual promises ccntained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,the Parties agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference.

2. grant 9f Liceirge. City hereby grants to Licensee a license for access and entry onto the License. Area, subject to all of the terms and conditions hereof, for valuable consideration of £500.00 per year. due on July 1“ of each year. The License Area includes the 12.824 sq. ft. area of the City Parcel wrth the placement locations for the honey bee hives outlined in yellow (“designated placement locations”), as depicted in Exhibit A. 2 Term. The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until terrnlnated. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the license to use granted under thrs Agreement rs revocable and termrnable pursuant to Section 12. a. yse ofthe LicenseArea The License Area shall be utilized by Licensee solely for the purpose replacing, maintaining. and inspecting honey bee hives (“Activities”). Licensee 1 83578,00000\4269Th12.3
Agenda Item #12.3.

may place between 96-120 honey bee hives, with a maximum of 120 honey bee hives, only in the designated placement locationsin the License Area. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, rotate the placement of the honey bee hives throughout the year as follows: (A) the honey bee hives shall be placed on the designated placement location on the west side of the City Parcel from November to January and (B) the honey bee hives shall be placed on the designated placement location on the east side or"the designated placement location on the east side of the City Parcel from April to Detober. Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain the License Area and repair any damage to property done by Licensee or any of its employees, agents, customers, or sublicensecs.Licensee‘sActivitiesshall not interfere with City’s use of its property. Licensee shall not park. repair, refuel. or permit to be parked, repaired, refuel any vehicle or mechanized equipment in the License Area, except for the sole exception of facilitating the Activities. Licensee shall, at its sole cosr and expense, take any appropriate action to ensure that the honey bee hives will be at least 100 feet from an occupied structure, entrance. exit, or any area where the public and/or the City’s of?cers. agents, employees and contractors may be. Any License or permission granted hereunder is none “elusive, subject to the discretion, approval and directionofthe City throughout the term and duration of the License and the City retains the authority, in accordance With this Agreement, to supervise, control, and/or terminate any Activities conducted. The City hereby designates Joseph Leach, Public ilvorks Director and City Engineer, or his designee, to act as its representative for the pezv'lomranceof this Agreement (“City 8 Representative"). Licensee shall not accept direction or orders from any person ether than the City's Representative or his designee. unless otherwise instructed by the City in writing. Licensee shall not use, and Licensee shall prohibit any of its sublrcensees from using the License Area other than for the Activities described herein. City acknowledges that the Licensee‘s hives require isolation. from other hives and agrees not to 1.:censethe City Parcel to others for the purpose orhosung or maintaining Dee hives. Licensee is fully restrionsiblefor maintaining the beenives and determining whether other bee hives or operations are on neighboring properties The City may inform Licensee or"other bee hives or operations on neighboring properties, but is not obligated to do so.

4. ‘Qgiimh‘an‘cgygrtpuliivg. Licensee shall. at its sole expense, conduct and cause to be con-ducted all activities in the License Area in compliance with all laws, regulations, codes, oxlinanecs and orders of any governmental or other regulatory entity, whether or not in the contemplation ol‘the l’arties. Licensee agrees to conduct the Activities at all times in a safe and prudent manner With full regard to the public safety and to observe all applicable regulations and requests of the Ci; and other government agencies responsible for public safety. LicenSee shall, at its sole expense. procure and maintain in force at all times during its use of the License Area any and ali licenses, permits, or approvals necessary to conduct the Aetivities.

5. RestrictionLonefse of the License Area. Licensee shall not use or permit the License Area to Q2 used in any manner which would violate any lawful access to, and use and (notation ot‘, the License Area. Licensee shall not commit any waste or permit or suffer any waste to be committed on the License Area. Licensee shall. at its sole cost and expense, maintain and preserve the natural environment in its present state. 6 Conditionof Access i‘io?i/‘tarralited;“AS l5". Notwithstanding the foregoing, City does not warrant or represent the License Area grai’rted by this Agreement is safe, healthful 7A:
i35781lllllUUV-iZb‘J‘Wil .‘.3
Agenda Item #12.3.

or suitable. Licensee acknowledges that it has inspected and accepts the License Area in its present condition as suitable for the use for which this Agreement is granted. LICENSEE’SUSE OF THE LICENSE AREA IS SOLELY AT ITS OWN RISK. LICENSEE SHALL NOT FILE ANY ACTION, CLAIM OR LAWSUIT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION OR OTHER RELIEF AGAINST CITY IN CONNECTIONWITH USE OF THE LICENSE AREA. The City is not responsible for the safety or any personal injury to Licensee, its employees, agents, or sublieensees, or for the property of Licensee, its employees, agents. sublicenscesin the event of theft. damage or loss, occurring from the Activities or use ot the License Area.

LicenseellIlilaIST’r

7. 33lgasg, Licensee does hereby release and forever discharge City, its officials, ‘f?cers, employees, age;.‘;s, \olunteers, sizori'ieys. successors, and assigns from any and all manner of actions, at law or in equity, suits, debts, liens, promises, liabilities, claims, demands, damages, losses, costs, known or unknown, ?xed or contingent (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Claims’W, which Licensee now has or may hereafter have in connection with the License Area, use of the License Area or this Agreement. By releasing and.forever discharging claims, both known and unknown as provided above. Licensee expressly waives any rights under CaliforniaCivil Code section I542, which provides:
"A GENERAL RTLLA’ELEDOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIR/IS
iitiiT HIE .,.T”iiIiH‘OR (OERRELEASING PARTY Ui’JL‘L‘SNOT i-iNO‘Jv”it. f-SLISI‘ECI'O EXIST IN HIS OR HER”FAVOR Al TILE TiME OF EXECUTINC:THE RELEASE AND THAT, IE

KNOWN BY ' '
r“) “‘3‘? PL}; V?! __VJ mFT} ,m-..t M kw m4 h...“ «4 (/7 FM as\(1‘ 7‘11 .I “—1.“! 4., :1. ’rt if; ‘77? "“3 “-1 I"E :7. in". “f; "“3 \‘7:1 —~i :1: eam4
,
”a I (‘3~4. :Jc. '23
Licensee initialsmI’l’

8. [Lagging Without in any way limiting Licensee's liability pursuant to the “Indemni?cation” section (Section II) of this Agreement. Licensee must maintain insurance in the following minimum amounts and coverages for the License Area:

A. General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Inju‘fv and Property Damage, including coverages for Contractual Liability. Iersonal injury. Independent Contractors, Broadforin Property Damage, and Products Liability and Completed Operations; Automobile Liability Insurance with proof of coverage for $1,000,000 provided on ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Symbol I), or if Contractor has no owned autos, nired. (Symbol 8). anti noncwned autos (Symbol ’9),per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and Worker‘s Compensation Insurance as required by the State of Caiiiornia, with Statutory Limits. and Employer's Liability Insurance with limits of no iess than $1,600,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. The Workers Compensation noliey shall be endorsed with a waiver ot'subroga’tion in favor of City. ‘< L":
33:; I\'_(ll).)l‘(l\£~:b€"hl7 3
Agenda Item #12.3.

B. General Liability insurance and Automobile Liability Insurance policies must provide the following:
(i) Name as Additional Insured the City of St. Helena.its officers, agents, and employees. (ii) That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional lnsurcds.with respect to any claims arising out of this Agreement, and that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought.

C. All insuranceshall be provided under an occurrence basis.

D. Should any of iii;- required insurancebe provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such general annual aggregate limit. such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limits spcei?cd above.

E. Before commencing any Acnvities under this Agreement. Licensee shall do the renewing; (a‘; furnish to City certificates of insurance. and additional insured policy endorsementswith insurers With ratings comparable to A-:Vlll or higher. that are authorized to do business in tne State of California. and that are reasonably satisfactory to City. in form evidencing all coverages set forth above. Failure to maintain insurance shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement

9. Ei?éélgpus,’TQXiLmE/Llél?flil?. Licensee shall use the License Area in compliance Willi all federal, state or local errvn'oninental. nealth and/or safetyn‘elated laws, regulations, standards.permit: currently ex;sting or as amended or adopted in the ftitnre from time to time ”inch are or demure applicable to Licensee or the License Area ("Environmental Laws"). Licenseeshall not cause or permit or allow any of its agents. contractors. employees. or sublicenseesto muse or per; tit. an}, hazardousor toxic materials to be stored. generated. treated or disposed of on or about the License Area. As used herein. “hazardous and toxic materials” means any chemical.substance or material which is ntm or becomes in the future listed, defined cr regulated in any manner by any ErwironmentalLaw based upon, directly or indirectiy, its cetrimentai proge'ties or effects. i0, lrigigiiriifica?gnj. Licensee shall indemnify. defeat (with counsel approved by City). reimburse u d hold harmless ”City.its of?cers.agents. employees and contractors from and against any and ad demands. ciatrris.regal or administrativeproceedings, losses, costs, penalties, tines, liens.judgments, damages and liabilities of any kind (collectively. “losses”). arising in any manner out of: in) any injury to or death of any person or damage to or destruction of any property occurring in. on or about the License Area. or any part tnereol‘; it») any failure by Licensee. or any oi its enmioyees. agents. cusromers, or sublicensees, to faithfully observe or ncribim any of the. terms, coyenants or conditions of this Agreement; (c) the use of the License Area or the Actiiities conducted thereon by Licensee.its employees, agents, customers, or sublicensees; or ld‘t any and. all Losses arising in connection with this Agreement, This 1557.(,t’)\ltll,(l‘—llo'~)"-‘7{3.3
Agenda Item #12.3.

indemnity shall specifically exclude any injury or damage that results from the sole negligence or the intentional or willful misconductof the City. its of?cers. directors.agents, or employees. City shall notify Licensee of any asserted claim with respect to which City may be indemni?ed against hereunder and shall deliver to Licensee copies of all process and pleadings pertaining thereto. The foregoing indemnity shall include.without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ and consultants t‘ees. invesngation and all other reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the indemnified parties. Licensee‘s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, it'any, received by Licensee and City and their respective of?cers, agents, employees, and contractors. Licensee shall have an immediate and independent obligation to defend City from any Claim which acrualiy or potentially falls within this indemnity provisron. This indemnity shall suryivc the termination ol'tliis Agreement. ll. Mutation. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time Without cause 0y providing at least sixty (60') days’ written notice to the other party pursuant to Section 15?. From the care cl" termination in the notice. Licensee shall have up to thirty (30‘; days to remove the hives from the License Area and restore. at Licensee’s sole cost and expense. the License Area to its original condition. Further, the City may terminate this Agreement and the License for satiety/emergencyreasons without prior notice to Licensee. it is within the sole discretion of the City to determinen“and when safety/emergencyconcerns exist which require immediate attention, If this Agreement and the License is terminated for safety/emergency reasons. the Cit; shall take a'ipmpr‘iate, immediate acrion in the License Area. including the removal and destruction orthe honey bee hives The City shall incur no liability or obrigation upon exercising any 0 t"the termination rights listed herein. 12, C _in the event that the; Licensee Violates any provisron ot‘ this Agreement. Licensee shall immediately niiti‘ry City pursuant to Section 15. Licensee shall, at its so“: cost and expend cure all deficiencies within seven (7) days from the date of discoverpg the t1:t‘icieneies. City shall take appropriate action to ensure that Licensee has cured all de?ciencies and is in compliance with the Agreement. if City discovers that Licensee is not in compliance after Licensee has taken action to cure all deiicrenciCs.City shall immediately terminate this Agreement and Licensee siiall remove the honey bee hives from the License Area and restore the cicense Area to its origina; condition pursuant to Section l2. Licensee shall not have the ability to cure it the deficiencies are round to constitute safety emergency concerns; in which case.the safety/emergene) pr'oyrsions in Section 12’,shall control

13. fgllgsspwryulgggrgsijafges. Licensee recognizes and understands that this Agreement may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that Licensee may oe sunject to the payment or property taxes levied on such interest under applicable law. Licensee agrees: tr pay taxes ol‘aiiy ltind.including possessory interest taxes. il‘any, that may be lawfully as‘esser on Licensee‘s interest under this Agreement or use of the License Area c-Tiursnant hereto and to pay any other taxes. excisest l‘lC‘S‘l'lSCS“ permit charges or assessments based on Licensee’s usage ot‘thc License Area that may be imposed upon Licensee by applicable law.
l4. \
.5. Except as otherwise provided herein. any notices given under this .1111‘C‘”"r'1'l€i’i'£shall oe addressed as follows:
gi?ik‘x“ Jliliilli'i—lltib—ni,:

Agenda Item #12.3.

ClTY:

City of St. Helena
l088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Attn: Anil Comelo, City Manager
LICENSEE:

Tau’zer Apiaries. Inc.
23011 County Road 103
Vtoodland, CA 95776
Attn: Trevor lauzer, Owner
Notice shall be deemed made (a) upon the date when it is deposited with the US. Post Of?ce, if sent by ?rst-class or certified mail. or (b) upon the date personal delivery is made.

15. Authority to EnterAgreement. Each Party warrants that the individualswho have signed this Agreement have the legal power right, and authority to enter into this Agreement so as to bind each respecuveParty to perform the conditions contemplated herein. l6. ?gyet‘abilitv. If any portion of this Agreement is declaredby a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or tanen?srceabte.the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue 111full force and effect, l7. _/—\ttorne_ysa FeesandCosts. lf any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute. breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any provisions of this Agreement, the successful or prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in ihat action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. :5. §J§Q§flj§~5__l.;§_‘?_grlgl_;\{§_?_g?. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance. 'w 1th and governed by the laws ot‘ the State ol‘California. Any lawsuit brought to enforce this Agreement snail be brought in the appropriate court in l‘vapaCounty, State of California.

19. Wr?yer No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed or shall constitute a waiter 01'any other pmvzsion. whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing wait er. l‘von niver shall be deemed a waiver or ninding unless executed in writing by the.Party making the waiver.

20. lipase Ara'r‘e,en_ieiitThis Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relative to the . wee; mutter iiL‘l‘Ciiland supersedes any prior or written statements or agreements between the ""aitlcs Ho supplement. modi?cation. or amendment of this Agreement shall be. hurtling unless executed in writing by both Parties. "wants, incensee shall not 'ranst'er or assign. voluntarily, involuntarily. ,tiy. Licensees interest under this Agreei‘nent. This Agreement is personal to onectiy or indirt (”O
\‘3I7Rtlthtl0HZ?Q76 12.3
Agenda Item #12.3.

Licensee and shall not be assigned by Licensee without prior written consent by City, and any attempt to assign this Agreement by Licensee Without City’s consent shall be void. City may assign this Agreement to a successor owner. Notwithstandingthe foregoing. each and every term and condition of this Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the bene?t of the successorsand assigns ot‘botli Parties.

22. ggvaligiiy. The illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the reniauider orthis Agreement. 23‘ {nggrgqggrgr This Agreement may be signed in counterparts. each of which shall constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument. ,.‘u. Qatiogg. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs of this Agreement are for the convenience and ease of reference only. and do not de?ne. limit, augment, or describe the scope. content. intent ol this Agreei‘ncnt or of any part or parts of this Agreement.

26. ggigrttgion. in all cases. the language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed Simpi; according to its fair meaning and not strietly tor or against any Party. it being agreed that the Parties or their agents have all participated in the preparation of this Agreement. lN WlTNESS WHEREQRthe undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first written abet:

Cl"?! 0? ST. IllELENA TAUZER APEAREES.ENC.
31v'I--_-_a_-_“ ,_ BYI.TAAeyT‘me_ _- Anil Comelo. L'ity Manager Trevor Tauzer. Owner Approved as to Form:

By:

Ethan Walsh. City Attorney
83578.l)l)0(l(l‘.42b07b12.3
Agenda Item #12.3.

Exhibit A
License Area
The City Parcel is identi?ed as APN 030—250-018—000. The Lice placement locations for the honey bee hives are below.
83' : : .441».
nse Area and the designated
Agenda Item #12.3.

83578.01)OU()\43697613.3
Agenda Item #12.3.

License Agreement Between
The City of St. Helena and
Tauzer Apiaries, Inc.

Access Agreement for Honey Bee Hive Placement at 1 Chaix Lane July 22, 2025
Agenda Item #12.3.

Agreement
Overview
• Parties Involved: Tauzer Apiaries,
Inc. & City of St. Helena
• Location: 1 Chaix Lane, St. Helena
• Purpose: Allows Tauzer Apiaries to
place and maintain honey bee
hives on City property
• Area Size: 12,824 square feet (see
Exhibit A for details)
Agenda Item #12.3.

Benefits of the Agreement
• Productive Use of Vacant Property: The area
is utilized for sustainable agriculture
• Environmental Benefits: Enhances
pollination and supports local ecosystems
• Supports Sustainable Practices:

Encourages beekeeping and local honey
production
Agenda Item #12.3.

Terms of the
Agreement
• Access Rights: Licensee may
place, maintain, and inspect
honey bee hives
• Hive Placement: Designated
locations marked in yellow on
Exhibit A
• Restrictions: Area to be used
exclusively for beekeeping
activities
Agenda Item #12.3.

Financial Consideration
• Annual Fee: $500.00 per year
• Payment Due Date: July 1st of each year
• Purpose of Fee: Covers property use, maintenance, and oversight Agenda Item #12.3.

Terms and Renewal
• Effective Date: January 28, 2025
• Duration: Annual agreement, subject to renewal or termination • Renewal Terms: As outlined in the license agreement
Agenda Item #12.3.

Public Comment Summary – “Community
Forest Advocates”& Others
Key Concerns Raised:

1. Risk of pathogen transmission to native bees

2. Excessive hive density – up to 120 hives

3. Loss of forage due to mowing practices

4. Potential chemical residue from pollination contracts

5. Insufficient local/environmental benefit to justify risks Agenda Item #12.3.

Tauzer Apiaries Response – Pathogens, Hive
Management, Pesticides & Land Stewardship
Pathogen Concerns:
• Valid issue, but mostly applies to unmanaged/feral colonies • Tauzer maintains strict hive health protocols
• Hives are routinely inspected and treated
Hive Density:
• 120 hives consistent with CA industry standards
• Seasonal adjustments based on forage and environmental feedback Pesticide Exposure:
• Hives rest after pollination contracts before relocation • Residue levels are low and degrade over time
Environmental Stewardship:
• Responsible apiary management supports local pollination • Site use demonstrates agricultural compatibility with ecological goals Agenda Item #12.3.

Staff Recommendation to Council
• Staff recommends that the City Council approve the License Agreement with Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. to allow for the placement, maintenance, and inspection of honey bee hives on City-owned property at 1 Chaix Lane.

Agenda Item #12.3.

From: Ian Dale
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: Beehive Proposal
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 3:20:19 PM
Attachments: Parasite Transmission Between Hives and Spillover to Non‐Apis Pollinators.pdf image001.png
This one is from Paul Asmuth regarding the tauser apiaries also.

Thank you,

IAN DALE

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TECHNICIAN II
City of St. Helena | Public Works
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2794 | Mobile: (707) 312-1372 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.gov/publicworks
From: Paul Asmuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 3:41 PM
To: Ian Dale <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Beehive Proposal
Hi Ian,
Thank you again for reaching out to me yesterday regarding the proposed beehives at the city’s WWTP effluent spray fields. Beekeeping is an agricultural product that is good when done well. In addition, bees are needed to pollinate many of the foods that we eat and vital to the overall ecosystem.

The proposal before the city of placing up to 120 hives at the WWTP spray fields is not something that I support. I’ve been in discussion with Martin Podell and Rob Keller with the Napa County Bee Association to understand their position on the proposal. They are very knowledgeable on this subject, and I’ve given them your email to directly communicate with you. They recommended the reading of the attached article that addresses some of the concerns of pathogen transfers between hives.

Martin and Rob believe that 120 bee hives is more than the entire area of St. Helena. My main concerns are what I shared with you:

Agenda Item #12.3.

1. Moving commercial beehives from outside the area can introduce pathogens to local hives and native bees

2. This quantity of hives will challenge the local native and honeybee populations for enough forage. The WWTP spray fields used to only be mowed once a year and there was a lot of forage for bees. Now, these fields are regularly mowed with no forage for bees.

3. Bees from central valley orchards can carry pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides residues that they may have been exposed to.

There doesn’t seem to be enough financial upside to the city and local environment to risk bringing in this large quantity of beehives.

I’m happy to speak with you more or put you directly in touch with Martin or Rob.

Kind regards, Paul
Paul Asmuth
Director of Special Projects and Community Relations
The Napa Valley Reserve
1000 Silverado Trail North
St. Helena, CA 94574
[email protected]
Agenda Item #12.3.

Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

10.1002/9781119583417.ch18, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119583417.ch18. By Mississippi State University, Wiley Online Library on [15/05/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Agenda Item #12.3.

Beescape is a web-based tool developed by Penn State University to help beekeepers, gardeners, urban planners, growers, researchers, and land managers assess the quality of their landscapes for supporting bees and other pollinators. Bees can fly up to 3 miles (5 kilometers) from their nest to find food, and Beescape provides an easy way for you to explore the landscapes surrounding your location.

This tool uses GIS (Geographic Information Systems) to help predict the resources and threats that foraging bees encounter as they forage in a landscape. This tool is intended to help people learn how to improve their locations to support bees, or help beekeepers select better sites for their apiaries.

Summary of Land Use Categories - Chaix Lane apiary
Agenda Item #12.3.

Beescape Apiary Decision Making Tool Report
3 mile radius of Chaix Lane apiary (38.500040, -122.433840) Summer Forage
Tauzer Apiaries places hives at Chaix Lane location approx May 1 - September 1 annually Agenda Item #12.3.

Crop Pesticide Index
Summary of typical insecticide use patterns for different crops and estimate of how toxic these are to bees.

Access to low pesticide forage and water sources are imperative for healthy honey bee colonies.

All data referenced from https://pollinators.psu.edu/bee-health/beescape Agenda Item #12.3.

Trends in
Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Science & Society
Avenues towards
reconciling wild and
managed bee
proponents
Alexis L. Beaurepaire 1,2,
*,
Katja Hogendoorn3
, David Kleijn4,
Gard W. Otis2,5
, Simon G. Potts6,
Theresa L. Singer7
, Samuel Boff8,
Christian Pirk9
,
Josef Settele10,11,12,
Robert J. Paxton13, Nigel E. Raine5
,
Simone Tosi14, Neal Williams15,
Alexandra-Maria Klein16,17,
Yves Le Conte18,
Joshua W. Campbell19,
Geoffrey R. Williams20,
Lorenzo Marini21,
Axel Brockmann22,
Fabio Sgolastra23, Natalie Boyle24,
Markus Neuditschko25,
Lars Straub2,26,27,
Peter Neumann2
,
Jean-Daniel Charrière1
,
Matthias Albrecht28, and
Vincent Dietemann1,29
Bees are crucial for food security
and biodiversity. However, managed bees are increasingly considered drivers of wild bee declines, leading to stakeholder conflicts
and restrictive policies. We propose
avenues to reconcile wild and managed bee proponents and point out knowledge gaps that hinder the
development of evidence-based
policies.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, January 2025, Vol. 40, No. 1 7 Negative impacts of managed
bees: a growing concern based on
circumstantial scientific evidence
Integrating biodiversity conservation
with food security for a growing world
population represents a major challenge.

Three quarters of the world’s crops are dependent on pollinators, and their cropped area is expanding. Consequently, reliance
on pollinators, especially managed and
wild bees, is increasing [1]. Among Earth’s
20 000+ wild bee species, many are
declining, threatening biodiversity and leading to pollination deficits [2,3]. To mitigate pollination deficits, 19 bee species can
currently be managed and transported
where and when required to promote
crop pollination [4].

Establishing and maintaining high densities of managed bees raises concerns about their impacts on wild bee populations [5]. In recent decades, a growing number of studies have investigated
whether competition for floral and nesting
resources with managed bees and pathogen transmission negatively impact wild bees [5,6], often fueling conflicts among
beekeepers, farmers, conservationists,
and scientists [7]. Despite more than 200
scientific papers addressing managed
bee–wild bee interactions, and 66% concluding that there are potential risks to wild bees, evidence remains circumstantial, contextual, and does not include long-term and population-level assessments [5]. Insufficient knowledge of the circumstances in which interactions
amongst bees become detrimental can
lead to inaccurate risk assessments and
potentially to ecological or economic
harm. Nevertheless, due to increasing
pressure from stakeholders, and despite
the low degree of confidence in available
data, policy-makers have begun to ban
managed bees from conservation areas
or cities [8], a trend that is likely to increase.

Ensuring contextually optimal trade-offs
between conservation and socioeconomic priorities is key for bee policies (Box 1) and necessitates rapid and coordinated action to facilitate the co-creation of solutions by stakeholders. Here, we propose research avenues to generate the knowledge required to assess the risks
associated with bee management and to
develop effective policies. Furthermore,
we highlight challenges and list currently
actionable levers to mitigate conflicts.

Challenges towards effective
conflict resolution
Measuring long-term and populationlevel effects of managed and wild bee interactions
Enhancing our knowledge about the
effects of managed bees on wild bees
requires an assessment of conservationrelevant parameters that is currently lacking. These parameters include population size and genetic diversity, which are
crucial to the long-term sustainability of
populations but are extremely resourceintensive or impossible to assess using classical methods based on counting
bees. By comparison, genetic methods
require relatively small sample sizes,
provide information on genetic diversity,
population demography [10], and on pathogen prevalence, loads, and transmission.

The possibility of collecting bee environmental (e)DNA also provides another potential noninvasive method to assess these. The recent development of genomic tools to analyze historic samples also allows screening of museum specimens
to reveal fluctuations in genetic diversity
and demography over time. Such data
can link variation in bee management intensity or other stressors to wild bee population sizes over time, contributing to the assessment of their respective effects
and to possible mitigation measures. The
need for molecular approaches is highlighted as a goal of the CBD COP15 Global Biodiversity Framework: ‘Genetic
diversity within populations of wild and
domesticated species is maintained,
safeguarding their adaptive potential’.

Assessing the impact of pathogens
While pathogen transmission between
managed and wild bees is increasingly
considered a threat, which pathogens
compromise wild bees, to what extent,
Agenda Item #12.3.

and in which contexts they are impacted,
remain unclear, especially for interspecific
transmission (e.g., [6]). Identifying these
contexts is crucial to accurately determine
the risks associated with bee management. Molecular detection and phylogeny to assess transmission patterns combined
with experimental work to test the impact
of pathogens will guide the development
of policies to regulate the localization and
densities of managed bees at levels appropriate to ensure the conservation of wild bee populations.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

OPEN ACCESS
Box 1. The importance of contextualization in bee policies Ecological contexts include interactions among biologically diverse bee species and their impacts on ecosystems. Socioeconomic aspects include pollination demand, beekeeping profitability, food security needs, and livelihood goals. A crucial aspect for contextualizing bee-oriented policies is the interplay between land-cover types and the endemism of managed species. In many regions of the world, crop pollination relies on non-native managed bees. In agricultural landscapes, where pollination is mainly a necessary economic service, the introduction of managed non-native bees to fill pollination deficits can be acceptable. However, in urban, semi-natural, and natural habitats, where pollination is mainly an ecological service, negative interactions with native bees can be less acceptable, as arguments about economic losses are irrelevant. Developing management techniques for local populations of native bee species could be a viable alternative to introducing non-native bees [4]. In the native ranges of managed bee species, policy-making is more complex than in the non-native range [9]. Although they are naturally occurring, their management can lead to unnaturally high densities, with potential negative consequences for wild conspecifics or other pollinators. Whether it is desirable, or indeed possible, to regulate native managed bee densities according to local carrying capacities and pollination requirements should be further considered.

Before such data become available,
pre-emptive measures known to reduce
pathogen loads in managed bees (e.g.,
therapeutic treatments), and thus potential
transmission to wild bees, should be implemented more consistently [11] or better enforced [2]. Identifying the obstacles to
implementation and enforcement of good
practices through socioeconomic studies
is required. In parallel, maintaining or restoring diverse communities of plants and pollinators in ecosystems can reduce the
risks associated with pathogen transmission through partitioning of foraging niches [12].

Quantifying ecosystem carrying capacities
to mitigate competition
The intensity of competition between
organisms is modulated by resource availability and quality. Ecosystem carrying capacities, resource niche overlaps, and
their temporal dynamics will, therefore,
influence how bee species interact.

Increasing carrying capacities to reduce
competition can be achieved through
measures such as floral enhancements
(e.g., flower strips, hedgerows) promoted
by the European Union (EU) Common
Agricultural Policy or the US Farm Bill
(e.g., programs of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture) [13]. Pollinator-friendly enhancements of agricultural landscapes
can also decrease natural and humandriven displacement of managed bees, thereby decreasing the spatial range of
potential impacts.

Despite our ability to increase resources
locally, tools are lacking to estimate
ecosystem carrying capacities to match
resource availability with local wild and
managed bee community requirements.

Where increasing floral resources is
impractical, knowing the carrying capacity
of ecosystems is imperative for making
informed adjustments to managed bee
densities [14]. Deterministic models incorporating resource availability – as well as spatiotemporal resource requirements
and use by local pollinator assemblages –
are promising tools to estimate the
degree of competition and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. However, multidisciplinary projects are required
to generate the pertinent data to optimize
such models.

Evaluating the impacts on a broader
diversity of wild bee species
Most research on the impacts of bee
competition and pathogen transmission
has focused on a restricted number of
model species that are easy to manage
or to find in the wild (e.g., buff-tailed bumble bees Bombus terrestris, European orchard bees Osmia cornuta; [5]). The resulting narrow range of life-history traits
considered in those studies limits our ability to provide broad predictions for diverse native pollinator communities. Developing
methods to study other wild bee species
will decrease reliance on these few umbrella species. Moreover, the effects of interspecific competition or pathogen spillover on wild bees are frequently tested
using managed populations of these species. A concern with these tests is that a managed population can be genetically
and/or phenotypically different to local
wild conspecifics, and thus does not represent the natural situation. Studying wild populations of bees is more challenging
but can be facilitated by genetic approaches, for example, using eDNA to quantify effective population sizes and
monitor pathogens [10].

Fostering the co-creation of policies
Due to differing values, motivations, understandings, and expectations, different stakeholder groups (e.g., farmers, beekeepers, conservationists) have diverse and sometimes contradictory views on
the management of pollinators, and on
their contributions to livelihoods and
wider society. Recognizing these views
during a co-creation process, and placing
them within the current knowledge base on
interactions between bees, is key to the development of evidence-based policies that consider local ecological and socioeconomic
contexts and decrease conflicts [9]
(Figure 1). The simultaneous consideration
of a multitude of factors is an essential but
8 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, January 2025, Vol. 40, No. 1 Agenda Item #12.3.

challenging task that requires an inclusive
approach [7,9]. To enable this, key wild and
managed bee proponents should be provided opportunities to co-create policies through stakeholder consultations and
multi-actor knowledge synthesis [e.g.,
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES)] during which win–win solutions can be elaborated to federate both parties towards a common goal. In addition
to national policies, a variety of incentives
driven by local or national stakeholders
(such as beekeeper associations, wild bee
conservation societies, and grower groups)
have great potential to foster such cocreation and reduce trade-offs resulting from conflicting goals.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution OPEN ACCESS
Trends in Ecology & Evolution Evolution
Figure 1. Guidelines towards inclusive bee policy-making. Inclusive policy-making to better integrate food security and conservation needs can be developed by taking into account both available and missing knowledge in a co-creation process considering socioeconomic factors. Figure created with Biorender.com.

Unity for managed and wild bees
In the context of pollinator declines and
increasing reliance on managed bees
for crop pollination, actual and perceived
negative interactions between managed
and wild bees will inevitably lead to escalating conflicts. Habitat loss and climate change that alter floral resource diversity
and availability will likely exacerbate these
issues. Evidence-based policies to integrate conservation and food security requirements are, therefore, urgently
needed. To develop such policies and
move beyond precautionary principles,
we suggest that more emphasis be placed
on identifying the general contexts in
which managed bees impact wild bees
and the importance of these impacts
in relation to other bee stressors. A recent
global expert assessment ranked pollinator
management and associated pathogens
lower than land cover, land configuration,
land management, pesticide use, and
climate change as drivers of pollinator
declines in terms of importance and confidence level [15]. Obtaining greater confidence in the risks posed by managed bees to wild bees and other pollinators
will allow effective allocation of resources
towards policy-making and implementation. International scientific collaborations and interdisciplinary initiatives involving all
stakeholders are key to co-create effective
and context-relevant policies to reconcile
food security and conservation of wild
bees.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, January 2025, Vol. 40, No. 1 9 Agenda Item #12.3.

1 Swiss Bee Research Centre, Agroscope, Berne 3003,
Switzerland
2 Institute of Bee Health, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Liebefeld, 3097, Switzerland
*Correspondence:
[email protected] (A.L. Beaurepaire). 3 School of Agriculture, Food, and Wine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5064, Australia
4 Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, 6708, The Netherlands
5 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
6 Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6UR, UK
7 Retired USDA ARS Pollinating Insects Research Unit,
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
8 Institute of Botany, Ulm University, Ulm, 89081, Germany 9 Social Insects Research Group, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa 10 Department of Conservation Biology and Social-Ecological Systems, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Halle (Saale), 06120, Germany
11 German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
12 Institute of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños, 4031, Philippines
13 Institute for Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), 06120, Germany
14 Department of Agricultural, Forest, and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, 10124, Italy
15 Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
16 Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, 79085, Germany
17 Centre of Environmental and Climate Science,
Lund University, Lund, SE-223 62, Sweden
18 INRAE, UR 406 Abeilles et Environnement, Avignon, 84914, France
19 US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sidney, MT 59270, USA
20 Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology,
Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
21 DAFNAE, University of Padova, Padova, 35020, Italy
22 National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru, 560097, India
23 Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agro-alimentari, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Bologna, 40127, Italy 24 Department of Entomology, Center for Pollinator Research, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
25 Animal GenoPhenomics, Agroscope, Posieux, 1725,
Switzerland
26 Centre for Ecology Evolution and Behaviour, Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London Egham, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK
27 Faculty of Science, Energy, and Environment, King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, Rayong, 10800,
Thailand
28 Agroecology and Environment, Agroscope, Zurich, 8046, Switzerland
29 Department Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland
Trends in Ecology & Evolution

OPEN ACCESS
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council Discovery grant (2021-
04210) and the Rebanks Family Chair in Pollinator
Conservation by the Weston Family Foundation (N.E.R.),
the European Union’s Horizon Europe Framework
Programme project No. 101082101 (A.M.K., S.G.P.),
the National Research foundation of South Africa, grant number SRUG2204062235 (C.W.W.P.), The Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station, USDA ARS Cooperative
Agreement 58-6066-3-029, and the USDA NIFA Multistate Hatch Project NC1173 (G.R.W.).

Declaration of interests
The authors have no interests to declare.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.11.009
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).

References

1. Mashilingi, S.K. et al. (2022) Honeybees are far too insufficient to supply optimum pollination services in agricultural systems worldwide. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 335, 108003

2. Potts, S.G. et al. (2016) Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 540, 220–229

3. Turo, K.J. et al. (2024) Insufficient pollinator visitation often limits yield in crop systems worldwide. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1612–1622

4. Osterman, J. et al. (2021) Global trends in the number and diversity of managed pollinator species. Agric. Ecosyst.

Environ. 322, 107653

5. Iwasaki, J.M. and Hogendoorn, K. (2022) Mounting evidence that managed and introduced bees have negative impacts on wild bees: an updated review. Curr. Res. Insect Sci. 2, 100043

6. Deutsch, K.R. et al. (2023) Widespread distribution of honey bee-associated pathogens in native bees and wasps: trends in pathogen prevalence and co-occurrence. J. Invertebr.

Pathol. 200, 107973

7. Kleijn, D. et al. (2018) Bee conservation: inclusive solutions.

Science 360, 389–390

8. Matsuzawa, T. and Kohsaka, R. (2021) Status and trends of urban beekeeping regulations: a global review. Earth 2, 933–942

9. Alaux, C. et al. (2019) Pitting wild bees against managed honey bees in their native range, a losing strategy for the conservation of honey bee biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 60

10. Beaurepaire, A.L. et al. (2024) Population genetics for insect conservation and control. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 6, e13095

11. Willcox, B.K. et al. (2023) Emerging threats and opportunities to managed bee species in European agricultural systems: a horizon scan. Sci. Rep. 13, 18099

12. Doublet, V. et al. (2022) Increasing flower species richness in agricultural landscapes alters insect pollinator networks:
implications for bee health and competition. Ecol. Evol. 12, e9442

13. Cole, L.J. et al. (2020) A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild
pollinators on farmland. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 681–694

14. Pindar, A. and Raine, N.E. (2023) Safeguarding pollinators requires specific habitat prescriptions and substantially more land area than suggested by current policy. Sci.

Rep. 13, 1040

15. Dicks, L.V. et al. (2021) A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline.

Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1453–1461
10 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, January 2025, Vol. 40, No. 1 Agenda Item #12.3.

Why Hedgerow Farms?
Tauzer Apiaries is a family owned business with generations of experience serving Northern California farmers and growers for over 50 years. We rely on landowners who are willing to help support our local honey bees and the ecosystem that is vital to our collective success.

We believe in advocating for responsible, best practice beekeeping and educating about the importance of honey bee pollination to our local food systems. We know that honey bees and all pollinators are an essential part of the health of California and play a key role in the prosperity, vibrancy and environmental sustainability of our communities.

Hive Host Pollinator Corridor
Tauzer Apiaries is proud to offer this custom seed mix to our Hive Hosts as a THANK YOU for supporting our hives. This new hive host compensation option is a unique opportunity to join us in shaping and restoring pollinator habitats in our communities.

The seed mix includes 11lbs of 12 flowering species, enough to seed 1.25 acres, with forage and habitat for pollinators of all shapes and sizes. Join us in envisioning a colorful and nutrient rich pollinator habitat corridor of local hive hosts!
If you are interested in providing more forage for honey bees and native pollinators on your property while hosting our hives each year, this might be the right compensation choice for you.

Join the Tauzer Hive Host Pollinator Corridor
Support key California pollinator species with blooming forage and native habitat The TA Commitment
We have chosen to partner with Hedgerow Farms to offer our hive hosts the opportunity to add pollinator habitat and forage to their properties with a high quality, tailored seed mix.

Hedgerow Farms has been specializing in California native species and habitat restoration since 1988 so we trusted them to create a Tauzer Hive Host mix that supports our honey bees and other vital pollinators in Northern California.

The seed mix developed with their guidance includes 12 easy to plant and maintain species that provide pollen, nectar and habitat for honey bees and multiple other pollinator species. Their knowledgeable staff are experts in California habitats and we look forward to continuing to work with them as our landowners add these valuable species to their properties.

Agenda Item #12.3.

Yarrow - Achillea millefolium
Yarrow is an interesting species native to California. This plant provides habitat for multiple species of moth including the Yarrow Plume and the Wavy-Lined Emerald.

Yarrow is a medium-sized shrub, ranging from 1 to 3 ft tall and 0.5 - 1.5 ft wide. The pleasant fragrance of yarrow is another great characteristic of this perennial! Purple Clarkia - Clarkia purpurea
Purple Clarkia is a wildflower in the species of Primrose found in many different habitats. Similar to yarrow, it is a great provider for pollinators such as bees and butterflies but is also a fantastic host plant for moth species. You will see Purple Clarkia blooming in Spring and Summer.

POLLINATOR CORRIDOR SEED MIX
Cobweb Thistle - Cirsium occidentale
Cirsium occidentale is a species of thistle known by the common name cobweb thistle.

This plant varies in size, forming low clumps or reaching heights of up to 9 feet.

Cobweb Thistle is a great pollen source for both native bees and bumble bees.

Blue Gilia - Gilia capitata
Blue Gilia is an annual shrub, staying on the relatively shorter side at 0.33 in-3 ft tall.

This plant is another pollen-rich source for honey bees and butterflies. It’s pollen is blue! Blue Gilia provides blooms through late winter.

Great Valley Gumweed - Grindelia camporum
The Great Valley Gumweed is Tauzer Apiaries favorite native plant because it’s vinegary scent keeps ticks away! Gumweed is a great attractor of both Buckeye butterflies and Great Copper butterflies. This hardly plants blooms nearly year-round, providing forage even in dry months.

Lacy Phacelia - Phacelia tanacetifolia
Phacelia tanacetifolia, commonly known as Lacy Phacelia, is among one of the top 20 pollen producing plants in the United States. This pollen-rich plant is known to attract native pollinators such as bumble bees and hoverflies. Reaching 2 - 4 ft tall and 1.5 ft wide, you will often see this plant used as a cover crop while it blooms in Spring.

Agenda Item #12.3.

Yellow Rayed Lasthenia - Lasthenia glabrata
The Yellow Rayed Lasthenia is in the daisy family. This plant thrives in vernal pools and moist locations. It grows to 1-2 ft tall. This flower often attracts the endangered Checkerspot Butterfly.

Whitewhorl Lupine - Lupinus microcarpus densiflorus
Whitewhorl Lupine is an annual herb that is beneficial to butterflies, bumblebees and even hummingbirds. This plant blooms from May-June and grows to be about 30 inches tall.

Arroyo Lupine - Lupinus succulentus
The Lupinus succulentus is commonly known as the Arroyo Lupine. This plant blooms in Spring and Winter and grows to 2 - 4 ft tall and 3 ft wide and will bring vast color to your property. The Arroyo Lupine is a favorite of larger bee species and hummingbirds
Vinegarweed - Trichostema lanceolatum
The Vinegarweed is a flowering herb in the mint family. It is an important pollensource for pollinators. This plant blooms from late June or July until November and grows to 6 in- 2 ft tall. This hardy herb is a great habitat provider for the Rustic Sphinx moth.

Hooker’s Evening Primrose - Oenothera elata hookerii
Oenothera elata hookerii is commonly know as Hooker’s Evening Primrose or Tall Evening Primrose. The stems of these plants can reach 6 feet tall and continue to bloom from May until September. Pollinators that favor this plant include multiple bee species and hawkmoths.

California Poppy - Eschscholzia californica
The California Poppy is a beautiful orange annual that can have blooms that last yearround in mild-winter and mild-summer areas. It is the state flower of California due to the waves of orange hillsides when these are in bloom. California poppies are great forage providers for native mining bees and sweat bees.

POLLINATOR CORRIDOR SEED MIX
Agenda Item #12.3.

A Pollinator Fact Sheet

THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL BEEKEEPING IN

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
A native bee is a bee that naturally occurs in a
region. Through the work of the California
Native Plant Society, UC Berkeley’s Urban Bee
Lab, and UC Davis’ E. L. Niño Bee Lab, it is
estimated that there are
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/defaults/0r967c649?locale=en California is home
to over 1,600 native
bee species - from
bumble bees to
metallic sweat bees
W H A T I S A N A T I V E B E E ?
around 1,600 species of
native bees in California.

You may recognize a
bumble bee as a native
bee species, but with
over 25 species of
bumble bees, they are
only a small sliver of the
state’s overall diversity.

Many native bees are
solitary and might be
mistaken for wasps or
gnats.

A R E F L O R A L R E S O U R C E S
O V E R H A R V E S T E D ?
Some studies show reduced nectar and pollen
with increased honey bee colony density.

However, even in those cases, many flowers retain
unharvested resources by the end of the day. A
comprehensive review of 146 studies published in
2017 (Mallinger et al.) found that only half
reported negative competition effects. While this
review is frequently cited, it draws from global
studies and includes relatively few that are
specific to California’s unique ecological
environments. More localized and nuanced
research is needed to help build a more complete
picture.

Honey bees are not native to California; they originate from Europe, western Asia, and Africa. European settlers
introduced them to California in the 1800s.

Concerns about honey bees out-competing native bees
emerged around a decade ago, leading to a wave of
research. The current consensus is that the reality is more nuanced than popular opinion suggests. Key factors
include:

Bee foraging ranges and preferences
How different bees divide floral resources
The carrying capacity of the landscape
One key study found that 78–92% of honey bee foraging
occurs within 0.31–0.75 miles of the colony (Beardsworth et al., 2021), not the 1-5 mile maximum range often cited.

Honey bees also tend to forage selectively, often preferring families of plants with “simple flowers” with single florets like mints, poppy and penstemon while avoiding plants
with composite flowers with many florets like sunflowers, asters and yarrow that attract native bees.

A R E H O N E Y B E E S D I S P L A C I N G
N A T I V E B E E S ?
You may have heard concerns from backyard beekeepers about how commercial hives interact with local pollinator populations. While these conversations are important, the science tells a more complex and encouraging story. Learn what research actually shows about managed honey bees, how responsible pollination benefits California ecosystems, and how Tauzer Apiaries actively supports native pollinators through sustainable, regionally focused practices.

Only 50% of studies found negative
competition effects between honey bees and
native bees - and few were from California
Number of estimated bee species supported, # based upon 3 years’ worth of bee collections.

Agenda Item #12.3.

Tauzer Apiaries provides healthy, efficient, and affordable pollination services to over 70 growers across Northern California. In 2024–2025, we pollinated over 30 crops, including alfalfa, parsley, dill seed, apples, cucumbers, watermelon, safflower, artichokes, kiwi, avocado, swiss chard, celery, and pumpkins.

Our bees contributed an estimated $137.25 million in pollination to California’s almond industry alone.

We never take our bees outside of Northern California. Unlike many commercial operations, our bees, and our team, stay close to home, minimizing stress and ecological disruption.

We also conduct ongoing forage assessments to determine areas rich in nectar and pollen and avoid placing hives in floral-poor regions.

T A U Z E R A P I A R I E S : R E S P O N S I B L E P O L L I N A T I O N I N C A L I F O R N I A 30+ Crops and 70+ Farmers Supported Each Year in Northern, CA TAUZER APIARIES: LOCAL ROOTS, LOCAL BEES, LASTING IMPACT.

Some honey bee pathogens can infect bumble bees, but the most destructive honey bee diseases (like Varroa mites and foulbrood) do not affect native bees. Pathogen spillover is greatest from commercial bumble bee colonies, not honey bees.

Most native bees found in California cities are not under threat.

The rarest species tend to live in unique ecosystems, deserts, serpentine soils, and coastal scrub, often outside of urban, populated cores.

Programs like the California Bee Atlas, Urban Bee Lab, and UC Davis Bee Haven are identifying biodiversity hotspots and sharing this info with land managers.

H O W D O H O N E Y B E E S A F F E C T N A T I V E
A N D H O B B Y I S T B E E H E A L T H ?
https://www.bumblebeeatlas.org/pages/california
Agenda Item #12.3.

Native bees and honey bees are both vital to California. With informed choices and collaborative conservation, we can support all pollinators. Backyard, hobbyists and professional beekeepers alike should manage colonies responsibly - and Tauzer Apiaries does.

Tauzer Apiaries remains committed to science-based practices, habitat stewardship, and California’s agricultural success.

Avenues towards reconciling wild and managed bee proponents, Beaurepaire, Alexis L. et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 40, Issue 1, 7 - 10 Beaurepaire et al. (2025) calls for the pollinator community to move beyond polarization and toward datadriven, region-specific strategies that benefit both wild and managed bees. This means improving monitoring of native bee populations, refining hive placement and density practices, and investing in habitat stewardship. Crucially, it also means recognizing that wild and managed bees face many of the same pressures — from habitat loss to climate change. Addressing these challenges requires collective action from scientists, landowners, commercial operators like Tauzer Apiaries, and hobbyist beekeepers alike. When everyone brings thoughtful, locally informed practices to the table, we can ensure a thriving future for all pollinators.

MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER:

SHARED STEWARDSHIP, SHARED SUCCESS
B E A R D S W O R T H , C . E . , O L L E R T O N , J . , & M E M M O T T , J . ( 2 0 2 1 ) . F I N E - S C A L E S P A T I A L E C O L O G Y O F U R B A N H O N E Y B E E S : F O R A G I N G D I S T A N C E A N D R E S O U R C E U S E . U R B A N E C O S Y S T E M S , 2 4 ( 5 ) , 9 6 7 – 9 8 0 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / S 1 1 2 5 2 - 0 2 1 - 0 1 0 9 0 - 6 B E A U R E P A I R E , A . L . , L A T T O R F F , H . M . G . , & N E U M A N N , P . ( 2 0 2 4 ) . A V E N U E S T O W A R D S R E C O N C I L I N G W I L D A N D M A N A G E D B E E P R O P O N E N T S . T R E N D S I N E C O L O G Y & E V O L U T I O N , 4 0 ( 1 ) , 7 – 1 0 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / J . T R E E . 2 0 2 3 . 0 9 . 0 0 9 C A N E , J . H . & T E P E D I N O , V . J . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . G A U G I N G T H E E F F E C T O F H O N E Y B E E P O L L E N C O L L E C T I O N O N S O L I T A R Y B E E R E P R O D U C T I O N . C O N S E R V A T I O N L E T T E R S , 1 0 ( 2 ) , 2 0 5 – 2 1 0 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / C O N L . 1 2 2 6 3 M A L L I N G E R , R . E . , G A I N E S - D A Y , H . R . , & G R A T T O N , C . ( 2 0 1 7 ) . D O M A N A G E D B E E S H A V E N E G A T I V E E F F E C T S O N W I L D B E E S ? A S Y S T E M A T I C R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E . P L O S O N E , 1 2 ( 1 2 ) , E 0 1 8 9 2 6 8 . H T T P S : / / D O I . O R G / 1 0 . 1 3 7 1 / J O U R N A L . P O N E . 0 1 8 9 2 6 8 O R E G O N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y . G A R D E N E C O L O G Y L A B . ( N . D . ) . M U L T I Y E A R A S S E S S M E N T O F U R B A N G A R D E N S S H O W S N O E V I D E N C E F O R N E G A T I V E E F F E C T S O F H O N E Y B E E S O N W I L D B E E S - I R . L I B R A R Y . O R E G O N S T A T E . E D U / C O N C E R N / D E F A U L T S / 0 R 9 6 7 C 6 4 9 ? L O C A L E = E N B E E S C A P E . P E N N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y . ( N . D . ) . L A N D S C A P E D E C I S I O N - S U P P O R T T O O L F O R B E E - F R I E N D L Y L A N D U S E P L A N N I N G . - B E E S C A P E . O R G C A L I F O R N I A N A T I V E P L A N T S O C I E T Y ( C N P S ) - W W W . C N P S . O R G U C B E R K E L E Y U R B A N B E E L A B - W W W . H E L P A B E E . O R G U C D A V I S E . L . N I Ñ O B E E L A B - E L N I N O B E E L A B . U C D A V I S . E D U U C D A V I S B E E H A V E N - B E E G A R D E N . U C D A V I S . E D U

R E F E R E N C E S
Agenda Item #12.3.

License Agreement Between
The City of St. Helena and
Tauzer Apiaries, Inc.

Access Agreement for Honey Bee Hive Placement at 1 Chaix Lane
July 22, 2025
Agenda Item #12.3.

Agreement
Overview
• Parties Involved: Tauzer
Apiaries, Inc. & City of St. Helena
• Location: 1 Chaix Lane, St.

Helena
• Purpose: Allows Tauzer Apiaries
to place and maintain honey bee
hives on City property
• Area Size: 12,824 square feet
(see Exhibit A for details)
Agenda Item #12.3.

Benefits of the Agreement
• Productive Use of Vacant Property: The
area is utilized for sustainable agriculture
• Environmental Benefits: Enhances
pollination and supports local ecosystems
• Supports Sustainable Practices:

Encourages beekeeping and local honey
production
Agenda Item #12.3.

Terms of the
Agreement
• Access Rights: Licensee may
place, maintain, and inspect
honey bee hives
• Hive Placement: Designated
locations marked in yellow on
Exhibit A
• Restrictions: Area to be used
exclusively for beekeeping
activities
Agenda Item #12.3.

Financial
Consideration
• Annual Fee: $500.00 per year
• Payment Due Date: July 1st of each year
• Purpose of Fee: Covers property use, maintenance, and oversight
Agenda Item #12.3.

Terms and
Renewal
• Effective Date: January 28, 2025
• Duration: Annual agreement, subject to renewal or termination • Renewal Terms: As outlined in the license agreement
Agenda Item #12.3.

Public Comment Summary – “Community
Forest Advocates” & Others
Key Concerns Raised:

1. Risk of pathogen transmission to native bees

2. Excessive hive density – up to 120 hives

3. Loss of forage due to mowing practices

4. Potential chemical residue from pollination contracts

5. Insufficient local/environmental benefit to justify risks Agenda Item #12.3.

Tauzer Apiaries Response – Pathogens,
Hive Management, Pesticides & Land
Stewardship Pathogen Concerns:
• Valid issue, but mostly applies to unmanaged/feral colonies • Tauzer maintains strict hive health protocols
• Hives are routinely inspected and treated
Hive Density:
• 120 hives consistent with CA industry standards
• Seasonal adjustments based on forage and environmental feedback Pesticide Exposure:
• Hives rest after pollination contracts before relocation • Residue levels are low and degrade over time
Environmental Stewardship:
• Responsible apiary management supports local pollination • Site use demonstrates agricultural compatibility with ecological goals Agenda Item #12.3.

Staff Recommendation to Council
• Staff recommends that the City Council approve the License Agreement with Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. to allow for the placement, maintenance, and inspection of honey bee hives on City-owned property at 1 Chaix Lane.

Agenda Item #12.3.

Agenda Item #12.3.

Rachel Morrison <[email protected]>
Renewal of Tauzer Apiaries lease on your city-owned property.

Judy Ahmann <[email protected]> Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 12:55 PM To: [email protected]
Cc: Tauzer Apiaries <[email protected]>
I own ranches in Napa and Solano counties, and have been working with Tauzer to have their bees on our properties for many years. We have substantial hive numbers on our properties.

Their company has treated our properties with the utmost respect over the years, while providing pollination necessary for plant reproduction, food production, and biodiversity.

It would seem to me that the City of St. Helena should applaud this, while continuing with the ability this contribution provides to the productivity of plants/people in the St. Helena area.

Your city is already ahead of the game by having Tauzer Apiaries located on city-owned property.

Make the correct decision, and renew their lease.

Judy Ann Ahmann
Ahmann Ranches
Napa, CA
Agenda Item #12.3.

Rachel Morrison <[email protected]>
Letter of Support for Tauzer Apiaries and Their Use of City-Owned Property stephen mcpherson <[email protected]> Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 8:06 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Dale and Members of the City Council,
As a business and home owner in St Helena for more than 25 years I am writing to express my strong support for Tauzer Apiaries and their continued use of the city-owned field near the wastewater treatment plant in St. Helena for the purpose of maintaining an apiary.

As a current hive host for Tauzer Apiaries, I have had a professional relationship with their team and their bees for many years. Their operation is well-managed, environmentally responsible, and conducted with a high standard of care. Their commitment to the health and well-being of honey bees contributes significantly to the agricultural ecosystem of Northern California.

Pollination services provided by commercial apiaries like Tauzer are an essential component of food production in our region. The temporary placements of their hives during off-season times are crucial for the restoration and health of their colonies. I have operated my business and home in St Helena for over 25 years.

Concerns raised by individuals who may not fully understand the role of professional beekeeping can often stem from misinformation or a lack of direct experience. In my personal experience, Tauzer Apiaries maintains a respectful relationship with landowners, ensures safety and cleanliness, and provides a vital service to both agriculture and biodiversity in our region.

I respectfully urge the City Council to support their lease renewal and recognize the value that responsible, professional beekeeping operations bring to our shared agricultural and environmental landscape.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Stephen McPherson
Steve McPherson

P R O M I S E W I N E
707-963-6053 work
707-260-9094 mobile
[email protected]
Agenda Item #12.3.

St Helena City Councilmembers:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised regarding the proposed extension of our land use license at the City’s effluent spray fields. We value this dialogue and fully understand the importance of aligning agricultural activity with ecological stewardship.

We believe this is not a matter of choosing between agriculture and environmental health. Responsible beekeeping, when conducted with care, professionalism, and scientific rigor, can and does support both. Our practices at Tauzer Apiaries reflect that commitment.

For decades, our family-run operation has managed honey bee colonies in Northern California, including over 30 years of continuous work in Napa County. We have built long standing partnerships based on trust and transparency. Our team follows strict protocols for hive health, rotation schedules, and environmental assessments, which align with industry best practices and ensure minimal disruption to surrounding ecosystems.

Concerns about pathogen spillover are valid, but they need to be framed within the available science. The article cited in opposition outlines theoretical risks but lacks real world case studies showing harm caused by well-managed, commercial apiaries. Peer reviewed literature consistently points to unmanaged or feral colonies, not regulated commercial operations, as the primary source of pathogen spillover to native pollinators. This distinction is critical. Our hives are routinely inspected, treated for disease and parasites, and managed under strict guidelines to limit biological risks.

In terms of hive density and land use, the proposed number of colonies is well within normal seasonal limits for similar environments across California. We actively adjust colony counts based on forage availability and seasonal shifts to ensure we are not placing undue stress on local resources.

We also share concerns about pesticide exposure and take them very seriously. Our policy prohibits placing hives on new sites immediately after pollination contracts without a rest period and health evaluations. While trace residues can occasionally be detected in wax or bee tissues, scientific studies have not shown these residues to persist in ways that contaminate new environments or pose risks to other pollinators. In fact, residues tend to degrade naturally over time, and honey bees are biologically equipped to metabolize many compounds during that period.

Ultimately, this site offers an opportunity to demonstrate how low-impact agricultural use of public land can support food systems, pollinator health, and responsible land stewardship. While the direct financial return to the City may be modest, the broader benefit is in strengthening the agricultural fabric of the region and modeling how working landscapes can coexist with environmental values.

We are committed to maintaining open communication and transparency throughout this process. We welcome any further questions and would be happy to share additional information about our practices, facilitate site visits or offer references from other local hive hosts.

Sincerely,
Trevor Tauzer
COO & Vice President
Tauzer Apiaries
(530) 758-0363
[email protected]
“Keeping the Buzz in Agriculture since 1973”
Agenda Item #12.3.

The Problem with Honey Bees near the St. Helena Community Forest I’ve read the staff report and all the submitted documents “in support” of the commercial beehive operation and am compelled to bring your attention to a couple of misconceptions and some misinformation that has been presented to you.

Background
The honey bee that is widely found in North America, Apis mellifera, is native to Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia. Honey bees are not at risk of extinction. In fact, it is estimated that there are more honey bees on the planet now than at any time in human history.

On the other hand, there are more than 3,600 bee species native to North America, some of which are facing a real risk of extinction. Twenty eight percent of bumble bee species in North America are considered threatened, and more than forty percent of invertebrate pollinator species (particularly bees and butterflies) may face extinction in the coming decades.

So here’s the problem. It has been shown, through scientific investigation (please see Additional Scientific Information below) that honey bees can out-compete native bees for resources like nectar and pollen, potentially leading to declines in native bee populations.

Misconceptions and Misinformation
The California State Beekeepers Association is “an organization that exists to support professional beekeepers and California’s pollination needs.” Their letter states, “We urge public land managers to consider science-based, collaborative approaches to apiary placement, balancing ecological concerns with the practical needs of agriculture.” The very real “ecological concerns” we have here are the impacts a commercial honey bee operation will have on the native bee populations in St. Helena’s Community Forest. I know many of you have visited the site and have seen the redwood trees. Just recently--and in collaboration with the NCRCD (Napa County Resource Conservation District)-- additional native plants and trees have been planted in anticipation of enhancing and supporting a biodiverse native habitat that will continue to attract native bees & insects, birds and other native animals.

The introduction of a commercial honey bee operation to that area will destroy the natural balance of that environment and impact the native pollinators.

In terms of the “practical needs of agriculture,” cited in the letter--there are none. The only agricultural product in the vicinity of the proposed location for these hives are grapes, which are self-pollinating. We do not need bees or pollinators to serve the practical needs of agriculture here. So there is no agricultural necessity in this location.

Agenda Item #12.3.

The letter from the Taucher customer is irrelevant to this decision. Yes, bees play a significant role in many agricultural products, especially almond trees…but there are no commercial almond or fruit orchards near the community forest and if there are…that’s where the hives belong. Additionally, the timing is wrong. The bees will be in St. Helena April through January…which is not when the fruit and almond trees need to be pollinated. And, as mentioned before, bees don’t play a role in pollinating grapes, which is the only agricultural product in the vicinity. Instead the honey bees will be foraging on native plants and competing with native bees and pollinators adding stress to an already stressed population.

The letter submitted from the local “hive host” is a very nice endorsement for the Tauzer operation. But, again, it is not relevant and makes some incorrect assertions. Denying this application does not in any way suggest that the city council does not recognize the “value that responsible, professional beekeeping operations bring to our shared agricultural and environmental landscape.” Rather, denying this application shows that the council understands environmental science and recognizes and appreciates the hard work and volunteer time that members of the community have committed to creating and restoring a natural and native environment.

Mr. Tauzer’s letter states that, “this site offers an opportunity to demonstrate how low-impact agricultural use of public land can support food systems, pollinator health, and responsible land stewardship.” But, responsible land stewardship is already being enacted at this location and there is no need for a commercial honey bee operation that will jeopardize that effort to demonstrate that.

What this site really offers the community and future generations is an opportunity to experience what a local, native habitat looked, smelled, sounded, and felt like (without risk of being stung by a honey bee.) That is a very rare commodity here and will also offer many recreational opportunities…..not just for the community, but for visitors, as well.

Additionally, to suggest that “the broader benefit is in strengthening the agricultural fabric of the region and modeling how working landscapes can coexist with environmental values,” is actually nonsense. If the region needs its agricultural fabric strengthened, I doubt that 100 to 200 bee hives is the answer. And what exactly are the “environmental values” he is talking about? The forest, as it is, already models how natural landscapes can coexist with environmental values. We don’t need the addition of a potentially destructive element to achieve that goal.

Honey bee colonies can be very large, with tens of thousands of individuals, and they have very efficient foraging strategies which makes them such great pollinators of almond trees. But when you put them in any other, wild, native environment, this introduced species can easily outcompete smaller native bee populations for food and threaten biodiversity.

In regards to disease transmission. I’m sure Mr. Tauzer takes great care to make sure his hives are healthy. But this doesn’t necessarily mean his bees won’t transmit diseases, which could be detrimental to native bees but not to his honey bees.

Agenda Item #12.3.

Honey bees can also impact native plant communities by preferentially foraging on certain flowers, potentially altering pollination dynamics and affecting plant reproduction and the entire natural balance we are trying to create in the community forest.

The staff report concludes that Tauzer Apiaries, Inc. has provided a detailed, science-based response to the concerns raised by the Advocates for the Community Forest.

Based on my education (BSc Zoology, MA Biology) and experience (contributing to, reading and evaluating Environmental Impact Reports over the past 40+ years) I can say quite confidently that, Tauzer’s operational standards--as good as they might be—do NOT address the impact his honeybees—which are competing for the same, limited, pollen sources—will have on the native bee population. Nor does Tauzer’s response address the ultimate effect that might have on the time, money, and resources that have already been spent to create a natural, selfsustaining, and bio-diverse habitat out by the Waste Water Treatment plant.

Are you really going to jeopardize all of the time, volunteer effort, and money spent to create a native and natural environment within our city limits for the sake of $500 a year? That makes no sense.

Indeed, honey bees are important pollinators for some crops, but not grapes. I do wish Mr.

Tauzer the best of luck in finding another more appropriate host for his commercial bee hives.

But the impacts the placement of his hives will have on the community forest are very real.

And this application should be denied.

Thank you,
Elaine de Man
Additional Scientific Information
Honey bees are “generalist” foragers. They can collect nectar and pollen from a wide variety of flowers. Native bees, especially “specialist” bees, may rely on specific plants for food. When honey bees are abundant, they can consume a significant portion of the available resources, leaving less for native bees thus threatening their survival. Sources: The Truth about Honey Bees (Tangley, L. National Wildlife 2021 June-July); Want to Save the Bees? Focus on Habitat, Not Honey Bees (Hatfield R, Shepherd M. Xerxes Society 2025 Mar 27); Bee-Ware! Which bees are you really helping? (Agar, C. Kew Botanical Gardens 2024 Mar 4) Honey bee introductions displace native bees and decrease pollination of a native wildflower. (Page ML, Williams NM. Honey bee introductions displace native bees and decrease pollination of a native wildflower. Ecology. 2023 Feb;104(2):e3939. doi: 10.1002/ecy.3939. Epub 2023 Jan

3. PMID: 36457280.)
Agenda Item #12.3.

Evidence of exploitative competition between honey bees and native bees in two California landscapes. (Page ML, Williams NM. J Anim Ecol. 2023 Sep;92(9):1802-1814. doi:

10.1111/1365-2656.13973. Epub 2023 Jun 29.PMID: 37386764) Non-native honey bees disproportionately dominate the most abundant floral resources in a biodiversity hotspot. (Hung KJ, Kingston JM, Lee A, Holway DA, Kohn JR. Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Feb 27;286(1897):20182901. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2901.PMID: 30963829) Daily fluctuations in pollination effectiveness explain higher efficiency of native over exotic bees in Lepechinia floribunda (Lamiaceae). (Baranzelli MC, Benitez-Vieyra S, Glinos E, Trenchi A, Córdoba S, Camina J, Ashworth L, Sérsic AN, Cocucci AA, Fornoni J. Ann Bot. 2020 Mar 9;125(3):509-520. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcz187.PMID: 31745546 Agenda Item #12.3.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: July 22, 2025
FROM: Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution appointing applicants to the Planning Commission

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends adopting a resolution appointing
applicants to the Planning Commission.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To fill expiring terms of office.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2025, the City Clerk's office initiated a recruitment process to solicit application from community members interested in serving on various Boards, Committees, and Commissions with terms expiring this year. The recruitment included expiring term vacancies on the Active Transportation and Sustainability Commitee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and the Library Board of Trustees. At the June 24, 2025 City Council meeting, appointments were made to the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Library Board of Trustees. The remaining appointments to be made are for the Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION:

The recruitment seeking applicants from the community to fill expiring the terms of office was concluded on June 16, 2025. The City received a total of four applications.

Per City Council Rules of Procedure appointments shall be made by interview and the Mayor shall nominate applicants with the appointments subject to approval by the majority of Council. The City Council convened an applicant interview meeting on July 15, 2025, at 4:30 pm at City Hall.

The following lists the names of the applicants:

Planning Commission

1. John Anderson

2. Michelle Covell

3. Hector Lopez

4. Federico Paragreco
Agenda Item #13.1.

Should Council decide not to appoint someone from the current applicants, staff would re-advertise the recruitment.

Applications can be viewed by request by contacting the City Clerk's office.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
GOAL:

Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution_Boards Commissions and Committees (1)
Planning Commission Application - John Anderson - 27 Jun 2025 Planning Commission Application - Michelle Covell - 27 Jun 2025 Planning Commission Application - Hector F. Lopez - 27 Jun 2025 Planning Commission Application - Federico Parlagreco - 27 Jun 2025 Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
Resolution appointing applicants to the Planning Commission.

RECITALS
A. There are expiring terms the Planning Commission
B. Applications have been received from community members for the openings. Per City Council Rules of Procedure appointments shall be made by interview and the Mayor shall nominate applicants with the appointments subject to approval by the majority of Council; and
C. The recruitment concluded on June 16, 2025. An applicant interview meeting is scheduled to be held on July 15, 2025, at 4:30 p.m.

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

Planning Commission

1. __________, and __________ are appointed to the St. Helena Planning Commission filling a four-year term expiring on June 30, 2029.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on July 22, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Council Member Summers:

Agenda Item #13.1.

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Erika Opp, Acting City Clerk Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 13, 2025
Application Type: Planning Commission
CA-25-026
NAME: John Anderson
ADDRESS: 1880 Spring Mountain Rd, Saint Helena, CA, 94574 PHONE: 7074792619
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 27 years
EMPLOYER: Alpa Omega - Tasting Host
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: I am interested in giving back to my community and help as we decide important questions that impact our collective future.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: BA: Claremont McKenna College (1984), Art History: Christie's London (1986), MBA: UC Davis (2003)
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: I managed S. Anderson Vineyard (1992-2002). I founded and managed Woodhouse Chocolate (2004-2023).

Both local business
REFERENCE 1: Name: Paul Dohring
Address:

Phone Number(s):(707) 942-1298
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Sue Furdek
Address:

Phone Number(s):(707) 738-9330
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Marcus Robbins
Address:

Phone Number(s):(707) 963-5445
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes.

What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? The Saint Helena's Planning commission considers issues relating to use permits and applications for development within the community, for the good of the community. They also help the City Council to develop future planning goals for the city.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION To serve my community utilizing decades of experience and understanding of the City's history, goals and development.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
No.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
John Stanley Anderson June 13, 2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: June 2, 2025
Application Type: Planning Commission
CA-25-020
NAME: Michelle Covell
ADDRESS: 1700 Park Street, St. Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 510 4099377
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 10 years
EMPLOYER: Covell Architects, Architect, Director of Operations EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: To help with the planning and development of the town EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: B.A. in Architecture at the school of Environmental Design at UC Berkeley, with High Honors 2003. Masters in Architecture, California College of the Arts 2006, Licensed Architect in the State of California in 2011, LEED AP 2009. Garden for the Environment, Get Up Graduate 2013. Architecture Teacher at Camp Sweeney Juvenile Hall San Leandro 2003.

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Helped Citizens in St Helena navigate the planning and building permit submittal process, and designing / remodeling homes and other projects in town for the past 10 years. Worked in San Francisco for 10 plus years, on higher education and hospitality projects, Master Planning, single family residences, and TI.

Participated in an Architects, Engineers, and Contractors Softball League for 10 plus years, captained 3 years. Lived in a Co-op in UC Berkeley for 5 years, House Manager/Kitchen Manager for 28 people (Interpersonal skills) COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: I was on the board of directors for the Napa Valley Wine Library Association, plus/minus 5 years.

REFERENCE 1: Name:Kara Smith
Address:1731 Park Street St Helena
Phone Number(s):415.254.7775
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name:Josh Stehling
Address: 917 Charter Oak St Helena
Phone Number(s): 707.501.0632
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Susan Shifflet
Address: 1424 Oak Ave St Helena
Phone Number(s):707.363.1944
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To review projects that are submitted for conformance with the code, to review other planning related items for protecting the community and character of the town, to help promote sustainable development and understanding the social impacts of the decisions made.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To help offer my area of knowledge and experience, from the citizen's standpoint, from an architect's stand point, and to be fair, just, and knowledgeable in the decision making process.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
No.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Michelle Liu Covell June 3, 2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: May 3, 2025
Application Type: Planning Commission
CA-25-017
NAME: Hector F. Lopez
ADDRESS: 1007 Charter Oak Avenue, Saint Helena, California, 94574 PHONE: 707-718-6725 Personal Cell
ALTERNATIVE PHONE: 925-200-0372 Work Cell
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 56 years - Born and raised in St. Helena EMPLOYER: Nor Cal Carpenters Union Training Committee - Apprenticeship Coordinator EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: As a native born St. Helenan I want to serve me town. I have served for 1 year as I got elected when a commissioner left before her term and I have enjoyed the process of looking at and voting on various issues according to the General Plan and what vision we want for town and residents.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Completed 4 year Carpenter's Union Apprenticeship(1999-2003) and hold my Journeyman Certificates with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters 2003 to present(UBC). Program. A.A. degree in Carpentry from American River College(2009). B.A. degree from UC Berkeley in Ethnic Studies Letters & Science (1994-1996), A.A. degree from Santa Rosa Junior College with focusing on English as Major(1990-1993). Completed courses in Construction Management from Penn State given at the International Training Center of the UBC in Las Vegas(2010-2019). OSHA 500 Certified(2018 to Present) to walk jobs and advise contractors on safety violations. Have active TWIC card(2023-2028) to visit job sites for Apprenticeship reports in Refineries and Prisons as well as Livermore Laboratory.

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: Custom home builder with the Carpenters Union for 10 years in Marin County.

Worked also building Custom Apartments in San Francisco. Over 26 years of experience with commercial and residential construction with the Carpenters Union and walking job sites in Northern California 46 counties from Visilia to Crescent City. Walked job sites for Apprenticeship reports from the High Speed Rail in Fresno to the Trans Bay & Sales Force Towers of San Francisco to the Humboldt-Cal Poly Campus Buildings in Eureka. I am a counselor and mentor to up to 5,000 apprentices going through our 11 craft Apprenticeship programs.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Member of the St. Helena Catholic Church. I participate in meetings and am looking to become member of the Native Sons of the Golden West Parlor 53.

Made a few crab feeds and meetings so far.

REFERENCE 1: Name: Daniel Villasenor
Address:1142 Hudson Avenue
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Phone Number(s):707-592-7306
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Matt Cia
Address: 1120 June Lane
Phone Number(s): 707-312-1741
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: Sean Wilson
Address: 1025A Dowdell Lane
Phone Number(s): 707-963-6404
Email:

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? Yes a few times when meetings were held for Farmstead on Charter Oak expansion of cottages. Also a few times when investors plans were being presented for the lot 1003 Charter Oak. I also have been serving a year as commissioner.

What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To properly guide all thos applying for new or remodeling construction projects in building according to the regulations of the city under the General Plan.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To work with other committee members in researching and advising on what can be accomplished in construction projects presented to us by our residents guided by the General Plan.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
Yes currently serve and was appointed on April 9, 2024 and have been serving St. Helena for a year.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? As a 26 plus year member of the Carpenter's Union I pride myself with building properly according to construction standards and believe in quality of product over quantity for longevity and I believe my construction experience can give valuable insight as to what I my decisions when approving or disapproving a project. I also speak Spanish fluently and because I grew up in St. Helena I know all the Latino areas residents live at and I am willing to try and let that often silent community understand and participate on important city matters. I would be honored if I am selected to continue to serve the Planning Commission and look forward to work with the team of commissioners in coming up with solutions that satisfy both our beautiful city and the residents seeking to build in St. Helena.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Hector Fernando Lopez May 3, 2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: May 19, 2025
Application Type: Planning Commission
CA-25-019
NAME: Federico Parlagreco
ADDRESS: 1734 Tainter Street, St. Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 6282329532
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 9 yrs.

EMPLOYER: Sotheby's International Realty
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: I believe the Planning Commission plays a vital role in shaping the character and quality of life in our city. As someone who works closely with residents, developers, and city policies on a daily basis, I understand the importance of balancing growth with preservation, and innovation with community values.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Master of Science in International Business, Bachelor's Degree in Economics OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: As a top-producing real estate agent with years of experience in local residential and commercial markets, I bring a deep understanding of land use, zoning, and development. I’ve worked closely with buyers, sellers, developers, and city staff on projects ranging from single-family homes to high-value properties, including a recent $9.6 million hotel transaction in Calistoga where I represented the buyers.

This has given me practical insight into how planning decisions affect neighborhoods and the broader community. I stay actively informed on local planning policies and understand both the technical and human sides of growth and development.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Adventist Health - contribution to the community table event, UpValley family centers - volunteered support, Cooked for the common table dinner at the St.

Helena Catholic church.

REFERENCE 1: Name: Arthur Goodrich
Address: 1377 Main St. STE 1
Phone Number(s): 415 735 8779
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: John Thompson
Address: 1626 Tainter St.

Phone Number(s): 707 225 2383
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 3: Name: David Walker
Address: 197 Zinfandel Ln
Phone Number(s): 310 6257009
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item #13.1.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? I regularly attend various meetings involving different departments What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? Essentially, the Commission serves as a gatekeeper for how land is used and developed in the city. I see it as both a technical and community-focused body—one that ensures projects align with city policy, while also considering neighborhood impact, aesthetics, functionality, and public input. It's a position of public trust, and I understand the importance of making decisions that are fair, transparent, and rooted in the best interest of the city as a whole.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
I’m committed to bringing a balanced, informed, and community-focused perspective to the Planning Commission.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Federico Parlagreco May 19, 2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Letter of Rec
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 12:43:51 PM
From: Claire Pott <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2025 1:24 AM
To: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission
I am pleased to recommend Michelle for a position on our Planning Commission.

I have known Michelle for over ten years and got to see her professionalism firsthand when she worked on my winery construction project. She was incredibly knowledgeable about all the complex factors involved in the construction, but was also very articulate and able to explain all the steps in the process clearly to a lay person such as myself. She was also always available to answer questions and had suggestions that brought many improvements and cost savings into the project.

Her deep understanding of zoning, infrastructure, and the unique needs of St.

Helena surely makes her exceptionally well-suited for this role.

I have no doubt that Michelle will contribute valuable insight and dedicated service to the planning commission. I recommend her without reservation.

Sincerely,
Claire Pott
Pott Wine
7073633284
_______________________
Claire Pott
Pott Wine
"Milk is for babies"
C: (707) 363-3284
Agenda Item #13.1.

July 14, 2025
City Council of St. Helena
St. Helena City Hall
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA
Dear Council Members,
I’ve lived in St. Helena for 25+ years and appreciate your service to our city. Thank you.

Kindly please know I wholeheartedly recommend Michelle Covell to serve on our city’s Planning Commission.

I’ve enjoyed knowing & working with her for 10+ years. She would bring experience to the planning commission with her architectural background and knowledge of planning and building. She is an excellent communicator, always a problem solver, has great drive and a positive approach.

Please consider my recommendation of Michelle for this position.

Sincerely,
Claudia Schmidt
1939 Vineyard Avenue
St. Helena, CA

Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: Letter in strong support of Michelle Liu for Planning Commissioner Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 12:41:47 PM
From: Dana Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2025 5:16 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Letter in strong support of Michelle Liu for Planning Commissioner July 13, 2025
To the St. Helena City Councilmembers:

I am writing this letter in strong and enthusiastic support of Michelle Liu, who has applied to join the St. Helena Planning Commission.

Michelle is a highly respected and talented architect, and she and her husband run a successful and esteemed architecture firm here in St. Helena. She is, therefore, supremely qualified to understand and assess proposed new projects and remodels, and will bring the perspective of both a trained and experienced architect and someone with boots-on-theground, as she works daily with the City’s code and requirements.

I have known and admired Michelle for many years as a friend and community member. She is a highly intelligent and thoughtful person who actively participates, both individually and with her family, in our community. She cares deeply about our City and I know she will be a highly capable and dedicated Planning Commissioner.

We are incredibly lucky to have a person with her combination of applicable professional skills, intelligence, and commitment as an applicant for the Planning Commission. I strongly encourage you to choose Michelle Liu as a Planning Commissioner this Tuesday so that we can all benefit from the significant skills, experience and perspective that she will bring to the Commission.

If you have any questions or want to discuss Michelle's candidacy further, please feel free to reach out to me via email.

Sincerely,
Dana Johnson
Agenda Item #13.1.

2294 Boyson Lane
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.738.8942
[email protected]
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Elizabeth
To: Michelle Deasy; Paul Dohring; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; Erika Opp Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Michelle Covell for Planning Commission
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 2:58:39 PM
To the Saint Helena City Council,
I am writing to give my highest recommendation for Michelle Covell as a candidate for the Planning Commission.

With her intelligence and experience, Michelle is an asset to our community. Michelle is an involved and caring resident, business owner and family woman. She is meticulously detail oriented while still being able to see the 'big picture'. Michelle is extremely creative and will provide new ideas to tackle the many issues overseen by the Planning Commission. She will bring a much needed, balanced view to meetings and is ready to connect directly with fellow residents regarding their concerns.

I fully support Michelle Covell for Planning Commission and steward of our community.

Elizabeth Anne Clough
Full-time Saint Helena Resident and Small Business Owner 707-344-7788
Agenda Item #13.1.

Jul 12, 2025
City of St. Helena Planning Commission
1088 College Ave
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing to provide my strongest recommendation for Michelle Covell’s appointment to the Planning Commission. As a fellow architect who has worked alongside Michelle for years and known her professionally for over a decade, I can speak with confidence about her exceptional qualifications and unwavering commitment to excellence.

Michelle’s architectural background provides her with a deep understanding of land use, zoning regulations, and the complex interplay between development and community needs.

Throughout our collaboration, she has consistently demonstrated the ability to balance competing interests, think critically about complex issues, and make well-reasoned decisions that serve the public good.

What sets Michelle apart is her collaborative nature and communication skills. She has a talent for bringing diverse stakeholders together, listening to different perspectives, and finding common ground. Her experience navigating the development process, combined with her genuine commitment to thoughtful community planning, makes her an ideal candidate for this position.

I am confident that Michelle will bring the same level of dedication and excellence to the Planning Commission that she has brought to her architectural work. Her appointment would be a tremendous asset to your commission and the community you serve.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information about Michelle’s qualifications or character.

Sincerely,
Best regards,
Heather Wright Foye | Principal Architect

WRIGHT ARCHITECTURE
632 Manuel T. Freitas Pkwy, San Rafael, CA 94903
415.686.3984 | wright-arch.com
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Jennifer Risher
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Michelle Liu for Planning Commission
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 5:27:08 AM
Hello,
I would like to recommend Michelle Liu for a position on the Planning Commission.

We’ve worked with Michelle and her husband Chuck since 2018. They’ve been our architects for a significant remodel on Kearney Street as well as a new home on Pine Street — and we’ve enjoyed the process and are thrilled with the results.

Michelle’s vision, creativity and willingness to jump in and problem solve truly impressed me from the start. She has proven to have an excellent eye and passion for finding solutions to constraints and problems. In all that she does, whether as an architect or a gardener, Michelle puts her whole self into a project.

While she has great vision, Michelle’s true strength is her attention and her precision. She is personally involved and dedicated to ensuring everything is considered and every detail is correct.

St. Helena needs the expertise and passion Michelle brings to everything she does. We strongly vouch for adding her to the Planning Commission.

Jennifer & David Risher
1459 Kearney Street
1515 Pine Street
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Jesse Clifton
To: Michelle Deasy; Paul Dohring; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; Erika Opp Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Michelle Covell for Planning Commission
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 5:10:01 PM
To the St. Helena City Council,
I am writing to give my full support and recommendation for Michelle Covell as a candidate for the Planning Commission.

I met Michelle and her Husband Charles shortly after they moved into the Park St./Crinella neighborhood. Over the years we have had many conversations. Michelle engages with everyone in the neighborhood. I've watched Michelle and Charles' house turn into a home and the yard transform into a comfortable and inviting place to gather. Michelle is a dedicated mother and Wife. She is a caregiver too. Michelle is energetic and driven. When she puts her mind to a goal she is unstoppable. Her background and experience as an architect in St.

Helena helping many different clients navigate through the planning process makes her perfect for this job. I believe that she would help bring a balanced vision to the planning commission. Her creativity, passion and care for the city and especially the people here is clear.

Please appoint Michelle Covell to the Planning Commission.

Sincerely,
Jesse Clifton
1745 Crinella Drive
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Jim Fassio (Corporate Executive)
To: Erika Opp
Cc: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers Subject: Michelle Liu Covell -Letter of Recommendation for Vacant Planning Commissioner Seat Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 1:31:11 PM
Erika Opp - Administrative
[email protected]
Dear City of St. Helena,
I have had the pleasure of working with Michelle bi-weekly for over a year now and can say with confidence that the City of St. Helena would be fortunate to have someone of her caliber serving the community. Her dedication, thoughtfulness, and integrity make her exceptionally well-suited to help guide the City through meaningful, lasting decisions that will positively impact its future.

Michelle is a thoughtful listener who seeks first to understand others’ perspectives before forming an opinion or making a decision. She approaches challenges with logic and fairness and has the persistence to see difficult tasks through—often when others would step away. She is committed to upholding the rules while remaining open to rational adjustments when unique situations call for thoughtful exceptions.

Michelle and her husband, both architects, have lived in St. Helena for the past ten years. Their 5-year-old son attends public school, and they are deeply invested in the community’s long-term success. Their architectural background gives them a strong appreciation for design, functionality, and planning—paired with a shared belief in putting the community’s interests first.

Michelle is a forward-thinking individual who will push for progress and avoid unnecessary delays in decision-making. She understands that real people are affected when cities hesitate to act or allow personal interests to hinder the right course of action.

Her story is one of perseverance and purpose: the daughter of immigrant parents, raised in East Oakland, a UC Berkeley graduate in Architecture, and holder of a Master’s in Architecture from CCAC San Francisco. She has built both a family and a business in St.

Helena—and she brings that same drive and passion to everything she does.

If I were building a team, Michelle is exactly the kind of person I’d want on it.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Respectfully submitted,
Jim Fassio
Former President & Chief Development Officer
Current Senior Advisor
Ross Stores, Inc.

Dublin, CA.

CC:

Paul Dohring - Mayor
Michelle Deasy - Vice Mayor
Aaron Barak - City Council
Kate Spadarotto - City Council
Billy Summers - City Council
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: John Harrington
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Michelle Covell - A Recommendation For Her To Become Apart of The St. Helena Planning Commission Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 10:09:36 AM
Ms. Opp,
My name is John Harrington and I have lived and worked here in St. Helena for the past 24 years. I recently learned that my friend Michelle Covell is running to be a member of the St. Helena Planning Commission and hope whole heartedly that she gets the position. I have known Michelle for approximately fourteen years and know that no matter what the position, I trust her and want her representing my town. Why… because Michelle has tremendous integrity. Michelle is smart, hard working, listens and cares about people.

To top it all off, Michelle is a very successful local architect and understands how Planning Commission decisions will affect our community.

Sincerely,
John Harrington
Agenda Item #13.1.

Kara Smith
(41s)2s4-777s[_h j]sqn-qL-el_@sn_ai!".q-qlr
L731 Park Street, St. Helena, CA94574
July L4,2025
City of St. Helena
1088 College Ave., St. Helena, CA94574
To Whom lt May Concern:

I am writing to recommend Michelle Covell to the City Planning Commission of St. Helena.

Michelle's care for our community and wanting the best for its residents is apparent in her involvement in many aspects. She is an advocate for the future success of our community and making St. Helena a place where residents can feel heard and their ideas and concerns are treated with respect. Michelle is detail oriented and is dedicated to follow through until the job is done and it done right.

A specific example I can share that highlights her dedication to follow and concern for our citizens is the speed limit traffic sign going Northbound on Highway 29 (between Fulton and Crinella). For many years, the sign stated 35 miles/ hour going Northbound, while the speed limit Southbound was 25 miles/ hour.

Given the concerns for safety to cross the street at multiple intersections where there were discrepancies in the speed based on direction of travel, and the overall concern for safety at 35 miles/ hour in a highly residential area, Michelle worked directly with California Highway Patrol to match the speed limit going Northbound to Z5 miles/ hour. This was not as easy a task as one might think. lt took multiple follow-ups with the Highway Patrol to advocate for the cause. Once they approved the change from 35 to 25 miles per hour Northbound, she made sure that the sign was updated as quickly as possible. This small but mighty change benefits our community's children walking to schools, adults walking their dogs and even hotelguests staying at the Alila who are contributing to our taxes and local businesses. Michelle was able to navigate the red tape and was dedicated to seeing this executed over the many months from start to finish.

Agenda Item #13.1.

This is how Michelle would tackle any project she is faced with. As a business owner and someone who lives in the town with her husband and child, she wants to see this community thrive and be a place where we are all proud to live for years to come. She is hard working and willing to put allthe time and effort into what is required for this position. Her background as an architect provides tremendous insight on building and designing spaces that are functional and maximizing any amount of space, large or small.

Michelle is always open to hearing different opinions and is someone who is fair. We would all benefit long-term from Michelle's contributions in this position.

Best regards,
-K- a.,^"
Kara Smith, St. Helena Resident
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Kelleen Sullivan
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Letter of recommendation for Michelle Covell
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:30:32 AM
To the City Council,
My name is Kelleen Sullivan. I grew up on Galleron Road, on the south end of St. Helena and I live within the city limits at this time. I am writing to you to recommend Michelle Covelle for the Planning Commission.

Michelle lives around the corner from me and I have been profoundly impressed by her dedication to our community. She has a drive and determination to learn everything about community issues and planning commission codes that affect our town and residents. She is highly intelligent and is interested to listen, research and organize issues and has been able to clarify and summarize issues for our small neighborhood.

I would highly recommend Michelle Covell and feel she would be an asset to the planning commission team.

Thank you for your time,
Kelleen Sullivan
1751 Crinella DR., St. Helena, CA
Sent from my iPad
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Pierette Titus
To: Erika Opp
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Recommendation Letter for Planning Commissioner Candidate, Michelle Covell Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 2:11:26 PM
> On Jul 14, 2025, at 12:05 PM, Pierette Titus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Members of the St. Helena City Council:
>
> I am writing to strongly recommend Michelle Covell, for a position on the St. Helena Planning Commission. I have had the pleasure of knowing Michelle since she moved to our neighborhood in 2017, and I can confidently speak to her civic-mindedness and commitment to thoughtful community development. >
> Michelle is an architect with deep expertise in design and land use, perpectives that are essential to well-informed planning decisions. She also maintains a passion for sustainable living, expressed through her work as an exceptional gardener. She is incredibly generous with her garden bounty, often sharing expertise and produce with neighbors, which reflects her spirit of community and generosity. >
> Recently, Michelle brought awareness to a proposed city policy change that would redefine the maximum allowable building floor area to include covered porches. Her proactive outreach helped the community understand how this change could disproportionally impact small- to moderately- sized homes with future expansion plans. Her ability to clearly communicate the implications of this policy demonstrated her technical insight and her dedication to equitable planning.
>
> Michelle’s husband, Charles, her son Issac, and their dog Coco, are all deeply embedded in the fabric of our community. Michelle is warm with a natural ability to bring people together, paired with her architectural background, strong understanding of planning issues, makes her an ideal candidate for this role. >
> I strongly support Michelle Covell’s candidacy and am confident that she would serve the Planning Commission with diligence, fairness and thoughtful leadership.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Pierette Titus
>
>
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: FW: Letter of recommendation - Michelle Covell for Planning Commissioner St Helena Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10:01:55 AM
Hi Erika,
This one was sent and I don’t see your email CC’ed, I just wanted to make sure it gets onto the agenda.

Thank you, MLC
From: Agnessa Todorova <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 6:35 AM
To: Paul Dohring <[email protected]>; Michelle Deasy <[email protected]>; Aaron Barak <[email protected]>; Kate Spadarotto <[email protected]>; Billy Summers <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of recommendation - Michelle Covell for Planning Commissioner St Helena To the Members of the St. Helena City Council
I am writing with great enthusiasm to recommend Michelle Covell for a seat on the St.

Helena Planning Commission.

As a licensed California architect and CEO of Outer Labs, I’ve had the privilege of working alongside some of the most values-driven professionals in the built environment. Michelle is one of the most exceptional.

We met in graduate school for architecture, became licensed architects together, and have supported one another through every stage of our careers. Her dedication to design, planning, and public service is truly inspiring. What sets Michelle apart is not just her professional expertise but her deep commitment to the character, health, and longterm vitality of her community.

Her recent article in the St. Helena Star is just one example of how she approaches complex planning topics with clarity, integrity, and a sincere desire to engage residents in respectful, informed dialogue. She is thoughtful, analytical, and always focused on outcomes that reflect the shared values of St. Helena—preserving its unique charm while ensuring it remains a safe, livable, and thriving place for families and future generations.

I know the City Council and Planning Commission are entrusted with balancing growth, stewardship, and community well-being—a responsibility that requires not only Agenda Item #13.1.

technical understanding but also deep empathy and a collaborative spirit. Michelle brings all of that and more. She listens deeply, builds consensus, and leads with care.

Her voice would be a powerful, thoughtful addition to the Planning Commission at a time when inclusive, forward-thinking perspectives are more important than ever.

St. Helena is a special place—and I can think of no one better equipped to help protect and shape its future.

I offer my full support for Michelle Covell’s appointment and would be honored to provide any further insight if needed.

Sincerely,
Agnessa Todorova
CEO, Outer Labs
--
Agnessa Todorova, NCARB, AIA, LEED AP
Architect | CEO
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Andrea Jane York
To: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Kate Spadarotto; Aaron Barak; Billy Summers; Erika Opp Subject: Planning Commissioner Recommendation
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 10:59:23 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
It has come to my attention that Michelle Liu is running for Planning Commissioner. I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to share why I think she is perfect for this position. I grew up in St. Helena in the house my great-great-grandfather built. I returned to my childhood home in 2021. Michelle and I connected soon after, initially through our mutual love of gardening. We’re also around the same age and both have sons around the same age.

As I’ve gotten to know Michelle, I’ve been awed by her many talents, skills and work ethic.

Whether she’s in the garden, caring for her son or at her desk, no one I know works harder than her. She brings an unmatched presence and finesse to everything she does. It’s been humbling for me to witness but she does it all with humility and a sense of community, not competition. She uplifts everyone around her. She’s generous with her knowledge and the bounty of her incredible garden. She’s truly an inspiring person I’m so grateful to call a friend.

I know what being a Planning Commissioner takes. My dad was a Planning Commissioner and the Chairman of the Planning Commission for many years when I was growing up. I recall all the evenings spent preparing for meetings, studying the materials and his attention to all the details. I know Michelle possesses the dedication and diligence to serve our community in this capacity. I hope she is given the opportunity to do so.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrea Jane York
Agenda Item #13.1.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for Michelle Lui in her candidacy for the City Planner’s Office of St. Helena. As a longtime resident, active community member, and dedicated mother, Michelle brings a rare and invaluable perspective to city planning—one rooted in care, collaboration, and a deep understanding of how policy directly impacts families and the future of our town.

Her long-standing career as an architect across several cities also brings a uniquely qualified lens to this role.

I have had the pleasure of working alongside Michelle during my time as a T-Ball coach, and I can say with confidence that she approaches every challenge with empathy, intelligence, grace, and a strong sense of civic responsibility. Without hesitation, she stepped in every time my co-coach was unavailable, leading practices and games with confidence and kindness.

Michelle has an exceptional ability to listen, synthesize diverse viewpoints, and offer thoughtful, forward-thinking solutions—qualities that are absolutely essential in a planning role.

What truly sets Michelle apart is her lived experience. As a mother, she brings an intimate awareness of how planning decisions affect everything from walkability and school access to green spaces and housing. She is deeply committed to making St. Helena a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable community—not just for today’s residents, but for generations to come.

With her strong work ethic, collaborative mindset, and genuine passion for our town’s well-being, Michelle will be a tremendous asset to the City Planner’s Office.

I wholeheartedly endorse her candidacy and encourage you to support her with your vote.

And if you need one last reason? Just look at her tomatoes—they’re beyond perfect. Any gardener knows the dedication, time, and love that go into growing a tomato like that.

Sincerely,
Andrea Minoo
Couch and new friend
415-571-7043
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Beth Cook
To: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Kate Spadarotto; Aaron Barak; Billy Summers; Erika Opp Subject: Recommendation for Michelle Covell - Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 12:45:26 PM
Dear Council Members of St Helena,
I would like to send my enthusiastic recommendation of Michelle Covell for St Helena Planning Commission.

I've known Michelle Covell for over five years as a neighbor, fellow mother, and friend and can't imagine there is someone who cares more about this community and its success than her.

She has done an incredible job enhancing the safety, beauty, and community of our neighborhood and beyond. Just a few of the many things she's done: advocating for nearby speed limit signage, adding crosswalk signage/flags at our neighborhood entryway, creating community spirit by making neighbor introductions between existing neighbors, welcoming new neighbors, creating a neighborhood contact list (helpful for fire events and power outages), and hosting fruit and vegetable swaps.

I can't imagine our neighborhood without Michelle; it truly would not be the same inclusive place buzzing with enthusiasm, kindness and camaraderie! Our city would be in wonderful, capable hands with her on the Planning Commission.

Thank you for your time,
Beth Cook
Beth Cook
Director

PROMISE
707.690.2289
[email protected]
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Public comment - for item 13.1 - Tuesday 22nd Planning Commissioner Personal Statement Date: Friday, July 18, 2025 11:28:23 AM
Attachments: image002.png
(This was my speech I had prepared for the City Council interview on Tuesday the 15th. It was a public mtg held in City Hall, there is no video, as it was in a meeting room without videoing capabilities, however I would like anyone who is interested to be able to read what I had prepared.) Please post for public comment to item 13.1 – My personal statement for applying for Planning Commissioner.
_______________________
Good afternoon members of the city council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Michelle Liu Covell. I’ve been a resident of St. Helena for the past ten years.

I met my now husband serendipitously at the bar at Farmstead, two architects geeked out on terra cotta tile details of the 1926 historic skyscraper my office was rehabilitating at the time as it laid empty for many years. He is who brought me here to St Helena.

We own a home in the Crinella neighborhood. Our five-year-old son was born at the St. Helena Hospital and attends public school here. This is our home, our only home, and we are fully invested in this community.

I graduated with High Honors in Architecture at UC Berkeley’s College of Environmental Design and received a Master in Architecture from CCAC. I am a LEED accredited professional – since 2009, (Leadership in Energy and Environmental design). I earned my Architects license in 2011 before I turned 30. I am a GET Up Grad from the Garden for the Environment, an organic farming program in San Francisco. For a summer, I taught a design studio at a juvenile hall for teenage boys 14 to 18—a role that showed me how design has the power to connect and inspire people. Many of the students couldn’t read or write, but I graduated the most students the program had ever graduated in one class, and they received scholarships for their education. I have been part of the AIA SF mentorship program for many years, I have captained softball teams for an Architects, Engineers, and Contractors league in SF. I was a house manager and kitchen manager during my undergrad days at a co-op in Berkeley. I was team captain of the tennis team in high school.

Professionally, I’ve worked on diverse commercial and residential architectural projects for the last 20 years in multiple jurisdictions in the Bay Area. I help guide clients through complex planning and permitting processes (which are ever changing) while keeping their goals front and center. Some projects have even earned design awards.

Born and raised in the Bay Area, in a low-income household in Oakland, I remember the bars on my bedroom window—they were meant for safety, a way to keep people out. I tried to change the way it looked by using black glue and paint to create a stained-glass window.

As a 5-year-old kid, I remember lying in bed, thinking: what if there was a fire? How would I get out? I planned elaborate escapes.

That moment stayed with me, questioning the design of something that was just “accepted” as Agenda Item #13.1.

normal. It taught me that just because something exists a certain way, doesn’t mean it’s right—or that it can’t be improved.

Throughout my career, one of the biggest lessons I’ve learned is that: respect and listening go a long way. Being able to hear people out and work through tension without escalation is a skill I’ve carried with me.

When I first moved here, to live with my partner, I left my friends, my network, my community that I had spent cultivating for many years. I was really scared. He has his friends in town, and I wasn’t quite sure how I was going to make new friends here. Someone asked me to play tennis, introductions were made, and quickly I was adopted into the USTA Crane park tennis team. I also played Bocce and we all know how that goes. I took pottery classes at Nimbus Arts and fell in love with clay, as well as the supportive artist community we have here. We got a dog, and that pretty much sealed the deal on meeting people. When I was pregnant and walking around my circle over and over to get some exercise, I met a lot of people who enjoyed watching my belly grow. And when my son was born, I’d stroll him around, I realized then that I had again cultivated a beautiful village of friends.

Why I applied.

The beauty and character of St Helena comes NOT ONLY from the built environment, but from the people who make this such a supportive welcoming community. It’s how we help each other during stressful events like the fires and covid. It’s how we celebrate with each other at the pet parade and harvest festival. It’s when my son – at 11 months old, during covid, had to have brain surgery, and my neighbors came to support us, decorated our door when we returned from the hospital, bringing us food, and words of support and comfort.

Over the past several years, I’ve tried my best to stay engaged with what’s happening in our town— whether through city newsletters, town hall discussions at the Cameo, or simply through conversations with friends and neighbors. One thing has become very clear to me: we are part of an incredibly smart, thoughtful, and deeply caring community. People here want the best for this town—and they’re paying attention.

I know how fortunate we are to live in Saint Helena. In taking my son to school, watching kids play so carefree, I see in their smiling faces our future. We need to make this town a place where they want to stay and raise their own families and continue the traditions.

That’s why I’ve applied to serve on the Planning Commission.

I want to contribute to the thoughtful work of addressing the complex challenges we face—many of which have been inherited from decisions made in the past. I have met with all of you now and am proud to have you as our council. You are an intelligent caring group and I think we share many of these skills that I have to offer.

Critical Thinking: I have experience breaking down complex problems and turning them into clear, actionable steps.

Communication: I know how to have productive, respectful conversations—even when Agenda Item #13.1.

perspectives differ. It’s about listening, not ego.

Deep Listening: I take time to really hear what others are saying, and I aim to understand them before forming my own opinion.

Problem Solving: I approach challenges by looking at them from multiple angles to find balanced, effective solutions.

Objectivity: In my profession, I’ve had to coordinate large teams with very different areas of expertise. That’s taught me how to stay objective and focused on shared goals.

Macro and Micro Thinking: I enjoy zooming in on the details, but I also know how to step back and see the broader picture. I think about today and ten years from now, the forest amongst the trees.

Real-World Understanding of Code: I work in that critical space where policies meet the built environment. I understand how code affects real people—and I know how to bridge the gap between those who write it and those who live with it.

Planning for the future means we have to embrace a certain level of uncertainty. It asks us to look back at where we've come from, understand our history, and make space for change—without losing what makes this town so special.

I believe that’s why so many people care so deeply. We want to protect the soul of St. Helena.

Through thoughtful, honest analysis—and by engaging with the community—we can better understand what’s working, what’s not, and chart a more balanced, inclusive path forward.

So I offer my help.

Thank you
Michelle Liu Covell
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #13.1.

From: Mimi Martin Katz
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Reference for Michelle Covell
Date: Monday, July 21, 2025 8:39:27 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to show my support and appreciation for Michelle Covell, who is running for the planning commission position.

I’ve known Michelle since she moved into our neighborhood almost a decade ago. She is a well loved member of our community. Hard working and caring, she is driven by her enthusiasm to create, whether it be designing and building a coop, or her intense passion for the details of each step of the seasonal process of her vegetable garden, she is a generous beloved addition to our neighborhood.

After speaking with her about her no- nonsense vision for our city. I am most confident that her values reflect that of a young perspective; one that unites our neighbors, honors and respects our traditions and understands the need for growth in a balanced way that supports the families committed to making our future town safer and better.

I truly believe in her ability to bring her professional experience and action-oriented abilities to the planning commission, and I know she will bring a strong voice for the people who really live and work in St. Helena.

Thank you for your time.

Most sincerely,
Mimi Martin-Katz
Proprietor
Panevino
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #13.1.