!
"
#
$%&
#
&
"
'
"
(
&
#
)
(
*+
,
-.
*+
-.
/
/
0"
1
/
23
#
1
#
*+
21
3
&
*+
&
&
"
*+
456789:;<6=>?6@7A6<56B;<:B7C8D;9784C6>EF:FA6G H6><;8I468<F<;J6KFLG<5;>F997M><5657=6><7?6>79ENF><56E6>;I8A6J;6MOE6=79;<;78L6A=;<F997M>FPQRC8;< =C9<;@F=;9:@7ARA68<LA7S6D<<7?6?C;9<N?C<E76>87<F997M@7A<56>F967@;8E;J;ECF9C8;<>T UF<6AV6C<AF9;<:W8RX;6CY66A6ZC6><
[ &
YCA<56AD9FA;@;DF<;7878JFA;7C><7L;D>;887LFA<;DC9FA7AE6AG
\;><7A;D]6>7CAD6^JF9CF<;78_=77<F>FLL6F9L6A;7EF>9FL>6EN?C<@7A;8@7A=F<;78F9LCAL7>6>`G B78ECD<6E?:7867@<56V7A<5aF:b>=7><DA6E;?96F8EA6>L6D<6E5;><7A;D6cL6A<>_F9>7D6A<;@;6E?:<56d<F<67@ BF9;@7A8;F<7FC<57A5;><7A;DA6>7CAD66JF9CF<;78>`
456A6L7A<;>M699RA6>6FAD56EN6c5FC><;J6F8E<57A7CI5F8ED78D9CE6E=FS7AA687JF<;78><7<5657=6;8<56QePf>R Qegf>hD5F8I6E<56LA7L6A<:>7=CD5<5F<;<87978I6AA6<F;8>687CI5L5:>;DF9;8<6IA;<:<7D78J6:;<>Qe<5D68<CA:
7A;I;8>F8EF>>7D;F<;78M;<5i758jA66ANdATk
l>FA6>C9<N<5657=6;>87<5;><7A;DF99:>;I8;@;DF8<
mnopqoqooprsto jA7M<5KF8FI6=68<d:><6=
d<F<69FM>CL6A>6E6>F97DF9hIA7M<5=F8FI6=68<>:><6=k uvwwxE76>87<F997MhIA7M<5=F8FI6=68<kDFL> dL6D;@;DF99:ggyffTzT?TQTEG{|}~~~
}~~}
}~~~}
}}~
}~}~
~}~~
}~}
~
}}
~}~~}
}~}}~~}~}}~~ {~}~}}~~~} }}~~
~}}}}~
~}
&
*+
!
(
!
*
opor n¡¢s£p¢p¤¡ ¤pnp£¥¦onn§oq¡prn qo¥¢o¨ qo©ª«¬®¯°®±²®³´±ª´´³²µ¯¶³´¯®·¸¹ª¸¸³º°µ»µ¸³¶¼µ´²²½ª²®²±ª´´³² ¯ª¾µ¸¹ª´°µ¸®ª·¸¹¯µ»µ¿Àoo¡oqpÁo on¥np£ÂpÂo £Ã£ ¤ ¢pn¤s¥oÄmst ¥o¥oo qpn £Å¡sÁ £o £Ás¨p¡ s£oÂp¥ £Â¡o Æpn Ás£ pÇo s£pnÈp¡oÉpn ¡Æs£¡snÊsp¥ËÌÍÎÏÏÐÑÒÓÔÍÕÖ×ÔÑÑØÑÙÍÚÛÍÜÝÞßàáâÓÎÔãÏÓÔäåæàçÔÑèÎÍÑãÍÓééêëÕ ëãÏìííîïîðñòóóôõöóðîòñðïðï ñï
îïô
ðí í
òïðòï
òï óóòñòóôîîòòîóòöóîñïïò
ðï
ð-
qs¤p£¢np £nqooq £ÂÁs¦p¥pq Á¦opoqs¨os¦ ££s¨pn¡ ¨oq3s£s¡o q¡ £Â £ ¤nopno¡ps¥ £p¤s£¥ ¡ s£q £s £Ápq¡¤¡o
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"
#
$
%
%
%
& '
(
'
)*+,-./,01
23,4/05,/*+607,,0*38649+0,.75.:.005,;,8*33*384/05,<+4=,66>.6>*0505,-0?@,A,3.)*+,B,<.+07,30C>, >4+D,:048,05,+04,369+,05,<+4E,=0*66./,.3:05,15.F,.<<+4F,:05,6*0,<A.3.3:=43/*+7,:05,<+4E,=0=47<A*,6G *3=A9:*38A.::,+.==,660405,05*+:604+1?
H5,<+4E,=0=47<A*,6>*0505,IJIKLMNMOPQROSTUOG6<,=*/*=.AA1V<<,3:*WBG-,=0*43BXJYZ[9A0*<A,\).7*A1],6*:,30*.A B,F,A4<7,306^_.6,=43:`.<<+4F,:/*+,.<<.+.096.==,66+4.:*643A1+,a9*+,:*/05,<+4E,=05.674+,05.3XJJ93*06? b3.::*0*43G05,<+4E,=0>*AA5.F,05,5*85,60A,F,A64//*+,6./,01G*3=A9:*38.c)dVXe/9AA6<+*3DA,:6160,7
f,3,+.AdA.3G@496*38gA,7,30GB,36*01h.A=9A.0*436GB4>3i43*38G-9;:*F*6*43[.<V=0 c40,j05,@496*38gA,7,30*6.=47<43,304/05,f,3,+.AdA.3C=47<A1*38>*0505,@496*38gA,7,30*6=47<A1*38>*05 05,f,3,+.AdA.3
H5,f,3,+.AdA.3*6.F*6*43:4=97,30C74+,B,=A.+.0*434/b3:,<,3:,3=,05.305,h4360*090*43 -keeJ+,a9*+,6Z4;E,=0*F,^+,F*,>+.05,+05.3Z69;E,=0*F,^+,F*,>_>5,31496.1Z;,.901*65.+:,+04:,/,3:05.3 397;,+6^_05.0*6>5.005,60.0,>.60+1*3804,A*7*3.0,G69;E,=0*F*01C>5.0*6;,.90*/9A04647,43,7.1340;,04 647,43,,A6,
l
(
m
(
#
n o
&
$ %
p
q
r
n
s
tuvw$
l
p
qx
'
! y
s
z
{
'
|
}
lrm
!
"
H5*6A,:0405,=+,.0*434/-0?@,A,3.~6Z2;E,=0*F,B,6*83-0.3:.+:6^<.66,:*3IJIe>*05>5*=505,<+4E,=0/9AA1 =47<A*,6
¡¡
¡
¢£¢¤
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"
#$
$%
&
$
'
$
(
$$
$
$$
)
)
*
+$$)
$
(
,$
+
$
$
$$
$
+
)
$
)
+
#$
*
(
-
./
001$
)
$
)
$
#$
$$
(
234456789:;<=>4?@@5AB<?@?44<7A?B8<A<C6D5C>:E9779@F5G<CH8<F?88IC<JK9C<=7C54<=KC<:L M
+
)
N
M$
$
3:O;?G<:A?A<=P?@=A;<<G9=<@4<7C5G9=<=P=5<:@5A:K775CAA;?A?::<CA95@ QRSTUVTWXYZ[\YZXYZ[]Y^_]S\_Y[`UYWXRa[TWRUSXYZ[WZ^[
!
bM
#$
*
++
c
+
!
bM
M,%./d!e'(ff1
g
)
h
ih
j
M
*
))
(
-
#$
$
(
klmnopqrmstuvwsxwyvsunzw{wnm|}w~v$*
)
.
++$
$(1e
$$
$
#$
%
.&
1
)f
%.
++$1
.%
1
)'
+
+%e
)
)
+('(
(
k$
)
e(%
+
)
)
+
g
)
c$%&.$
+$
k
)1
Mef
#
+
$
+
w
wpsw|msvno~wwsw1+
)((
%'
.
)
+e(f1
$
.no~wwsw1
$
+
.
g
)1$
)
)(
+
)
(
k
$
urvwnotuvwsvyq
j
ee%
#$
eee$
$
$
ee%'Nd.
+
1.
(1
ee%M
h
" +
Ndf %&
!.&' f&' '&
1.
('1
% '
Nd
¡¢¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¦¦¬©¦£¦¡©£¤©®¤¯£¦°¡¤£¦¡©¡¢¦©±©²³¦£¦²¨®£¤´£³¦¤ ¦¢µ¶±¡¦±²±¦©±¦©¤³¦£¦¤¶·±¡¦±²¨©ª«¦¦¬ µ¸µ¶®£¹¦¯©¤º±¤±¦£©±µ¸µµ¯©¡»¤±¡¦±ª
$$
)
+
-
!"
)
$$
$
+
*
+
+
$
$
$
$
$
#$
(
¼YU½[``TYU`¾ZYX¿RW[ZU[^WZR]TWSRZ[WSÀT½R]]SÁ^`WT¾T[_ÂSR½][RZRU_Z[R`YURÂ][WZR_[Y¾¾ÃTU[ĽÅRUV[\WÅ[_[Æ[]YÀ[Z½YXXTW`WY ÀZY_^½TUVRX[RUTUV¾^]U^XÂ[ZY¾R__TWTYUR]]Y¿ÇTU½YX[ÈÉÊËÌ^UTW`Í˾WÅRW¾ZRX[¿YZaT`¿ÅRWSY^¿T`ÅWYÀ]R½[YUWÅ[WRÂ][\WÅ[UË RVZ[[TW¿Y^]_X[RUTUV¾^]]S½ÅRUV[WÅ[URW^Z[Y¾WÅT`_T`½^``TYUÍ ÎÅRWË_YUYWÂ[]T[Æ[T`RÀÀZYÀZTRW[T`WY½ÅRZR½W[ZTÏ[WÅT`ÀZYÀY`R]R`R_[ÂRW[YÆ[ZÐR¾¾YZ_RÂ][ÅY^`TUVÍÑËWT`UYWÍËÅRÆ[U[Æ[Z ÆT[¿[_Ò¼ÓR`RÐÂYYV[SXRU\ÑUYZÅRÆ[ËYÀÀY`[_QWRW[ÅY^`TUVXRU_RW[`ÍÔÅY`[XRU_RW[`¿[Z[½Z[RW[_ÀZ[½T`[]SWY½Y^UW[Z [UWZ[U½Å[_RU_ÀZ[_T½WRÂ][Z[`T`WRU½[WYVZY¿WÅ\RU_WÅRWÅR`U[Æ[ZÂ[[UXSÀY`TWTYUÍ ÒY¿[Æ[Z\WÅ[`[][½WTÆ[XRUTÀ^]RWTYURU__[À]YSX[UWY¾QWRW[XRU_RW[`WY[URÂ][]RZV[]SXRZa[WÇZRW[RU_RÂYÆ[ÉÊË\TU`WTW^WTYUR]]S ¾TURU½[__[Æ[]YÀX[UWT`UYW¾RTWž^]WYÒ¼ÓÕ`TUW[UWYZWYWÅ[`TU½[Z[[¾¾YZW`Y¾ÅY^`TUVR_ÆY½RW[`ÍÉ`SY^aUY¿\RU_R`ËÅRÆ[ ÀZ[ÆTY^`]S`WRW[_\WÅT`ÀZYÀY`R][]TXTURW[`WÅZ[[[ÄT`WTUVR¾¾YZ_RÂ][^UTW`RU_ÀZYÀY`[`WYZ[À]R½[WÅY`[¿TWžY^ZXY_[ZRW[ÇTU½YX[ ^UTW`RU_¾Y^ZRÂYÆ[ÇXY_[ZRW[ÇTU½YX[^UTW`\¿TWÅWÅ[`^Â`WRUWTR]XRÁYZTWSY¾WÅ[Z[XRTUTUVÀZYÁ[½WÀZYÀY`R]WRZV[W[_RÂYÆ[ÉÊËÍ ÔÅRW`[WY¾¾R½W`XRWW[Z`ÍËW`ÅY^]_TU¾YZXÅY¿½]RTX`Y¾À^Â]T½Â[U[¾TWRZ[[ÆR]^RW[_RU_¿Å[WÅ[Z½YU½[``TYU`\ÀRZWT½^]RZ]SWÅY`[ Z[]RW[_WY¿RW[ZU[^WZR]TWS\½RUÂ[Á^`WT¾T[_RWR]]Í
+$
)
$
$
$
$
+
+
+
+
$
(
k
$
+
+
!"
)
$
$
j
swrwsw~pwuvuvwnuÖ
*
$
+*
)
)
)
)
(
ËÂ[]T[Æ[WÅ[Z[RZ[X^]WTÀ][ÀYTUW`RW¿ÅT½ÅWÅ[]R½aY¾ÀZYÀ[ZRÀÀ]T½RWTYURU_R_Å[Z[U½[WYQWÍÒ[][URÕ`ÎRW[Z×[^WZR]ØY]T½SÅR` R]Z[R_SÂ[[UÀ]R½[_Â[¾YZ[WÅ[¼Y^U½T]ÍÔÅRWÀY]T½SZ[Ù^TZ[`U[¿_[Æ[]YÀX[UWWY_[XYU`WZRW[¿RW[ZU[^WZR]TWS\WÅRWT`\U[^WZR] ¿RW[Z^`[Â[¾YZ[RU_R¾W[ZWÅ[ÀZYÁ[½WÍÎÅT][WÅ[ÀY]T½SÚÛÛÜÝÞ¾YZRUTUÇ]T[^¾[[\WÅRWYÀWTYUT`[ÄÀ]T½TW]S_T`½Z[WTYURZS\UYW XRU_RWYZSÍ
É_ÆRU½TUVRÀZYÁ[½W¿TWÅY^W¾TZ`W[`WRÂ]T`ÅTUV¿Å[WÅ[Z¿RW[ZU[^WZR]TWS½RUR½W^R]]SÂ[R½ÅT[Æ[_\RU_TU`W[R_R``^XTUVWÅRWR¾^W^Z[ YÀWTYUR]U[VYWTRWTYUXRSZ[`Y]Æ[WÅ[T``^[\À]R½[`WÅ[½RZWÂ[¾YZ[WÅ[ÅYZ`[ÍØZY½[[_TUVYUWÅRWÂR`T`\ÀRZWT½^]RZ]S¾YZRÀZYÀY`R]Y¾ Agenda Item #11.3.
!"#$%%
& $$
'()*+,-.)'/012)*34,).45)661*37.*)8419:814)1;1'(1*,+1760167<7316,')7.**(7/4061,*7.,84581,334)10'7'(1)+3,='*7. *,.)',65*1>16,.0*'76+*1>16).<6,*'6/='/619?(1*1)+3,='*,61'774,6-1'7.7'81/.016*'7707641<''781.1-7'),'10,''(18,=@
1.09 A7617;162'()**1B/1.=).-1C37*1*D)'5E1.'/61*'7*)-.)<)=,.'07>.*'61,+6)*@9:<>,'16.1/'6,4)'5=,..7'/4')+,'14581*,')*<)10 '(67/-(<1,*)8417.F*)'1767<<F*)'1+1,*/61*76,.,-611+1.'7<,==13',841).F4)1/<11*2'(1367G1='=7/404,'1681*/8G1=''7 */8*',.'),4+)')-,')7.61B/)61+1.'*'(,'</.0,+1.',445/.016+).18/0-1'*2,**/+3')7.*2,.0367G1=';),8)4)'59?(,'7/'=7+1*16;1* .1)'(16'(1D)'5.76'(1,334)=,.',.0/.016*=761*>(5'(1374)=561B/)61*'(1*1)**/1*'78161*74;1081<761,3367;,4*,61-6,.'109 HIJKLIMNOOPQRSTUVRSIRWXYNVRQJTKQJZUN[O\NOX]UJXQ^Q_QRTK`V\M[OJRIJ\]NUYOXX[IRRONab
c]NQJMdNUeOSIX^OOJSOIeQ_TXYNVRQJQfO\^T]_IJJQJMXRIZZIJ\IRRUNJOTXIJ\QXMUQJMRSNUVMSRSO\OeO_U][OJR]NUYOXXIX UVR_QJO\^TRSOgQRTUZcRahO_OJIiXIJ\RSOcRIROUZgI_QZUNJQIajOINO]_ITQJM^TRSONV_OXKIJ\RSONV_OXYIJiR^OYSIJMO\ \VNQJMRSO]NUYOXXac]NQJMdNUeOYU[]_QOXPQRScRahO_OJIiXUPJU^`OYRQeO\OXQMJXRIJ\IN\XK]IXXO\^TRSOgUVJYQ_IJ\ k_IJJQJMgU[[QXXQUJQJlmlna
k_OIXOI_PITXZOO_ZNOORUNOIYSUVRRU\QXYVXXRSO]NU`OYRaoUUpZUNPIN\RUXOOQJMTUVUJqVOX\ITa r__RSO^OXRK
sO_XU
:.=47*).-t,.0:,3361=),'157/*',5).->)'(+1'(67/-('()*)<57/,61*')4461,0).-uv:*'67.-45814)1;1'()*367G1='>)44(,;1 */8*',.'),4,.04,*').-)+3,='*7.w'9x141.,9y1=,/*17<'(,'2:814)1;1)'>7/4081+761=7.*'6/=');1'7,[email protected]>410-1'(,'61,4)'5 <67+'(17/'*1'26,'(16'(,.01<,/4').-'761<41C);1,.001<1.*);137*)')7.*<6,+).-1)'(167</*767'(16*,**)+345z367{76z=7.2{999 z57/6'1,+76+).19|
:814)1;1,367G1='7<'()*+,-.)'/01+16)'**',.0).-7.)'*7>.7.,D)'5D7/.=)4,-1.0,9:61=7-.)}1'(,':,+.7').,37*)')7.'7 =7.'674'(,'01=)*)7.28/':6,)*1)''7/.016*=761'(1*=,41,.0=7.*1B/1.=17<>(,')*81).-=7.*)016109y1<761>1=7++)' '737'1.'),445,.0)661;16*)8456/3'/6).-'(11=7*5*'1+>1=(16)*(*(7/40>1.7'01'16+).104526)-767/*45,.0731.45'/6.7;161;165 *'7.1~:07.7'814)1;1'(,')*'77+/=('7,*@9
:@.7><67+57/6
1C316)1.=1-67>).-/3,.0-7).-'7*=(774).¡,3,2,.0<67+57/647.-<,+)4),6)'5>)'(w'9x141.,,.0)'*61*)01.'*2'(,'57/(740'(1 =)'5,.0)'¢*61*)01.=1).()-(61-,609:(731'(,'=7/40'6,.*4,'1).'7,61=7.*)016,')7.7<'(1367G1='8,*10/37.*7+17<'(1 =7++1.',65,.0,.,45*)*367;)0109:=7.')./1'7814)1;1>1=,.,.0+/*'0781''169 w).=161452
£,.)14x,41
¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¥¯¯°±QYOkNOXQ\OJRUZHOeO_U][OJR
²³´µ¶·¸´¹º·»
¼¼½¾¿IXUJcRNOORKcIJÀNIJYQXYUKgrÁ¼ln
YÃÄmÄaľ½an½m¾°ÅÆǺ¸·´´Èɳ´µÊ·¸´¹º·»ËÉÌÍ
ÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÔØ×ÚÛÜÝÞßàáÜâãäÜàßåæáÜÞàçèéáê
ëìíîÒïðÖñÔòóôÔÕõÔðòöó÷ø÷ø
ÐÒõ ØÖ
×ÕÚàÞèèéááßÝåèÞéäßàßÝÜçæéêðÖÔÚßéåèÞéäßàßÝÜçæéêÕñð×
ðÔñØ×òÚÜâÜÛàßåèÞéäßàßÝÜçæéê
ÖÕÖÔ Ô
×ð
Ú æÜáßâéåèÞéäßàßÝÜçæéêÕÖØ
×Ø
ÚÜèéáßàéåèÞéäßàßÝÜçéâæêÔòÔÓ×!
"ÔÚ#$ß%éÜåèÞéäßàßÝÜçæéêÔõØ
Ó
&ðÖÕ'ÚÛéäâÞÝæåèÞéäßàßÝÜçéâæêÖ
&×ØØ×Ó×Ô"òÚáÞèäßààßèÛßÜåæáÜÞàçèéáê
&ðÖ"
&×ð(ÔðÕ×ðÚ)*ÜâÝßâåèÞéäßàßÝÜçæéê"õ×
ÚßåßéÝÞÜÝ+ÞÝßçèéáêôÔ
Ö×Õ×ÔØÚ,-ÝßÜàåèÞéäßàßÝÜçæéê
./Ò0×Ø"
ÔðÕ×1ÚãÜâÝß2åèÞßÝâßçèéáê
Ó
õ'ÔØØóÔõØ3Ù
ÓÚÜàçáèÛéæÜààåäèÛçèÜçæéê
ë456ì/îÒ7Ù89:; 9<!< =7ÔÕñ9ðÖÕ' ð
>×ð
"ÔØ
rJ\NOP?NQpIK@QJQIK
k_OIXOIRRIYSRSOZU__UPQJM
XO]INIROYU[[OJRXRURSO¼n
AIJIMOJ\IQRO[UJc]NQJMdNUeOkNU]UXI_aL^O_QOeOI__RSOXO]UQJRXINOZUVJ\IRQUJI_RURSOYUJXQ\ONIRQUJUZRSO]NU]UXI_a ¿TI]U_UMQOXZUNRSO^V_p^VRZOO_RSOTINO[UNO_QpO_TRU^O\QMOXRO\QJX[I__ON^QROXaqSIJpXZUNTUVNYUJXQ\ONIRQUJagI__ROBR UNO[IQ_PQRSIJTCVOXRQUJXa
qSIJpDUVK
HIJQO_hI_O
EFGHIJKL<&Ö"×
ÔÖØ
ðÖ'ÖÕÔ×ñMð
õ"Öñ×
M&×
ð'ÔÕÖNÔO
ÕPÓ
Õ
ØÖ
ØÖÕ"
ð
×ÕÔ1Ô
&
×Õ"õÕØ×""ò
õð×
'ÕÖN×&×"×Õñ×ðÔÕñÕ
&×
Õ×ÕÖ""ÔM×P
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"#$% #"
&'$
()*+,-./01
!"#$% #"
&'$
()*+,-./01 2345678376
9:;<=>??
@354A867643BCDE?FG?
GHGIJJGI?KJJ
LLLMNOPQRSTUOSRMVWT
X34567Y376Z[\@]D^_D`a
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"
#$%&'(
)%(
*+%&'(,%-.%(/0,%'12,3 45&
67687898:
66;<=
>5
?@A'2
B,,(&
*CA'22,,(&/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
I-'%
CC
*(CC/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
J'&'%
K%,(-
*L0%,(-/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
5%D%
$(MF%
*5$(MF%/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
,N%&F(/,O0-C1F
*,N%&F(/,O0-C1F3H
>&'
B,(
*>B,(/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
P%2'(
&(%
*N&(%/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
%,%-%/G%&0%-+C-C(-'(F12,
*%,%-%/G%&0%-+C-C(-'(F12,3H
2,22-&%2/,%212,
*2,22-&%2/,%212,3H
@%
$.-'&0
*C+.-'&0/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
5'2.((
$(%FD
*,'2.((2+(%FD/0,%'12,3H
>%-&
Q%-%
*%A%-%/,F&12,3H
>%-&
Q%-%
*%A%-%/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
B.-'FC.(-
R%-&(-
*BR%-&(-/2'DEF.((&%10G3H
F(
*F(/(&'%&S'&(F12,3H
T(F
Q%-&(
*A%-&(/2'DG(&-(F12,3H
,A-(S(-/2'DG(&-(F12,
*,A-(S(-/2'DG(&-(F12,3H
F.'00'&F/2'DG(&-(F12,
*F.'00'&F/2'DG(&-(F12,3H
S%D&(/(&0%-2.12,
*S%D&(/(&0%-2.12,3
52$0%U
@%/)B$
*C%1,2+0%/.2+12%10G3
>&+-(SU
I-'%U
J'&'%U
B%&
D
C(%F(
'&2+(
&
%0(&+%
E-
B'D
V(&-(F7WC-'&0
K-G(
'(,X
Y(,
661Z1
B%&
D
%F
2&E'-,
-(2('C
E
NF
FA,'(+
-(FC&F(
T(F
Q%-&(1
[.%
'F
'&(&+(+
%F
A(
FA,'(+
%F
CA'2
2,,(&
E-
'(,
661Z
7 WC-'&0
K-G(1
B%
(L
-
(,%'
S'.
%&D
\(F'&F1
[.%&
DU
$%&'(
)%(
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"#$% #"
&'$
()*+,-./01
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"#
$
! %&
'(
#) *+&
,-.-./.0
12/3
4
56
7896
"#: $
#
%'(; )<
=%
>
&
;?
"@A
&
;?$
BC'
;%(?!)<
> %'B
"#A %'B$
BC'
;%(?!)<
D%
E@%A%&
"'@%A%&$
BC'
;%(?!)<
4%&;
7%&%
"%:%&%$
BC'
;%(?!)<
7 B
E## &'
"7E## &'$
BC'
;%(?!)<
%B%
> F'%
"> F'%$
BC'
;%(?!)<
4;
#
"4 # $
BC'
;%(?!)<
=:
## ;
"@:
## ;$
BC'
;%(?!)<
4;A& G
7&%A B
"%:&%A B$
BC'
;%(?!)
HI
JKKL
MNO
POQ
RSTUV
WUUX
HJYYZ
[\]
^\J_`
MaTSWbcPd
Wa
W
RSacNSPQe
POQ
RSTRSaSPQcPd
WPV
OTcPcOPa
cP
OQfSR
ROUSaX
gh
_\iYjhi\
kj
ljm
n\Kkoi
\mJIKp
gom
k_ZIhq
kj
rhs\_ikJhs
ktIi
ur\ikIjh
Jhs
mIqtk
h\\s
ijm\
\KJvj_JkIjhp
wxRS
QfSRS
WPV
RSTORQa
yROz
WPV
{WQSR
SPdcPSSRcPd
ycRza
QfWQ
|OPQRWNc|Q
QfS
NS}SUOTSR~a
{WQSR
aS
WPWUVacaw
WP
VO
SUWORWQS
OP
{fWQ
ca
PSSNSN
fSRS
lt\
jhk_JsIkIjh
KI\i
]IktIh
kt\
]Jk\_
h\rk_JKIkZ
_\Yj_k
Iki\K
lt\
m\ktjsi
j_
JKrKJkIhq
kt\j_\kIJK
]Jk\_
ri\
h\k
iJIhqi
J_\
ijm\]tJk
JmvIqrjriL
qIIhq
kt\
s\\KjY\_
Jh
jYYj_krhIkZ
kj
kJ\
JsJhkJq\
j
kt\i\
JKrKJkIjhi
Jhs
Y_jIs\
Kj]\_
IhKI\r
\\i
ltIi
Iihk
_\JKKZ
J
]Jk\_
\hqIh\\_Ihq
mJkt
Y_jvK\mIkoi
J
ik_JIqtkj_]J_s
JjrhkIhq
Iiir\
g\
Y_\IjriKZ
i\hk
Ih
J
s\kJIK\s
JhJKZiIi
j
kt\
Y_Ihq
_j\
_\Yj_k
Jhs
jmYJ_\s
Ik
kj
kt\
Hrhk\_
[
sjh\
vZ
IIK
\hqIh\\_
ri\i
J
sI\_\hk
JKrKJkIjh
ktJk
g
v\KI\\
Ii
mj_\
_\JKIikI
j_
kt\
kt\j_\kIJK
\IikIhq
]Jk\_
JKrKJkIjh
h\k
Ikr_\
_\YKJ\m\hk
^jr
mIqtk
J_qr\
ktJk
kt\
s\\KjY\_
Ii
]IktIh
kt\I_
_Iqtki
vJi\s
jh
kt\
YjKIZ
Ji
Ik
Ii
]_Ikk\hJI_
\hjrqt
Hj]\\_L
Ik
i\\mi
ktIi
YjKIZ
]Ji
_\ur\ik\s
kj
v\
_\]_Ikk\h
ijm\
kIm\
JqjL
Jhs
sr\
kj
s\KJZiL
]\
hj]
Ihs
jr_i\K\i
Ih
ktIi
iIkrJkIjh
i
_\iIs\hkiL
itjrKs
]\
rik
J\Yk
Ik
g
sjhk
ktIh
ij
\_\
JiIhq
j_
ijm\
r_q\hZ
Ih
rYsJkIhq
kt\
YjKIZ
kj
Y_\\hk
rkr_\
Y_j\ki
_jm
jhkIhrIhq
kj
\J\_vJk\
kt\
Y_jvK\m
lt\
\h\_JK
KJh
Jii
Zjr
kj
Y_jk\k
jr_
Ih_Jik_rkr_\
Jhs
KImIk\s
_\ijr_\i
g
ktIh
]\
iJ]
kt\
i\_Ijrih\ii
j
ktIi
Iiir\
]t\h
kt\
k]j
kJhi
]\hk
jrk
Jhs
kt\
IkZ
jrhIK
tJs
kj
tjKs
Jh
\m\_q\hZ
m\\kIhq
kj
mJ\
s\IiIjhi
jh
kt\
iZik\m
lj
m\L
ktIi
itj]i
ktJk
]\_\
Jk
J
_IkIJK
YjIhk
]Ikt
kt\
Jk\_
[\rk_JKIkZ
jKIZ
r_kt\_mj_\L
Ji
kt\
kIkK\
j
kt\
YjKIZ
ikJk\iL
WQSR
SQRWUcQV
OUc|VL
Jhs
Ji
g
v\KI\\
Zjr
iJ]
Ih
kt\
_\iYjhi\
_jm
rvKI
j_i
ikJ
kj
Jk\
YJsj_Jkji
ur\ikIjhiL
kt\
qrJ_Jhk\\
jr_
kj]h
tJi
j_
\hjrqt
]Jk\_
Ii
kt_jrqt
ktIi
h\rk_JKIkZ
YjKIZ
Hj]\\_L
kt\
Y_jvK\m
Ii
ktJk
ktIi
YjKIZ
]Ji
]_Ikk\h
J
Kjhq
kIm\
Jqj
]t\h
_\YKJIhq
\IikIhq
Ikr_\i
]Ji
kt\
m\ktjs
\
hj
Kjhq\_
tJ\
\IikIhq
Ikr_\i
kj
_\YKJ\
lt\
Is\J
v\tIhs
_\YKJIhq
Ikr_\i
]Ji
kj
_\sr\
]Jk\_
ri\
Ih
Y\_Y\krIkZ
I
\
L
h\rk_JKIkZ
v\Jri\
mj_\
\II\hkL
Kj]Kj]
Ikr_\i
]jrKs
v\
IhikJKK\sL
JriIhq
jrYJhki
kj
ri\
K\ii
]Jk\_
qjIhq
j_]J_s
lt\
Iiir\
]Ikt
kt\
IhKI\r
\\
Ii
ktJkL
\\h
]Ikt
kt\
JmvIqrjri
kt\j_\kIJK
JKrKJkIjhL
Ik
jhKZ
Jjrhki
j_
jh\
Z\J_
j
]Jk\_
riJq\
Z\J_
ltIi
m\Jhi
kt\
YjKIZ
Ii
hj
Kjhq\_
k_rKZ
J
h\rk_JKIkZ
YjKIZ
lt\
YjKIZ
jrKs
v\
mj_\
Jr_Jk\KZ
kIkK\sL
wWV
yOR
OPS
VSWR a
{ORQf
Oy
{WQSRe
WPN
WyQSR
QfWQe
{S
NOP Q
bPO{
{fWQ
fWTTSPa¡w
j_
\JmYK\L
Y_Ihq
_j\i
IhKI\r
\\
YK\Ji\
tJ\
kt\m
_\sj
kt\
JK
]Ikt
¢
v\s_jjmi
Ihik\Js
j
£L
ktIi
]IKK
Ih_\Ji\
kt\
\\
j_
jr_
kj]h
iKIqtkKZ
]Ji
vJi\s
jh
kt\
]Jk\_
riJq\
j_
kt\
sI\_\h\
v\k]\\h
£¤
rhIki
Jhs
¢
\IikIhq
rhIki
ijL
¢¥
rhIki
nrk
Jk\_
kt\
I_ik
Z\J_i
\\L
kt\_\i
hjktIhq
kj
Jjrhk
j_
kt\
jhqjIhq
]Jk\_
riJq\
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"
#!
$
%
!
!
&'
!
(!
)!
#!
*+
(!
*!
*!
*
!
!
(!
(
!
*!
*
,
-
()
.
/
0
/
*
*
*!
*!
1
*!
*!
*!
0
*!
#
()12()
*
33
+
*
*
'
/
*.
'
/
'
'
#
453
05
#3
67899:
5;;0 $<36788=:>5
;
;
0
$
<3
?
4
06788@:3303
$0
0#;
A3$
788B6C
C
:
1
#
C
2)D
789E
#
'
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
January 9, 2026
Dear City Council,
This leer will be different than the others I have submied.
What I thought would be helpful is not another leer about stopping the project, but one about: if we have to do it, how can we do it beer and rather than stop, the request is slow it down, so we can address significant public health and safety concerns.
There are five mee ngs allowed, and the January 13, 2026 mee ng will count as number two, I believe. I previously sat on the dais where you are now; however, I had very lile purview, based on what I was told at the me. You have much more purview. As the City Council, you have the ability to make this project beer for this town, and with a vote of “Yes,” you would need to know, without a doubt, that it does not harm public health and safety.
This is the moment to make sure the homework is done. If proof is not given—without a doubt—then it is okay to vote to “con nue” rather than make a final decision. There are more mee ngs available, and these are for City Council use.
Now is the me to make sure public health and safety are not impacted, not during the building permit phase.
Key public health and safety measures include (but are not limited to) essen al services such as:
Water and wastewater systems
• Ensuring there is enough water for the added users
• Ensuring the water is safe to drink and use
• Ensuring sewer and wastewater systems can handle addi onal users There are other measures, but I wanted to focus on this vital one. Without sustainable measures for water, we put both growth and the exis ng residents at risk. Growth should not come at a cost to exis ng residents. Neutrality means that growth and added housing find and secure water for their development without impac ng the rest of the residents.
The current water neutrality report for this project lacks proof, without a doubt, that water is secured for this development without impac ng the rest of the residents. As a City Council member—especially if you live in this town—you may also want to know, without a doubt, that water is secured in perpetuity for new development, which is the intent of the Water Neutrality Policy.
As I previously submied a marked-up version of the report, I have also marked up the revised version provided by the project applicant. I analyzed the numbers and methods and iden fied key issues with the math. I also provided two op ons for edits that I would suggest you review, and perhaps ask the City Manager to review with staff.
The intent of these edits is to ask you to make it beer. This is within your purview.
1. I marked up the report showing miscalcula ons by the applicant, including the incorrect use of bedroom numbers. This op on results in a slightly higher in-lieu fee and uses a method allowed by the Water Neutrality Policy. Please ask cri cally why the theore cal water use with retrofied low flow fixtures uses the larger number of bedrooms / occupant count using the proposed project’s homes, rather than the exis ng average number of bedrooms /occupants of the homes it is replacing?
2. The second method is the one RSA used for the Hunter’s development project, which is also allowed by the Water Neutrality Policy. This results in a higher in-lieu fee. Does this provide true neutrality? No.
Unfortunately, even with this method, the policy as wrien does not actually provide water neutrality— but it is beer, there is more money to somehow perhaps account for buying more water, not at the cost of the exis ng residents. Perhaps, the in-lieu fee fixes leaks in pipes that keeps more water from being wasted.
3. You have the discre on to discuss which method you, as a City Council, would like to accept. One could also say that you have the ability to hold this project un l staff develops a neutrality policy in which water for new projects is actually water neutral, to really ensure public essen al services.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Without a sustainable measured water neutrality policy, quality of life will be diminished for this town.
That addresses whether the amount of water can be provided moving forward. Now let’s talk about the quality of the water as a public health concern, and the exacerba on of the situa on we are currently in.
We understand that our town is experiencing severe infrastructure challenges related to clean, safe drinking water. I personally found it difficult to bathe my child recently when the town experienced issues with wells breaking down. I s ll have a bole of that water and am saving it for independent tes ng.
I understand City staff later took samples from my hose bib and found the water to be within normal levels, consistent with what is shown in the City’s annual reports and data. I asked whether that city staff would like to test the water I saved from the tub, and the answer was no. Why not? Do we not want that data point in the report?
We received a leer sta ng that our average annual HAA levels were 72 ppb, while the MCL standard is 60 ppb.
The leer states that there is no immediate risk and that boled water is not required. However, it also states that people who drink water containing HAAs in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of cancer. This is a public health issue.
How many people poten ally geIng cancer from drinking water is too many? I would say it only takes one.
Will new development and added users exacerbate an already strained system? You must be able to answer that ques on—without a doubt—before vo ng to allow this project to move forward. If staff cannot provide a clear, measurable answer, you do not have to move this project forward. Staff must prove this. What is being done to make sure this does not con nue?
Agenda Item #11.3.
Sewer System
At the November 18, 2025 City Council mee ng, the City approved paying a $378,000 fee because water discharged into the Napa River exceeded safety limits. The report states that the City violated these limits 129 mes and that storage capacity was exceeded, over a two-year period. Two years? Why did we allow effluent to be discharged into the Napa River, breaching safety levels, for two years? With the project before you—38 new units, with a poten al of 320 new occupants—is there a clear, documented answer that the sewer system can handle this added effluent capacity without exacerba ng these viola ons or crea ng addi onal financial burdens for residents? Is our system capable of handling the number of residents we have already, without making these viola ons? Effluent in a public water way is a Public Health and Safety concern. Capacity of our exis ng sewer and waste water infrastructure is a measurable objec ve standard that needs to be address with added housing. We cannot con nue to turn an eye to allowing effluent into the Napa River, and incurring these fees, that are cos ng the residents money. The money that should be spent on fixing the problems, not paying civil liability fees.
I understand that these ques ons may not be answerable between when you receive this leer and when staff could respond.
If possible, I would respecOully ask that this item be removed from the agenda so it does not count as one of your mee ngs. I understand if that is not possible. Regardless, I want to know—without a doubt—that public health and safety measures are proven before moving forward.
Others are raising addi onal issues such as evacua on, stormwater and drainage, and traffic. These are very serious concerns. For me, water and sewer are essen al services that cannot be taken lightly, which is why this leer focuses on them.
I am speaking as a resident, not as a Planning Commissioner, in this leer. I would also like to go on the record that I am not trying to stop this project. We need real affordable housing, and the state has mandated some rules that we need to try to make work for this town, our town. My goal is to used my cri cal thinking skills that you no ced by appoin ng me to the PC, to also help with crea vely finding solu ons within legal means to beer this community, and to safeguard the public health.
What I hope to convey is that there is a choice to allow more )me to ensure this project is safe for the town’s future and that we make the best possible decision for the community.
I appreciate your willingness to serve and the responsibility you carry on behalf of this community.
Sincerely,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Resident
Aached is the marked-up Water Neutrality report with comments for your review. Please don’t hesitate to ask me to clarify, if you have any ques ons.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
SPRING GROVE
WATER NEUTRALITY REPORT
Updated
November 10, 2025
A. BACKGROUND
To ensure compliance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy for Development, City Ventures is submitting a water neutrality analysis for the proposed Spring Grove Subdivision.
This analysis outlines the anticipated water consumption for the development (per St. Helena’s water neutral policy) and presents potential options for water off-set mitigation.
B. CURRENT THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
There are currently three homes on the property: one 4-bedroom, one 3-bedroom, and one 2-bedroom.
According to the St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development section on water demand analysis for existing water use, the analysis should use 150 gpd/bedroom. This equates to a theoretical domestic water demand to be 1,350 gallons per day for the current homes.
Address Bedrooms Gal/Bdrm
1447 Spring 4 150
1505 Spring 2 150
1515 Spring 3 150
Gal/Day 1,350
Gal/Year 492,750
* Current landscape irrigation not supplied by city water but by well onsite C. PROPOSED THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
The proposed development includes 41 lots with side-by-side townhomes, consisting of 41 3+ bedroom units. Water demand for the project is calculated based on the water usage of fixtures and appliances, determined by the number of occupants, in accordance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy for Development.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The following outlines the water performance requirements for fixtures and appliances.
Fixture # Unit Days Occupant
Toilet 3 Flushes 1 1
Sink Faucet 0.25 Minute 3 1
Showerhead 8 Minute 1 1
Kitchen Faucet 4 Minute 1 1
Clothes Washer 0.37 Load 1 1
Dish Washer 0.1 Load 1 1
Water usage from fixtures and appliances will comply with the minimum standards set by the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy.
Fixture Gal Unit
Toilet 1.3 Flushes
Sink Faucet 1.5 Minute
Showerhead 2 Minute
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 Minute
Clothes Washer 19.7 Load
Dish Washer 6.3 Load
In accordance with the City of St. Helena's policy, the analysis assumes two occupants per bedroom (including a den/office/optional bedroom). Following the City's Water Neutral Policy for Development, the estimated domestic water demand for the proposed project is 11,182 gallons per day. The calculations are included below.
Number of Rooms Number of Occupants
Unit Bdrm Other Total
Per
Rm.
Per
Unit
#
Units Total
Plan 1 3 0 3 2 6 4 24
Plan 2 3 1 4 2 8 5 40
Plan 3 3 1 4 2 8 15 120
Plan 4 3 1 4 2 8 17 136
Total Number of Occupants* 320
* Total number of occupants per St. Helena Water Neutral Policy; even if the total number of residents per home exceeds St. Helena’s average household size, the projected number of actual occupants in a real world scenario is projected to be significantly lower.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Fixture Unit Times/Day Gal/Unit Occupants Gal/Day
Toilet 1 3 1 320 1,248
Sink Faucet 0 3 2 320 360
Showerhead 8 1 2 320 5,120
Kitchen Faucet 4 1 2 320 1,920
Clothes Washer 0 1 20 320 2,332
Dish Washer 0 1 6 320 202
Total Gal/Day 11,182
Total Gal/Year 4,081,459
D. THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE WATER DEMAND
Landscape irrigation will be provided by the City of St. Helena and the current well will be abandoned.
Per Landscape Sheet L-7, the estimated total water usage per year (ETWU) is 285,008 gallons, or 781 gallons per day.
E. PROPOSED WATER NEUTRALITY MITIGATION
The existing theoretical water usage on the property is 1,350 gallons per day, and the proposed developments theoretical water usage is 11,963 gallons per day. Therefore, to comply with water neutrality the development must offset 10,613 gallons per day.
Spring Grove Theoretical Water Usage Gal/Day
Homes 11,182
Landscape 781
Total 11,963
Existing Theoretical Water Usage 1,350
Gal/Day to Offset 10,613
This can be done by either retrofitting residential and non-residential properties with low flow devices or by paying an in-lieu fee that is equivalent to the cost of retrofitting enough homes, as provided by Municipal Code 13.12.020. The calculation of the in-lieu fee is attached below.
F. IN-LIEU RETROFIT FEES
The proposed project will increase water usage by 10,613 gallons per day. Therefore, per city policy, the project proposes to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the cost of retrofitting showerheads, faucets, and toilets in existing homes to comply with the required water savings.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The theoretical water use for homes with retrofitted low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Theoretical Water use with retrofitted low flow fixtures per residence Flow Occupants
Fixture Rate Duration Daily Uses Number* Gal/Day
Toilet 2 8 1 7.8 125
Sink Faucet 1.5 0.25 3 7.8 9
Showerhead 1.5 4 1 7.8 47
Kitchen Faucet 1.3 1 3 7.8 30
Clothes Washer 19.7 1 0.37 7.8 57
Dish Washer 6.3 1 0.1 7.8 5
Total Gal/Day - 1 Home (Rooms - Spring Grove Blended Avg.) 273 Total Gal/Day - 41 Homes (Rooms - Spring Grove Blended Avg.) 11,182 *Number of occupants (7.8) is a blended average of the proposed project’s number of residents per unit Theoretical Water Use Saving per Residence
Gal/Rm Rooms* Total
Theoretical Water Use - Old Fixtures 150 3.9 585
Theoretical Water Use - New Fixtures 273
Savings 312
*Number of rooms (3.9) is a blended average of the proposed project’s number of rooms per unit To offset the anticipated water demand of the proposed project, 34 residences will need retrofitting with low flow fixtures.
Required Residences needing retrofitting
Gal/Day
New Water Demand 10,613
Water Savings per Home (Retrofit) 312
Residences Needing Retrofit 34
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The expected cost of retrofitting existing homes with new low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Retrofit Material Cost per residence
Fixture Qty Cost/Unit Total
Showerhead 2 $139.06 $278.12
Sink Faucet 2 $247.98 $495.96
Kitchen Faucet 1 $341.08 $341.08
Toilet 2 $114.69 $229.38
Clothes Washer 1 $698.00 $698.00
Dish Washer 1 $449.00 $449.00
Total Estimated Material Cost Per Home $2,491.54
Retrofit Labor Cost Per residence
Fixture Hours Qty Hourly Rate Total Cost
Showerhead 1 2 $110.00 $220.00
Sink Faucet 1 2 $110.00 $220.00
Kitchen Faucet 1 1 $110.00 $110.00
Toilet 2 2 $110.00 $440.00
Clothes Washer 2 1 $110.00 $220.00
Dish Washer 2 1 $110.00 $220.00
Total Estimated Labor Cost per Residence $1,430.00
The total estimated cost is the sum of the estimated material and labor cost per residence.
Total Retrofit Cost
Material Cost $2,492
Labor Cost $1,430
Total Cost $3,922
Residences Needing Retrofit 34
Total Estimated In-Lieu Fee $133,332
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Proposed low flow fixture costs are listed below. Please find links below; prices are current as of November 10, 2025
o Showerhead- Delta, Kayra, Monitor 14 Series Shower Trim in Chrome- Model#: T14233 o Sink Faucet- Delta, Kayra, Two Handle Widespread Bathroom Faucet in Chrome- Model#:
3533LF-MPU
o Kitchen Faucet- Delta, Coranto, Single Handle Pull-Down Kitchen Faucet in ChromeModel#: 9179-DST o Toilet- Western Pottery- 1.28G Elongated Bowl Easy Height- Model#: 832-T8ULF-HP o Clothes Washer - Samsung - 4.5 Cu. Ft. High-Efficiency Stackable Smart Front Load Washer with Steam and Super Speed Wash - Platinum
o Dish Washer- LG - 24 in. in Stainless Steel Front Control Dishwasher- Model #: LDFN3432T o Labor Cost cited in table 6 are estimates for contractors in the St. Helena area found on https://www.taskrabbit.com
G. CONCLUSION
The proposed project theoretical water usage is 11,963 gallons per day.
The existing theoretical water usage on site is 1,350 gallons per day.
Therefore, the project must save 10,613 gallons per day or pay an in-lieu fee to comply with St. Helena water neutrality policy for development.
The project will pay an in-lieu fee of $133,332, equal to the cost of retrofitting enough residences with low flow fixtures to offset the proposed theoretical water use.
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"
#$
%&!' (
) *+*,+,-,. /01* 2
!
"
#$
%&!' * ##
!
) 31 45
!# 6# 7
%&89:;
<= >??@ ABC DCE FGHIJ KIIL
M?N>ON PQR >S>TUNR VRW WXY VZ[?=T TX\\NQ]@ ^U=TU =O \_ >RRYNOO ]X `Ya b>YQNScO N\>=?a d U>eN YNOVXQRNR =Q XY>QfN >QR VYXe=RNR OX\N =QWXY\>gXQ =Q OTYNNQ T>VO WXY T?>Y=PT>gXQa d ^XZ?R >?OX ?=hN ]X O]>]N ]U>] ]UNON >YN \_ VNYOXQ>? e=N^O@ >QR QX] =Q >Q_ X]UNY YX?Na
d OTYNNQT>V ]U=O >QO^NY [N?X^ ^N YNTN=eNR XQ UX^ ]UN T=]_ >RRYNOONO iNQXZfU ^>]NYjk U=fU?=fU] > eNY_ =\VXY]>Q] \NOO>fNa
lm nop qo pr sqqtruu rvowxy pszrt {|wzz}vx }v vrp |}|ru }~ vrruust rz surq ov s|s}z
¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¡ ¢ £ ¡¥¦
§ ¡ £ ¡£¦ ¤£ ¨ £ § ¦ © ¡£ £ ª £ ¡ ª £¡ « ª«¦
¬ ®¯°± ²³³´®°µ ¶· ¸´¹±º»³¼ ½ ±°¾ »±º¿°²À° £¦ Á¡£  á à ġ Á¡£ à ŠÁ¡£ ¤  ¢Æ£ Ã¥ Ç Ã Æ£¦ È Ç Ã Æ£ ¤¦
Á¡ £ ¦ É £ £ ¨ ¦ ¤ £ £¦ ¬ ¡ Ê £ £¦
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
!"
#
$ %
&'()*+*,-.
/')0*,,*1'2345*,,
6789:;<8;=>?7;@<7=A:7<8;B7BCDE<7?;:B@F=GHHA6>
IJIKLMNKLONJ
PQJIR?:@S;KST:;<PJOS?:@;U<V<@?=W6LQXIQ
YYYK8BZ<VV?789:;<8;FK8B[
Agenda Item #11.3.
Hi Mr. Barne
and All,
I’m speaking as a resident and not represenng any other role.
Mr. Barne
, thank you for your email. It proves a great point: there is a lot of complex informaon that requires me to understand, as I stated in my document, without a doubt.
First and foremost, Mr. Barne
, you did not address my concerns regarding public health and safety. Ensuring there is enough water that is safe for drinking, as well as ensuring the sewer infrastructure has the capacity to handle increased effluent from development projects—without incurring addional fees for violang safety levels into the Napa River—requires a
enon.
My request is not to deny your project; it is to take the appropriate me to address complex and significant issues for the city. I understand that, from the developer’s point of view, the goal is to move forward as quickly as possible. However, when it comes to giving the city and its leaders enough me to fully understand the complex quesons being brought forth—and to understand, without a doubt, that this project does not place harm on the town—it may require more than one meeng.
I have reviewed your email below and highlighted important pieces that need to be addressed. City Council, I hope you read this, and also read the words highlighted in Mr. Barne ’s email, and take a moment to digest them.
I want to express this with the utmost seriousness. Mr. Barne states that there are concessions they could use,
and that they could waive the WNP component of this project. The fee listed in their report is $133,332. While that amount is significant, in the context of the larger picture it is not substanal when the queson at hand is ensuring there is enough water for sustainable growth. That is the queson here. This is not about nickel-and-diming the project. I will address those quesons as they are woven into the email. My comments are in this orange color.
Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Deasy, and Councilmembers:
I hope everyone had a good weekend.
I’m reaching out once again to clarify and correct asserons made in Commissioner Covell’s Friday’s public comment, linked here. I’ll likely address during tomorrow night’s public hearing as well, but because we’re dealing with numbers/calculaons that might be challenging to decipher on the dais, I thought it would be helpful to send in advance of the meeng.
We are fully and accurately complying with St. Helena’s policy for water neutral development.
From the staff report:
• “Public Works has reviewed the Water Neutrality Report submied by the applicant, dated November 10, 2025, and Public Works finds the calcula"on has been prepared in conformance with the Water Neutrality Policy.”
Please have public works review the math again, with this informaon in this document. • “Public Works finds that the methodology and assump"ons used in the applicant’s calcula"ons conforms with the Water Neutrality Policy.”
Here is a screen cap of the policy, note it says “typical” calculaon, it does not say use this chart. No where in the policy does it say to use 2010 Cal Green Code.
Furthermore, please look at ST Helena municipal code 13.12.130 New Development – C – it says to use “current Cal green” code – (screen capped below)
Agenda Item #11.3.
• “Since most homes in St. Helena have already been upgraded with water efficient fixtures and appliances, Public Works concurs that requiring the applicant to retrofit 34 homes is a hardship and recommends that the City Council grant the applicant’s request to use the in-lieu retrofit fee process.” • To repeat a point I have already made, it does not make sense that the water use of 38 NEW homes would be neutral by replacing only 34 homes with retrofitted plumbing fixtures. Retrofitting creates a delta saved—see Hunter’s project—where the retrofit resulted in 53 gallons saved per household. • I understand this topic needs more conversation. Mr. Barnett is using a different method for calculating theoretical use savings. His calculation states that 312 gallons are being saved per home by retrofitting fixtures.
• Theoretical vs reality. You have the ability to look at how much water you use on a daily basis. You can then say, “Okay, if I replace all of my plumbing fixtures tomorrow with low-flow fixtures, how much water did I save while doing everything normally?” Was it 53 gallons, or 312 gallons? What is theoretical will eventually be reality, the reality means if we continue to do this incorrectly, that incremental miscalculation may translate to not having enough water for the town. This will be then, a sad reality.
If the community wants to modify or update the policy, that can certainly happen. But per SB330, we must comply with the “ordinances, policies and standards” in place at the me our preliminary applicaon was submi ed
(11/5/2024). An updated or modified water neutrality policy can not be retroacvely applied to our project.
I am not asking for a retroacve update/modified WNP. I’m just looking at the report as it is wri en and the policy
that is wri
en. There is room for consideraon, and interpretaon, and the moment is now to understand the math.
Agenda Item #11.3.
As I’ve communicated with Tom Belt, a policy can always be improved. We both agree on that. While I think the data is quite clear (please see my previous email) that the policy over-esmates water demand, he disagrees.
Regardless, the current policy is the policy we must follow – and we comply.
The current policy – I believe Mr. Barne
took the “Typical Calculaon” chart in the policy literally as the numbers to use, but it is offered as an example, and no where does the policy state that applicants need to use those numbers. Those numbers were, likely at the me, the Cal Green of 2010. But I do not see a requirement to use 2010. As I noted earlier, the municipal code says to use the current Cal Green Mandatory residenal measures.
This would mean that the project’s report does not currently comply. If it is a mistake in the interpretaon in the policy, it would be good to clarify. I don’t see anywhere in the policy nor the muni code to use 2010 Cal Green Measures. If I am wrong, please let me know.
One final note, as I menoned on Friday, per State Density Bonus Law, because we are providing deed-restricted affordable housing on-site, we are entled to one “concession” – which means waiving a fee that provides “idenfiable and actual cost savings” for the proposed project. Specifically, HCD has weighed in on St. Helena’s water neutrality fee (linked here) and states:
• St. Helena’s Municipal Code, Chapter 13.12, mandates the implementa"on of water efficiency measures to fully offset a new development’s water requirements, which can be considered a regulatory requirement under the defini"on of concessions or incen"ves found under Government Code sec"on 65915, subdivision (k), paragraph (3).
• Therefore, HCD has determined that a project that qualifies for the SDBL by providing the requisite amount of affordable housing could seek relief from the applica"on of Chapter 13.12 of the St. Helena Municipal Code using an incen"ve/concession, provided it demonstrates iden"fiable and actual cost savings to the proposed project.
We have an unused concession that could be used for this fee. If we had used the concession, we wouldn’t even be having this conversaon right now. That said, the Planning Director encouraged us to comply because of how important water neutrality is for St. Helena. I told her how important it is for us to work with the community in good faith and respect each town’s process. I told her we would comply, and we don’t go back on our word.
To the above secon: thank you, Mr. Barne
, for addressing the concession that you have not yet used. My response to this topic is as follows. You menon the phrases “work with the community in good faith” and “how important water neutrality is for St. Helena,” yet you also have a “get-out-of-compliance card” in your back pocket, which would render this enre conversaon moot.
To this, I say with the utmost respect to everyone involved: I am here as a resident, trying to wave a white flag. If we connue to get lost in codes and words and do not see the forest for the trees, we risk not having enough water for everyone—and this could be the project that breaks the camel’s back.
My le
er is not intended to nitpick the report; it is to protect the public health and safety of our town, in good faith and without any doubt. I do not gain anything from puJng this effort in. We, as a town, have everything to lose if we do not know with certainty the answers to the quesons I posed in my le er.
Mr. Barne
, with all due respect, approval of this project may ulmately be moot if, at the end of the day, the units cannot be sold because there is not enough water and the sewer system cannot funcon as required. I am sure the community will make these concerns clear and may disclose them to potenal buyers.
In good faith, my comments are intended to safeguard the community and any future residents. While the state has mandated certain laws, it has also preserved the authority to act in the interest of public health and safety.
Please see clarificaons below.
Thank you again, and see you all tomorrow evening,
Kelso
Clarificaons
Agenda Item #11.3.
1. On p. 5 of Commissioner Covell’s public comment, she references that the calculaons used come from the 2010 Building Code. She then selecvely uses calculaons from the 2022 Building Code throughout the rest of her analysis.
• To follow St. Helena’s policy, especially in the SB330 era of “objecve” analysis, we must follow the policy as wri
en
• The policy provides a chart of calculaons to use, labeled “acceptable theorecal demand for residenal flows/uses”
• The policy likely uses the 2010 Building Code calculaons because the policy was passed in 2011 • All water neutrality reports, even those aMer 2022, use these calculaons, including the recently approved OTSH/Fountain Avenue affordable housing project.
To address this secon above, as stated earlier, the WNP has an example “typical calcs” chart. It does not state you must use 2010 building codes. In the Muni code, it says to use current codes. This is an objecve observaon.
If there is a secon that says, use 2010 Cal Green code, please let me know, I could not find it.
2. Near the top of p. 6 of her le
er, Commissioner Covell requests that decimal points be used and not round to whole numbers.
• Decimal points were used in all calculaons.
• When the chart was pasted into the Word document, the numbers were rounded – but the calculaons were based off the decimals within the cell.
• I wish I had caught that, and appreciate Commissioner Covell poinng that out – but it doesn’t change the calculaon.
• I have pasted a chart below with decimals that result in the idencal calculaon. • Note: the yellow cells were “rounded” in the report to a whole number, but the number in the cell was the decimal.
Fixture Unit Times/Day Gal/Unit Occupants Gal/Day
Toilet 1 3 1.3 320 1,248
Sink Faucet 0.25 3 1.5 320 360
Showerhead 8 1 2 320 5,120
Kitchen Faucet 4 1 1.5 320 1,920
Clothes Washer 0.37 1 19.7 320 2,332
Dish Washer 0.1 1 6.3 320 202
Total Gal/Day 11,182
Total Gal/Year 4,081,459
3. Referencing the same chart, Commissioner Covell states that the “Kitchen Faucet” line is miscalculated, and that this resulng calculaon should be 2,304 gallons/day, not 1,920 gallons/day. • This is not true; again, the underlying cell for the Kitchen Faucet’s “gallon/unit” is 1.5, this comes directly from the water neutrality policy
• Commissioner Covell appears to have inserted 1.8 into the “gallon/unit” instead of 1.5 based on her belief the 2022 Building Code should be used; see clarificaon #1; the St. Helena’s policy states 1.5.
To the secon above – Mr. Barne
, the 1.8gal/unit is from the spec you gave on your last page for the kitchen faucet that you plan to use. It is 1.8gal/unit. I used that, since that is the spec you provided, and it does align with the current 2022 code. Sure the other two are so minimal, 1.3 versus 1.28, I’m not trying to save pennies for the town. My mark ups to the report is to show a level of scruny I believe these projects with such huge impact deserve. I’m glad I did catch your mistake with your chart rounding to whole numbers, And that you state you had wish you caught that mistake. Mistakes happen. I’m surprised this wasn’t caught by anyone else. It appears that no one is catching the mistake of the interpretaon of “typical calculaons” to “these are the numbers you must use.”
Agenda Item #11.3.
4. On p. 7 of her le
er, Commissioner Covell “counters” the use of the project’s blended average of rooms, and instead says we should use the number of rooms in the exisng homes. • This is not what the policy calls for; the point of these calculaons are to determine the in-lieu fee which is based on the number of homes to retrofit – other homes in the community, not the exisng homes to be demolished
• The policy compares the proposed project’s number of rooms vs. exisng homes to retrofit; for this to make sense, the number of rooms must remain the same.
• RSA’s Water Neutral Policy report for the Hunter Subdivision, the report the Commissioner references, makes the same calculaon/comparison as our report.
Here is RSA’s theorecal retrofit. It uses six occupants and assumes the average exisng home in St. Helena has three bedrooms. The theorecal replacement assumpon for bedrooms is based on replacing exisng homes in St.
Helena, and I bolded Mr. Barne
’s reference to “other homes” above, as the policy does not state that the proposed homes’ number of bedrooms should be used in the calculaon.
RSA shows their calculaon below, with 53 gallons of water saved per home through retrofiJng. As you can see, this results in the project generang nearly $600,000 in in-lieu fees. In my markup of Spring Grove, I used the 53 gallons-per-home savings figure—this is Opon 2 that I provided—to give everyone visibility into how large the difference between these calculaons can be, and how important it is to understand the assumpons and interpretaons of the code language.
The water neutrality policy is the only tool we currently have to try to create a path for our town to grow sustainably while ensuring that water will be available for all. Yes, the policy is old, and the in-lieu fees do not actually create “neutral” water use in reality. These fees are calculated for one year of water use, and we do not know what happens aMer that. If this is how we are safeguarding our town to ensure we have “enough” water, we may be in for a rude awakening.
Agenda Item #11.3.
5. On the top of p. 7, Commissioner Covell has created a new chart that results in a completely different calculaon.
• As discussed in the above clarificaons, Commissioner Covell has created new analysis inserng 2022 California Building Code calculaons as well as her belief that the number of rooms should be based on the exisng homes (6) not the proposed project (7.8).
• Her chart/analysis is not based on St. Helena’s policy for water neutral development.
Yes, I believe the current codes should be used. I would venture to say this appears to be a California state law, and from my understanding of the municipal code, current codes should apply. If there is a conflict, the more stringent code would prevail.
My analysis is based on the principle of water-neutral development. The policy states that the purpose of this policy is to make “new development” conngent upon the city’s ability to provide water without exceeding the safe yield. It also states that safe yield is defined as the quanty of water that can be reliably delivered on an annual basis—including during a dry year—without imposing undue hardship on water customers through water shortage restricons.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Again, given these complex codes, calculaons, and policies, my goal is to understand from the city—without any doubt—that it is certain this project does not pose harm to public health and safety. This includes ensuring the quanty and quality of water, as well as confirming that sewer system infrastructure supports sustainable growth in a measurable way.
h
ps://sthelena.municipal.codes/Code/13.12
Above is the municipal code, which states that the City Council has authority and discreon and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of this chapter on Water Use Efficiency and New Development.
Below are screenshots of the water neutrality policy itself, in case you need to review the exact language of the policy. I am hoping that you, the City Council, can state—without a doubt—whether the informaon presented is accurate. I also hope you can say, without a doubt, that you are confident there is sufficient water available for all residents and that this project does not place undue hardship on anyone.
Addionally, if you have not yet reviewed them, Item 10.1 on addional sludge hauling and Item 10.4 on Water Supply and Forecasng are parcularly eye-opening.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Thank you I look forward to the conversaon.
Michelle Liu Covell
Resident
1/12/2026
Agenda Item #11.3.
Outlook
Public comment - regarding sludge, and a general public forum item.
From Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Date Tue 1/13/2026 1:09 PM
To Paul Dohring <[email protected]>
Cc Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Good evening Mayor and City Council,
I’m speaking solely as a resident of St. Helena.
I’m here because I have serious concerns about recent agenda items that, taken together, raise important questions about public health, infrastructure capacity, and transparency.
On November 18, 2025, item 12.1 the council authorized $378,000 in civil liability fees related to violations of effluent discharge limits into the Napa River over a two-year period.
Then tonight, on January 13, 2026, Item 10.1 proposes a $100,000 budget amendment for increased sludge hauling costs, described as being due to “higher-than-anticipated operational needs.” The staff report also states that sludge hauling is an essential function of the City’s wastewater treatment plant.
My question is straightforward:
Is this increase in sludge hauling costs connected to the fact that the City can no longer discharge excess effluent into the Napa River—a practice that resulted in nearly $400,000 in penalties and was brought to light in November?
If our sewer infrastructure cannot handle current sludge loads without discharging into the river, that is not a minor operational issue. That is a public health and safety concern. And it raises a red flag about whether the City is already struggling to manage the effluent produced by existing residents.
For context, my monthly sewer hook-up fee is already $100, not including usage charges. Will this increase again? I don’t see how residents are expected to “produce less effluent.” This brings me to a larger concern:
How does the City plan to accommodate the growth required by RHNA when we appear to be straining under current wastewater capacity?
Growth without sufficient infrastructure does not just create inconvenience—it creates risk. Risk to public health, risk to our waterways, and risk to the long-term sustainability of this community. Who in this town manages this, oversees this? Who is responsible for this? I also want to remind the Council that on December 3, 2025, I submitted a public forum comment requesting that you agendize a discussion on Public Health and Safety Standards in City Planning and Growth Management, including infrastructure and environmental sustainability. That request has not been acted upon.
Additionally, I refer you to my October 7, 2025 letter [Reference Agenda October 14 th
, 2025 – City Council Public
forum]
Agenda Item #11.3.
regarding my documented experience with the City Manager. To date, I have not received a single returned email or phone call addressing the issues raised.
As I stated in that letter:
“When a resident brings forward a formal concern, it should be treated with seriousness and professionalism.
Efforts to intimidate, silence, or discourage civic participation—even when subtle—have no place in the government of this town. There should be zero tolerance for gaslighting, intimidation, or attempts to erode public trust in the democratic process.”
Unfortunately, what I have observed over several years is a pattern of residents being shut down when they ask hard questions. We have even heard residents discouraged from submitting public information requests.
That is not transparency. And it is not good governance.
St. Helena is a small town, but these are big-picture issues. Ignoring them does not make them go away; it only increases the cost, the liability, and the erosion of public trust.
I am asking this Council to step back, look at the full picture, and address these concerns openly, responsibly, and with the seriousness they deserve.
In a town with this level of beauty and cost of living, it is concerning to discover that the money residents have long been paying does not appear to have gone toward maintaining the core infrastructure we rely on.
Thank you for your service, City Council.
Sincerely.
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"#"$"
%$&'(&'
)"#"$"*+"',"$-.$.&$/&(01#2 3
!4
567587696:
6;9:
<=
.>/11##&'*1/?@(4&&'"0,+
)A=BCD=DAE!F .>/11##&'GH91/?@(4&&'"G6C,+*'"#.$-9I0.$-001#2 J <"
K4$/',
).-4$/',*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
D"$'
M"$"
)">"$"*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
=/14&&
K&"(?
)#-&"(?*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
N"&
%."-"$
)(."-"$*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
M/?
%##&$(
)M%##&$(*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
="?"
K&O("
)=K&O("*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
=/&
P"'(&
)#Q"'(&*#F,$.0(2L
B/?
="'",&$
)1/?#"'",&$*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
&R"(4*1/?@(4&&'"0,+
)&R"(4*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
1'"1."''/',1##/((/'
)1'"1."''/',1##/((/'*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
B4$/(.4&$
S"$'&$
)BS"$'&$*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2L
<>/1
B##&'
).>/11##&'*1/?@(4&&'"0,+2
I
""14#&'(
T8U
NMV
=W%>-/+/(/'W=".WD10-1XL
=C=6WY&'&$"W<"'FB'(/(&'1?0-1XL
=C=
ZS"&$F[&$"/?0-1XL
=&#H<"''/',WB#WM?E"R(W<$1&&-$&0-1XL
=C=
:B##/((/'&$WO&+&$("0-1XL
=C=IWO&\&(WS$/&'W]/'-/',(0-1XL
^_`a
bcde
bf_agh
i`ejah
`kl
bjmkncfo_op_aqh
r
`o
qmpocskt
du_
`v`nu_l
wxy
z{z|}~~
ja
cknfmqcjk
ck
du_
jnc`f
mpfcn
a_njal
ja
bcde
bjmkncf
njkqcl_a`jk
j
du_
ackt
aj_
_kd`_
mplccqcjk
i`
`nu
o_oja`klmo
`lla_qq_q
jp_n_h
qd`dmdjae
cqqm_q
a`cq_l
pe
du_
ackt
aj_
`fcn`jk
mkl_a
du_
mplccqcjk
i`
ndh
du_
bcdeq
_k_a`f
f`kh
`kl
`ljd_l
cka`qdamndma_
`kl
mpfcn
q`_de
qd`kl`alq
bjff_n_feh
du_
o_oja`kl`
cl_ke
o`v_aq
du`d
omqd
p_
a_qjf_l
`kl
qmjad_l
pe
acv_k
klcktq
acja
dj
`ke
`aj`f
ja
a_njoo_kl`jk
j
`aj`f
ia
_jktq
q_`a`d_
njaa_qjkl_kn_
a_t`alckt
ajq_n_
jkckt
bjl_
`o_klo_kdq
madu_a
cffmqda`d_q
du_
qeqd_ocn
cqqm_q
a__`f_l
pe
du_
ackt
aj_
`fcn`jk
uj__ah
oe
qmpocqqcjk
u_a_
cq
fcocd_l
dj
du_
bcdeq
nmaa_kdh
kjklcqna_jk`ae
jpfct`jkq
mkl_a
_cqkt
f`
f_`q_
njkao
a_n_cd
`kl
cknfmqcjk
j
du_q_
o_oja`kl`
ckdj
du_
mpfcn
a_njal
_q_nmffeh
~z~}~
|}{w{
d
_f_k`
_qcl_kd
^
¡¢~£¤z{¥w
¦wxy
w{§~}~¥{
¨©{wª«
i_oj
¬
mplccqcjk
i`
nd
®p_n_
d`kl`alq
i_oj
¬
_k_a`f
f`k
bjkqcqd_kne
ajdu
da`d_te
i_oj
¯
¬
°`d_a
±_mda`fcde
rka`qdamndma_
b``ncde
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"#"$
%&'(
)
*
+
,
Agenda Item #11.3.
MEMO 1
Subdivision Map Act & Objective Standards
Date: December 18, 2025
Submitted by: Tamara Sorensen, St. Helena Resident, DRE #01270802 Purpose
This memorandum addresses whether the Spring Grove Tentative Subdivision Map satisfies the City’s mandatory obligations under the Subdivision Map Act and other applicable objective standards.
Applicable Law
Under Government Code §§ 66473, 66473.7, and 66474, a city may not approve or recommend approval of a tentative subdivision map unless it can make affirmative findings that the subdivision is physically feasible, adequately served by infrastructure, and will not create public health or safety hazards.
Importantly, the Housing Accountability Act and related housing statutes do not suspend or override these requirements.
Analysis
Based on the materials presented to date, the Spring Grove Tentative Subdivision Map lacks documented findings demonstrating compliance with objective standards governing infrastructure capacity, water supply adequacy, and site feasibility. These deficiencies are not subjective design issues but threshold legal requirements that must be satisfied prior to map approval.
Conclusion
Absent documented, objective findings addressing these requirements, the Tentative Subdivision Map cannot lawfully be approved or recommended for approval.
Agenda Item #11.3.
MEMO 2
General Plan Consistency & Growth Strategy
Date: December 18, 2025
Submitted by: Tamara Sorensen, St. Helena Resident, DRE #01270802 Purpose
This memorandum addresses whether the Spring Grove project is consistent with the City of St.
Helena’s General Plan.
Applicable Policy
California law requires zoning and subdivision approvals to be consistent with the adopted General Plan. The St. Helena General Plan emphasizes measured growth, preservation of community character, protection of green corridors, and infrastructure sustainability.
Analysis
The Spring Grove project pushes density, infrastructure demand, and land use intensity to the maximum allowable limits without demonstrated consistency with General Plan growth principles. The record lacks findings addressing long-term service capacity, preservation of green space, and impacts to quality of life.
Conclusion
Without explicit findings of General Plan consistency, approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map would be premature and inconsistent with adopted policy.
Agenda Item #11.3.
MEMO 3
Water Neutrality & Infrastructure Capacity
Date: December 18, 2025
Submitted by: Tamara Sorensen, St. Helena Resident, DRE #01270802 Purpose
This memorandum addresses water supply adequacy and the City’s water neutrality policy as applied to the Spring Grove project.
Applicable Law
Government Code § 66473.7 requires cities to make findings regarding adequate water supply prior to subdivision approval.
Analysis
The project relies on an in-lieu fee to purportedly offset increased water demand. However, payment of a fee does not itself establish the physical availability of water, nor does it demonstrate long-term infrastructure adequacy. Existing correspondence from community members raises substantial concerns regarding outdated assumptions in the City’s water neutrality calculations.
Conclusion
Deferring water adequacy determinations to later approvals or fee payments does not satisfy the City’s obligations at the Tentative Subdivision Map stage.
Agenda Item #11.3.
MEMO 4
Planning Commission Bylaws & Procedural Integrity
Date: December 18, 2025
Submitted by: Tamara Sorensen, St. Helena Resident, DRE #01270802 Purpose
This memorandum addresses whether the Planning Commission’s review process complied with its own bylaws and procedural obligations.
Analysis
The Commission’s bylaws require meaningful deliberation and adequate consideration of materials presented. Statements by commissioners indicate that time constraints and procedural pressure limited substantive discussion of critical issues.
Conclusion
Where procedural constraints prevent adequate consideration of statutory issues, the resulting recommendation lacks procedural integrity and should not be relied upon without further review.
Agenda Item #11.3.
MEMO 5
Commissioner Reversal Statement (December 4, 2025)
Date: December 18, 2025
Submitted by: Tamara Sorensen, St. Helena Resident, DRE #01270802 Purpose
This memorandum documents a Planning Commissioner’s post-hearing reversal of position.
Analysis
Commissioner Michelle Covell publicly stated that she voted in favor of the project under perceived pressure and without adequate time to review materials, and later rescinded her support upon further review.
Conclusion
This reversal underscores the need for additional deliberation and supports a continuance or reconsideration prior to Council action.
Agenda Item #11.3.
MEMO 6
Request for Written Findings & Continuance
Date: December 18, 2025
Submitted by: Tamara Sorensen, St. Helena Resident, DRE #01270802 Purpose
This memorandum requests that the City provide written responses to issues raised and consider a continuance.
Analysis
The record reflects unresolved objective issues related to infrastructure, water supply, and feasibility. Proceeding without addressing these matters exposes the City to unnecessary risk.
Conclusion
The City should issue written findings responding to these concerns and continue the matter until compliance is demonstrated.
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"!#
$
%
&
'!(
)
*
&
!+!
(
,!
!-.
.
&
+!
-
+/01020
3245645
7010208905:02;<2<42=46>?1@ .!A2=
BCDCEFEG
BFHBE
IJ
KL=?
M1145
7<L=??11458?=NO6P4450>:9@Q
I5;24R
S20;4N
70L20;4N8?=NO6P4450>:9@Q
T0?=4
540
7U5408?=NO6P4450>:9@Q
1;4064N8?=NO6P4450>:9
71;4064N8?=NO6P4450>:9@Q
I15
I5;4265
7005;42658?=NO6P4450>:9@Q
34
A2;4
76O2;48?=NO6P4450>:9@Q
MP2=6<P42
V02542
7MV025428?=NO6P4450>:9@
J0N0
W4X60
7JW4X608?=NO6P4450>:9@Q
J=4
T0564
71U056481Y:2<>6@Q
J=?P44
M94
71=?P448?9402?P=4?6>?1@Q
V0N54
Z45:
7R0N54845:02?P>?1@ [\]^_`abc
`d
efdg]dehfd
i`jk
lm`fm
im`abd
n]^_`nn`fdn
odc
l]^p`e
ef__bdjn
^q
_qnbprs
toqdb
ubfdv
odc
w`ekbppb
xfybppz
{|}~
}~
{~
|
}~
{|}|
||~
}
}
|
|
~
|
~|~
~|
~|
~|
}~
|
~
~|
~|
|
|
|
||
}
|
||~}
}
¡¢££¤¥¦
§¨
©ª«¤¬
¤®
¯§¬°±¦
²³´ª¥µ¤¶§´
·¸
¹ªª¥¤¬
¯¬¤
º§´°´»ª±¦
¼¢´»
½ª
¾¿¥£¤¶µª¬¦
Àª£§´»¥¤»ª®
Á|~
}~}
}
Â
}
~|
}~}
|
|
|
Ã
}|
||~}
}
Ä
|
ÅÅ
ÆÇÈÉÉ Ç
ÆÇÊÆÉË
||~
|
~~|
}}
~||
~|
}|}~
~|}
|~}
~
ÌÍ
~
Î
}~}
}
|}~}|
~
}Ï~
|
|
||~}
}
}
||
|~Ð|
ÑÉÑÈ
Ò}|~
}
}
|
|
Ð
|
|Ó
||
~
||~
|||
Ô¸
Õ¨¥¤´»¥¢±»¢¥ª
Öª¤´°³°¬°»¦
¼¢´»
½ª
×µ¤¬¢¤»ª®
¤»
׶»¬ª£ª»
¡»¤«ª
|
}
Ø
~|Ù~|
}|Ù}|
|~|
}
~}~~|
~
}~}
Ä
|
ÅÅ
ÆÆÚÛÈ Ç
ÆÆÚÛÚË
~~|
~}|
||~
|}}
}|~
}|}|~
}}
Ð~|
}|
||~
|
~||
}
~}
|
|~
}
|
|~|
|
Ã
}
|~|
}}|
}
}|
|||
ܸ
²³Ýª±¶µª
¡»¤®¤¥®´
¡Þ§¢¬®
Õ±¬¢®ª
²¢»±§£ª´
ߧ»
ࢴ»
Ö§¥£
|
~||
}|
||
|
}}~
~
|~}
|||
|
á||
}}~
~
Ø{Á
}~|
Ð|
|
âÛ
Ä|
ÅâÛ ÑÑ ÉÈÉ
ã
Ø|~
{|
ÁË
||~
||
}}~
~|
}|
}
~
Ä|
|}ä
}
Ë
|||
|
~}~~|
}}
|~|
}
~
Í|~
Ð}
}}
~|}
}
|
|~|
}
~|
}
|
}|
|
~}
å¸
¾æ§¥®¤³¬ª
秢´°«
èªé¢°¥ª£ª»´
¾¥ª
¼°´¤¬°«ª®
ê°»Þ
èçß¾
ߪª®´
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"#
$
%$&
'
($$)*
+,$$(--
.
*.
'/
/
0
1 #1*2'& !"#
$
#/
$
3456789:6;<=>;?@;A?@BCD?6EFE6?@GHD;8@?I6EJI@DKLHF?6LA?@DL@EL; .
'
M
($$)/ /
!")/
/
#'
)/
-
'/
N)
O
2
$
#'
P
#
$
86Q96;?6LRH9DS>:KSGHD;
T
U'
2'2 1*/
V
W4X>E6S?;?@B?HSHDL9S?@D6=F6L>?6LE6Y>6Z*[2 (,-)
)
\
]
*' )
#
)
M
$
^4X>E6S?FE6F@E@GHDH_FEHFH;6LSHL6@`6DL`6D?;
V
a
b
*\
]c
'*
)
.d
a.
*
. '
d
a##e
.
#
($$)*
')#'
-d
a"M
#
/ !"
'
d
a
1'M
#/
N) #
)
#'$
f4X6_6E@FFEHY@:;H_FEHg6S?;?I@?L6F6DLHD9DE6;H:Y6L;?E9S?9E@:h@F;i
\
.
.
#
.O
j
'
)
2
'
./
$
R:H;>Dh
)
$
'
'
*
.
e
1#b
/
'
/2'&
.
$
'
#'
##
.
/
N) #
)
$
1'*
'
N
)
*
'
/
*$&
')*')
'**$
U'#
N
)
J@`@E@AHE6D;6D
2Vkl$k$kl
$
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"# $%&'(
)('*
+,%&'(-('*%./01/23
40
567587696:
56;6<
=>
? >%&%
@(AB%
+>@(AB%-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
G%
@0.C'*
+HI0.C'*-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
='I.(,
J.%I(&
+%K.%I(&-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
>C/0((
@(%B&
+2C/0((/I(%B&-*2%C1/23F
L0%'
$%B0
+L0%'1$%B0-KK%,1/23F
='I.(%B
J0(.
+%'I.(%B1K0(.-KK%,1/23F
M0.CBH0(.
$%.'(.
+M$%.'(.-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
B(
+B(-('C%',C'(B1/23F
='C
M2(
+=M2(-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
@%'C(
N%(
+I%'C(2%.0%(-*2%C1/23F
M%.
>/M.'%/
+/2//.'%/-2%/1/23F
>C/0%(
M%I%.%
+2C22:6<-*2%C1/23F
O0'
>0'(.
+PK20'(.-(%.0C'1'(3F
4%2%.%
Q.('B('
+%2%.%-E%'*%.IH.H(.C(B1/23F
=%.'
J%.%
+%K%.%-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
R%(
QH%I%.
+BH%I%.-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
JC&
Q22(.B
+JQ22(.B-/C&DB0(('%1*E3F
>C/0((
ME(
+2C/0((-/E(%./0C(/B1/23 5
%%/02('
STT:
RJU
6:5696
V
)((.
G%''C'*
M22CBBC'1HIDF
WXXY
Z
%2
,.CC'*
C'
BHH.
D
@%'
N%([B
%HH(%
D
0(
G%''C'*
M22CBBC'[B
@(/(2K(.
6 I(/CBC'
.(*%.IC'*
0(
QH.C'*
\.E(
H.P(/1
=%/0(I
CB
0(
((.
Z
BK2C(I
0(
G%''C'*
M22CBBC'
D.
0(
@(/(2K(.
6 2((C'*1
=B
C'(I
0(.(C']
0(
QH.C'*
\.E(
4('%CE(
QKICECBC'
>%H
/'%C'B
'.(BE(I
I(DC/C('/C(B
.(%(I
('*C'((.C'*
D(%BCKCC&]
HKC/
B%D(&]
('EC.'2('%
/'B.%C'B]
%'I
^'C'*
%'I
I('BC&
/2HC%'/(
_H%.C/%.&
,C0
.(BH(/
0(
H%./(
%
5:9:
QH.C'*
Q.((1
=
.(BH'B(
0(B(
/'/(.'B
,%B
.(`(B(I]
K
''(
0%B
K(('
H.ECI(I1
40(B(
CBB(B
2B
K(
%II.(BB(I
K(D.(
0(
H.P(/
H./((IB
D.0(.1
A(BH(/D&]
abcde
fegdh
iiijklmnopqrsjrmt
u
iiijklmnovklmnojrmt
wxyx
zx{{|}
~
w|
|{|x
v
'
$(I]
@(/
5 ]
696:
%
5;96
G>
@%'C(
N%(
+¡¢£¤¥¦§¢¨©ª¢¦¥«¬§¢¤¦®¯§3
,.(;
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"
#
#
$
$
#
%
&
'
(
#
"
#)
$
$
#
%
$
*
$
$$+
&
$(,#
$
$
$-
$
#
#
.
$
$
#
/
#
(
#&
#
$
#
"
&
(
#&
&
$
#
!
"
#
$(
/
#!
(
,#
0123456154
789:;<==
>132?645421@ABC=DE=
EFEGHHEG=IHH
JJJKLMNOPQRSMQPKTUR
V12345W154XYZ>[B\]B^_
Agenda Item #11.3.
P.O. BOX 2 ♦ ST. HELENA ♦ CA ♦ TEL. 707.963-5461 ♦ www.leongarch.com ♦ [email protected] From: Wayne Leong, Architect
Re: Spring Grove – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PL24-065) To: St. Helena Planning Commission
Date: December 2, 2025
Chairperson and Commissioners,
My name is Wayne Leong, and I am a licensed architect with over fifty years of experience in design, engineering coordination, and subdivision project review throughout Napa County. I respectfully submit the following comments on the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PL24-065) for the Spring Grove project.
These comments are offered with respect for the Planning Commission’s role and in support of a clear, accurate, and legally defensible decision-making process. My analysis is based on the full set of submitted documents, technical reports, and the staff report for the December 2, 2025 Planning Commission meeting
1. Density Calculations Do Not Accurately Reflect Parcel Zoning The three parcels in this application include 1505 Spring Street, which is zoned Medium Density Residential (MR), not High Density Residential (HR). The staff report calculates a minimum density of 41 units as if all three parcels are HR.
This is factually incorrect and materially affects the City’s zoning and General Plan consistency findings. The Municipal Code requires density to be based on the zoning district of each parcel unless a rezoning or General Plan amendment has been adopted — and none has.
This discrepancy is not addressed in the staff report, and the resulting density calculation should be corrected.
2. Stormwater Overflow Design Is Incomplete
The civil drawings show multiple bioretention basins but do not provide any overflow routing. The staff report mentions a stormwater lift station, which is a required component of a complete post-construction stormwater design but do not provide details:
• Overflow risers or area drains
• High-flow bypass structures
• Emergency spillway elevations
• Final discharge routing
• Erosion control at outlet points
• Lift station engineering design
Public Works comments within the packet explicitly request clarification of these missing components.
Without defined overflow paths, the City cannot verify that the subdivision will not direct stormwater toward the creek or create downstream hazards. This omission prevents the City from making required findings under the Subdivision Map Act related to engineering feasibility and drainage safety.
3. Fire and Emergency Access Requirements Are Not Fully Resolved While the staff report notes Fire Department review, the Tentative Map lacks critical objective information necessary to evaluate:
• Three-story building access
• Aerial apparatus or laddering requirements
• Protected pedestrian crossings
• Required 10-foot garage-to-drive-aisle clearances
Because the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) allows denial only for a “specific, quantifiable, unmitigable public health or safety impact,” it is essential that fire access feasibility be demonstrated clearly and objectively in the public record.
At present, that level of detail is not in the map package.
4. Tree Ordinance Compliance Is Not Addressed
St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 12.24 (Tree Ordinance) requires:
• Identification of protected trees
Agenda Item #11.3.
P.O. BOX 2 ♦ ST. HELENA ♦ CA ♦ TEL. 707.963-5461 ♦ www.leongarch.com ♦ [email protected] • A removal/preservation schedule
• Tree-protection fencing
• Root-zone mapping
• Mitigation and replacement plans
The application does not provide this information, and the staff report does not discuss the ordinance requirements. This omission prevents a full evaluation of subdivision-level environmental and resource protection requirements.
5. Water Neutrality Requirements Remain Unresolved
The Revised Water Neutrality Report identifies a 10,112 GPD increase in demand but provides:
• No retrofit sites
• No enforceable offsets
• No fixture lists
• No executed agreements
• No verified method to achieve neutrality
Local Code (SHMC 13.12) requires demonstration of feasible neutrality before the subdivision is approved. Deferring this to City Council leaves a mandatory Tentative Map finding unresolved.
6. HAA and SB 330 Do Not Eliminate the Tentative Map Requirements While the HAA governs denial standards, the Subdivision Map Act still requires the City to evaluate the subdivision itself — including drainage, fire access, infrastructure feasibility, environmental protection, and compliance with objective standards.
The Tentative Map remains incomplete in several of these areas.
Conclusion
I fully support appropriate infill affordable housing, and I respect the City’s obligation under state housing law. However, based on an objective review of the submitted documents, the Tentative Subdivision Map does not satisfy several mandatory findings required under the Subdivision Map Act and the Municipal Code.
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that the Planning Commission not recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Instead, the applicant should be directed to address the unresolved engineering, zoning, safety, and environmental issues and resubmit a complete Tentative Map for reconsideration.
Thank you for your time, professionalism, and service to the community.
Sincerely,
Wayne Leong, Architect
St. Helena, CA
Agenda Item #11.3.
PROPOSED SPRING GROVE 24 UNIT SITE PLAN
• 3 PARCELS:
1. 1505 SPRING ST: .49 ac (ACCESS)
2. 1515 SPRING ST: .54 ac (URBAN FOREST)3. 1447 SPRING ST: 1.50 ac (DEVELOPMENT) • MEETS EMERGENCY REQUIREMENTS• TURN AROUND AND ONSITE PARKING• MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF o 17.16.030o 17.16.040
• PROPER SETBACKS
• COMMON OPEN SPACE
o WIDER ALLEY
o PLAY AREAo URBAN FOREST
o ADEQUATE CREEK SETBACK
• PROPER FRONT DOOR ENTRY• MASSING COMPATIBLE WITH AREA o
2 STORIES
o BUILDING SEPARATION
• ADEQUATE AREA FOR DRAINAGE
• DENSITY ( 16
x 1.50 ac
= 24 UNITS)
o 50% MARKET RATE ‐ 12 UNITS
o 50% AFFORDABLE – 12 UNITS
• FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE
1 2
3 1505
.49 ac
1515
.54 ac
1447
1.50 ac
ST. JAMES CT.
Agenda Item #11.3.
P.O. BOX 2 ♦ ST. HELENA ♦ CA ♦ TEL. 707.963-5461 ♦ www.leongarch.com ♦ [email protected] From: Wayne Leong, Architect
Re: Spring Grove – Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PL24-065) To: St. Helena City Council
Date: December 8, 2026
Chairperson and Council Members,
My name is Wayne Leong, and I am a licensed architect with over fifty years of experience in design, engineering coordination, and subdivision project review throughout Napa County. I respectfully submit the following comments on the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PL24-065) for the Spring Grove project.
These comments are offered with respect for the City Council’s role and in support of a clear, accurate, and legally defensible decisionmaking process. My analysis is based on the full set of submitted documents, technical reports, and the staff report for the December 2, 2025 Planning Commission meeting
1. Density Calculations Do Not Accurately Reflect Parcel Zoning The three parcels in this application include 1505 Spring Street, which is zoned Medium Density Residential (MR), not High Density Residential (HR). The staff report calculates a minimum density of 41 units as if all three parcels are HR.
This is factually incorrect and materially affects the City’s zoning and General Plan consistency findings. The Municipal Code requires density to be based on the zoning district of each parcel unless a rezoning or General Plan amendment has been adopted — and none has.
This discrepancy is not addressed in the staff report, and the resulting density calculation should be corrected.
2. Stormwater Overflow Design Is Incomplete
The civil drawings show multiple bioretention basins but do not provide any overflow routing. The staff report mentions a stormwater lift station, which is a required component of a complete post-construction stormwater design but do not provide details:
• Overflow risers or area drains
• High-flow bypass structures
• Emergency spillway elevations
• Final discharge routing
• Erosion control at outlet points
• Lift station engineering design
Public Works comments within the packet explicitly request clarification of these missing components.
Without defined overflow paths, the City cannot verify that the subdivision will not direct stormwater toward the creek or create downstream hazards. This omission prevents the City from making required findings under the Subdivision Map Act related to engineering feasibility and drainage safety.
3. Fire and Emergency Access Requirements Are Not Fully Resolved While the staff report notes Fire Department review, the Tentative Map lacks critical objective information necessary to evaluate:
• Three-story building access
• Aerial apparatus or laddering requirements
• Protected pedestrian crossings
• Required 10-foot garage-to-drive-aisle clearances
Because the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) allows denial only for a “specific, quantifiable, unmitigable public health or safety impact,” it is essential that fire access feasibility be demonstrated clearly and objectively in the public record.
At present, that level of detail is not in the map package.
4. Tree Ordinance Compliance Is Not Addressed
St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 12.24 (Tree Ordinance) requires:
• Identification of protected trees
Agenda Item #11.3.
P.O. BOX 2 ♦ ST. HELENA ♦ CA ♦ TEL. 707.963-5461 ♦ www.leongarch.com ♦ [email protected] • A removal/preservation schedule
• Tree-protection fencing
• Root-zone mapping
• Mitigation and replacement plans
The application does not provide this information, and the staff report does not discuss the ordinance requirements. This omission prevents a full evaluation of subdivision-level environmental and resource protection requirements.
5. Water Neutrality Requirements Remain Unresolved
The Revised Water Neutrality Report identifies a 10,112 GPD increase in demand but provides:
• No retrofit sites
• No enforceable offsets
• No fixture lists
• No executed agreements
• No verified method to achieve neutrality
Local Code (SHMC 13.12) requires demonstration of feasible neutrality before the subdivision is approved. Deferring this to City Council leaves a mandatory Tentative Map finding unresolved.
6. HAA and SB 330 Do Not Eliminate the Tentative Map Requirements While the HAA governs denial standards, the Subdivision Map Act still requires the City to evaluate the subdivision itself — including drainage, fire access, infrastructure feasibility, environmental protection, and compliance with objective standards.
The Tentative Map remains incomplete in several of these areas.
Conclusion
I fully support appropriate infill affordable housing, and I respect the City’s obligation under state housing law. However, based on an objective review of the submitted documents, the Tentative Subdivision Map does not satisfy several mandatory findings required under the Subdivision Map Act and the Municipal Code.
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that the City Council not recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Instead, the applicant should be directed to address the unresolved engineering, zoning, safety, and environmental issues and resubmit a complete Tentative Map for reconsideration.
Thank you for your time, professionalism, and service to the community.
Sincerely,
Wayne Leong, Architect
St. Helena, CA
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"#$
%&'()*&*+,-.(/
0!.
121323435
14678
9!
:
;'<*
=&&(.
%>'<**&&(.)*<?@,A((.+-BC/
DEF
GHI
JKLKMN
OPHQ
OLKRST
UMVRKWT
XLKNYK
PMZL[VK
\Q
LKHHKR
]ELLEWKV
^Q
_RI
`KLYE
aNRMKHHbY
K\NPL
HE
cNM[NRQ
deHfY
ZPHQ
ZE[MZPL
\KKHPMg
[MVKR
X[^LPZ
JKNRPMg
NgKMVN
PHK\
ddIeI
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
iM
cNM[NRQ
djHf
k
RKZKPlKV
HfK
]ELLEWPMg
LKHHKR
]RE\
_RI
`KLYE
aNRMKHH
RKmRKYKMHPMg
OPHQ
nKMH[RKYI
DfK
LKHHKR
WNY
NLYE
YKMH
HE
E[R
ZPHQ
ZE[MZPL
\K\^KRYT
ZPHQ
\NMNgKRY
NY
WKLL
NY
HE
YKlKRNL
EmmEMKMHY
E]
HfK
GmRPMg
oRElK
fE[YPMg
VKlKLEm\KMHI
DfK
gPYH
E]
HfK
LKHHKR
PY
HfNH
E[R
ZPHQ
ZE[MZPL
fNY
ME
ZfEPZK
NZZKmH
HE
NmmRElK
HfK
GmRPMg
oRElK
mREpKZH
^NYKV
[mEM
HfK
ZPHQbY
Z[RRKMH
WNHKR
MK[HRNL
mELPZQI
U
mELPZQ
HfNH
fNY
^KKM
PMNVKq[NHK
]ER
QKNRY
PM
NZfPKlPMg
WNHKR
MK[HRNLPHQ
PM
E[R
ZPHQ
]ER
MKW
fE[YPMgI
UY
k
WRPHK
HfPYT
k
RK\NPM
EmHP\PYHPZ
HfNH
E[R
ZPHQbY
NHHERMKQ
\NQ
^K
N^LK
HE
ZE\K
[m
WPHf
YE\K LKgNL
p[YHP]PZNHPEM
HE
VKMQ
HfPY
mREpKZH
ER
NH
LKNYH
VKLNQ
PH
V[RPMg
HfK
cNM[NRQ
deHf
ZPHQ
ZE[MZPL
\KKHPMgI
iHfKRWPYKT
HfK
KrZKYYPlK
VK\NMV
EM
E[R
WNHKR
Y[mmLQ
]RE\
HfPY
mREpKZHI
NMV
EHfKRY
Z[RRKMHLQ
Y[^\PHHKV
HE
HfK
ZPHQbY
ZE\\[MPHQ
VKlKLEm\KMH
VKmNRH\KMHT
\NQ
mEYK
NM
KlKM
gRKNHKR
fNRVYfPm
EM
GHI
JKLKMNbY
WNHKR
Z[YHE\KRY
V[RPMg
N
][H[RK
VRE[gfHI
k
RK\NPM
VPYNmmEPMHKV
WPHf
E[R
ZPHQbY
\NMNgK\KMH
]ER
MEH
NVVRKYYPMg
PHbY
PMNVKq[NHK
WNHKR
MK[HRNL
mELPZQ
]ER
YKlKRNL
QKNRY
NMV
mLNZPMg
GHI
JKLKMN
WNHKR
Z[YHE\KRY
PM
HfPY
Z[RRKMH
mRKZNRPE[Y
mEYPHPEMI
DE\
aKLH
ssssssssss
t<B<.+
!(,,+B(
ssssssssss
ut&6
v(,
"+t.(
%'+t.()*<?C(.t(,-*&/ 6
;+
wAt<.B
%>xAt<.B)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
!<*A((
w(+,?
%&x(+,?)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
z+'+t+)*<?@,A((.+-BCz
%+'+t+)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
v+(
{>+x+t
%,>+x+t)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
z',&&(t,)*<?@,A((.+-BCz
%',&&(t,)*<?@,A((.+-BC/
=*6
9.<
=&(
%+*&()*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
!+?+
w(|,+
%&x(t,+)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
!<(
}+.,(
%&~+.,()&sBt>-,/y
#t<*
}+.(.
%(~+.(.)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
},(>A
$(+*A
%~(+*A)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
!
"#$
%&'()*&*+,-.(/y
!<*A((
=C(
%&*C()*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
+?.(
$(.B
%+?.()(.B+t*A-*&/y
=At<,>A(t
+t.(t
%*+t.(t)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
#A+.
+,A
%(A+.-+,A)''+-*&/y
!<*A+(
"t((t
%&'t((t)*<?C(.t(,-*&/y
{+&
<BB<.,
%,A<BB<.,)*<?C(.t(,-*&/y
w+.<(
+(
%x+.<(&+tA+()B&+<-*&/y
<.<+
+&(t
%
B+&(t)*<?@,A((.+-BC/y
,(
%,()(.<+.<.(,-*&/y
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"!#"# #$% #%&'()
(
* +
+
,-.
/
&/
0&/
/
+
1
/
12
3/
+
+
24
/2
56789:;9<912
/
2
2
"
1
3
3
=>?@>ABCCD?EF?GGB@?H>CDGIJKCDLEMNLHOPHQR>C>E?STKICLGDAI@N?H>@E>BH@?C F>U>CIKJ>EH
4
33
VWXYZ[\]^_`abca_de[dfdghbd]chd_idXh_cZ[hjkdl^_haXYm[hhdgYjhbdcllZ[\cnho gchdgi^edmYd_pqorqrsocngWXYZ[\]^_`at[ngahbd\cZ\XZch[^nbcaYddnl_dlc_dg [n\^nt^_mcn\df[hbhbd]chd_idXh_cZ[hjW^Z[\juv
VWXYZ[\]^_`at[ngahbchhbdmdhb^g^Z^wjcngcaaXmlh[^naXadg[nhbdcllZ[\cnhxa \cZ\XZch[^na\^nt^_maf[hbhbd]chd_idXh_cZ[hjW^Z[\juv Vy[n\dm^ahb^mda[nyhuzdZdncbcedcZ_dcgjYddnXlw_cgdgf[hbfchd_dtt[\[dnh t[{hX_dacngcllZ[cn\daoWXYZ[\]^_`a\^n\X_ahbch_d|X[_[nwhbdcllZ[\cnhh^_dh_^t[h }~b^mda[acbc_gab[lcng_d\^mmdngahbchhbd[hj^Xn\[Zw_cnhhbdcllZ[\cnhxa _d|Xdahh^Xadhbd[nZ[dX_dh_^t[htddl_^\daauv
13
/
3/
/
/
(
/
/
!!"
"# #
3
/
/
/
*
12
)
/
/
-
-
1
/
/
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"
"
#$
#
"
$
%
&'(
)*+
,-./)-0
.1
21 345
&-6-1*7+
,*4-8
1-948*6.4:
;--
<6.1=-0
)-8->
?
@AB
CDEDFGHI
JKFLMLNGE
OPQDR
OSGNADT
UVBUWR
XGFQGADI
ASD
LXNEDXDFAGALPF
PY
ZGADT
DYYLMLDFM[
XDGIKTDI
AP
YKEE[
PYYIDA
G
FDZ
QD\DEPNXDFAHI
ZGADT
TD]KLTDXDFAIR
ZSLMS
MGF
^D
MPFILQDTDQ
G
TD_KEGAPT[
TD]KLTDXDFA
KFQDT
ASD
QDYLFLALPF
PY
MPFMDIILPFI
PT
LFMDFAL\DI
YPKFQ
KFQDT
`P\DTFXDFA
OPQD
IDMALPF
abcUbR
IK^QL\LILPF
defR
NGTG_TGNS
dVfB
gSDTDYPTDR
COh
SGI
QDADTXLFDQ
ASGA
G
NTPiDMA
ASGA
]KGELYLDI
YPT
ASD
@hjk
^[
NTP\LQLF_
ASD
TD]KLILAD
GXPKFA
PY
GYYPTQG^ED
SPKILF_
MPKEQ
IDDe
TDELDY
YTPX
ASD
GNNELMGALPF
PY
OSGNADT
UVBUW
PY
ASD
@AB
CDEDFG
JKFLMLNGE
OPQD
KILF_
GF
LFMDFAL\DlMPFMDIILPFR
NTP\LQDQ
LA
QDXPFIATGADI
LQDFALYLG^ED
GFQ
GMAKGE
MPIA
IG\LF_I
AP
ASD
NTPNPIDQ
NTPiDMAB
m
"
n
"
o
p
"
q
r
n
n
"
r
p
"
o
r
s
tuvwxyxzv{x|}~
n
"
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"
#
$
"
$
%
#
&
'
''
(
"
"
)*+,-./012341567107388/9:3;<7=/0>41?@9/A7B2C
D
E
$$
"
F
$
$
G
$
H
H
$
$
I
$
JJ
$$
"
I
J"
$
D
K
#
$
$
$
LMNOPQRSTMOUMVRWXYZ[ \Z]XSTMO ^__P`ZTOW \Z]XYZ[
abcdef g hgihhjkgljmn
ocpqrstuefkijv hgivhjk hwk
oxbyezxes{ n g jhjkvlgjk
|cfuxeprstuef m ggivhjkgl}jk
~dbfxesxezkih gg}ihjkjlhhj
cxsxezkig gwihhjk jkj
UOZ]
\Z]XYZ[
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"#$!! $#$%&&
'(
) *
+&
! &*&
," ,
*&
&*&
$
$*&,-."/0
&&$ 1, 2"$
3"4./
&&$ 1, 2
5 $
*6
"
*,&2
&&$
(
) *
7 '
&&$1*
+ 38"
$! ,
&2$!
9
*
&
2:$&2
#$!! $#$%&& ::
$
%
,3;
$
'
&&$1*
+
,$
38- ,$
-&
./..<*&,
#$,
$*&,-* ,6 &
$=36
>
?& 7 :$&2
38
0@:A$
&
"#$!! $#$%&&'$*
+
* $
:$B
7 -&,,
%
$$$! " ,
, 2 9
$*&,*
*!-$$$!
C
$!
5 $
9 :$&2 && $6
:$
$
&*&
$
$,
!
D&*9
- ,$
*!-$
$!
$
$
E$
$!
$!!*
2"$
C
$!
$-,!$&
,
5 :$&2$!:
:$:$ ,:$B
7 *!-$$$! % C
$!
$
$
6$
$! F "
*!-$$$! !*
!
!
GHIJKLMNOPQORNPMSTUSVWXPOYUPN$
?*
>*-,% $"
:$
#$!! $ "! F
! &*&
$1$!: $ $*:$
8@
$:$:A"#$!! $#$%&&
, 9
*&
$!:&
&2,
&*&
$
Z , * ,
-$%&
$ "#$!! $#$%&&
,9
&2
./..# &$ <*&,
#$, &*&
$ 9&&
-&
*!-$$$!
$*&,-- ,$
C
$! [\]$
:$:$ ,
:$B
[A;]
?
1 &2 $
- ,$>
?& 7 :$&2$9
*
&,%&$:!
^_`abcdefgh_iijkl ,
$m%&$:!
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"#$#%#
%!
$&'()*+,%-
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"
#"$%
&' !"("$%)*+",-.+/ 0
1%
232435657
26892
:;
<#"
=!$,>*
&(?!$,>*).,@A !%%>"-*B/C
;,.!%%
=%" @
&+?%" @).,@A !%%>"-*B/C
:"$>
D"$"
&"E"$").,@A !%%>"-*B/C
F"%
G("?"$
& ("?"$).,@A !%%>"-*B/C
D,@
G++%$
&DG++%$ ).,@A !%%>"-*B/C
#E,.
H++%>
&(E,..++%>).,@A !%%>"-*B/
5 "".!+%>
I24
;DJ
K"%$-(?AC
G?*%-(?AC
=%"$
+%+E%$
A
H,@
H>.,L
#%" %
%%
!%
"".!%?8
GDM446
N ,>*
H$, ,
:.
G
N%%>"
K"%$
O%$",@
#,.@8
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: January 13, 2026
FROM: Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst SUBJECT: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing a FY202526 $100,000 Budget Amendment to Increase
Appropriations for Additional Sludge Hauling Fees Due to HigherThanAnticipated Operational Needs, Funded by Wastewater Enterprise Fund Reserves.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
On August 12, 2025, (Resolution 2025088) the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Upper Valley Disposal for Sludge Hauling Services from the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
FY202526 Adopted Budget included $100,000 in
appropriations within the Wastewater Enterprise Fund for these services.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this staff report is to request City Council authorization of a FY202526 budget amendment in the amount of $100,000 to increase appropriations within the Wastewater Treatment Plant operating budget for
additional sludge hauling due to higherthananticipated operational needs, funded by Wastewater Enterprise Fund reserves.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approval of the proposed action will increase the FY 2025 26 Wastewater Treatment Plant operating budget by $100,000 for sludge hauling services. The additional appropriations are needed to fund increased sludge hauling activity during the second half of the fiscal year due to higherthananticipated operational needs.
BACKGROUND:
Sludge hauling is an essential operational function of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant and is required to support ongoing treatment processes, maintain system performance, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. The City contracts with Upper Valley Recycling to provide sludge hauling services from the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The FY202526 Adopted Budget included $100,000 in appropriations within the Wastewater Treatment Plant operating budget for sludge hauling services, based on Agenda Item #11.3.
historical hauling volumes and anticipated operational needs. On August 12, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Upper Valley Disposal for sludge hauling services.
During the first half of FY202526, the City experienced a higher frequency of sludge hauling pickups than anticipated during budget development. As a result, the full $100,000 amount was expended within the first six months of the fiscal year, necessitating a budget amendment to fund continued sludge hauling services through the remainder of the fiscal year.
DISCUSSION:
During the first half of FY202526, the Wastewater Treatment Plant experienced higherthananticipated sludge production, resulting in an increased frequency of sludge hauling pickups. These additional pickups were necessary to support ongoing treatment operations, maintain system performance, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
The FY202526 Adopted Budget assumed hauling volumes; however, operational conditions required more frequent hauling than originally projected. As a result, the $100,000 appropriated for sludge hauling services was fully expended within the first six months of the fiscal year.
To maintain uninterrupted wastewater treatment operations for the remainder of FY202526, staff estimates an additional $100,000 is required to fund sludge hauling services through June 30, 2026. The proposed budget amendment does not expand the scope of services but provides sufficient funding to address operational needs for the second half of the fiscal year.
Staff recommends funding the additional appropriations using Wastewater Enterprise Fund reserves. The use of reserves for this purpose is consistent with their intended use to address unanticipated operational costs and ensures continued compliance and system reliability without impacting other wastewater operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not a CEQA Project.
GOAL:
Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Invoices FY26
Agenda Item #11.3.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FY2025-26 $100,000 BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATING BUDGET FOR
ADDITIONAL SLUDGE HAULING SERVICES, FUNDED BY
WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND RESERVES.
RECITALS
A. The City of St. Helena operates and maintains the Wastewater Treatment plant, which requires regular sludge hauling services to support treatment processes, maintain system performance, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements; and
B. On August 12, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-088 authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Upper Valley Disposal for sludge hauling services at the Wastewater Treatment Plant; and C. The FY2025-26 Adopted Budget included $100,000 in appropriations within the Wastewater Treatment Plant operating budget for sludge hauling services based on anticipated operational needs; and
D. During the first half of FY2025-26, the Wastewater Treatment Plant experienced higher-than-anticipated sludge production, resulting in an increased frequency of sludge hauling pickups and the full expenditure of the budgeted amount; and E. Staff has determined that an additional $100,000 is required to fund sludge hauling services for the remainder of FY2025-26 to maintain uninterrupted wastewater treatment operations; and
F. Staff recommends utilizing Wastewater Enterprise Fund reserves to fund the additional appropriations required for sludge hauling services during FY2025-26.
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:
Agenda Item #11.3.
1. Authorizes a FY2025-26 budget amendment in the amount of $100,000 to increase appropriations within the Wastewater Treatment Plant operating budget for additional sludge hauling services.
2. Funding is as follows:
Description Fund/Funding
Source
Expense
GL Account
Amount
Wastewater Treatment
Other Contract Services
571 – Wastewater
Enterprise 571-5029-2145 $100,000
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on January 13, 2026, by the following vote:
Mayor Dohring:
Vice Mayor Deasy:
Council Member Barak:
Council Member Spadarotto:
Council Member Summers:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX382
SAINTHELENACA 94574-0382
DISTRICTNO. 4060
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINT HELENACA 94674
ACCOUNT NO.
INVOICENO.
STATEMENT DATE
DUEDATE
Santa DIVonllna BILLINGPERIOD
FORASSISTANCE
Customer Service
One Time Payments
___
PAGE 1
4000-5152573
"mum
00/01/25
On lept
07/01/25 - 07/31/25
707-053-7000
500-457-1370
..
\
,.
INVOICESTATEMENT
Date Descrl tlon Amount
Prevlous clones 45.
07/23/25 CommAdjustmentFinanceCharge ReverseFinance Charges $ -656.33 Total Payments And Credlts 3 -050.33
Sen/Ice Location MI Clty 01 St HelenaWet Wtr Pln
Acct #6182573 1 ChelxLn
06/27/25 Buéky1latem Charge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
127 5
06/27/25 Dégmsal Fee ByTon - Ro 4.83 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1 7185
06/27/25 Haul10 Yd - R0 1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1237185
06/27/25 Disposal Fee ByTon - Flo 1.02@ $0.00 $ 0.00
1237186 '
06/27/25 Haul20 Yd - Ho 1 Each@ $0.00 $ 0.00
1237186
07/07/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
1240325
07/07/25 Disposal Fee ByTon - RO 5.48 GI$0.00 $ 0.00
1240325
07/07/25 Haul 10 Yd- R0 1 Each@ $2053.80 $ 2,053.80
1240325
07/16/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
Izwam
Please remit to the address below and return your remit stub with your payment.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE ACCOUNTNo. woo-6182613
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY INVOICEN0. 17smoe7uoeo
PO BOX382 STATEMENTDATE 00/01/25
SAINTHELENACA04674-0382 DUEDATE 0» mm PAYTI-IisAMOUNT «5.00030 ‘0 MD01 059609 07792H 160 DSNGLP u u . III'I'I'-II--II'I-III-"III'|'I"II-'--I'|IIII"|'|Ill'lluIIlII- 3113““ S $018.: ESELLEELAEC‘EA mirage-$3351. the New won on the reverse '10..
SAINTHELENACA 94574 MAILPAYMENTTo:
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX7426
PASADENACA 91109-7428
HDEU UDDUUDDDDUDUDDODDXEIEE5737HEIDI]SSHEUEDDUDUUUDUDDDL7530305? Ll Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX382
SAINTHELENACA 94574-0382
DISTRICTNO. 4000
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94574
ACCOUNTNO.
INVOICENO.
STATEMENT DATE
DUEDATE
BILLINGPERIOD
INVOICESTATEMENT(continued)
PAGE 2 '
4060-8182573
178993087U060
08/01/25
On Recelpt
07/01/25 - 07/31/25
Date Deacrl tlon AmOunt
07/16/25 DIsposalEeeByTon - Ro 5.9 @ §0.00 0.00
1243588
07/16/25 Haul10Yd- R0 1 Each @ $2053.80
1243588
07/17/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each @ $125.00
1243589
07/17/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Ro 5.15 @ $0.00
1243589
07/17/25 Haul 10 Yd - R0 1 Each @ $2053.80
1243589
07/24/25 Bulky Item Charge 1 Each @ $125.00
1246668
07/24/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Ro 5.67 @ $0.00
1246668
07/24/25 Haul 10 Yd- Flo 1 Each @ $2053.80
1246668
07/25/25 Transfer Payment 1 Each @ $619.81
CorrectingAgingBucket
07/25/25 Transfer Payment
Correctin AgingBuckets
1 Each @ -$619.81
Current hargea And Fees
TONIDUO
‘It'a FREEIThere Ia no charge to Viewor pay your bill on our website"
VIEW/PAYYOURBILLONLINEI
'Make Paymente 'Set up Autopay'
‘Accees your account 24/7 '60 Paperleee 'Vlew Statements‘ 2,053.80
125.00
0.00 2,053.80
125.00
0.00 2,053.80
619.81
-619.81
10,840.20
55,960.20
$9$69¤?$$$¤369999
Go to W and follow the onllne bill pay prompts to enroll today or call 1-800-457-1379 to make a payment through our Interactive voice aervlce with no extra tee.
Name
Street Address
Change of Billing Addreea
Visit:W on tillthla out and mturn wtthyour payment
City
Phone ( )
State Zip
Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
PAGE 1
ACCOUNTNo. 4050919257: Sox?ggisczow?nws COMPANY INVOICENO. 177134659uooo SAINTHELENACA 94574-0332 STATEMENTDATE 09/01/25
DISTRICTNO 4060 DUE DATE 0" R'w‘” '
Scanto ply onllm BILLINGPERIOD 03/01/25 - 09/31/25
CITYOF ST HELENA FORASSISTANCE
1°80 COLLEGEAVE Customer Service 707-963-7988
5‘1"“ HELENACA 94574 One Time Payments 900-457-1379
INVOICESTATEMENT
Date Descri tion Amount
Prevlous Balance 9 55,960.20
Service Location MaClty 01 St Helena Wst Wtr Pln
Acct #6182573 1 Chaix Ln
08/01/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00
1249925
08/01/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - RO 3.58 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1249925
08/01/25 Haul10 Yd - Flo 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 200000
1249925
08/04/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00
1251016
08/04/25 Disposal Fee ByTon —
RO 4.79 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1251016
08/04/25 Haul 10 Yd - R0 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 1251016 ; 5
08/12/25 Bulky ltem Charge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00 '5'? 1254350 .;
08/12/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Ro 4.42 @ $0.00 $ 0.00 " ' 1254350
08/12/25 Haul 10 Yd - R0 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2.000%
1254350
08/19/25 Bulky ltem Charge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00
1257209
08/19/25 Disposal Fee ByTon - RO 4.56 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
Please remit to the address below and return your remit stub with your payment.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE ACCOUNTNo. 4060-8182573
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY INVOICENo. 1771mssuoeo
po Box 332 STATEMENTDATE 09/01/25
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382 DUEDATE 0n 11mm PAY THISAMOUNT $64,460.20 MD01 075999 56212H 197 CSNGLP WRITEI
IIII'I"”"I"IIIIIII'I'IIII1”"'I'II''IlI'II-II'II'I'II'II'I'I 3218”“ $ TO CHANGEADDRESS ?g:23535255551: ‘1Check here and complete the Inform-non on the reverse side.
SAINTHELENACA 94574 MAILPAYMENTT0:
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX 7428
PASADENACA 91109- 7428
IllllllIllIIIIIIIIIIII'IIHIIlllllhl'll'll'll'"
IIIIIIIIHIIIIII
HDEU DDUDDUUDUUDDDUDUUXELGES73? DUDDEHHEDEUDODUDDDDDDU177113Hb5“! 5 1/1
Agenda Item #11.3.
PAGE2 '
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY A°°°UNT ”0' “03°61‘25”
PO BOX382 INVOICEN0. 177134859U080
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382 STATEMENTDATE WW“
DISTRICTNO. 4060 DUEDATE 0n Receipt
BILLINGPERIOD 08/01/25 - 09/31/25
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94574
INVOICESTATEMENT(continued)
Date Description Amount
1257209
08/19/25 Haul10Yd- Flo 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1257209
Current Charges And Fees $ 8,500.00
Total Due $ 64,460.20
F” H m
'VIEW/PA‘Y‘YOURBItrONtINElT” _
*MakePayments ‘Set up Autopay'
I *Acoess your account 24/7 '60 Paperless ‘ViewStatements' *lt's FREE!There is no charge to Viewor pay your bill on ourwebsite" I Go to t s:/ acco t. c custo e .c and followthe onllne bill pay prompts to enroll today or call 1-800-457-1379to make a payment through our Interactive voice service with no extra tee. change of Billing Address
Visit:WWWORtillthisout and returnwithyour payment
Name
Street Address
City State ________le
Phone( )
278
Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX 382
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382
DISTRICTNO. 4060
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA 94574
Seen to pay will"
INVOICESTATEMENT
Date Descri tion
Previous Balance
Service Location
Acct #6182573
08/26/25 Bulky ItemCharge
1258880
08/26/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Flo
1258880
08/26/25 Haul 10 Yd - Ro
1258880
09/02/25 Bulky ItemCharge
1262323
09/02/25 Disposal Fee ByTon - Ro
1262323
09/02/25 Haul 10 Yd —
Fio
1262323
09/08/25 Bulky ItemCharge
1265377
09/08/25 Disposal Fee ByTon - R0
1265377
09/08/25 Haul10 Yd - Fio
1265377
09/11/25 Bulky ItemCharge
1265683
09/11/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - R0
Please remit to the address below and return your remit stub with your payment.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX382
SAINTHELENACA 94574-0382
MD01 079401 08058H 222 ASNGLP
'lIII”"III'IIIIIIIIIIIIII‘ll"'I“'I'I'I”II'IIII'll'llllllll"
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA 94574
ACCOUNTNO.
INVOICENO.
STATEMENTDATE
DUEDATE
BILLINGPERIOD
FCFIASSISTANCE
Customer Service
One Time Payments
MaCity 01 St HelenaWet WtrPin
1 Chaix Ln
1 Each @ $125.00
4.22 @ $0.00
1 Each @ $2000.00
1 Each @ $125.00
5.13 @ $0.00
1 Each @ $2000.00
1 Each @ $12.50
4.45 @ $0.00
1 Each @ $2000.00
1 Each @ $125.00
4.5 @ $0.00
ACCOUNTNO.
INVOICENO.
STATEMENT DATE
DUEDATE
PAYTHISAMOUNT
n- \
AMOUNT
PAID s TOCHANGEADDRESS
3 memeneeeaeeeaeaeen
PAGE 1
4000-6182573
177137198U060
10/01/25
On Receipt
08/01/25 - 00/30/25
707-003-7008
000-457-1370
0 7
9 4
0 1
”1
Amount
64,460.20
125.00
0.00 2,000.00
125.00
0.00 2,000.00 =1;
12.50 +1
; 0.00 "i
2,000.00
125.00
0.00 4060-6182573
177137196U060
10/01/25
On Receipt
077,007.70 ‘°
Check here end complete the mformetion on the reverse Blda.
MAILPAYMENTTO:
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY
P0
PASADENACA 91109—7428
BOX7428
"'III"III'I"I'I'"II“II'II'I'I'III'I'HII'II'III'II'I'I'I" 'I
HDED L'IEIIJDDIJDDUEIIJEIUUUUDXEL625737 000077057700000000000011771.371195 IJ Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE ACCOUNTNo. 4000-0102573 ??gigmws coMPANY INVOICENO. 177107190u000 SAINTHELENACA04574-0302 STATEMENTDATE 10/01/25
DISTRICTNo. 4000 DUEDATE Onascatpt
BILLINGPERIOD 00/01/25- 00/30/25
CITYOFSTHELENA
1000COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENAat 94574
INVOICESTATEMENT(contlnued)
Date Description Amount
1265693
09/11/25 11-13:; ggaYd- Ho 1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
09/17/25 1B§rg§y7latgm Charge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
09/17/25 1Désepggsaag Fea ByTon - Ro 4.72@ $0.00 $ 0.00 09/17/25 Haul10Yd- He J
1 Each@Maaoooag_, __ ___, .__,a_, ”200000.. 2
‘mW "'—"—‘ ""’ "
09/19/25 I132SI'II058582I Fee ByTon - Flo 0.83@ $0.00 $ 0.00 09/19/25 11-13% 522%- Flo 1 Each@ $0.00 $ 0.00
09/22/25 1351:5119); [atomCharge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00 09l22/25 $853,795? Fee ByTon - Ro 4.62 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
09/22/25 I1-I2aéré71 31W- Ho 1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00 CurrentCharges And Fees $ 12,637.50 E?
? Total Due $ 77,097.70
VIEW/PAYYOURBILLONLINEI
‘MakePayments 1'Setup Autopay‘
'Accaes your account 24/7‘60 Paperless 'VlewStatementa“ 'lt's FREE] There Is nocharge to Vieworpay your blllon ourwabelte" Go to W and tollow the onllneblllpay prompts to enrolltoday or call 1-800-457-1379to make a payment through our lnteractlvavolce eervlcewith no extra fee.
Change of BlllingAddress
Vlslt:Wontillthlsoutandreturnwithyourpayment
Name
StreetAddteas . _______________.__..__._._—__—_
Glty____________ Stale ______.le
Phone( )
Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX382
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382
DISTRICTNO. 4060
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94674
Date Decor! tIon
Previous Balance
10/02/25 Payment ThankYou!
10/06/25 Payment ThankYou!
10/27/25 Payment ThankYou!
10/27/25 Payment Thank You!
10/27/25 Payment ThankYou!
10/27/25 Payment ThankYou!
10/27/25 Payment ThankYou!
10/27/25 Payment ThankYou!
Total Payments And Crodlts
Service Location
Acct #6182573
10/01/25 Bulky ItemCharge
1274453
10/01/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Ro
1274453
10/01/25 Haul 10 Yd- Ro
1274453
10/16/25 Bulky ItemCharge
1282199
10/16/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Ro
1282199
10/16/25 Haul 10 Yd- R0
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX382
SAINT HELENACA94674—0382
MD01 076752 65110H 202 ASNGLP
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94574
ACCOUNTNO. 4000-0102073
INVOICENO. 117222201U000
STATEMENTDATE 11/01/26
DUEDATE On Receipt
loan to m onlIno BILLINGPERIOD 10/01/20- 10/31/25
I —. u
FORASSISTANCE
Customer Service 707-003-7000
One Time Payments 000-457-1379
INVOICESTATEMENT
Amount
, .70
126194 $ -10.840.20
126408 $ -8.500.00
126616 $ -8.500.00
126616 $ 4414.93
126616 $ 4849.38
126616 $ -8,789.95
126656 $ -12,637.50
126616 $ -10.995.00
S -09.526.96
MI Clty01 St Helena Wot Wtr Pln
1 Chllx Ln
1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
4.39 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2000.00 '
1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
4.28 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
Please remit to the address below and return your remit stub with your payment.
ACCOUNTNO. 4060-6182573
INVOICENO. 177222201U000
STATEMENTDATE 11/01/25
DUEDATE On Receipt
PAY THISAMOUNT $10,070.74
9213““s TOCHANGEADDRESS
ChockI'IITIInd com plot: the mformotion on the rover" side.
MAILPAYMENTTO:
PAGE1
UPPER VALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX 7428
PASADENACA 91109-7428
HDED DUDDDDDDDUUDUDUDUXH.635???ODDDLEU'PCI?HDDDDDDUDDDDL7728E‘EGL l 0 7
6 7
5 2
111 -..-I
Agenda Item #11.3.
PAGE 2 '
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
AWASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY $323330 17:22:
33 POBOX302 . SAINTHELENACA94574-0302 EL‘ETEAMTEENT DATE 0111:
2114: ”STRICTNo‘4000 BILLINGPERIOD 10/01/25 - 10/31/25
CITYOFSTHELENA
IoaoCOLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94574
= INVOICESTATEMENT(continued)
Date Deecrlgtlon Amount ‘
1282199
10/24/2605321;? Charge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00
10/24/25 $310891}; Fee ByTon - Flo 3.58 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
10/24/25 reag‘l‘ggaYd - R0 1Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
00/28/25 183%; 3201 Charge — — w - ——~—v1Each@—$125.00~~ ———$——v 125.00vw n 10/28/25 113280100893! Fee ByTon- Re 5.4 @ $0.00 $ 0.00 10/28/25Haul10Yd- RC 1 Each@ $2000.00 0 2,000.00
1286994
Current Charges And Fees $ 8,500.00
Total Due $ 16,070.74
VIEW/PAYYOURBlLLONLlNEl ‘
‘MakePayments *Set up Autopay“ .. I'Aocsasyour account 24/7'60 Paperless *VlewStatements” [% 'lt's FREE!There Is nocharge to vlew or pay your bill on our webslte' GOto 011W and followthe onllne bill pay prompts to enroll today or call 1-800-457-1379to make a payment through our lnteractlve volce aervlce with no extra fee.
Change of BllllngAddress
Visit:WWW
0R lllllhlsoutandreturnwithyourpayment ‘
Name ___,,___________...__—__
StreetAddress_.__—....—_——————«—
Olly_________._.___________._ State —__Zip
Phona( )
Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
PAGE 1
AWASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY ACCOUNTNO- 4060-0182573
Po BOX332 INVOICENo. 177354231qu
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382 STATEMENTDATE 12/01/25
DISTRICTNO. 4060 DUEDATE On Recelpt Seen to my cnline BILLINGPERIOD 11/01/25 - 11/30/25 CITYOF ST HELENA FORASSISTANCE 1°80 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA Customer Service 707-993-7088 94574 One Time Payments 800-457-1379 Date Descrl tlcn
INVOICESTATEMENT 3
Amount
Prevlous elence S 16,070.74
11/25/25 Payment ThankYou! 126913 $ -16.070.74 Total Payments And Credits 5 46,070.74 Service Locatlon MaClty Of St Helena Wst Wtr Pln Acct #6182573 1 ChalxLn 11/03/25 BulkyItemCharge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00 1290399 11/03/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Ro 4.42 @ $0.00 $ 0.00 1290399 11/03/25 Haul 10 Yd - Flo 1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2.000.00 1290399 11/05/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00 1291065 11/05/25 DisposalFee By Ton - Ro 4.92 @ $0.00 $ 0.00 "'-: 1291085 11/05/25 Haul 10 Yd - Flo 1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00 1291085 11/10/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00 1294176 11/10/25 Disposal Fee By Ton - Flo 4.02 @ $0.00 $ 0.00 1294176 11/10/25 Haul 10 Yd - Flo 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2.000.00 1294176 Please remit to the address below and return your remit stub with your payment.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE ACCOUNTNo. 503531122573 A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY INVOICENO. mamawoso PO BOX382 STATEMENTDATE 12/01/25 SAINTHELENACA 945740352 DUEDATE On mum PAY THISAMOUNT 812,750.00 m MD01 067552 14973H 17a CSNGLP r. ,
I
Ih.”In”I|.|IIII.I.I.”II...h...”.I.I|I..I..I,..||”II|.I,|. 313”” $ CITYOF ST HELENA a TOCHANGEADDRESS
1080 COLLEGEAVE Checkhere :00 compiers the Informeticn on the reveree eide.
SAINTHELENACA94674 MAILPAYMENTTO:
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY PO BOX7428 PASADENACA 91109-7428
HOLD DUDDDUODDDUOUUDUUXbl525?3? 00001127500000000000000].773EHEEL 7 Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
PAGE2
ACCOUNTNo. 4080-6182573
:(xAgEBCfNNEc-HONS COMPANY INVOICENo. 177364231U080
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382
STATEMENTDATE 12/01/25
DISTRICTNO.4060
DUEDATE On Receipt
BILLINGPERIOD 11101125- 11130125
CITYor ST HELENA
E
macCOLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENAcA94574
INVOICESTATEMENT(continued)
Date Deeorltlon Amount
11/12/25 Eggzysggm Charge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
11/12/25 $23053” Fee ByTon - Flo 5.02 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
77 11/12/25 Haul10Yd- R0 1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1294577
~._:L1/1812‘.5._Bulk e 1 Each@ $125.00 $ . 125.00_
1297085 w“ W T‘
11/18/25 lijéspoJSBESI Fee ByTon - Ro 5.22 @ $0.00 $ 0.00 97 11/18/25 Haul10Yd- R0 1Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1297085
11/19/25 BulkyltemCharge 1 Each@ $125.00 $ 125.00
1297272
11/19/25 DisposalFee ByTon - Flo 4.59 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1297272
11/19/25 Haul10Yd- Flo 1 Each@ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1297272
Current Charges And Fees $ 12,750.00 @
Total Due $ 12,750.00
VIEW/PAYYOURBILLONLINEI
'Make Payments 'Set up Autopey*
*Acceee your account 24/7 '60 Paperless 'Vlew Statements' 'lt'e FREE!There Is no charge to vlewor pay your blilon our website' Go to W and followthe onllne bill pay prompts to enrolltoday or call 1-800-457-1379to make a payment through our Interactivevoice service with no extra fee. change of BillingAddreee
Vlsit:WonIIIIthlsout andrelumwithyourpayment
NameM
StreetAddress_ _____________._———-—————-————-
City
Phone(
Slate
)_.._____.._..__._———
le
Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX382
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382
DISTRICTNO. 4060
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94574
ACCOUNTN0.
INVOICENO.
STATEMENT DATE
DUE DATE
Scento pey onllne BILLINGPERIOD
FORASSISTANCE
Customer Service
One Time Payments
PAGE 1
4060-6182573
177402082U060
01/01/26
On Receipt
12/01/25 - 12/31/25
707-963-7988
300-457-1379
0608
441/
2 INVOICESTATEMENT
Date Descrl tlon Amount
Prevloue Balance $ 12,750.00
12/22/25 Payment Thank You! 127178 $ 42,750.00
Total Payments And Credlts $ -12,750.00
Service Locetlon Ma Clty Of St Helena Wet Wtr Pln
Acct #6182573 1 Chalx Ln
11/26/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00
1301154
11/26/25 Disposal Fee ByTon - RO 5.03 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
130H54
11/26/25 Haul 10 Yd- Flo 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1301154
11/26/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00
1301155 E
11/26/25 DisposalFee ByTon - Re 5.3 @ $0.00 $ 0.00 _
1301155 _
11/26/25 Haul 10 Yd - R0 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1301155
12/02/25 Bulky ItemCharge 1 Each @ $125.00 $ 125.00
1303553
12/02/25 DisposalFee By Ton - Flo 5.01 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1303553
12/02/25 Haul10 Yd- Ho 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1303553
Please remit to the address below and return your remit stub with your payment.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE ACCOUNTN0. 40000102573
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY INVOICENO. 177402682U060
PO BOX382 STATEMENTDATE 01/01/26
SAINTHELENACA 94574-0382 DUE DATE 0n mun PAY THIS AMOUNT $19,125.00 ‘0 MD01 080844 700440 216 ASNGLP WRITEIN AMOUNT IIIIIIIII'l'""I'IIII"lI"IIII'IIIIII'IIIIII'II'III'III'IIII'II mo 3
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94574
TO CHANGEADDRESS
Check here and complete the Information on the reverse side.
MAILPAYMENTT0:
UPPER VALLEYDISPOSAL SERVICE
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY
PO BOX 7428
PASADENACA 91109-7428
HOLD UUDDDUUUOUDDUODDDX£11685??? DDDDL‘IIESUUUUDDOUUDDDU177IIDEEEE b Agenda Item #11.3.
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
AWASTECONNECTIONSCOMPANY PO BOX'382
SAINTHELENACA94574-0382
DISTRICTNO‘.4030
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080COLLEGEAVE
SAINTHELENACA94574
I
Date Descrl tlon
12/05/25 BulkyItem Charge
1305480 , ‘
12/05/25 DisposalFee ByTon - R0
12/05/25
1305480
Haul10Yd- Flo
12/10/25
12/10/25
1305480
1307y520 BUIkyItemCharge 7
DisposalFee.ByTon- R0
12/10/25
12/11/25
12/11/25
12/11/25
130.7520
Haul10.Yd- Flo
.12/15/25
12/15/25
1307520 . BulkyItemCharge
12115/25
1-2/16/25
1307521
DisposalFee ByTon - Ro1307521 . Haul.10Yd-.FIO
1307521
Bulkyltem Charge
1309361
DisposalFee By Ton - Ro
1309361
Haul.10Yd- Ro
1309361
BulkyItemCharge 1310484
12/16/25 DisposalFee ByTon - F10
1310484
12/16/25 Haul10Yd- R0
12/19/25 BulkyItemCharge
Q
1311478{
1310484
1 Each.@ $125.00
4.9 @ $0.00
1 Each @ $2000.00
1 Each@_$?j.g? _
6.63 @ $0.00
1 Each@ $2000.00
1 Each @.$1'25.00
4.52 @ $0.00
1 Each.@ $2000.00
1 Each @ $125.00
4.81 @ $0.00
1 Each @ $2000.00
1 Each @ $125.00
5.34 @ $0.00
1 Each @ $2000.00
1 Each @ $125.00
a
Change of-Billing Address
Vlslt:WonI’Illthlsout andrelum withyourpayment
Name
ACCOUNTNo.
INVOICENo.
STATEMENTDATE
DUEDATE
BILLINGPERIOD
INVOICESTATEMENT(continued)
«eee'mewemmma 99996965
Street Address
City State
Phone‘( )
Zip
‘
PAGE2
4060-8182573
1774028ng030
01/01/26
On Receipt
.- 12I01l25 - 12/31/25
Amount
125.00
0.00 2,000.00
.125.0D__
0.00 2,000.00
125.00
A
0.00 2,000.00
125.00
0.00 2,000.00
125.00
0.00 2,000.00
125.00
Agenda Item #11.3.
PAGE 3
UPPERVALLEYDISPOSALSERVICE
A WASTE CONNECTIONSCOMPANY ACCOUNTNo- 401306102573
PO BOX332 INVOICENo. 1774029112qu
SAINTHELENACA 94574-0382 STATEMENTDATE 01/01/26
DISTRICTNO. 4060 DUE DATE On Receipt
BILLINGPERIOD 12/01/25 - 12/31/25
CITYOF ST HELENA
1080 COLLEGEAVE
SAINT HELENACA 94574
INVOICESTATEMENT(continued)
Date Descrl tlon Amount
12/19/25 DisposalFee By Ton - Ro 4.79 @ $0.00 $ 0.00
1311478
12/19/25 Haul 10 Yd- R0 1 Each @ $2000.00 $ 2,000.00
1311478
Current Charges And Fees $ 19,125.00
Total Due $ 19,125.00
VIEW/PAYYOURBILLONLlNEl
'Make Payment: 'Set up Autopay'
‘Acceee your account 24/7 I'(IIo Paperless ‘Vlew Statements‘ 'lt'e FREE!There Is no charge to view or pay your bill on our website' Go to httpe?/mygccount.wclcuetomer.com and follow the onllne bill pay prompts to enroll today or call 1-800-457-1379to make a payment through our Interactive voice service with no extra fee.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works
DATE: January 13, 2026
FROM: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
SUBJECT: Water Supply and Forecasting November 2025
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Receive and file.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Monthly Receive and File reports to City Council.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
To provide monthly updates of the amount of water produced at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant, the Stonebridge Potable Water Wells, and potable water delivered from the City of Napa.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Helena publishes a monthly water report on the City website (www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/waterreports). The report includes the amount of water produced at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant and the Stonebridge Potable Water Wells, and potable water delivered from the City of Napa. In addition to presenting data on the amount delivered monthly, the report includes yeartodate information and prior year data. Water elevation and capacity at the Bell Canyon Reservoir is included as well as information on rain and temperatures.
At the City Council meeting of May 9, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023 46 adopting City Council goals for FY 202324. Five new City Council Goals for FY 202324 which include Goal 1: Financial Sustainability, Goal 2: Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability, Goal 3: Water Security, Goal 4: Community Information and Engagement, and Goal 5: Quality of Life. City Council has the responsibility of establishing broad goals and the City's leadership has the responsibility to develop a work plan to achieve them.
DISCUSSION:
In connection with City Council Goal 2, City staff has developed a forecasting tool to facilitate its ability to optimize water use and track water availability. Included as Attachment 1 is the Monthly Water Report for November 2025. The water produced for November 2025 is down by 34% when compared to November 2024 and is down by 59% compared to the average of November 20182020. Below is a chart summarizing the water produced per source:
Water Produced per Source
Agenda Item #11.3.
Source
Average (2018
2020)
(AcreFeet)
November 2024
(AcreFeet)
November 2025
(AcreFeet)
Bell Canyon 52.92 16.38 11.69
Stonebridge Wells 32.16 31.98 17.52
Napa Water 49.26 35.81 26.33
Total 134.34 84.17 55.54
Percent change from November 2024: 34%
Percent change from average of November 2018 2020: 59% Bell Canyon Reservoir
The City is no longer in water emergency conditions based upon the Phase I Water Emergency measures being terminated by City Council adopting Resolution No. 2023 94 on July 25, 2023. It is important to note that the Bell Canyon Graph predicts that in September 2026 there's a potential for the City to enter into a Phase 1 water emergency based off the current reservoir level and on the highest water usage during a nondrought year (FY 2019/20) and 10 inches of rainfall (lowest recorded). The storage in Bell Canyon graph (Attachment 2) has been revised to include historic reservoir supply levels since June 2024. It also shows the water availability forecast through June 2027 based on the highest water usage during a nondrought year (FY 2019/20) and 10 inches of rainfall (lowest recorded).
As of December 1, 2025, Bell Canyon Reservoir elevation was at 413.65 feet representing approximately 1,773.36 acrefeet (AF) and 74.4% capacity. Bell Canyon spillway level is 422 feet representing 2,383.69 AF in water supply volume. Below is a chart comparing Bell Canyon elevation levels, water supply availability in acre feet, and percent capacity of the reservoir on December 1st in 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Year 2023 2024 2025
Bell Canyon Elevation Level 416.88 Ft. 422.11 Ft. 413.65 Ft.
Acre Feet 2,002.61 AF 2,383.69 AF 1,773.36 AF
Percent Capacity 84.01% 100% 74.4%
As a follow up to the May 24, 2022, City Council meeting, staff developed a graph (Attachment 3) highlighting the relationship between the reservoir elevation level and water supply availability in acre feet. The graph shows the current status of the reservoir. Furthermore, the graph also displays the points where City Council decided to declare Phase I and Phase II Water Emergencies in 2020.
Continued Water Conservation
California experienced two consecutive dry years 2020 and 2021. Due to the combination of warmerthanaverage temperatures and minimal precipitation in the state, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) declared 2021 as the fourthdriest year on record statewide. The recordbreaking dry period in January and February Agenda Item #11.3.
2022, and the absence of significant rains in March 2022, required DWR to reduce anticipated deliveries from the State Water Project (SWP). However, the reduction at the time did not affect St. Helena as the City has multiple robust water sources not affected by the executive order. Water availability from the Bell Canyon reservoir is based on the City's State Water Rights permit and not the SWP. The City has not received any curtailment order from DWR nor does the City anticipate receiving one.
It should be noted that on July 25, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023 94 to formally end the Phase I Water Emergency. The projected demand on the system versus the anticipated rainfall over the next year reflects an available supply in Bell Canyon approximately 1,895 AF, significantly above the 1,481 AF standard for declaration of a Phase I Water Emergency. Staff will monitor Statewide and local drought conditions, weather conditions, and provide updates on a monthly basis. The corresponding staff report provided a variety of data to reflect the disposition of the water supply at that time in relation to the Counciladopted Safe Yield Policy.
City of Napa Water Supply
Normal operations continue at Rutherford Pump Station (RPS) and the City is taking delivery of the allotment purchased from City of Napa. During the month of November 2025, Rutherford Pump Station was producing an average of 0.28 MG/day for a total of
26.33 AF for the month.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not applicable.
GOAL:
Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
MWR November 130 2025
Attachment 2 Bell Canyon Water Storage Forecast
Attachment 3 Bell Canyon Reservoir Water Storage Phase I II Attachment 4 Bell Canyon Reservoir Historical Elevation Levels Attachment 5 Bell Canyon Reservoir Historical Storage Elevation Agenda Item #11.3.
CITY OF ST. HELENA
MONTHLY WATER REPORT
CC: CC __X__ PC__X__ FILE _____
RECEIVED: _____ BY: __
LOUIS STRALLA
WATER PLANT
TK #1 & #2
ADJUST
11.69 3.81 -0.14
21.2% -0.8%
18.09 MG MG
n/a MG MG
n/a MG MG
0.60 MG MG
% %
161.62 AF 31.9% 170.09 AF 28.4%
52.64 MG 55.40 MG
240.18 AF 47.4% 243.62 AF 40.7%
78.23 MG 79.36 MG
105.02 AF 20.7% 184.24 AF 30.8%
34.21 MG 60.01 MG
TOTAL WATER PRODUCED 506.82 AF 100.0% 597.95 AF 100.0%
DELIVERY (ALL)
0.00 0.01
413.65 FT. FT.
1.48 FT. FT.
1773.36 AF AF
74.4 % %
3.84 IN IN
4.45 IN IN
DISCLAIMER: The data presented in this report is approximate and for informational purposes only.
Updates will be provided if any errors are identified.
AVERAGE 56.95 52.65
REMARKS
City of Napa Water Delivery: RPS producing an average of 0.28 MG/day during November 2025.
THIS MONTH, THIS YEAR THIS MONTH, LAST YR.
DEGREES IN FAHRENHEIT 78.5-35.4 67.8-37.5
TEMPERATURES
MONTHLY RISE OR DROP 7.74
CAPACITY AT END OF PERIOD 2383.69
PERCENT OF FULL CAPACITY 100.0
RAINFALL IN THIS PERIOD 17.10
TOTAL RAINFALL SEASON TO DATE 17.20
ELEVATION BELL CANYON RESERVOIR 422.11
STONEBRIDGE APARTMENTS MG/Nov. 1-30 0.03 MG/Nov. 1-30
WATER ELEVATION, CAPACITY & RAINFALL
THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR
NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE MG/Nov. 1-30 0.09 MG/Nov. 1-30
STONEBRIDGE POTABLE WELLS
SBW IRRIGATION WATER
THIS MONTH THIS MONTH, LAST YR.
THIS FISCAL YEAR LAST FISCAL YEAR
LOUIS STRALLA WATER PLANT
NAPA WATER
MINIMUM DAILY PRODUCED n/a
AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCED 0.91
WATER YEAR TOTALS
WATER PRODUCED DELIVERY (AGGREGATE)
TOTAL PRODUCED THIS PERIOD 27.42
MAXIMUM DAILY PRODUCED n/a
0.01 8.58
PERCENT 31.8% 47.8%
-0.44
November 1-30, 2025
STONEBRIDGE
POTABLE
WELLS
SBW
IRRIGATION
WATER
NAPA WATER
THIS YEAR LAST YEAR
AMOUNT PRODUCED in AF 17.52 0.03 26.33
AMOUNT PRODUCED in MG 5.71
Agenda Item #11.3.
BellCanyon Water Storage Forecast
Assumes: (1) Highest usage during non-drought year (FY2019/20) (2) 10" of Rainfall (Lowest Recorded)
2500 2,383 2.383 2323 2’383 23742250
2076
1,865 1883 1910 I 2000 1,803 1,835 1870
11773 1,808
1,729
1750 1 646
1,548
1,450 1 413 1 430 A 1500 1,383 ' ' +33) 1,358 1,350 1,418 ”- 1,321 5355
g Entered Phase 1 - 1,431 Acre Ft.
<v 1,277 3 1250
5 _l I I n
g Hlstorlc PrOJected
%
"’
1000
Entered Phase
2 - 939 Acre Ft.
750500 596 Acre Feet*250
o . 25A reserve for fire
0 v
V v v
v u b8 <9 <0 ‘0 <0 ‘0 ‘9 <9 ‘0 ‘9 ‘0 <0 <0 ‘0 b (o (o (o ‘o ‘o ‘o (o ‘0 Q) (o ’\ ’\ ’\ ’\ ’\ ’\ III 51/ 0/ fix W ?x ?x ’1’ ’1’ , , fix ’1’ ?x '1’ fix , ’1’ '1’ , ’)/ ’1’ ’1/ f)’ 71/ ’W/ 51/ ’L I), ’1’ , , ’1’ \00 \\>\VQQO(1,er 06} $04 QQS’\’b ((6 ®®KvQ‘®’$\\00 \\>\ v9¢o(3Q?06"$04 0?? \’b ((6 g’é vQK@§ \0-0 \\>\ 0°C (?e/Q06"$04 QQ/(l{DO(<92 @rbkvQ‘Q’D‘A\OQ Agenda Item #11.3.
Current Capacity = 413.65' or 74.4%
Entered Phase I on 7/1/20 Capacity = 408.39' or 60%
Entered Phase II on 11/1/20 Capacity = 398' or 39.4%
Fire Storage = 25% capacity
Agenda Item #11.3.
Phase 2 Water Emergency -
399.82' or 939 Acre Ft.
Phase 1 Water Emergency - 408.4' or 1,431 Acre Ft.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Phase 1 Water Emergency -
408.4' or 1,431 Acre Ft.
Phase 2 Water Emergency - 399.82' or 939 Acre Ft.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Outlook
Spring Grove - 1/1/3/26 City Council
From Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Date Tue 1/13/2026 3:03 PM
To Public Comment <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Dohring and Members of the City Council,
As an architect, I value good development—especially development that provides needed housing in a way that is appropriate, well-planned, and compatible with the community. At its best, development reflects vitality, prosperity, ingenuity, and even creativity.
From a legal standpoint, the State’s RHNA requirements obligate St. Helena to plan for additional housing. Much of the discussion I have heard in recent deliberations has focused on identifying sites for development. However, Section H-C of the City’s Housing Element Update Implementation Program Schedule requires sewer and water planning, with a directive to “establish procedure by 2025.” Has this work been completed?
What I do not see is adequate planning for the capital improvements to infrastructure that will be required to support this new housing—let alone other non-RHNA development. Specifically for the Spring Grove project, I have seen no data demonstrating where the additional water supply will come from, nor any analysis of how the increased wastewater will be managed.
At the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting, Public Works reported that the City was being fined $378,000 for “containment failures” in the wastewater system. I believe a clearer explanation of these failures is necessary and directly relevant to the discussion of this project. Additionally, the recent request for another $100,000 for sewage haul-off may be related and warrants further explanation.
Taken together, this raises serious questions about whether our wastewater treatment system is adequately performing even under current conditions. New residential development will increase flows. I respectfully request that Public Works demonstrate how the added residential loads from this project will not worsen the existing public health and safety challenges facing our community.
For at least the past year, residents have experienced foul-smelling and bad-tasting water, along with frequent discoloration. Most concerning, residents were recently notified of excessive levels of a known carcinogen, HAA, persisting for approximately a year. Reassurances that the water is “still safe to drink” are becoming increasingly difficult to accept. Many residents are now installing costly inhome water treatment systems, such as reverse osmosis, on top of already high water rates.
Given these realities, it is difficult to understand how a proposed in-lieu fee of $130,000 could meaningfully offset the cost of the necessary repairs, upgrades, and capacity increases required to provide safe and reliable water for additional development.
These ongoing health and safety issues often appear to be minimized in public discussions—perhaps out of institutional discomfort or simple human denial. Many residents reasonably assume that Agenda Item #11.3.
systems that have always worked will continue to do so if they pay their taxes and utility bills.
However, the evidence suggests otherwise. Approving additional development without serious infrastructure planning and investment risks worsening an already precarious situation.
Additionally, the project proposes no low- or very low-income housing units. This represents a missed opportunity on a high-density-zoned site and appears inconsistent with the spirit—and possibly the intent—of our RHNA obligations.
The Planning Director previously stated that the absence of low-income units could be addressed through a development agreement after project approval. However, once the lot map has been approved and recorded, what meaningful leverage remains at the permitting stage to secure those commitments?
Finally, the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) allows a City Council to condition a project at a lower density when a “specific, adverse impact” can be identified.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Spring Grove project design, lot map, and waterneutrality in-lieu fee proposal be sent back for further study, with a clear priority on public health and safety, infrastructure capacity, and alignment with a sound and credible RHNA strategy.
Thank you for your time and effort on behalf of our community, and your consideration of these questions and comments.
Sincerely,
Charles Covell
Principal
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #11.3.
Outlook
Proposed Spring Street development
From Phylis Anderson <[email protected]>
Date Tue 1/13/2026 4:07 PM
To Public Comment <[email protected]>
Attn: City Council,
My sister and I are from a multi-generational St. Helena family. We own the property at 1437 Spring Street. Please be advised that we are strongly opposed to the three story development which is in 300 feet of our small home. Who wants others looking down into their backyard? Besides the lack of privacy, we also have the shared concerns about traffic, parking, noise and water.
Today, there's an additional concern that I want to bring to your attention. Let me explain that I have been a Red Cross volunteer for over 20 years. I have responded to too many disasters to list them. For current reference, let me remind you of the recent downtown fire in Arcata, CA that took out nearly a city block. The point is density means increased risk and, in case of fire, multiple firetrucks are needed to get a handle on the fire before it becomes a neighborhood disaster. Exactly how could multiple firetrucks get into the proposed development and maneuver within it? And, as fire officials can tell you, the first priority is evacuation/rescue of people to prevent loss of life. With so many units, many of the new residences and our nearby properties could be gone before the firefighters were able to complete that task and focus on saving structures.
It's sad that a group can come into town, build a dense three story development and then leave with the profit. They don't have to live with the impact on the local community or assume the additional risk and loss of property value for nearby homes. I do not want to receive any more offers to buy 1437 Spring Street "as is." It feels like it's an effort to push us out of the way. Currently, the option is to stay and suffer unwanted consequences.
While there may be legal constraints, the proposed development needs intense scrutiny. There must be a way to reduce and position units to protect the well being of existing homeowners and address the concerns of the local community.
Thank you,
Phylis Penland Anderson
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Planning
DATE: January 13, 2026
FROM: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration and adoption of a Resolution authorizing: 1) Amendment #1 to St. Helena Contract FY 2024-055 with
Dyett and Bhatia to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report for the Downtown Specific Plan for an additional $98,840 for a total contract amount not to exceed
$598,840; and 2) a budget increase in the amount of
$98,840 using General Fund Reserves.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the attached
resolution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
On February 27, 2024, the City Council approved St.
Helena Contract FY2024-055, awarding the Downtown
Specific Plan contract to Dyett and Bhatia.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
To fund the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report for the Downtown Specific Plan CEQA compliance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact to the General Fund is $98,840. This will require a budget increase to GL Account 101-45-00- 21-45 using General Fund Reserves.
BACKGROUND:
A Specific Plan is an important planning tool to guide both redevelopment in the downtown study area and propose streetscape improvements/placemaking in the public realm. One of the recommendations of the 2023 Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel ("ULI TAP") report is that the City should prepare a Downtown Specific Plan to help further revitalize the downtown and attract further investment.
Subsequently, the City Council approved $500,000 in funding for a Downtown Specific Plan as part of the FY 2023-2024 budget. The City issued an RFP and selected the consulting firm of Dyett and Bhatia for their exceptional experience preparing Specific Plans, familiarity with St. Helena from their work on the General Plan, having in-house CEQA team, and overall qualifications.
The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) will set a vision and policy plan for the proposed study area that will be rooted in a comprehensive public engagement strategy with community workshops, joint meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council, and affiliated boards and commissions.
After the project kicked off, a Specific Plan Steering Committee was created to provide feedback throughout the process to staff and consultant team. The plan includes a Agenda Item #12.1.
number of technical studies including a parking study, market study, and traffic study that will help inform developing a preferred plan. Catalytic sites will be identified for future buildout within the study area which may result in future General Plan Amendments. Ultimately, the Specific Plan will act as a zoning overlay with development standards and uses that reflect the community vision. An Implementation Chapter will assess future improvements needed to realize the plan buildout, with a cost and funding strategy. An Existing Conditions report was completed and posted to the project website in August 2024.
DISCUSSION:
The DSP scope of work originally assumed an addendum to the General Plan EIR would be prepared to address the CEQA compliance. An addendum to the General Plan EIR would only suffice for CEQA if the impacts of the DSP were within the impacts addressed in the General Plan EIR. However, upon further evaluation of likely significant impacts of project related traffic generation and future land use changes, there may be new significant impacts as a result of the DSP and it would be prudent to start the EIR process as soon as the preferred land use alternative for the DSP is decided in the months ahead. The scope of work attached to the Amendment 1 to the PSA outlines the tasks to be included as part of the DSP EIR.
A comprehensive CEQA document is vital to the success of the downtown revitalization strategy as it will streamline the approval process for future development within the Specific Plan for those projects that are consistent with the land use assumptions in the DSP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Not a CEQA project.
GOAL:
Miscellaneous/Other
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
Executed STH Contract FY2024-055 - Dyett and Bhatia
Resolution Dyett and Bhatia PSA amendment _1
Amendment 1 STH Contract FY2024-55 Dyett and Bhatia combined Agenda Item #12.1.
3THContractijbl’
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on February 27, 2024 by and between the City of St. Helena, located in the County of Napa, State of California (City), and Dyett and Bhatia (Consultant).
RECITALS:
A. City desires to employ Consultant to fumish professional services in connection with the project described as the Downtown Speci?c Plan.
B. Consultant has represented that Consultant has the necessary expertise, experience, and quali?cations to perform the required duties.
NOW, THEREFORE, in considerationof the mutual premises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1 — BASIC SERVICES
Consultant agrees to perform the servicesset forth in Exhibit A, “Scope of Services” and made part of this Agreement.
SECTION 2 — ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to or outside of those set forth in this Agreement or Exhibit A, “Scope of Services” (the “Services"), unless such additional Services and compensation are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Council or City Manager of the City.
SECTION 3 - TIME FOR COMPLETION
Services”. The parties expressly agree that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. SECTION 4 — COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay consultantthe amount speci?ed in Exhibit A, “Compensation"attached hereto and made a part hereof. Total compensation shall not exceed $500,000 unless additional compensation is approved in accordance with Section 2. B. Consultant shall fumish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month. The invoice shall detail charges by the following categories if applicable: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, subconsultant contracts, and miscellaneous expenses. Each original invoice furnished shall include the expenses incurred during the preceding month, the cumulative Agreement amount, Page 1 of 14 [Dyett and Bhnu [Febmury .20 4] 0 Agenda Item #12.1.
and the amount remaining on the Agreement. City shall independently review each invoice submitted to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. If no charges or expenses are disputed, the invoice shall be approved, and City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within 30 days of receipt of invoice. If the City disputes any charges or expenses, the City will return the original invoice to Consultant for correction and resubmission. If the City reasonably determines, in its sole judgment, that the invoiced charges and expenses exceed the value of the Services performed to date and that it is probable that the Agreement will not be completed satisfactorily within the contract price, City may retain all or a portion of the invoiced charges and expenses.
Within thirty (30) days of satisfactory completion of the project, City shall pay the retained amount, if any, to Consultant.
C. Payment to the Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
SECTION 5 — STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
A. Consultant represents that it has the quali?cations, experience and facilities necessary to properly perform the Services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent and professional manner. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all Services describedherein. In meeting its obligations under this Agreement, Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons in the same or similar geographical area engaged in providing Services similarto those requiredof Consultant under this Agreement.
B. In order to induce City to enter into this Agreement, Consultant represents that it is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law; Consultant is quali?ed to perform all aspects of the Services; Consultant will employ only persons and Subconsultants with all required licenses and certi?cations where applicable to the professional discipline; that Consultant is duly quali?ed to conduct business in the State; that Consultant has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the Services to be performed herein; and that the Agreement does not violate or create a default under any instrument, agreement, order or decreebinding on Consultant.
City may inspect and accept or reject any of Consultant’s work under this Agreement, either during performance or when completed. City shall reject or ?nally accept Consultant’s work within sixty (60) days a?er submitted to City, unless the parties mutually agree to extend such deadline. City shall reject work by a timely written explanation, otherwise Consultant's work shall be deemed to have been accepted. City’s acceptance shall be conclusive as to such work except with respect to latent defects and fraud. Acceptance of any of Consultant’s work by City shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the sectionspertainingto indemnification and insurance.
S
E
C
TI
O
N
—INSURANC 7REQUIRED
E
214of Page
[Dyan and [27,2024]
February
Agenda Item #12.1.
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claimsfor injuriesto persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connectionwith the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees, as indicated:
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Of?ce Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage including operations,products and completed operations, as applicable. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer’sLiability: $1,000,000 per accidentfor bodily injury or disease.
C. Professional Liability Insurance. When Consultant underthis Agreement is duly licensed under California Business and Professions Code as an architect, landscape architect, environmental engineer or other professional engineer, or land surveyor (“design professional"), Consultant shall maintain at least $2,000,000 of professional liability insurance. When Consultant is not a design professional, Consultant shall maintain at least $1,000,000 of professional liability insurance combined single limit for each occurrence, insuring against professional errors and omissionsin the Services performed by Consultant under this Agreement, including, without limitation, claims for negligence, misrepresentation, violation of good faith and fair dealing, and inaccurate advise arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with Services performed by Consultant underthis Agreement.
above, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the speci?ed minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. E. Primag Coverage. For anyclaimsrelated to this contract the Consultants insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects to City, its of?cers, of?cials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its of?cers, of?cials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of Consultants insurance and shall not contribute with it. F. Deductiblesand Self-Insured Retentions.Any deductibles or self-insured Page 3 of 14 [Dyelt and Bhatia] [Febmary27,2024
Agenda Item #12.1.
retentionsof $25,000 or greater must be declaredto and approved by the City.
G. Other Insurance Provisions.The commercialgeneral liability and automobileliability policies are to contain, or be endorsedto contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its agent, of?cers, of?cials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by the Consultant or Consultant’s subconsultants; or automobile owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant.
2. For any claims related to Consultant’s conduct while performing the work of this project, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certi?ed mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
4. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid under Subsection (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code.
H. Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant’s commercial general liability, automobile liability, workers’ compensation, and employer’s liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation. The insurance company, in its endorsement, agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of this policy which arises from the work performed by the named insured for the City.
I. The Acceptabilig of Insurers. Insurance isto be placed with insurerswith a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptableto the City.
I. Veri?cation of Coverage. Consultant shall fumish the City with original certi?cates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements to commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certi?ed copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these speci?cations at any time. SECTION 8 — INDEMNIFICATION A. To the fullest extent allowed by law (including without limitation California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), as may be applicable, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its agents, of?cers, of?cials, employees, representatives, and volunteersfrom any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, damages, injury, and/or liability (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith, including legal fees and expert witness costs) (collectively, “Liabilities”), incurred by reason of any negligent or otherwise wrongful act or Page 4 of 14 [Dyelt and Bhatia] [Febmnry27,2024]
Agenda Item #12.1.
omission of Consultant, its of?cers, agents, employees, subconsultants, and subcontractors, or any of them, under or in connection with this Agreement; and Consultant agrees at its own cost, expense and risk to defend any and all claims, actions, suits, or other legal proceedings brought or institutedagainst City, its agents, of?cers, officials, employees and volunteers, or any of them, arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to such negligent or otherwise wrong?il act or omission, and to pay and satisfy any resulting judgments.
B. When Consultant under this Agreement is duly licensed under California Business and Professions Code as an architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, or land surveyor (i.e., a “design professional,” pursuant to Civil Code § 2782.8(c)), the provisions of this section regarding Consultant’s duty to defend and indemnify apply only to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant.
C. If any action or proceeding is brought against Indemnitees by reason of any of the matters against which Consultant has agreed to indemnify Indemnitees as provided above, Consultant, upon notice from City, shall defend Indemnitees at Consultant‘s expense by counsel acceptable to City, such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld. Indemnitees need not have ?rst paid for any of the matters to which Indemnitees are entitled to Indemni?cation in order to be so indemni?ed. The insurance required to be maintained by Consultant shall ensure Consultant’s obligations under this section, but the limits of such insurance shall not limit the liability of Consultant hereunder. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or earlier terminationof this Agreement.
D. The provisions of this section do not apply to claimsto the extent occuning as a result of the City’s sole negligence, active negligence,or willful acts or misconduct.
E. Duty to Cooperate. Each party shall notify the other party immediately in writing of any claim or damage related to activities or Services performed under this Agreement. The parties shall cooperate with each other in the investigation and disposition of all Liabilities arising out of the activities or Services under this Agreement.
F. In the event that Consultant executes any subconsulting agreements in connection with the Services performed under this Agreement, Consultant shall place in all such subconsulting agreements, and cause its subconsultants to agree to, the indemnity and insurance obligations in favor of City and other Indemnitees, as provided herein, in the exact form and SECTION 9
— INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS A. Consultant is and shall at all timesremain a wholly independentcontractor and not an of?cer, employee or agent of City. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner or to incur an obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expresslyconferred in writing by City. B. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, of?cers, of?cials, employees or agents of City, shall have control Page 5 of 14 [Dyett and Bhana] [Febnmry 2 .2024 Agenda Item #12.1.
over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant‘s of?cers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s of?cers, employees or agents are in any manner of?cials, of?cers, employees or agents of City.
C. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s of?cers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other bene?ts which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.
SECTION 10 — CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND ANTI-FRAUD AND ANTICORRUPTION POLICIES A. Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any of?cer or principal of its ?rm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would con?ict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant‘s performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an of?cer, employee, agent, or subcontractor without the express written consent of the City Manager. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid con?icts with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.
B. City understands and acknowledges that Consultant is, as of the date of execution of this Agreement, independently involved in the performance of non-related Services for other governmental agencies and private parties. Consultant is aware of any stated position of City relative to such projects. Any future position of City on such projects shall not be considered a con?ict of interest for purposes of this section.
C. Consultant understands and acknowledges City maintains an anti-fraud and anticon'uption policy to protect the City, its operations, and its employees from and against ?nancial risks, operational breaches, and unethical,fraudulent and corrupt activities. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant, its subcontractor(s) / subconsultant(s) and their respective employees providing Services pursuant to the Agreement are (l) in good standing; (2) have not been previously investigated, convicted, or debarred for fraudulent or corrupt activities; (3) will not fraudulent or and to ensure
or corrupt activities. Consultant acknowledges and agrees further that it has a duty to and will report to City any information or incident(s) about possible fraudulent or corrupt activities Consultant may discover, and will cooperate in any fraud or corruption investigation conducted, with respect to Consultant’s service provided pursuant to this Agreement. SECTION 11 — OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS A. All original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer ?les, ?les and other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant in the course of providing any Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of the Consultant. When requested by City, but no later than three years after project Page 6 of 14 [Dyett and Bhntia] [Febmary 27,2024] Agenda Item #12.1.
completion, Consultant shall deliver to City all such original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer ?les, ?les and other documents.
B. All copyrights, patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights associated with any ideas, concepts, techniques, inventions, processes, improvements,developments, works of authorship, or other products developed or created by Consultant during the course of providing Services (collectively the “Work Product”) shall belong exclusively to City. The Work Product shall be considereda “work made for hire" within the meaning of Title 17 of the United States Code. Without reservation, limitation, or condition,Consultant hereby assigns, at the time of creation of the Work Products, without any requirement of further consideration, exclusively and perpetually, any and all right, title, and interest Consultant may have in the Work Product throughout the world, including without limitationany copyrights, patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property rights, all rights of reproduction, all rights to create derivative works, and the right to secure registrations, renewals, reissues, and extensionsthereof.
SECTION 12 — CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; RELEASE OF
INFORMATION
A. All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be consideredcon?dential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the City Manager, except as may be required by law.
B. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors,shall not, without prior written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney of City, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement.
Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
C. If Consultant, or any of?cer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, includingattomeys' fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
D. Consultant promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. City retainsthe right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite such response.
Page of 714
[Dyan and [27.2024]
Fcbnmx
y
Agenda Item #12.1.
SECTION 13 - SUSPENSION OF WORK
City may, at any time, by ten (10) days written notice suspend further performance by Consultant. All suspensions shall extend the time schedule for performance in a mutually satisfactory manner and Consultant shall be paid for Services performed and reimbursable expenses incurredprior to the suspension date.
SECTION 14 — COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Consultant shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations and rules in effect during the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall obtain any and all licenses, permits and authorizationsnecessary to perform the Services set forth in this Agreement. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, of?cers, of?cials, employees or agents of City, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of Consultant to complywith this section.
SECTION 15 — COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
During the performanceof this contract, Consultant agrees as follows:
A. Equal Employment Opportunig. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and gender expression as protected categories speci?cally and expressively in that category, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, promotion, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rate of pay or other forms of compensation; and selectionfor training including apprenticeship.
B. NondiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964. Consultant will comply with all federal regulations relative to nondiscriminationto federally-assisted programs.
C. Solicitations for Subcontractors including Procurement of Materials and Equipment.
In allsolicitations,either by competitive bidding or negotiations, made by Consultant for work to obligations under this Agreement and the regulations relative to nondiscrimination. SECTION 16 — COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE RE UIREMENTS A. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance" projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as de?ned by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such PrevailingWage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, of?cers, employees and agents free and Page 8 of 14 [Dyelt and Bhatia] [February27,2024]
Agenda Item #12.1.
harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultantsto comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices(Labor Code Section 1777.5), certi?ed payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certi?ed payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption speci?ed in Labor Code Section 1771.4.
B. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption speci?ed in LaborCode Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
C. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnifyand hold the City, its of?cials, of?cers, employees and agents free and harmlessfrom any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.
SECTION 17 — AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS
A. Records of Consultant’s direct labor costs, payroll costs, and reimbursable expenses from the date of Consultant’s ?nal invoice. B. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records prepared by or fumished to Consultant during the course of performing the Services for at least three (3) years following completion of the Services. Such records include, but are not limited to, correspondence, internal memoranda, technical reports and investigations, calculations, books and accounts, accounting records documenting its work under its Agreement, and invoices, payrolls, records and all other data related to matters covered by this Agreement. C. Consultant shall permit City to audit, examine and make copies, excerpts and transcripts from such records, and the Consultant shall in no event dispose of, destroy, alter, or mutilate said books, records, accounts, and data in any matter whatsoever for three (3) years Page 9 of 14 [Dyett andBhutia] [February27,2024] Agenda Item #12.1.
a?er City makes the ?nal or last payment or within three (3) years after any pending issues betweenCity and Consultant with respect to this Agreement are closed,whichever is later.
I 1— TI FI [Y
A. Consultant agrees that any liability of City arising in connection with this Agreement shall be limited exclusively to the City-entity identified as the “City” under this Contract. Under no circumstance shall any other City-entity be liable to Consultant under any theory, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, and Consultant waives unconditionally any such claims. Consultant hereby waives and release other City-entites from any liability under this Agreement.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall City be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost pro?ts or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the Services performed hereunder.
SECTION 19 — COOPERATION BY CITY
All public information, data, reports, records, and maps as are existing and available to City as public records, and which are necessary for carrying out the work as outlined in the Exhibit A, “Scope of Services", shall be furnished to Consultant in every reasonable way to facilitate, without undue delay, the work to be performed under this Agreement.
SECTION 20 — NOTICES
All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered, or sent by facsimile or ?rst class mail, addressed as follows:
To City: City Manager
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
To Consultant: Rajeev Bhatia Dyett and Bhatia 4001 Howe Street Oakland,CA 94611 Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or transmitted by facsimile, or, if mailed, three (3) days a?er deposit in the custody of the US. Postal Service. SECTION 21 — TERMINATION
[Dyan and[27,2024]
Fchnmry
Agenda Item #12.1.
:1: r]
A. City may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice of termination to Consultant. If such notice is given, Consultant shall cease immediatelyall work in progress.
B. If either Consultant or City fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either Consultant, or City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice.
C. Upon termination of this Agreement by either Consultant or City, all property belongingto City which is in Consultant’s possession shall be delivered to City. Consultant shall furnish to City a ?nal invoice for work performed and expenses incurredby Consultant,prepared as set forth in this Agreement.
SECTION 22 — ATTORNEYS’ FEES
If litigation or other proceeding is required to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation or other proceeding shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attomeys' fees, costs and expenses, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.In addition, any legal fees, costs and expenses incurredto enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be reimbursedto the prevailing party.
SECTION 23 — ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, including the attached Exhibits, is the entire, complete, ?nal and exclusive expression of the parties with respect to the matters addressed therein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, or entered into between Consultant and City prior to the execution of this Agreement. No statements, representations or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by any party which are not embodied herein shall be valid and binding unless in writing duly executed by the parties or their authorized representatives.
SECTION 24 — SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators,successors and SECTION 25
- CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff assigned to perform the Services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff assigned to perform the Services required underthis Agreement, prior to any such performance. SECTION 26- DEFAULT In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed Page 11 of 14 [Dyett and Bhatia] [February 2 .2024 Agenda Item #12.1.
after the date of default and may terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to Consultant.
SECTION 27 — WAIVER
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision, or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or Services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 — LAW TO GOVERN',VENUE
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the parties, venue in state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Napa. In the event of litigation in a US. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Northem District of California, in San Francisco.
SECTION 29 - SEVERABILITY
If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is declared or determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and the Agreement shall be read and construed withoutthe invalid, void or unenforceable provision(s).
WE
Consultant’s subconsultants shall agree to be bound to the terms of the Agreement to the extent of their scope of Services, including but not limited to, terms regarding indemnity and dispute resolution, and shall agree that City is deemed an express third party bene?ciary of their subconsultant agreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement, however, shall operate to confer such or similar rights or bene?ts on persons or entities not party to this Agreement.
As betweenthe parties to this Agreement, any applicable statute of limitationsfor action arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to any act or failure to act in connectionwith this Agreement shall commence to run on the date of City’s issuance of the ?nal Certi?cate for Payment, or terminationof this Agreement, whicheveris earlier, except for latentdefects and/or de?ciencies, for which the applicable statute of limitationshall begin to run upon discovery of the defect and/or de?ciency and its cause. SECTION 32 - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
12of14 Page
[Dycll and[27.2024]
February
Agenda Item #12.1.
This Agreement is subject to the followi
ng
spnone. provision
ecs:
ial IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have accepted, made, and executed this Agreement upon the terms, conditions, and pro
visi
ons
above the year stated, day ?rst andbove
written.
Consultant: Cit
y:
By: By‘
Name: Na Anil Comelo
me: Title: Titl City Manager
e:
Approved as to Form:
By:
Name: Ethan Walsh
Title: City Attorney
PIZS
ATIA
1‘
41
[Dycn and [szmnry 27,2024]
Agenda Item #12.1.
14Page ofl4
[Dyzn an
d
[February 27,2024]
Ex
hi
bit
A- of Services
Scop
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
R.
In association
DKS Associates
Economic 8: Pl an
ni n
g
Systems
Bottomley Ass
oci
ates West Yost
Proposa
l
fothe of St. City Helena
r
Submitted by
Urban and Region
al
Pla nne
rs December 21, 2023
Scope and fee amen
ded
Febru 5, 2024
ary
:
30h
,0
ST.
Agenda Item #12.1.
Th
is
intent blank. pleft
ionall a
gy
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhat
ia
.5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DKS Associat
es
..25
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Economic & .................. Systems 25
..................
............
Bottomley D
es
ig
n
................. Planning &27
.................
...............
West Yost ..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
32 2 APPROACH A
N
D
........................ SOF WORK 34
C
......... O
PE
3 SCHED
ULE
... 53
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
4 BUDG
ET
.54
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5 RESUM
ES
..56
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2.1 P
ro
je
ct
Under ....................... and Approach 34
standi
ng
2.2 S
c
o
p
e
............. Work of 43
.............
.............
.............
.........
1.1 Pr
oj
ec
t
............................ &Team Management
1.2 T
ea
m
Qual ..................
ificat .................. ions
.......
1 ................................ AND EXPERIENCE 4 TA
BL
E
OF
CONSE
N
Agenda Item #12.1.
_l w
u
Th
is
blank. pintenti le?‘
aonally
g
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
December 21, 2023
Mr. Aaron Hecock, AlCP
Senior Planner
City of St. Helena
Submitted electronically
Re: Proposal for Downtown Speci?c Plan
Dear Mr. Hecockand Members of the SelectionPanel:
Located in the heart of one of the world's premier wine growing regions, St. Helena’shistoric downtown is cherished by residentsand draws visitors from around the world.It features a variety ofshoppingand din— ing venues, galleries,and landmark buildingsin a charming.walkable setting. The City is seekingto prepare a Speci?cPlan to strengthen Downtown's identityand its role in the regional food and wine culture, enhance the publicrealm, realize the potential of ?ve catalyticsites and other developmentopportunities.
A critical consideration will be ensuring that new developmentis cohesive and in keepingwith Downtown’sexceptionalcharacter and historic resources, as wellas ?scal balance.
We are especiallyinterested in this assignment because it provides an opportunity to build on our recent work in preparing the City's General Plan, and leverageboth our familiarity with the community and our extensive experience in leading BayArea speci?cplans.Our strengthsinclude:
Bay Area Downtown and Other Speci?c Plan Leadership. Dyett 8r Bhatia is the Bay Area leader in preparing speci?c plans. Within the last four years alone we have completedspeci?c plans for Santa Rosa.Paci?ca, and Pleasanton downtowns; the Sonoma DevelopmentalCenter; Livermore and Union City station areas; and the BayhillDistrict in San Bruno. Theseare all completespeci?cplans, with full 13le, also led by DBrB.We have a portfolioof completedwork that also includes speci?c plansfor small, distinctive downtowns.such as Windsor and Belmont as well as major downtowns such as San Diego,Honolulu, Phoenix, and Portland.
Exceptional St. Helena and North Bay Familiarity. D&B completedthe St. HelenaGeneral Plan and led the Elk on it. We have completednumerous other generaland speci?c plan assignmentsin the North Bay,includingthe City of Napa General Plan last year.
Expertise in Community Engagement. DBrBoffers strong community engagement skills and has built consensus around numerous speci?cplans that have been seen through to adoption and implementation. Forging consensus will be critical to the success of the project, and we propose to use a at project. State-of-the-Art Computer Modeling,Illustration, and Graphics Abilities. We pride ourselveson creating graphicallyrich, illustrative plans,which use both text and diagramsto effectivelycommu- nicate broad visions down to zoning regulations. D8rB offers a highly sophisticatedin-house com- puter mapping and modelingstudio with extensive experience with preparing three-dimensional models and visual simulations. Integrated Planning and Environmental Review. DErBhas led EIRs for more than a dozen speci?c plansin the BayArea, as described in the ?rm quali?cations.Speci?cPlan policiesand environmen- tal impact assessment will be conducted in parallel.As environmental impacts are identi?ed.Plan policieswillbe developedto mitigate these impacts, resultingin a "self-mitigating’Iplan.Having one ?rm responsiblefor managing the Plan and the EIR will also helpensure timelyand on-budgetcom- pletionof the project. As the General Plan EIR authors, we will also be able to conduct the needed environmental review (an HR Addendum or a SupplementalFocused EIR) ef?ciently. 40 0|
Ho CA946” Street. Oakland. we U
rb
an
and Planners Regional
w
w
w
dy
ett an
db
hat
ia. com
Agenda Item #12.1.
Team members and roles shall be as follows:
- Dyett 8t Bhatia will be responsiblefor all aspects of the Speci?c Plan, project management, munity outreach.policydevelopment,and preparation of all ?nal documents. D8rB will also lea d
t
environmental review.
- DKS Associates will serve as the transportation consultants. DKS worked with D&B recentlyo n
t
h
e
City ofNapa GeneralPlan, using the new Napa Solano ActivityBasedTransportation Model, an d
t
h
e
Paci?ca Downtown (SharpPark) Speci?c Plan.
- Economic BrPlanning Systems will conduct a focused market assessment, conduct ?nancial fea sib
ility assessment, and prepare the infrastructure ?nancingstrategy. EPS has worked with DBrBon ?ca.Pleasanton, Santa Rosa.and Windsor downtown plans,and the Napa General Plan. . Bottomley Design + Planning will prepare streetscape and open space plans. Bottomleyhas pared streetscapes for numerous downtowns, including all of the Napa Riverfront and adj ace
nt
downtown streetscapes for the City of Napa. Bottomleyhas worked with DSrBon a dozen sp ec
i?
c
plans,most recentlySonoma DevelopmentalCenter and BayhillSpeci?cplans. - West Yost will lead infrastructure planning and assessment. which they have done for D&B on eral speci?cand generalplans, including recentlyfor the Napa General Plan.
Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, Principal and Project Manager, will manage all aspects of the project and ser ve as
the primary point of contact for the City. He has worked on numerous speci?cplans throughout th e Area and has a proven track record of managing large teams on complexplanning efforts, leading munity outreach processes, and ensuring projects remain on schedule. Andrew Hill.who led the St. ena General Plan and Elk. will serve as Participating Principal.focusedon environmental review. S en
io
r
and Principal-levelstat?will lead the efforts of the various sub-consultant team members. All work be done from our (only)Oakland of?ce.
We offer a commitment to community-based,innovative planning, and a proven track record of t a
k
i
n
g
plans to adoption within speci?edtime frames and budgets.The caliber of our work is evidenced b y
o
u
r
record of adoptedplans and 11 American PlanningAssociation awardsin the last four years alone f o
r
th
e small volume of work from our one of?ce. Our scope of work and cost proposal re?ect our understa nding of the RFP; we would be happyto modify any aspect of our proposal to better meet your needs. Wel forward to renewing our relationshipwith you.
Cordially,
Rajcev Farmer AICP.
DYETTand Regional Urban Planners B
H
A
TI
A
.
rajccv
@
dyettan
dbhalia
com.
cell: 510—899-3301
S
e
n
i
o
r
Skaff Commitment
U
rb
an
and Planners Regional
w
w
w. d
y
et
tan
d
b
P
ro
je
ct
Team
Agenda Item #12.1.
T
hi
s
intenti blank. pleft
onally a
g
e
Agenda Item #12.1.
Team members and rolesshall be as follows:
- Dyett BrBhatia will be responsiblefor all aspects of
the Speci?cPlan.project management. community
outreach.policy development.and preparation of
all ?nal documents. D&B will also lead the environmental review. ensuring seamless integration of the planningand environmental processes.
- DKS Associates will serve as the transportation
consultants. DKS worked with D&B recentlyon the
City of Napa General Plan and the Paci?ca Downtown (Sharp Park) Speci?cPlan. - Economic 8: Planning Systems will conduct a
focused market assessment. conduct ?nancial feasibility assessment. and prepare the infrastructure ?nancingstrategy. EPS has worked with DBrB on Paci?ca.Pleasanton.Santa Rosa.and Windsor
downtown plans.and the Napa General Plan.
. Bottomley Associate
s
wi prepare streetscape
ll and open space pla
ns.
Bo has prepared
tto
ml
ey
streetscapes for num
erous
including dow
ntow
ns.
all of the Napa Riverf
ront
anddjacent downtown
streetscapes for the ofBottomley Napa. has
worked with D8rB on dospeci?c plans. most
zen
recently Sonoma Dev
elop
men
tal
Center and Bayhill
Speci?cplans.
- West Yost will lead planning and
assessment, which the
y
hdone for DSrB onsev- av
e
eral speci?c and gener
al
pincludi for recently
lng
a
n
s
.
the Napa General Plan
.
The organization chart the follow shows page
ing the responsibilitiesof ea
ch
and the key prson- ?r
m
.
nel. All subconsultants toBhatia, Be rep Dyett
ort and all reports and tech
nica
l
anal the bysub-conysis sultants willbe submitte
d
tbeBhatia, &Dy tointeett grated into the project de
li
ve
ra
bl
es
.
Bhatia Dyet Br will
coordinate the format ofand bewill doc
ume
nts.
responsible for the overa
ll
of the cproducts.
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
This approach results in quality and proposals
conclusionsthan having consult all deliver
ants separate products indep
enden
tly. We envision working incwith partne City
lrship staff. The complementa
ry
and knowledg ofstaff
e
QU
AL
Fl ATION
S AND PER
IEN
C
by»: I Bil-Ill
Raim Shaun
Helen Pierson
Dov-Id Hindu
Junkie Sunwoa
Bommloy Dulgn ll
Planning
Bonamlay
Rku Goal
Dynt l: BhuttRalm EMULN
CP WWMM In
d
P
Mun-w
Andnw Hill
Plnr'cipning Pri?aiz
al Swim-mama! Blvis w
L
u
d
1.1 P8: TEAM
MR
AOJ
NE
AC
GT
E
M
E
N
T
T
E
ORG 81MANAGEMENT
ANIZ
ATIO
N
ErinVac:
Dania! Black
Sun Clrnuy
Alex-"d" Hu
g Syllndl Villad
Economic Pla
nni
ng
Symnu.
Jason M
oo
dy Megan G
n
an
y
'
lhsn
spo
mtio
n,
circulation
Access
WutVut
Doug M
oo
rs Ellubath
Pltrldt Jo
h
n
By.“ A El
lt!-
Andruw H
il
l
Klran Cha vez Balm Bha
?a
Dym In S
h
ad
:
Androw
[2|an Kun
ra KIrun Ch
ave
z
am
lshn B
hn
na
ra
l
Juan C
an
a
?
e
Dyan l
l Rnlm
Michae
l
Dy
an
Mark
et
D
em
an
d
&
O
rg
an
iz
ati
on
Chart
By": El I
ud- : ClaS
ra
Co mmEng
unit age
yment
Lan
d
8:
Utba n
G
rap
hi c
&Web Dulgn
Env
iro
nm
ent
al
lnfns u- uctu
n
A
na
lys
is
P
ro
l
e
c
t
Mana
geme
nt
Z
o
ni
Agenda Item #12.1.
and consultants can result in a process that is ef?cient and a Speci?c Plan that is effective City staff will pro vide baseline information and help in coordinating
with typically underrepresentedpopulations, partner
agencies, PlanningCommission.and City Council.as well as maintaining a liaison with property owners and interest groups City staff will need to carefullyreview all work roducts, and provideuni?ed direction to the
consulta t.
1.2 TE l TION
Quali?cationsof all team members follow. Resumes
are inclu ed in Chapter 5.
DYET &
Dyett Br Bhatia o?'ers strong understanding of St.
Helena—helping with ?nalizing the City’s General
Plan and preparing the Elk on it combined with
our exceptional experience in preparing Downtown
Speci?c Plans, including half dozen in the Bay area.
including in the North Bay very recently for Santa
Rosa and previouslyfor Windsor.
Dyett 8r Bhatia is a California corporation based in
Oakland, operating since 1978. Our small size 20
employees—allowsus to be nimble and responsive in
our work, communication, and outreach. We conduct
analysisand developpolicieson the range of planning
topics, from land use and urban design to economic
developmentand sustainability.The professionalservices we offer are focused on planning, design. and outreach:
. Downtown.urban designand speci?cplans . General Plans - Environmental planningand assessment . Developmentcodes and zoning ordinances Geographic Information Systems (615), three- dimensional computer modeling,and visual simu- lation We see policy-making,land use planning. physical design, and implementationas related activities. The diversityof our practice helps us clearlyde?ne issues and identify practical courses of action. We believe that plan-makingis a collaborative effort involvinga diversityof stakeholders, and are committed to active community participation in the planning process. Dyett BrBhatia has won 15 awards from the American PlanningAssociation in the last ?ve years alone for the relativelysmall volume of work produced. 2022 APA Califomla Chapter Award at Excellence
Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Speci?c
Plan
APA Northern California Section Award of
Excellence: Large Jurisdiction
for Comprehensive Planning (Hard Won Victories)
2021 APA Calllornia Award 0' Merit: Hard-WonVictories Award Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Land Use Plan
Update
2020 APA Comprehensive Plan Award: Large Jurisdiction
Mission Valley Community Plan
APA San Diego Section Award ol Excellence
Mission Valley Community Plan
2018 APA Northern Califomla Section Comprehensive Plan Award of Excellence: Smell Jurisdictlon Belmont General Plan, Village Speci?c Plan, B:
EIR
APA Comprehensive Plan Award oi Excellence:
Smell Jurisdiction
Belmont General Plan, Village Speci?c Plan, &
EIR
APA Celilomla Sacramento Valley Section
Comprehensive Plan Award of Excellence:
Small Jurisdiction
Woodland General Plan
APA Calilomla Northern Section Award of
Merit for Comprehensive Planning
Redwood City El Camino Real Corridor Plan
APA Calllomia inland Empire Section Comprehensive Plan Award of Excellence: Small Jurisdiction
Fledlands General Plan.CAP, and EIR
APA California San Diego Section Award of
Excellence: Best Practices
GrantvllieTrollevStation [Alvarado Creek
Revitalization Study
preparation, bringing expertise in all facets of speci?c plan preparation. DBrBhas prepared plansfor some of the most vibrant and transformed districts in Western US. — from small city downtownsto the most intense urban environments. DBrBprepared the landmark San Diego Downtown Plan and zoning—ledby Principal RajeevBhatia—about 20 years ago (which remain in effect) that have led to transformation of this 1,500- acre area into perhaps California’s ?nest high-inten- sity, livable, live/work district. DSIB has prepared sev- eral dozen downtown and other speci?cplanssince. 5’6
AM
5-
QUALIF CA
BHATIA
S
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
Examplesof downtown and other Bay Area speci?c
plansin the last four years include (Dyett 8rBhatia was the prime consultant on all of these assignments, and
also led the HR: for all but one project):
- Santa Rosa Downtown Speci?c Plan and EIR
(adopted2020) . Sonoma DevelopmentalCenter (Reuse) Speci?cPlan and EIR (adopted2022) . Paci?ca Sharp Park (Downtown Paci?ca) Speci?c Plan and HR (adopted2023)
- Union City Station District Speci?c Plan (includes
proposal for a new Downtown like center for the
city) (adopted2022)
o Livermore Isabel Neighborhood(Station Area) Speci?c Plan and EIR (adopted2020; amended 2022) - Bayhill Speci?c Plan (San Bruno; includes YouTlibe headquarters and surrounding sites) and HR (adopted 2020)
- Pleasanton Downtown Speci?c Plan and EIR
(adopted2019) . Collins/Serramonte Master Plan, Colma (highly detailed streetscape plans and standards for two
principalstreets/one of main auto rows in the Bay
Area) (adopted2020)
Other work within the last ten years includes:
- Belmont Village(Downtown Belmont) Speci?cPlan
and Elk (2017)
- Honolulu Downtown Neighborhoods TOD Plan
(2017) . Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village Plan, San 1056(2017)
- Winchester Boulevard Urban VillagePlan.San José
(2017)
- Rio Vista Downtown Speci?cPlan (Solano County;
- Palo Alto Downtown Phase 1 (2016) - Santa Clara Downtown Concept Plan (2015) - Lake Merritt Station Area (Downtown Oakland) Speci?cPlan and EIR (2014) .
Diridon Station Area (San Jose) Station Area Spe- ci?c Plan (2014) - Windsor (Sonoma County) Downtown/Station Area Speci?cPlan Speci?cPlan and HR (2013) “9
Dyett & Bhatia has unsurpassed national experience
in preparing zoning regulations for downtowns, as well as comprehensive citywide zoning regulations.
DBrBuniquelyhas a group of highlyexperiencedplan- ners dedicated solely to zoning. We have familiarity with form based, design, performance, and Euclidean approachesfor zoning. Our current zoning work involves a broad array of implementation concepts;
pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented districts;
mixed use development;green building;best practices
for neighborhood design, parking, landscaping and
lighting; and streamlining development review and
implementationprocedures.
- San Diego
- Chicago,IL . Philadelphia.PA . Portland, OR . Abu Dhabi (UAE) - Austin, TX . Berkeley . Porterville
E eview for Speci?c Plans
Dyett & Bhatia has led completeEIRs on about 20 speci?c plans, as well as more than 40 generalplans.Concurrent EIR/planwork bythe same ?rm helpsto design “self-mitigating"plansthat are easier to implement.
Design Standards and Guidelines
Dyett 8r Bhatia has prepared numerous citywideand
area-speci?cdesignstandards and guidelines.Current
North Baywork includes residential/mixed-usedesign
standards in concert with Housing Elements for Ross,
for cities, and is this currently for Carson and Oceanside. Recent com- pletedwork includes City of Santa Barbara zoning code update (including for Downtown), Carmel, and Mon- terey. DSrB also recentlyprepared interim zoning reg- ulations for Napa, following adoption of the General Plan last year.
Examp
le
Downtown Co Zning Regulalions
mp
let
ed
(in add
/
tro
n
tocompleted zoning asfspeci?c part
plans)
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
CITY OF ST. FOR HELENA
Down
town
Zoni
nv
ir
o
nm
en
ta
R
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia has prepared general plans for over 60
California cities.includingin the North Bayfor Napa
(adopted 2022), St. Helena, Santa Rosa, Petaluma.and
Rohnert Park, as well as 151115on all of these assignments. Current work includes general plans for Oakland.Sacramento, Fair?eld.and Monterey among others. ilities, and
.DSKBalso
-D) models
y angle,or
- County of Marin . City of Monterey . City of Moreno Val ley - City of Napa . City of Oakland
- City of Oceanside
- City of Paci?ca
- City of Richmond . Town of Ross
- City of Sacramento
- City of San Diego
- City of San Pablo
- County of Sonoma
- City of Turlock
- City of Woodside . San DiegoAssociat
ion
of Gove
rnme
nts All of these are also cu
rren
t
client wth the exception
s, of City ofNapa and C
ou
nt
y
of work for whom Sonom
a. was completedwithin last has D&B been not year.
a sub-consultant to an
y
?r onver ayssignment
m the past 12 months.
The followingpagesin
cl u
d
e
of pro?l recentpresen
es tative projects.
Dyett 8KBhati
a
GIS leading capab
has several ful
l
tiGIS sraff onspecialists
expertise in pr
ep
ar
in
g
(3threedimensi
onal
of urban areas, beviewed from can an viewed in a w
al
kth
ro
u
g
h
mode or byfly
LIST CLDOING BUSINESS
IE
N
TS
WITH&BHATIA INTHE PAST 12
MON
THS
City of Belvedere
City of Carson
City of Chino
Town of Fairfax
City of Fair?cld
City and County of
City of Los Angcles
GIS Thre Computer
eDim
ensi
onal
Mod
eling
8: Visual Simulation
D
ow
nt ow
n
San Diego Plan
G
e
n
er
al
Plans
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
The Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Spe
ci?c
Plan (DSASP) the is
blueprint for development and preservation iareat th 7zo -acr
e
heart of the city. Originally adopted in2007, a k
e
y
of the DSASP
b
je
ct
i
v
e
is to increase the number of residents and e
m
pl
o
y
ee
s
withinalking
distance of the SMART station; however, 1
2 yafterdoption,
e
a
r
s
only 100 housing units had been constructeddof inspite
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
a booming Bay Area economy. Dyett & Bhat
ia
leacompreh
densive update to the Plan focused on removing b
ar
ri
er
s
todevelopm
ent, improving connectivity and walkability,foster
ing
eco and retail
no
mic vitality, and helping realize Downtown’s full p
ot
e
nt
ia
l.
Develop with
ed extensive community engagement, the Plan strategies
to promote high-density, transit oriented mi
xe
d
and use residential
development as well as to facilitate constructi
on
of urban parks and
gathering places, activate the creekside mult
i-use
trailshat traverse
the area, and optimize the use of Cityowned
park D&B also
ing. prepare a Subsequent EIRfor the project, whi
ch
inathoughtful
vo
lve
d
approach to historic preservation.
Sant
a
RDownto Station Specific Area
oswn
a
PlanElk
APA California Awar
d
of
Excellence: Hard W
on Victories
APA Northern Califo
rnia Section Award of E
xc
el
-
lence for Comprehen
siva Planning Large
Jurisdiction
AFI'ER
~"~‘ L.-
-u
SANTA
CALIF
ORNIA ADOPT
ED
202
0 2' Nv
nL _. k‘ m.«\..\:
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR OF STCITV HELENA
D
Y
E
T
T
&BHATIA Ur
ban
P|anners and Regianal
nun DOW
BEFO
RE
Agenda Item #12.1.
\ m
u
.1;
it...”~:
oma County, with a downtown
a Marin RailTransit (SMART) Stat
ion.
The
h a cohesive transit-oriented co
m
mu
nit
y
region and set the framework for nex
t ent, with an expanded core—reorienting with a "Town Green Loop" strateg y—
and
d amenities, which willserve as a
extensive community outreach process, i
survey; and prepared the Speci?c P
l
a
n
and
t Report. The Plan includes guiding princi
ples
that
on forthe area, goals and policiesfor each as
ndards/zoning regulations and design g
ui
d
el
in
es
also includes an implementation progra
m,
wit
h sibilities.
w—mnu‘m Wren-u
Windsor is a small town in Son
adjacent to the planned Sonom
Speci?c Plan seeks to establis
with linksto the town and the
era of Downtown's developm
it around the Town Green
a broader array of uses an
draw.
Dyett &Bhatia led an
a community-wide
ell development sta or development. It imelines and respon Win
dsor
Stati Area Plan/Downtown Specific
on Plan EIR
vn—W | low: mam-.m— Int-and Wm m- an: m
V—ub-Iu mm
[mu Wyn—mum" m
min-nun mun-«m. Damn-um mun-z...” m—uuvIu-n OMmu...
I \
AFA Calif
ornia
Chapt er Award of Compr e- hensive P
lan
n
in
g
Small
Jurisdlcnon(
20 14)
WIN
DSO
R,
CALIF
ORNIA
ADO
PTE
D
2013 D
Y
E
T
T
&BHATIA
D
ow
nt ow
n
Specific Plan
U
rb
an
and Plannurs Regional
"mun —-
:—:.—.:-_-:r--
w.-—-. he...“
hum-
.ET: #5
Agenda Item #12.1.
n.
um.» um. um.
m-mwm—m-n-x
mud-um
Wyn...“ mum-7mm
~m
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
D
Y
E
T
T
8xBHATIA
Wno muse wu‘. wx um“ mu
nm
Ur
ban
and Planner: Regional
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia led a Speci?c Plan for reimaging the s
h
u
t
t
e
r
e
d
945-acre
former Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) in the of Sonoma Valley,with a 180-acre core campus surrounding by of acres of some of most picturesque and resourcevaluable
opspace in
en Sonoma County. The state's ?rst and largest dev
elop
men
tal
center
and the valley's largest employer in its heyday, the was in2018 closed by the State of California, which owns the ent
ire
pro
pert
y. The site contains 180 buildings, including some on th e
Register,
almost all in severe disrepair or unsuitable for co
nt
em
po
rar
y
uses.
The Speci?c Plan, adopted in December 2022, e
n
vi
si
o
n
s
vibrant a
community of750homes and goojobs in a walkabl
e
with new
and adaptively reused buildings, enhanced open and creek setbacks, and vibrant community gathering spaces.
The Plan generated extensive community interest, comm
unity meeting attendances in the hundreds, and nearl
y
of 1, pages
0 0
0+
comments on the Draft EIR alone. Dyett & Bhati
a
leprepar
dation of all documents, including the Plan and the EIR, a n
d
cothe
nd
uct
ed
community outreach.
Sono
ma
(Reuse) De Center
vel
op
me
ntal
Spec
ific
Pla and Elk
n
u
.
”5...
K1
.,
‘1'
|
'1 f‘il
IA=‘(_
l_’
I.
«I
o
«'4‘
r—J—‘..
.
l'h’l Ti)
I :l
2H
.1
SONO
MA
CO
UN
TY,
CALIF
ORNIA ADOPT
ED
202
2 Speci?c Plan
lan
d
Agenda Item #12.1.
I
L
L
U
;
REND 0ATl RINGSOF SI V.LOP LDENT CENARIOSATFUIJLB LDOUTO THESDC CIFICPLAN V
(.Aa‘e'?._m
l?llll
3 I
“
a
\. In
f“
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett &Bhatia led the ?rst comprehensive upd
ate
of Paci?c General
a’s Plan and Local Coastal Program in nearly 30 and developed new Speci?c Plan for the Sharp Park neighbor
hood,
which Paci?ca’s is
downtown, concurrently with the General Pla
n. The Sharp Park Speci?c Plan built upon tsigni?cant area’s opportunity for mixed-use buildings, new hou
sing
and higher intensity
development to help the city address issues hoaffordabilit usi y
ng
and create a center of gravity for the broader commu and nity visitors. The Speci?c Plan addresses issues todevelopme nt scale, intensity, and character; outlines stre
etsc
ape
improve
ments; and includes new development standards. plan aso includes a comprehensive implementation program aninfrastruct
ure ?nancing strategy.
D&B also led a combined EIRon the Gener
al
Pl andark Sharp
an Speci?c Plan; both plans were adopted unanim
ously
bythe Cityouncil
in 2022.
Paci
fica
(Downtown ShParkcifica)
arp Spec
ific
Pla and EIR
n
PACI
FICA
,
CALI
FOR
NIA
ADO
PTE
D
2023
r,"
g
Sharp Park
Speci?c Pl
D
Y
E
T
T
8: BHATIA
mmmd wmsmm
m
WA" wSa-mknuzAn
D
aw
nt nw
n
P|an Speci?c
U
rb
an
and Regional Planners
rumAw
Agenda Item #12.1.
mum-um;-
Wynn
m
The Union City Station District Speci?c Plan is designed to tr a
n
sf
o
r
m
a
470-acre area around the Union City BARTStation by conv ertin
g
two
large existing shopping centers into what may ultimately a new downtown for the city, and transition several hun dred
acre
s of outdated industrial uses and vacant land into a hig hint
ens
ity
employment hub, fostering life science and innovation uses.
The Speci?c Plan, which was adopted in October 2022, fost ers
alarge
mixed-use districtwith uniquesub-districts, complemented b y
e
n
g
a
g
i
n
g
and attractive public spaces, with multiple new streets and p e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
biking connection to enhance connectivity walkability, and a c
c
e
s
s
.
The
plan envisions 5,600 homes (4,000 of which would be new) 18, 200 jobs upon implementation. Dyett & Bhatia wrote both the S p
ec
i?
c
Plan
and the EIRfor the project, aided by a team of subconsultants. In a separate but related project, Dyett &Bhatia worked succ essf
ully
on
behalf of the City with architects and owners of an approxim ately
1,000
housing unit proposal in the station area being pursued as tsp eci
?c
plan was underway, and helped re~imagine it to enhance
orchestrate densities to capitalize on BARTaccess, and foster public realm and integration with the broader Station Distric t.
U
ni
o
n
Cit Station District Plan Specific and EIR
y
My...
Haw—«c... mmmm Mama—4....
”9......“ monk—mu,
Kano-«u.
UNION
CALIF
ORNIA ADOPT
ED
202
2 H._u.—-
'32? D
Y
E
T
T
bkBHATIA U
rb
an
andal Planner: Reg
'\O/‘
...—..
.._.¢ E:
Agenda Item #12.1.
a
Dyett &Bhatia led a Speci?c Plan for reimaging the s
h
u
t
t
e
r
e
d
94s-acre
former Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) in the of Sonoma Valley, with a 1Bo-acre core campus surrounding by of acres of some of most picturesque and resourcevaluable
opspace in
en Sonoma County. The state’s ?rst and largest dev
elop
men
tal
center
and the valley's largest employer in its heyday, the was 2018 in closed by the State of California, which owns the ent
ire
pro
per
ty. The site contains 180 buildings, including some on th e
Register,
almost all in severe disrepair or unsuitable for co
nt
em
po
ra
ry
uses.
The Speci?c Plan, adopted in December 2022, e
n
vi
si
o
n
s
vibrant a
community of 750 homes and goojobs in a walkabl
e
swith new
and adaptively reused buildings, enhanced open and creek setbacks, and vibrant community gathering spaces.
The Plan generated extensive community interest, comm
unity meeting attendances in the hundreds, and nearl
y
pages of 1,
0 0
0+
comments on the Draft EIRalone. Dyett & Bhati
a
leprepar
dation of all documents, including the Plan and the EIR, acon the duc
ted
community outreach.
Live
rmor
e
(Station Isabel Neighborho
od Area)Plan and Elk
SONOMA
CALIFOR
NIA ADOPTED
AMENDE
D
=
=a
:
.
D
ow
nt ow
n
Spaci?: Plan
II' P‘ L—a“
II
a
E
xi
st
in
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia led a Speci?c Plan for reimaging the 945-acre former Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) in th
e
hof Sonoma
e
a
rt
Valley, with a 180-acre core campus surrounding byof acres of some of most picturesque and resourcevaluable
ope inspace
n Sonoma County. The state's ?rst and largest develo
pment
al
and center
the valley's largest employer in its heyday, the center closed 2018 in by the State of California, which owns the entire pro
pert
y. The site contains 180 buildings, includingsome on t
h
e
NRegister,
at
ur
al
almost all in severe disrepair or unsuitable for c
o
n
t
e
uses.
The Speci?c Plan, adopted in December 2022, e
n
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
avibrant
community of 750 homes and goojobs in a walkabl
e
with snew
et
ti
n
g,
and adaptively reused buildings, enhanced open and creek setbacks, and vibrant community gathering spaces.
The Plan generated extensive community interest
, wcommu
itnity
h
meeting attendances in the hundreds, and nearl
y
pages of 1,
00 0+
comments on the Draft EIR alone. Dyett & Bha
tia
led prepara
tion of all documents, including the Plan and the EIR, con the duct
ed
community outreach.
Pl
ea
sa
nt
on
Downtow Specific Plan and Elk
n
mun mummmu mmmw
iii?
sou
Plemnlun Dmtm Spedl'l: PIIn
=2“
‘l"-'
', '1.qu I
[I:Apmm
wmv
PLEAS
ANTO CALIF
N, ORNIA ADOPT
ED
201
9 ‘l
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR COF TV
Land Plan
Existi
ng
mum
Agenda Item #12.1.
n
Dyett & Bhatia prepared an update of thePlan, General a Speci?c Plan for the Belmont VillagePriorit
y
(FDA), Area
a combined program EIRon the two docume
nts,
well asZoning Cde
amendments to implement the General Pla
n
athe Speci?c Plan.
n
d The General Plan focuses on land use an
d
mimproveme
onts,
bi
li
ty
and in?ll possibilities. Belmont Village,loca
ted
the heart of incity
at the intersection of Ralston Avenue and Real, Crepresents a Belmont's primary opportunity for revitaliz
ation
and of creation true
town center. Addressing urban design, st
r
e
et
s
c
a
p
e
improveme
nts, and multimodal access and connectivity to
tCaltra and station
inh
e
nearby businesses and neighborhoods a
r
e
thobjectives primar
ye of the Speci?c Plan. The Speci?c Plan i acomprehen
sive implementation program, new developm
ent
sta and design
nda
rds
guidelines, and an infrastructure ?nancing
BellmmVillageSpeci?c?an PrtlhulmryDullheknrd ?rmhlbn Ban 9K
Inn-mm
Bel
mon
t
(Downtown Belmont) Vill
age Spec
ific
Pla and Elk
n
BEL
MON
T,
CALIF
ORNI
A
ADO
PTE
D
201']
an
nt ow
n
Spcnl?c Plan
Ur
ban
and Regional Planners
Agenda Item #12.1.
Dyett & Bhatia prepared two neighborhood station area plans encompassing six station areas of Honolulu's new urban rail system— at $7 billion, one of the largest urban rail system currently under construction in the western U.S. Dyett & Bhatia led all aspects of the assignment, including all planning, urban design, and community outreach, supported by a team of local subconsultants. The two plans are:
Downtown Neighborhood TOD Plan. The Downtown Plan
encompasses three stations—Downtown, which serves the ?nancial district, with the highest intensities in Honolulu; Chinatown, which is on the National Register of Historic Places; and lwilei which the Neighborhood TOD Plan envisions as new high-rise mixeduse district, resulting from transforming older industrial and commercial uses. Promoting walkability, enhancing transit access, and developing of a new waterfront promenade are additional features of the Plan.
Kalihi Neighborhood TOD Plan. The three Kalihi stations are adjacent to Downtown, and represent very different opportunities.
The Plan proposes complete transformation of the Kapalama station from big-box stores and industrial uses to a walkable highrise district adjacent to Downtown, while Kalihiand Middle Street station areas are outlined for conservation with selective reuse, and transformation of the Kapalama canal into an active waterfront.
Community engagement included numerous workshops, as well as a adoped in Summer/Fall 2017.
T H
on
ol
ul
u
Neighborhoods Downto Plan TOD
wn
HON
OLU
LU,
HAWAII
ADO
PTE
D
2017
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF STHELENA
District
K
ali
hi
seg me nt
Agenda Item #12.1.
1'0an
HEM-Id mun—w...“
nu .
on
m
(-
\*
1V7 $‘E’v;
In" x
Downmw
n
SpPlan
eci
?c
w
Ex“
.3
Agenda Item #12.1.
Santana Row represents perhaps the Bay Area's largest successfu example of a built-from-scratch high-intensity pedestrian-oriented mixed-use district. It has emerged as San José's "second downtown”, a hugely popular retail and dining destination, and a residential district.
Valley Fair, across Winchester Boulevard from Santana Row, is the largest mall in Silicon Valley.
The Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village Plan, led by Dyett & Bhatia for the City of San Jose', provides the framework for the next era of development of this pivotal district. The Urban Village Plan builds on the energy of Santana Row to revitalize and enhance connections to surrounding areas, outlines the framework for mid- and high-intensity new development, with building heights reaching 15 to 20 stories, and fosters a dynamic urban environment that embraces the creative workforce and urban living.Development willbe supported by a future Bus Rapid Transit line, as well as new mid-block paseos and urban plazas.
The planning process was supported by community outreach that included two large community workshops and an online interactive map—basedcommunity survey.
5 1"
w. ?“ =3
.
I]
Sant
ana
Row Fair Plan, Urban Villge
/
Vall
ey
San
w!
._.
PROPOSAL FO
R
SI cOF HELENA
n
'v SAN JOSEC
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
DOPTED 20
17 ' mum. mum- .....
.
.
”Wt—aw“
ii
a..."
.m. m- m. .- "a...
Agenda Item #12.1.
zv
San José's General Plan envisions growth clustered "urban in? ll villages”, transforming these strategically identi?ed are as
vibrant, int
o higher density, mixed-use districts that promote transit , wand
al
ki
n
g,
bicycling.
Winchester Boulevard is a major north-south vehicu
lar
con
nect
ion
that links key destinations in Campbell, San José, an
d
SaClara.
nt
a
Centered along a 1.4-milesegment of the boulevard, t Plan M ste
r
for this Urban Village, being led by Dyett & Bhatia for City of San José, seeks to revitalize this key corridor with nodes o f
h
i
g
h
-
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
development, and strategic lower-scaled in?ll develop
ment
betwe
en the nodes. Avariety of outdoor plazas, public art, and p a
r
k
s
integ
rated throughout. Building heights and massing are careful ly
feto
at
he
re
d
minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses.
Winchester Boulevard itself isre-envisioned as a memor
able
boul
evar
d,
with commercial nodes serving surrounding neighb
orhood
s,
while
maintaining its current traf?c travel lanes and capacit y,
parkin
g/ vehicular lane switch—San José’s ?rst such con?gur
ation—
at
peak
hours, enabling provision of new protected cycle tr
a
c
k
s
,
and rain
gardens for water ?ltering.
in
ch
est
er
Boulev Urban Villge Master
ard Plan
Streemape Elements
IIsumamMdrmd Anman m. w ll‘ min.
2: Mack/nun mm um um.mm;
1]mm mm: I'd Urdu" mm:w m :1me mm: A»
'ednxnlnaknlrd mm my;
5) mm m
byPM um um
7) MI" mm puma a mun mm cum
SAN CALI
FORN
IA
ADO
PTED
2013
my”
I»
i 3:
\
D
Y
E
T
T
&BHATIA
D
ow
nt ow
n
Spaci?n Plan
U
rb
an
and Raglonal Planners
Agenda Item #12.1.
A map-based online survey prompted respondents to Interact with draft land use and height maps, providing example images to aid in visualizing the proposed changes.
M“
i urwnon M
unwell
‘5’”: Case Study Site
km
mu!
DEE
%.§£g¢§a§°?§
3 3,2,. 5
Dog ""sz
i
u
I”
1 won" m
WWI-Manhunt: manna-um
WM
kM WM lam-um... WWW 53
9-0 WWmum-aura:
"
,E
M WWW mums:-s..- g
tam-mum‘- EI
ram-«mm MMWWil-m wanna,- Anal-mum hummus-awning WWI-my
I ——-—
._ L____....—
____
I -..-~__\
\
__________
‘7 __' :
’
l I.-__..___ .. I
I l I ,’
.' I
r~-_| ,.
:
I ‘ r--~ "
'
:
I ‘I I.
'
‘. a
/ I: "
(MMVIH .
, = ; ; :1&
l‘
I
\ L-____—_ D-
_.—-..__..I
‘
' l
' pP \ "
II
\‘ I
I 1' x. I I K I
l
, (1“qu
I
I
V////4
¢.
f 0 %
-l—-—n— .
1 l
I
l
:
I
l
I_
g...— ~.
...
.-.
..~
5Sel ma! m
\\\
mi
ni
n
an- p
u
p.
Agenda Item #12.1.
mm mum
Napa is one of Northern California'ssignature cities, at the cultural and economic heart of the wine country. It is strategically located along the Napa River and set among one of California's most highly-valued agricultural and tourist regions, yet within easy reach of the greater metropolitan BayArea. The city is home to established neighborhoods, a riverfront downtown that is a regional draw in its own right, and existing and expanding economic drivers, both related to the wine industry and otherwise.
The General Plan, adopted October 2022, maintains growth within the existing Rural Urban Limit, and promotes corridor revitalization, continued downtown development, riverfront orientation and open space development, and sustainable development patterns. a n‘unu
—— mwuunlmmna v,
'- 1":
/ ‘/.. \
1|
'1': In" I I I
\
" \ ..,_‘__ z: .
.. \ \, ~‘-
.‘__. \. A}; I ,_ a , , -
”‘ “:—l \
'7’ l‘ -- ‘ ?bere
, Pg.— /.,. .3 4...! 3.3L . ’
\
° "a. ~sr ~.:- 1- J
r: ..__
/
“I; 1
..__. ,i
i lrm.
'
I A
\
._: l Jua‘ —- — =-
3 l l ll-an may... - .
/
\-
I 1 ,
p-i-y— -—
—-
m...“— ...... l ......
a.... —..__. _—~.
._...
r.—..
._._
.... —
_. —
:2sz .7
:‘_
_“
:
“*m—‘i—FL“
.m.~_—._~_.- u...
‘T.. —.. _.._
....
no.‘ u...“- nuaa-s-A—‘hw
._........... _.
.,._
_.
-. —...‘.~._.-__. __-.u
.........
.._
.__._.._.._.-
-.-.¢——.._........ ‘__.~_~
. h..................
H ”a:mum"!
N
a
p
a
Plan Gen and Elk
eral
or NAPA GENE
RAL
_......._. .—
-._...-... ....-.... ........ ............ __-.-.—
._._... _w..._ .........—...__ ..__
-._. ..._.
..._
NAP
A,
C
A
LI
F
O
R
N
I
A
ADO
PTE
D
202
D
aw
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Tmnc Corridor Street as
—Du(!
J. uAgenda Item #12.1.
mum-mm
IIIIUE ll DUI
Located in the heart of Napa Val
ley,
Helen one St. isof the Bay Area's
a most picturesque small towns, apopul of and 6,200 aland ation area of about ?ve square miles. Bhatia &assisted the with City the completion of a targeted up
da
te
tohe Plan, General focused on
incorporating policies to addres
s
nState th have requirements
e
w
come into force since the plan last updated and extending the horizon year of the plan. Issues theoinclude effort growth management, economic develop
ment,
histori resource preservation,
c public safety, and agricultural p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
The also effrt included
preparation of an ElRand analysi
s
sen environment resources
siti al
ve
and capacity constraints in areas the Iimitwhere City municipal services are provided.
Fin-IL!
luau-.91.”...
\
—;
\
‘1
\
/QI 4' C.‘ \ \/
\‘
\ x
/ , I,
\\
\
.—- ‘\
x
/
~\
/ § \<\
\
.§ _
.. ....=..........._ W w... a”... u... MM...— mu.“ _ ...... a... Mum Datama— 9"-
Ivy—um“
a... : ~>—.. n
0-min- u—ubm D-
..._4...._..
m\(\
Chm--
St
.
Plan General and EIR
ST. CALIFO
RNIA AD
OPT
ED
2019
P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY STOF HELENA kh
an.
..“
my”... M...
Agenda Item #12.1.
15 DKS Associates provides specialized transportation
planning. design, and engineering services to public agencies across the country. Firmwide, our staff includes 150 professionalswith of?ces in Oakland,
Sacramento, and Anaheim, CA: Portland and Salem,
OR; Seattle, WA; and Austin, TX. Our professional
staff members provide expert services in multimodal
transportation analysis, planning, and engineering;
intelligenttransportation systems; corridor and intersection safety, pedestrian and bicycle planning and design,and transit planningand design.
DKS has led or supportednumerous long-rangetransportation planning studies including county level transportation plans, corridor studies, and mobility
elements of local comprehensive plans. We bring to
these studies our full spectrum ofservices which range
from publicoutreach through travel demand forecast—
ing and traffic simulation to GIS and graphicdesign.
DKSstaff are familiar with most of the travel demand
models maintained by county transportation agencies
in the Bay Area and Sacramento regions, including
the Napa Solano ActivityBased travel demand Model
(Napa SolanoABM). DKS staff have applied the Napa
Solano ABM for several projects including the most
recent Napa General Plan update.
- City of Napa General Plan Update, Napa, CA.
DKS analyzedthe existing and future transporta
tion network and needs in support of an update to
the Transportation Element of the City’sGeneral
Plan. DKS appliedCity’slocal travel demand model
to assess traffic LOS effects and the Napa Solano
Activity Based Model to assess VMT. DKS prepared
a Transportation Impact Study that was incorpo
rated into the environmental document (EIR) for
Park Speci?c Plan, Paci?ca, CA. The generalplan update for Paci?ca took placein parallel with a Spe ci?c Plan for their downtown Sharp Park area. The analysis involved multimodal demand analysis LOS calculation for roadwaysegments and intersec tions within the city, parking occupancy, and the creation of maps in GISto visualize the analysis - Dixon Streets Master Plan, Dixon, CA. This study for the City of Dixon assessed long term roadway capacity needs based on the City 5 most recent Gen eral Plan update.DKSanalyzed roadwaycross sec tion as wellas intersection operational performance
under generalPlan buildout conditions.In addition,
DKS recommended changesto the City's engineering designstandards regardingservice volumes. - Contra Costa County Transportation Action
Plan Updates, CA. The DKS role for these studies
encompassedtravel demand model applicationand
performancemetric development.The performance
metrics used in this round of Action Plan updates
have been expanded to address safety, equity, and
sustainability,in addition to the more traditional
roadwayand intersection level of service metrics.
For this project, DKS has prepared a set of land use
inputs correspondingto MTC’sPlan BayArea 2050
and a set of baseline 2050 model outputs. These outputs have been used to forecast metrics, including VMT per service population,greenhouse gas emis~
sions, intersection delay, and peak period travel
times and speeds. . San Leandro Parking Analysis, San Leandro, CA.
For a private online grocery deliverybusiness, DKS
prepared a parking analysisto support the application for a parking code exception. DKS prepared a shared parkinganalysis,supported byprimary data
collection, to demonstrate the adequacyof the proposed parkingsupply.
Economic BrPlanningSystems,Inc. (EPS) is a land eco- nomics consulting firm experienced in the full spectrum of services related to real estate development,the ?nancingof publicinfrastructure and government services, and assessing local ?scal and economic impacts.
Established in Berkeleyin 1983, EPS has providedcon»
suiting services to hundreds of public- and privatesector clients throughout Northern California and the U S. Our balanced portfolio of clients allowsus to
understand land use and developmenteconomics from
- Real Estate Market and DevelopmentFeasibility DeveloperNegotiationsand Transaction Support Financing Public Infrastructure, Amenities and Services - Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis - Public Private Partnerships .
Land Use Planningand Growth Management - Reuse, Revitalization, and Redevelopment HousingDevelopmentFeasibilityand Policy E
C
&PLANNING SYSTEMS
D
K
S
AS
SO
CI
AT
ES
P
ro
je
ct
Exam
ples
D
aw
nm
w
n
Specl?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
EPSwas foundedon the principle that real estate development and land use-related public policy should be built on realistic assessment of market forces and economic trends.feasible implementation measures, and recognition of publicpolicyobjectives,includingprovisions for requiredpublic facilitiesand services. EPShas a deep understanding of policy formation at the local
level and the need to incorporate perspectives from residents, property owners, developers,tenants, and other stakeholders. This experience is supported by an analytical approach that stresses rigor, transparency, and objectivity rather than advocacy,and one that seeks to
engenderthe trust of clients and the publicat large.
As a central part of its consulting practice, EPS has
helped inform all aspects of planning the evolution.
revitalization, and programing of small downtowns
and other mixed-use commercial districts. Numerous
projects have been completedfor municipalities,developers, business associations, and property owners seeking to promote economic development.improve public infrastructure and amenities. and incentivize investment at strategic nodes and catalyticsites.
EPS also brings unique expertise with communities
that have strong links to the tourist economy including substantial work in northern California's so-called "wine country”. We understand the unique pressures
faced by these communities. including balancing the
needs of residents, visitors, and businesses, developing appropriate housing, and promoting economic diversity. We provide ?ne-grained analysiswith results and recommendations that are tailored to local market and
?nancial realities.unique physicaland geographicconsiderations.and community driven policyobjectives.
Project Examples
- Naps Downtown Speci?c Plan and General Plan
Update, Napa, California. After decades of gradual decline and lack of investment, the City Napa ter on the cache of its location in the of the Napa Valley and "wine country". As part of the DowntownSpeci?c Plan, EPS conducted mar- ket and feasibility analysisto identify and opportu- nity sites and developrealistic options to encourage redevelopmentof underutilized properties with the goal of creating a more vibrant, mixed-use district. EPS also evaluated ?nancing and implementation options to deliver public infrastructure and ame- nities. Guided by Speci?cPlan policiesand imple- mentation measures, Napa’sDowntown has evolved into a successful visitor destination with new hotels, restaurants, mixed-use residential, and enlivened entertainment venues.
Building on this success, EPS was subsequently
retained by the City, as part of a team leadby Dyett
8r Bhatia, to provide economic analysisin support
of the l . With a growing tourist economy, the City's priorities for the General Plan had evolved to include opportunities for eco- nomic diversi?cation, sustaining desirable employment prospects for residents, and strategic redevel— opment within a largely built-out city. EPS com- pleted an economic, demographic.and real estate pro?le that identi?ed Napa's competitive attributes
and positioning as well as challengesto sustainable
long-term growth that might be addressed by the
General Plan Update.While EPS gave specialconsideration to retail and visitor serving uses and their continued role in economic development,the analysis was expandedto include other emerging sectors such as health care and tech. The work culminated
in an Economic DevelopmentElement with a focus
on sustainable and equitable growth strategies to
avoid an over reliance on tourism sectors.
Healdsburg Housing Policy and Implementation Services, Healdsburg, California. The City of Healdsburg has been working to improve its
supply of affordable and "missing middle” housing in the face of an ongoing shortage and continued increase in housingdemand. While its highly appealingcommunity attributes and a livelyvisitorbased economy have provided substantial economic and ?scal bene?ts.it has also caused housing price
increases.further exacerbated by non-residenthome
ownership. Moreover, the City’s voter-approved
Growth Management Ordinance limited new housing construction to 30 units per year, severelyconstraining the addition of new market-rate housing.
Over the last decade EPS has providedthe City with
a variety of services to developpolicy and implementation measures to address housing shortages. was by the City Council in May 2023 and Certi?ed by HCD in Iune2023. EPS drafted the City’s original lnclusionaryZoning Ordinance.and subsequently provided revisions and updated the inclusionary housing in-lieu fees. Other efforts have included preparing revisions to the Growth Management Ordinance, identifying and forecasting new afford- able housing funding sources, assessing opportu- nity sites, and assisting with negotiations for indi- vidual affordable housingprojects. As a part of this work EPS has applieda range of supporting meth- ods including quantitativelybased housing needs assessment, ?nancial feasibilityanalysis,and budget and economic forecasting.
P
R
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
?g
ur al
gnPUpda?g
Agenda Item #12.1.
- Paci?ca General Plan Update and Sharp Park
Speci?c Plan, Paci?ca, California. As part of the
, and a subsequent Speci?c
Plan focused on its historic downtown, the City of
Paci?c sought to better understand opportunities to
improve its economy and better leverageits coast
line location 12 miles south of San Francisco. As a
subconsultant to Dyett 8: Bhatia, EPS contributed
to both the General Plan and Speci?cPlan e?'orts
by evaluating market conditions, development
opportunities, and public ?nancing strategies. For
the General Plan, which came ?rst, EPS evaluated
various strategies, such as “branding” and "place
making,” as well as the catalyticeffect of a luxury
or resort hotel, that would helpthe City to capture a growing share of the regionaltourism market. The EPS analysis was used to assist community lead
ers developpolicy choices and ultimatelyidentify
the historic Sharp Park neighborhoodas a strategic
location for further analysis.
EPSprovidedmore ?ne grained analysisof market
opportunities and economic feasibilityto support
the (approved in 2022)
The EPS market analysisfound that the historic
Sharp Park neighborhood, adjacent to a popular
public beach, presented opportunities for a more
activated mixed-use environment that could draw
both visitors and local residents. However, achiev
ing its the full developmentpotential faced mar ket and feasibility challengesthat would require a range of efforts on the part of the City, property
owners, developers, and others to overcome. To
support implementationof the plan objectives,EPS
also prepared a strategic ?nancingplan for targeted
publicand private investments designedto create a unique and cohesive sense of place. . Downtown Danville Real Estate Feasibility Assessment, Town of Danville, California. sector was locallyoriented. But because the Downtown serves as a central gathering place, a source of commu- nity pride, and the primary commercial district in Town, the City soughtto prioritize reinvestment to improve overall vibrancy.
Danville retained EPS to evaluate potential zoning
changesto spur new investment and development.
EPS conducted market analysis and performed
?nancial feasibility testing to identify potential
developmentopportunities in the Downtown. The
analysisrevealed that historical low densitydevelopment patterns had limited the broader mar- ket appeal of Downtown. Additional flexibility in allowable land uses, and developmentincentives
that reduce project costs would likely incentivize
investment. EPS also found that allowinggroundlevelservice retail, of?ce, and medical of?ce (along with traditional retail) would improve feasibility,
given stronger demand for these tenant types. In
addition, the EPS study identi?ed an opportunity
for commercial condominiums suited for service
retail and of?ce users. Finally,the analysisshowed
that fee waiver incentives, like those used for historic preservation projects, and reduced parking ratios would improve project economics. Along
with these recommendations, the study cautioned
that the Town should weighthe bene?ts of changes
to land use policy and/or the provision of incentives against potential secondary effects, such as potential impacts on parkingavailability.
Bottomley Design 8r Planning (BDP) is an urban
design and city planning ?rm specializingin pedestrian- and transit—orienteddevelopmentplanning and capital improvements. Work products include land
use and developmentmaster plans, regulatory/zoning
standards, design and developmentguidelines, and
detailed designsand construction drawingsfor streets
and public spaces. All BDP work is related to in?ll
development in existing cities and towns, and promotes TOD, completestreet, and green street design principles. Plans typically include traf?c/circulation
ment plans, diagrams,and 3D illustrations.
B&PLANNING DESIGN
Sharp Plg? Speg
i?g
gene
ra
l
Plan deate
Do wn
town
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.
u
Recent projects completedwith Dyett 8r Bhatiainclude
the Sonoma Developmental Center Speci?c Plan,
Union City BART Area Speci?cPlan, BelmontVillage
Speci?cPlan, Redwood City ElCamino RealPDA Plan,
and Winchester Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard
urban villageplan for San lose.Other recent projects
include the Newark Old Town Speci?c Plan/Thornton
Avenue Redesign,Mountain View Downtown Transit
Center Master Plan, Millbrae Downtown/El Camino
Real Speci?cPlan.East Santa Clara Street urban village
plan for San Jose, and the BayhillSpeci?cPlan for San
Bruno.
Proje tE a . Downtown Napa Riverfront, Napa CA. Responsibility:Prime Consultant. In?ll development prototypes, land use/developmentstandards, design guidelines, site plans and schematic designs for
capital improvements in the Downtown Reach of
the Napa River Flood Protection Project (PPP).
These improvements included three new bridges,an
8-acre river bypass channel/park,2 miles of public
access trails that include a riverfront promenade,
and renovation of Veterans Park, a river-edgecom- munity green. The work involved a series of ongoing public workshops, and coordination with City departments, the Napa County Flood Control District, Army Corps of Engineers, two community designadvisorypanels,and four engineering ?rms,
The overall goal of the work was a vision and consensus on capital improvements, development of adjacent private properties, architectural design
character, and designinterrelationshipsof the PPP’s
major design elements. Awards to-date include the
2010 Award of Excellence from the CaliforniaRedevelopmentAssociation and the 2009 Public Works Project of the Year Award from the American Public
Works Association.
Additional projects completedfor the City of Napa
Downtown Riverfront Urban Design Master Plan, Napa River Parkway Master Plan.Tannery Bend Development8: Design Guidelines, Riverside Drive Vision Plan. and the Downtown Plaza Corridor Master Plan. - Latham Square, Oakland CA. Responsibility: Lead
Consultant. Existing conditions analysis, concept
alternatives, community and staff design/workshop
process, 3D modeling,and construction documents
and support for recon?guration of the intersection
of Telegraph Avenue and Broadwayin Downtown
Oakland. Project includes intersection recon?guration, tra?ic calming, and plaza expansion within a National Register Historic District. The project
links the landmark Rotunda and Cathedral buildings with the thriving Uptown District and Oakland City Hall. Design elements include restoration of
the 1913 Latham Fountain, brick and stone replacement paving, rain gardenplanters, a range of seating options, programmablespecialty lighting, and historic/art panel installations. A series of community, statf steering committee, and public meetings and
hearingswere conducted to evaluate options, tradeof‘fs,and materials recommendations. BDP prepared the construction documents in conjunction with
Kimley Horn 8: Associates, Inc., civil and traf?c
engineers, and a team of specialtysubconsultants.
Construction completedsummer 2016.
0 Downtown Brentwood Streetscape Master Plan
8: Improvements, Brentwood CA. Responsibility:
Prime consultant for master plan, subconsultant
landscape architect for construction documents.
Work included existing conditions analysis, concept alternatives, community meeting process, and detailed design recommendations and phasingplan
for a lO-block.pedestrian-oriented downtown com mercial district. Principal elementsinclude conver sion of angle to parallelparking in order to widen
sidewalks from 10 to 20 feet, de?nition of downtown
gateway locations, traf?c calming and pedestrian
safety improvements, and linkage to a new Down
town civic center complex.A series of community
stat? steering committee, and public hearing meet
ings were conducted to evaluate options, trade-oil's,
streetscape construction as a to Carlson, Barbee 8t Gibson; construction completed in Spring 2012.
P
R
OF ST. FOR CITY HELENA
c mpl x
es
Agenda Item #12.1.
m
CommunityVisi
onin
g,
site planni and schematic design plans for the downtown reach of the Napa River Flood Prtecng, tionProject.Improvementsincl ude
rivmixed-use development, three bridges, new anB-acre river bypass channel/park. 2 erpri
ent
ed
milesofpublicaccesstrailsincl
udi
ng
ariverf promenade, and reconstruction of ariver~edge community The involved green. work ront a series ofcommunityworksh
ops
with cdepartments, City the District, Napa ood Control County US FArmy Corps of Engio o
r
di
n
at
io
n
neers,bridgeengineering?rms codesign advisory panels, and ongoing and development review. Work prducts inm mu
nit
y
cludedtheDowntownRiverfro
nt
and Developm Downtown Riverfront Urban Guidelines, Design Master and Napa River Plan, ent ParkwayMasterPlanThestilu
n
d
er
w
a
y
riverfro revitalization has effort received the 2010 Award of Excellence from the Calitornla nt RedevelopmentAssociationan
d
t200 Public Works Prject of the Year from Award the American Public Works Association 9 CityofNapa
7t"
2 's'>—1~th ‘-
--4 .P‘”(‘"_~ < r 3‘? -
> _ It“ A. “,3!
'1' ..:::'.i.:'.;.." #53”!
‘
/ "
/ J a,
4 RiverfrontU esignPlan
a
Speci?c Plan Dwntown
n
lU9“I
‘A
"2v/\I‘‘w
.‘'.__ H.
B
O
T
T
O
DESIGN &PLANNING PROFILES C
om
pl
ol
ed
Ahova Project from
Downt
Napa, own Ca
lif
P
r
o
/
s
c
u
Renderin
g
R
iv
er
fro
nt
Promen
ade
In
?ll
dan! av
el o
p
V
et eran
Park D
es
cr
ip
ti
: .
L.
=
rb
a
D
3'
C
li
Agenda Item #12.1.
”(a
Servicesincl
ude
d
excondition analysis, community meeting and staff design workshop concept alternatives. rst s
in
g
process,detaileddesign/3Dconstructio plans for the intersection of Telegraph and Avenue and Downtown Broadway in n Oakland.Theprojectfocuse
d
square-foot at the center of National Register aplaza Historic the cr linking 22,000 District, ati
ng
adjacentlandmarkRotunda Ca with the district and Oakland Civic Buildings thriving Uptown Center Speci?c design the
dr
al
elementsincluderestoratio
n
th1913 Latham brick and rain ofstone apaving, garden planters, seating options, Fountain, mrx e programmedstringlightinge
f
f
e
c
t
s
.
and histcn' panel insta ations. series of community. staffeering and public hear- Acommittee. dart ingmeetingswereconduct
ed
tevoptions trade-offs and materials recommendations. prepared construction streetscape BDP al
ua
te
plansinconjunctionwithKi
ml
ey
H&Inc civil and traf?c engineers. team of tants; Associate asubconsu construction specially s, o
m
completed2016.
‘1
I_!J
thamSquare
kland,California
B
O
T
T
O
M
L
E
Y
DESIGN &PLANNING PROFILES
ViewSouth 01Pla
za
aResto Fountain
nred
d0
0 0° 06
POSAL FOR CITY ST. HELEN
A
R
econ
?g
ur ati on
Options
Fl na
l
DConcept es
ig
n
F
o
rm
er
Inter
secti on
D
es
cr
ip
In
q4
Agenda Item #12.1.
Existingcond
ition
s
anal to-scale community concept process, and meeting detailed streetswpe alternatives. ysis
,
improvementrecommend
ations
anphasrn for panedestrianpriented downtown commercial d‘stnct. Principal elements 10-block. dg includeconversionofanye parking towiden sidewalks from 102de?nition of tolcations, downtown feet, gateway traf?c a
r
a
ll
e
l
calmingandpedestriansaf
ety
iand coordination wrth and construction of design adowntown c'vicenter complex. A seriesofcommunity,staffste
er
in
g
and were 0tradpffs, publ hearing meetings conducted toevaluate com options, and to mitte
e,
determineblock-byblockSi
d
e
w
al
k
and materials mprov recommendations prepared streetsmpe construction plans for BDP the emenl
s $5.5M?rstphaseproiectas tosBarbee &was completed Carlson, Gibson, construction 2012 in u
b
c
o
n
su
lt
an
t
CityofBrentwood
Do
wnt
own
Brent Master Plan Streetscape Improvements I
wood Bren
lwoo
d,
Calif
ornia
B
O
T
T
O
DESIGN &PLANNING PROFILES
O
ak
-SAngie parkngrior sidewalk towidening
u
n
n
i
{First and comer of Oak Struts mm
S
id
ew
al
k
Wideni 20'- Typical lo
ng
First andlo Oak Struts
ng
D
ow
n
Speci?c Plan
C
li
Agenda Item #12.1.