St. Helena City Council
January 13, 2026

West Yost is a consulting engineering ?rm that was
founded in 1990. Our focus is exclusivelywater, recycled water, wastewater, groundwater, and stormwater. We provide planning. design, construction management, and program management services in these areas.

Headquartered in Davis, California, West Yost operates from 10 of?ces and has a team of more than 200 dedicated professionals.Our staff comprises certi?ed
or registeredexperts in various ?elds, includingchemical, civil, control systems, electrical.environmental, and mechanical engineering, as well as wastewater
treatment and regulatory compliance. We also have
specialistsin geology,engineering geology,hydrogen]-
ogy, architecture, GIS, control systems. cybersecurity, risk management, asset management. condition assess- ment. project management, and construction management and inspection services.

West Yost is dedicated to providing exceptional client
service and producinghigh-valuesolutions. We build
trust and long-termclient relationshipsthrough pro
active communication. West Yost's proactive approach
to project management enables us to provide respon
sive service and deliver work products that exceed the
expectations of our clients.

West Yost has provided General Plan support for the
followingagencies: . City of American Canyon
- City of Brentwood
- City of Ceres
- City of Millbrae
- City of Milpitas
- City of Dixon
- City of - Napa City Manteca - Sacramento .

San Marcos Santa Rosa Stockton - County of Sutter .

City of Thrlock Vacaville
West Yost has providedservices as part of Dyett 8rBhatia’steam on several projects: . City of Pleasanton Downtown Speci?c Plan Water SupplyAssessment
- City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update
- City of Ceres General Plan Update
- City of Dixon General Plan Update
- City of Fair?eld General Plan Update
- City of Fair?eld Multi-ModalRail Station
- City of Lodi General Plan Update Infrastructure
Analysis
- City of Napa GeneralPlan Update . City of TurlockGeneral Plan Update West Yost has workedwith the City of St. Helena since
2004 on more than 10 projects. Our current/recent
projects include:
- Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant Condition
Assessment . Clearwell8rTank lA Rehabilitation
- RecycledWater Facilities Plan
- SafeYield Estimate and Water NeutralityPolicy
Past projects with the City include: . Engineering Supportfor Water Rights - General Plan UpdateEnvironmental Impact Report
- StonebridgeWells Water Treatment Plant Filter Restoration - Potable Water Storage Tank 1A Design and Construction ManagementServices - Tank [A EngineeringServicesDuring Construction
- Water Conservation Assistance
- 2003 Urban Water ManagementPlan
- Wastewater Treatment Reclamation Plant Upgradesand Water RecyclingProject Design Project Ex 5 - General Plan Update and Ongoing Support, City of Dixon, CA As a subconsultant to Dyett Er Bhatia, from 2015 to 2021, West Yost provided infrastruc- ture support for City's General Plan Update (GPU). Support included potable water, sewer collection systems, wastewater treatment, and storm drainage and ?ood control.West Yost prepared a background report, identi?ed infrastructure requirements and costs for GPU land use alternatives and for the pre- ferred land use plan, and supported of the GPU P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
am
pl
Agenda Item #12.1.

Environmental Impact Report. The City adopted
the GPU in May2021.

West Yost prepared the City's Storm Drain Report
(SDR) in 1999, and has since been providingstormwater services to the City. The SDRincluded delineating the City into eight watersheds, developing computer drainage models for four of the water—
sheds, and planning and sizing the required infrastructure to address existing drainage problems and to support the future buildout of the City. The
planning work has included close coordination
with the downstream agricultural drainage agencies to identify drainage projects that maximized the bene?t to the City and the downstream agencies while limitingthe project costs. From this project, West Yost preparedthe Dixon RegionalWater— shed Management Plan, which identi?es three
regionaldrainageprojects. TWOof the projects were designedby West Yost and have been constructed.

West Yost is currently preparing an update of the
SDR based on the new General Plan. West Yost is
currently providing stormwater developmentsupport to the City to identify speci?c infrastructure and timing of the infrastructure for speci?c development projects.

In addition, West Yost prepared the City's Water
Master Plan and an update to the Water Master
Plan. The updated plan identi?ed the major infrastructure needed to support the GPU, including new wells, water tanks, and water transmission
mains. West Yost is currentlyproviding water system developmentsupport to the City to identify infrastructure requirements and timing of the
infrastructure forspeci?cdevelopmentprojects.

General Plan Update, City of Sacramento, CA. As
a subconsultant to Dyett 8r Bhatia, West Yost prepared updates of the BackgroundReport from the age, Sewer and Wastewater Treatment sections. West Yost also provided support for Green House Gas Reduction opportunities related to these wet utilities.West Yost reviewed and commented on the GPU policiespreparedby Dyett 8r Bhatia. We pre- pared a Technical Memorandum (TM) that sum- marized the estimated water demands for exist- ing conditions, buildout of the current General Plan, and a base GPU land use alternative. For the GPU Environmental Impact Report, we prepared a Storm Drainage TM and Sewer/WastewaterTM to identify potential impacts of the GPU and recom- mended actions to reduce the impact to an insignificant level.

The storm drainageTM providedestimated relative
increases in peak storm water flows and volumes
resulting from the current General Plan growth
and from the GPU preferredland use plan growth.

We provideda brief, qualitativediscussioncomparing up to two other land use alternatives with the preferredland use plan.We identi?ed General Plan
policiesthat address the increased runoff rates and
volumes.

Similarly, West Yost prepared a TM for sewer/
Wastewater treatment. The TM estimated the average dry weather flow (ADWF) and the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) for existing conditions,
buildout of the current General Plan, and the GPU
preferredland use plan.We compared the ADWFs
and PWWFs and identi?ed signi?cant changes
from the current General Plan with the updated
General Plan. We provided a brief, qualitativediscussion comparing up to two other land use alternatives with the preferredland use plan.We identi- ?ed General Plan policiesthat can address changes
in the ADWFs and PWWI-‘s.

General Plan Update, City of Napa, CA. As a subconsultant to Dyett 8r Bhatia, West Yost provided infrastructure support for the update of the Napa
General Plan. West Yost conducted brief, qualitative evaluations of the existing water supply/water treatment/water distribution, sewer/wastewater
treatment, and stormwater/?ood control facilities.

This evaluation was based on information provided
in existing water, Wastewater, and stormwater master plan documents, supplementedwith discussions with City and Napa Sanitation District (NSD) staff.

In addition.West Yost providedpreliminary, comsystem for the land use included major infrastructure cost estimates. West Yost reviewed the draft General Plan Update (GPU) infrastructure-related goalsand policiesdoc- ument and provideda draft and ?nal comment tech- nical memorandum (TM). West Yost provided the peer review and comments on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) Hydrologyand Public Utilities sections of the EIR for the GPU. The team identi?ed additional potential impacts and recom- mend mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a lessthan signi?cantlevel.

D
ow
n
tow
n
Plan Spani?c
Agenda Item #12.1.

stand
scope
St. Helena Downtown is one of BayArea'smost charm—
ing, with well-preservedold buildings. and numerous shops and galleriesto linger and enjoy on a stroll, particularly along the traditional Main Street. Adjacent streets also have some stores. as well as galleries, of?ces, and dining establishments. Within a block or
two of the Main Street are also banks and of?ces with
large parking lots, with possibilitiesof redevelopment
to contribute to contribute to Downtown vitality.

As the sole downtown in the valleybetween the northernmost Calistoga and Napa at the southern end. and located in the heart of one of the world's most famous
wine regions, shops in downtown—such as upscale
boutiques,gift shops, dining establishments, and galleries—cater largelyto visitors, although there is also a grocery store (Sunshine Market) and a supermarket
(Safeway)as well as banks and other services for locals.

As the pandemic fades, Downtown has seen a drop in
vacancies, with very few available retail spaces, particularly along the sought-after, roughly three-block National Historic Register Main Street stretch. Stores
such as Tweed and Vine and ElyseWalker have reshuf-
?ed their locations and renewed their commitments to
Tacos, Pizza Station, Orion tast- ing rooms—all along Main Street—as well as Char- lie’sPlace along Railroad Avenue will bolster the cur- rent somewhat limited dining/tasting options. and help widen Downtown‘s commercial base. The RFP outlines the Speci?c Plan objectivesclearly. TheCity is lookingto: - Prepare a Speci?c Plan to strengthen Downtown’s identityas epicenter of food and wine culture, pro- mote additional dining options, and enhance Down— town’s visual and other "sensory"qualities,Ensure
that new developmentis cohesive and in keeping
with Downtown’s exceptional character and presence of historic resources. . Enhance the public realm - including through streetscapes, potential Main Street sidewalk widening for outdoor dining. public gathering spaces including accommodating larger gatherings at
Lyman Park, and possibilitiesfor temporal street
closures and activating alleyways.
- Outline Possibilities for the ?ve catalytic sites, as well as other opportunities such as banks with parking lots taking prime real estate. with considerations of Downtown vibrancy, ?scal sustainability and ability to pay for improvements, and realize potential for City Hall relocation to the Adams] LibraryLane site.
- Ensure that parking supplymatches demand.land
use and roadway con?guration changes are fully
analyzed,and need for infrastructure reflected and
incorporated.
- Ensure that the Speci?c Plan is thorough and
detailed, with clear policies and design standards
that fully re?ect community priorities and City
needs.
- Conduct environmental review to address the
planned changes.so implementationcan be streamlined and without need to conduct project-by-project analysis. . Engage the community, property owners, decisionmakers and others to ensure that the plan reflects community priorities and results in successful
implementation.
is allysupportive of housing as well as affordable housing (and portions of some of the key sites are designated for affordablehousing in the City's Housing Element). there are divergent views on local vs. visitor-serving uses. In particular designationsthat permit new hotels or for the City to pursue hotel uses on the Former City Hall or the Old City Hall sites (along Main Street and Railroad Avenue) has the potential to be controversial, requiring sensitive community outreach and discussion framing. Thisissue was one of the hot topics in the City of Napa General Plan that we recentlyprepared. and which we were able to successfullyresolve. The com- munity has a historyof being“anti-growth" and “antiKEYCO N
RATI
ONS
Land Use
/
Mi
xes
lPo
ssib
iliti
es
for the Key
Sites; Lo
cal
vs. Visitor- Uses
Servin
g
APP
.
0AND
A SCO
PE
OF WOR

2.1 PR

APPRO OJ
ACH NE
DC
T
U
N
D
E
RS
T
A
N
DI
N
G
In this ?rst under we our projecr present
ing and followed the bykey topics,
of work
.

PR
OJ
EC
T
OBJEC
TIVES
K
E
Y
OB
JE
CT
IV
ES
S
I
Agenda Item #12.1.

as
hotel". However, according to City staff, the community open houses in October for the proposedresort at the Krug Winery did not receive signi?cant blow back
or rejection. Recently (2023) the City has been intentionally communicating a narrative to residents that getting out of our ?scal crisis will involve many tools. one of them beingallowingat least two more hotels to
bring in needed transient occupancy taxes (TOTs) to
balance the budget.

Similarly, we would need to exploreif the community
supports more active nightlife downtown and thus
encourage more bars and restaurants with extended
hours - this is an issue we have encountered in many
previous downtown planning efforts, and resolved
through listeningto community concerns and intelligent land use planningand zoning.

Adams/Library Lane Site/New City Hall
Accordingto City staff, the Adams/LibraryLane Cityowned site has been mired by controversy/lack of consistent vision for a long time. The overall Visioning process for the Speci?c Plan early on should include
discussion of what this ?ve-acre site shouldbe, in addition to a small portion as housingas identi?ed in the HousingElement. TheCity is currentlyleasingthe City
Hall site on CollegeAvenue from Napa ValleyCollege.

Due to higherpriority funding needs and current ?scal
challenges.City staff does not see the City building a
new City Hall in the next 10years. However.hotelscan be part of the strategy to generate revenue to enhance the City's bonding capacity to proceedwith City Hall
plans in a shorter time frame.

Market Demand and Fiscal Sustainability
This is related to the previous topics. Given St. Helena's strategic and desirable location, there is likelyto be continued demand for most of the uses likelyunder
consideration for the key sites in the Speci?c Plan.

There are currently few retail vacancies, and if the more affordably. Thus, our scope includes ?nancial- feasibility analysis of development on key sites. From the City ?scal perspective. and the ability to support improvements and a potentiallynew City Hall on the Adam/Library Lane site, it is likely that TOTs from hotel uses would need to part of feasibilityconsider- ations. Fiscal evaluation of various land use outcomes and assessment of costs required for streetscape and other improvements will help inform community dis- cussion and decision-maker direction.

Sidewalk Widening/Parking
Widening Main Street sidewalks to promote outdoor
dining by removing parking alongsideis one of the
principal ULI TAP report recommendations. Removing a median that exists in stretches and left turn pockets may also provide additional space for widenings.

While promoting more active street life is a desirable
objective,the number of dining establishments fronting Main Street is currentlysmall.althoughmore eating and drinking establishments may seek to locate if this proves successful. Sidewalks can also be widened
in pocketsto provideoutdoor dining space, while providing pulloverloadingand limited on-street parking.

Our scope of work includes developmentof a detailed
streetscape plan the Main Street in three dimensions
using Sketch Up, with details on sidewalk widths.
parking. and street furnishings, by BottomleyAssociates, streetscape designexperts. in addition to gateway treatments, as well strategies related to Hunt Avenue
temporal or partial closure.open spaces, alleywaysand
plazas and community gatheringspaces.

Former City Hall/Lyman Park
St. Helena lacks public gathering spaces the size of
other North Baydowntowns, such as plazas of Windsor, Healdsburg.Sonoma.or Santa Rosa, although St.

Helena is by far a much smaller town. Clearly, with
the gazebo location and the presence of some trees
in sightlines,the park does not easily lend itself to
outdoor events like concerts. The park is also on the
smaller side for such activities (about one acre. com- pared to say4.5 acres for Windsor Town Square, which has summer concerts). Using industry rule of thumb,
the one acre park can probablyaccommodate about
300 to 350 people,even if the space were a lawn with
no trees. Through intelligentplanning of Key Site 1
(Old City Hall on Main Street) to the north of the park, includingpotentially removing the internal road.the
park size could probablybe increased by 50% without
sacri?cing building area. Both the (redeveloped)City
the park could also be designedwith dining establish- ments. especiallyalong portions closer to Main Street, with ample outdoor dining spaces overlooking the open space. that would also activate this portion of Main Street without interfering with Main Street traf- ?c flow. an
n
tn
Spaci?: Flun
Agenda Item #12.1.

rastructu
Water supply and use is another hot button commu
nity issue in St. Helena, and there are also infrastruc ture constraints in Downtown. Our team includes
West Yost, who bring familiarity with St Helena and
have worked with us on multiple projects including
recentlyfor the City for Napa, from which St. Helena
purchasessome water—to help thoroughlyanalyzeand
cost infrastructure improvements.
erations
Our scope of work includes evaluation of future traf
frc conditions with projected additional (additional
to General Plan) growth, with a focus on 13 intersec
tions seven within downtown and six additional
key ones. Rather than simplyrunning the future land
use projections as they exist by default in the Napa
Solano transportation model (which would not realis
tically re?ect future land uses), this would require us to update the land use projections in the General Plan
by traffic analysiszones (TAZs) with changesresulting
from the HousingElement sites and additional Speci?c
Plan growth. With our understanding of General Plan
growth projections and strong in house geographic
information systems (GlS) capabilities,we will be able
to efficientlycarry out this work.
el of Envi
Because General Plan and zoning map amendments
would be needed, and growth projections would exceed
what was contemplated in the General Plan, environmental review for the project will be needed. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR had signi?cant unavoidable impacts for Air Quality; Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change; and Transportation (as
well as AgriculturalResources), and regardlessof what
environmental document is settled upon, these topics
will need to be analyzedin detail.

There is no way to do a “MitigatedNegDec” forsigni?-
cant unavoidable impacts. However, we believe that an
able impacts of the General Plan EIR is likelyto su?'ice. should no new signi?cant and unavoidable impacts result. In addition to the topics listed in the previous paragraph, the EIR would also update the Land Use, Population,and Housing section. Should new impacts result, a SupplementalEIR may be appropriate; the basic effort of the two would be similar, however, the SupplementalEIR will require public noticing (prepa- ration of a NOP, scoping meeting, circulation of Draft EIR.and preparation and certification of the Final EIR, which would add to the cost), and likelyuse of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for traf?c analysis,rather than level of service (LOS), which was used for the General Plan EIR (the General Plan EIR reported VMT for
informational purposed). Our scope includes preparation of both LOSand VMT analysis,which would provide ?exibilityfor the environmental approach.

As D&B (with Principal Andrew Hill) prepared the
General Plan ElR. D8rB can carry out this task ef?-
ciently
H
Dyett 8r Bhatia specializesin speci?c plans, general
plans,and zoning work.Over the years. we have honed
processes and methods to deliver the highest quality
of products,on time and budget, and to provide value
to our clients byleveragingour exceptionalexperience
with similar work for BayArea cities and throughout
the western United States.

Key aspects of our overall strategy and approach to
assignments include:
plementation
At Dyett BrBhatia we truly believe that implementation is an integral part of the planningprocess, not an afterthought. This will be critical to ensure that the
planning amendments have the desired result, that
they do not just represent "shelf-art" but rather serve as an effectivetool for city-buildingby programming
public improvements and guiding private development. Our considerable experience writing zoning and developmentregulations informs practicalpolicyformulation and code drafting to e?'ectivelyachieve com- munity goals.

Dyett Br Bhatia brings extraordinary experience in
writing zoning, shaping some of the most vibrant
downtowns across the country, including Portland,
San Diego, and Chicago, to smaller North Baydowntowns. Our scope of work includes preparation on new design and developmentregulations,re?ecting comon certainty in process, reduce staff developmentburden, and ensure transparency and fairness.

W...” nu um: u. an
"L
x 12m
\ 1..“luv—u!
rm..."
u.‘ an...“ mum—«- ahump—v w...- mung...

P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
FOR CITY OF ST. HELENA
O
U
R
AP
PR
OA
C
W
ate
r
Sup
ply/
lni
r
o
n
m
e
nt
al
Review
E
m
p
h
as
iz
in
lm
F
ut
ur
e
Traf? Op
c
A
pp
ro
pr
iat
e
Lev
Agenda Item #12.1.

ParificaGP and {‘3’
SPEIR Mapping
At Dyett 8r Bhatia we mix Euclidean.form-based, and
performance-based zoning to best meet a project’s
objectives. Zoning should be easy to understand and
implement,balance ?exibility and certainty, and lead
to positive on-the-groundresults. Zoning done in concert with speci?cplans opens possibilitiesof applying controls areawide, to a district or a corridor, or to speci?c uses and buildingtypes. These need to be thoughtfully explored and applied, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.Parking regulations would need to be developedin synchronywith the parking study.We
would also seek to leveragethe City's recently com- pleted zoning regulations. Ensuring that the regulatory framework is streamlined, and design and development regulationsprovidecertainty while promoting vibrant.livable environments will be a key component
of the process.

Dyett BrBhatia has led Ele on more than a dozen speci?c plans in the Bay Area, as described in the ?rm quali?cations.Dyett & Bhatia also preparedthe St. Helena General Plan Elk, and is thus intimatelyfamiliar with it. Because several impacts in that EIR were signi?cant and unavoidable, a Negative Declaration for the Speci?cPlan will not suf?ce, as per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Our base scope
and budget assume an Addendum to the General Plan
EIR, as permitted under CEQA.This would include a
thorough transportation analysis,using updated citywide land use projections and using the new Napa Solano Activity Based Model (which DKS and DSKB
recentlyused forthe City ofNapa GeneralPlan), updating greenhousegases, energy, air quality,land use, and population and housing analysis;and reviewing other
sections to ensure adequacy.We will also consult with
City staff on water supplyissues, which can be signi?-
cant in St. Helena.Speci?cPlan policydevelopmentand
environmental impact assessment will be conducted in
parallel, as environmental impacts are identi?ed, Plan
policies will be developedto mitigate these impacts,
resulting in a "self-mitigating"plan. The process will
also minimize the environmental review required for
the evaluation of future developmentprojects that are
consistent with the Speci?cPlan.

Dyett BrBhatia will have overall responsibilityfor all
products. 138:)? will review and comment on products
by sub-consultants, and sub-consultants shall revise
their products,prior to submittal to City staffor incorporation in larger documents. This will ensure that City staff review time is spent ef?ciently and work by
different team members is fully integrated prior to
review.

The City of St. Helena has established community
engagement as a priority for the project. A plan is
only successful if it re?ects the aspirations and priorities of the community. To be effective, the community engagement strategy must providemeaningful opportunities for input and be outcome driven in order to inspire con?dence and rally the community around
the adoptedplan. Drawingon our award-winningoutreach experience, Dyett 8r Bhatia will collaboratewith City staff to developand implementa creative community engagement strategy that generates input from a wide range of voices in the community. Community workshops, stakeholder meetings, online survey, and
other tools will bring people into the process and give each person an opportunity to share opinions and provide feedback.

This section outlines Dyett Br Bhatia’s approach to
community outreach and participation, and provides
an overview of program components. Note. however,
that the program is preliminary and adaptable. We
look forward to workingwith City staff to re?ne this
program to best address the particular needs of this
project. Our approach emphasizes engaging participants in positive and productivedialogueto collaborativelydevelopa shared vision in the community’sown voice.

Inte
grat
ed
Planning Environmental and
Revi
ew
C
O

ENGAGEME
NT
Q
ua
lit
y
Contr
ol
anm
ow
n
Spaci?: Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.

as
To set the foundation for the community engagement
effort and project-relatedmaterials (print and digital), we will designa logoand branding to uniquelyidentify the Downtown Speci?cPlan. The logowill be used on
all project documents and outreach materials.

The website will provide background and meeting
information, reports, and maps related to the project,
and will be kept up to date throughoutthe project. As
exampleof websiteused byDBrBfor a speci?cplan,see
link. Thewebsitewill also include an email signup feature to get on the project email list. Email noti?cations will be sent out at four keystages in the process and to announce community workshops(we can provide the
project email list to staff to send out additional noti?- cations).

Our work program includes four workshops at three
stages in the process: during initial issue identi?cation, when alternatives are evaluated, and following preparation of a Draft Plan (typically conducted as an
“openhouse"). Workshops will be designedto be fun.
educational, and inclusive, giving community mem- bers the opportunity to learn about the process, make informed choices, and see how the plan responds to
their input. We will work with staff to design the workshopsin a way that is most responsive to community needs—especiallywith regardsto time of day,location,
and accessibility.All workshop results will be sum- marized and made available on the project website, we want community members to know that their input has been recorded and is beingconsidered in the planning process. Workshops are assumed to be in person; if desired.one or more workshopscan be conducted
virtually.

Knowing that many residents lead busy lives and may
an to com- plementworkshopsand give peoplethe opportunity to participate in the process on their own time. The user- friendly survey will integrate maps and images with a range of question types to encourage participants to engage with, comment directlyon, and rate according to their preferencesand priorities. At the outset of the project, six to eight small group (two or three people)meetings will be held with rep- resentative members of the community and decision- makers to understand salient issues and concerns in a candid setting. These would be virtual or planned as in-person over one day at City Hall or another conve- nient location.

MUNIIBAR
Our Community Engagement Strategy includes time
for smallgroup meetings with residents, business own
ers. community leaders and other stakeholders. These
are expected to be largelyvirtual. Additional meetings
could be done by staff or added to our scope if desired and if budgetpermits.

We will work closelywith the DTSC throughout the
egies, recom mendations to decision-makers at critical junctures We would expect most of these meetings to be virtual Decision-makers will be involved at key stages in the process, to receive community feedback, provideinput and direction, and ensure there are no surprises at the end of the process. One joint Planning Commission/ City Council Meeting,two Planning Commission meetings, and two City Council meetings are bud- geted, as well as ?ve additional (virtual, time-certain) meetings with other commissions.

PLANNI
NG

CITY AND
O
M
M
IS
SI
O
N
COUNCI
L
(5; HEARINGS AND IN
PERSON) OTHE COMMISSION I5:

RS VIRTUAL)
DO
WN
TO
WN
(DTSC) STEERIN COMMTTEE
G ME
ETI
NG
S
I4)
C
O
M
M
U
N
IT
Y
(4) WORKSHOP HOUSE
S/OPEN
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

INOTIFICATIONS WEBS TE
C
O
M
M
U
N
IT
Y
(4-6) GROUPS

CSURVEY
P
R

HELENA FOR CITY OF ST
PLAN A
C
I
F
I
C
m
ELk
HAY'
ouw
Am
p...“
Agenda Item #12.1.

St. H
el en
a
of Area's withell old Dow isone most preserved and charming. Bay and tonumerous buildings, shops and galleries linger onaejoy ntow
n
stroll,theraditional Main Street along
0)::

D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.

Key opportuni
ty
aslabeled the sit as(1) Old of which could be1-5 EH" inredevelopment City reorganized internal road andd Hall. remove acre to es, age to Lyman Hall (2) Farmer (3) Lane, which City has been mired for atime Adams/Library and long accommodate incan apotentially controversy new City HallVa (5) and Bank Ctholic School along Oak of America Avenue. can t Agenda Item #12.1.

D-wnuwu sum": n.“
t?! 4
A ke
y
of the bewill project realm public enhancing including through Main Street potential sidewalk improvement. streetscape widening for o
ut
d
o
or
and for possibilities temporal closures dinin and street alleyways activating g,
.J
"'6"? . In" hi‘é‘?
‘
h:

Agenda Item #12.1.

F St HELEN)
.gu
in ad
dit
io
n
there other sites, are development key and banks olderf?ce Main Street ontoincluding along side buildings opportunities, streets. and o
p
p
o
r
tu
n
i
t
ie
s
toextend Downtown’s Main tobeyond energy Street
Lyman Pa
rk
cobeof Old Hall torefurbished for eventsxpanded through intelligent planning and with City the south and new uses toconcerts. ul
d north wit
h
outdoor the adining overlooking spaces open space
(0“-
‘ Agenda Item #12.1.

E OF WORK
Thissection outlines the scope of work for the project.

Meetings and products are summarized at the end of
each task.

The task-by-task descriptionsthat follow present our
approach to data collection, alternatives analysis,pol
icy formulation and preparation of the documents
Each task descriptionincludes a purpose statement at
the beginning.

The team for the project consists of:
. DSrB:Dyett 8r Bhatia, Prime Consultant . DKS:DKSAssociates, Transportation Planners and Engineers . BDP: BottomleyDesign and Planning, Landscape Architects . EPS: Economic 8r Planning Systems, Economic Consultants
- WY: West Yost.Civil Engineers
— PROJECT COMM
Objective Complete introductory and information
gathering tasks Ongoingproject management.
ormation Gathering
The consultant shall review and collect existing infor
mation about the study area. Primary sources of infor
mation are the General Plan. the General Plan EIR,
and appendices.Renaissance Plan.Cultivate St. Helena
streetscape plan, ULI TAP report, Money Way study,
Main Street Commercial National Register listing,
Economic Strategy Plan (2021) SHAPE report, Sur
plusLands Act staff reports and Retail Analysis(2018)
The Consultant shall also review the recentlyadopted
Zoning Code and Housing Element Update.In addi
tion. the consultant will work with other City depart
ture City will information on current development projects The selected consultant will review and use this informa tion. and submit any data requests needs to City staff to developthe Plan. The consultant(s) and City staff will meet to review and ?nalize the work scope and project schedule. The meeting will include a discussion of project goals, opportunities and constraints, provision of relevant backgroundinformation and documents for the exist ing conditions analysis arrangement of informational meetings with relevant City staff members, development of the community engagement program, and project management.
- Project commencement meeting with City staff . Detailed project schedule includingmeetings with community and DTSC, key deliverables, public review periods and adoption hearings. Project schedule for the CEQA and detailed milestones
should be represented conconcurrentlywith Specific Plan process. 0 Memorandum summarizing the meeting
unity Engagement Strategy
The City of St. Helena values input from our community and advocates community engagement throughout the planning process of any strategic plans. The ComprehensiveZoning Code update included robust
outreach and stakeholder participation. For the Specific Plan, staff anticipates a more focused approach, with a proposed Downtown Steering Committee
(DTSC) and more participation by City committees
and commissions, such as the Parks and Recreation
Commission, the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee, the Planning Commission, and City Council. In addition, consultants can expect to
workwith staffto schedule regular check-inswith Subcommittee throughout the Plan process. With assistance from City staff, the consultant will developan engagement strategy. which will focus on engaging key
business owners, property owners, and residents, as well as check in at project milestones with St. Helena committees and commissions. The consultant team
shall consider community outreach strategies and
methods, includingonline surveys.

The main goalsofthe community engagement strategy
will be to
representing a wide range of community stakehold- ers Provide information to the DTSCand broader com- munity regardingwhat is a SpecificPlan and how it is different than prior studies such as Renaissance Plan. - Invite input on features of the existing City policies and programs that have been successful and those that have been lesssuccessful - Provide information to the community and City commissions and committees, including but not limited to the PlanningCommission in connection Task —Kick- wth Meeting Key City 1
off .2
Staf
f
aConsu
nltant
d

2.2 S
C
O
P Deliverables/Meetings:

D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
T
a
s
k
—Comm 1.3
PHA
SE
1 Task -Inf
Agenda Item #12.1.

u
with joint meetings with the City Council, Parks
and Recreation Commission, Active Transportation
Sustainability Committee, Downtown Subcommit
tee regarding the purpose of the Plan update and
clearlydescribe the impacts, bene?ts, the scope and
contents of the Plan, and implementationtiming
- Provide opportunities for stakeholders and inter
ested community members to plan for the future
of their community, including seeking input on
the vision for the area, land use, the public realm,
streetscape, and the ?nal preferred alternative.

The DTSC will be made up of a wide range of commu
nity stakeholders. Members will be identi?ed and asked
to participate in meetings with stat? and consultants.

The purpose of the DTSC is to involve the community
in the Plan process in a focused.technically-oriented
manner, to be leaders and a voice for the community.
and to ensure that their input and interests are heard
and re?ected. The group will helpreview plan concept
developedby the consultants and ensure that commu
nity sentiment is re?ected in the Plan.

The strategy should include an approach for contact
ing all business and property owners within the Pla
boundaries. The project budgetshould include the cos of preparing community meeting notices. as well a any meeting materials (such as informational or educa
tional mate-rials, staff reports, and presentations, etc. renderings. and photographic simulations that will
assist in the engagement process.

The consultant will work with City staff to developa
project logo, develop a website to providebackground
and meeting information.reports. and maps related to
the project. The external project website will be linked to the City's website. City and consultantstaffwillpost information to keep the site current.

Task 1 4 Stakeholder Interviews
on members, the Downtown Speci?c Plan Steering Com- mittee, Planning Commissioners, City Council and stakeholders to determine what is working well and what challengesneed to be addressed. - Stakeholder interviews Memorandum summarizing interviews ?ndings Community Engagement Strategy - MeetingMaterials ProjectLogographicdesign website 85 0
e consultan sh uld anticipate biweeklyto weekly
(as needed) pr je t update conference calls between
the consultant and City staff throughout the duration
of the project This task should provide for bi weekly
l-hour conference calls for a 2 year timeline, and other associated project management.

Optional Additional Project UpdateConferenceCalls.

This will providefor 25 additional Zoom meetings/calls
(@1hour each) over the course of the project, enabling
weeklycheck in during keyproject phases.The cost for
this will be $6,500.
. Project Management Bi Weekly Conference Calls
(with optionaladditional weeklycalls)
bjectivePrepare xisting conditionsreport, document
g land use, opportunity sites, and key development
onstraints. The report will be map based and visual in
oture, with supportive text, table, and charts as needed i
n existing conditions and opportunities map and
report will be developed.The consultant will evaluate
the existing physicaland regulatoryconditions in the
project studyarea. This information includes:

Existing land use; physical conditions; environmental conditions; urban form; public realm; streetscape; pending and approveddevelopmentprojects; planned
public and private improvement projects; historic
resources; and development constraints. Based on
and constraints in the Plan area shall be identi?ed. As part of the work, a 3D modelwillbe prepared depicting existing street and frontage conditions for the princi- pal three-block stretch of Main Street; it will be used to illustrate alternatives and policy recommendations for development,streetscape, and circulation in later phasesof the project. Transit service will be summarized. For traf?c and parking, the scope is summarized separatelyas Task A: Parking, and Task B: Tra?ic Study. The “existing" portion of these studies will be completedat the same PHASE 2 — EXISTI
NG
COAND
ND
ITI
ON
S

INITIALOUTREAC
H
O : e
in
c
n
Task 2.1 — Existing Report
I ncluding maps)
A
k —-Projec Management Bi-Weekly
t C nf
er
e
n
ce
Calls
Th to
ac
L
an
d
Use and Regulatory Context Physical,
,
PFD
T
ran
si
t
Traf?c; Parking and
D
eli ve
rabl
es/
M
ee
lin
gs
Agenda Item #12.1.

4|
time as the Existing Conditions Report, and information either included within the report or as a separate attachment. For parking, the parking occupancy survey results would be available. For traf?c.include
updated existing intersection analysis at 13 locations
would be completed.

West Yost willprepare a brief.qualitative evaluation of the existing water supplyand distribution.wastewater
collection and treatment. and storm drainagefacilities
relevant to the Speci?c Plan area. This evaluation will be based on information provided in existing infrastructure master plans, capital improvement plans. and other available studies.supplementedwith discussions with City staff to identify changes/additions since completionof the plans.

This work task will also include preparation of schematic ?gures of existing facilities (water. wastewater and storm drainage) based on CAD/GIS utility mapping of these existing facilities to be providedto West Yost by the City. We will prepare a draft and ?nal
Technical Memorandum (TM) providing the utilityrelated backgroundfor the Speci?cPlan process. This task includes one meeting with City staff to learn about the existing utilities.
- Existing Conditions and Opportunities Report
includingOpportunities and Constraints Map
Task 2.2 — DT Steering Committee Meeting #1
The ?rst meeting of the DTSC will occur after completion of the existing conditions and opportunities analysis. The purpose of the meeting is to understand the community'svision for the Plan area and solicit input
on opportunities. issues. and hopes for the area. The
consultant will developa strategy to understand com- munity preferenceswithin the Plan area. o DTSC Meeting Notice (staff) and Agenda #1 (con- sultant) .

DTSC Meeting #1.includingattendance and facili- tation. and all necessary meeting mate-rials - DTSCMeetingsummary Task 2.3 — Community Workshop #1 Following the DTSC meeting. a community work- shop with the broader community will be held to solicit additional feedback.The meeting will provide input regardingcommunity interests that will help in the developmentof two concept Plan alternatives. The consultant will lead this meetings. Conduct a com munity workshopvisioning session, open to all com munity members.to assist the team in understanding issues and considerationsfrom a community perspec
tive. This could be conducted as a formal workshopor
a drop-in open house. Regardless of the format the
objectivesare as follows: . Provide an overview of the speci?c plan and envi ronmental review process . Present ?ndings from the existing conditions tech nical analysis . Engage community members in a dialogue about their vision for Downtown and their concerns and
priorities
. Community Workshop1 agendaand websitenotice
- Community Workshop1.includingattendance and
facilitation.and all necessary meeting materials
- Community Workshop1 summary
Task 2.4 Com unity Survey
An online community survey will be conducted to
understand community priorities and preferences
related to keyopportunity sites and other development
possibilities,parking and streetscape design. community gathering spaces. and other issues of interest or concern. Results of the survey will be summarized in
a short report.

IVb . Community Survey
- Community Survey Summary Report
- IointPlanning Commission/City Council meeting
summary notes
- (Up to four (4) consultant/staffmeetings with com munity groups. residents.business owners, etc.

HASE 3 LTERNAT Objective: Prepare alternatives.based on the extst ing conditions analysis.market demand study. DTSC. decision-maker. and public input. Conduct outreach to present the alternatives and determine a preferredplan. Task 3.1 Prepa Alternatives Followingthe initial meetings and outreach.the con sultant will developtwo different urban de-sign sce narios. The scenarios will be “high level."and include — C
O
N
C
E
P
T
PLAN
IV
E
S
ra
ti
o
n
of Two Plan Concept
D
el
iv
erab
le
s/
M
ee
ti
De
liv
erab
les
/
M
eenn
gs
D
el
les/ era Meen'
ngs:

D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
In
fras
tru
ct
Agenda Item #12.1.

a vision statement(s). Alternative scenarios should
promote developmentof underutilized land and create an urban identity for Railroad Avenue and Oak Avenue. MoneyWay should also be studied in the plan
as an opportunity area for activation based on public
feedback. The Speci?cPlan will seek opportunities for
both visitors and residents to use circulation networks to easilyaccess services and facilities throughout the
plan area and beyond the Plan’s boundaries. Changes
to developmentstandards and standards overseeing
the public realm and right-of—waymay be considered.

The alternativesshould consider information prepared
through the planning process and from outreach con- ducted.

Eachalternative shall address at a high-level:
o Achievementof a mix of uses, includingresidential
in?ll where appropriate
- Building height and increased densities, and a modal splitof reduced/consolidatedparking within the Plan area and increased transit, walking, and
bicycling
- Motor vehicle, bicycle,and pedestriancirculation
- Roadway design alternatives including sidewalk width, public amenities/furniture.and onstreet parking; for the principal stretch of Main Street, the 3D model will be used to depict potential streetscape, traf?c lanes, parking. and sidewalk changes. Approximately three principal design
options for Main Street will be explored (e.g. full
parking removal. removal/sidewalk widening in
portions or stretches by eliminating medians/leftturns, ?exible zone con?gurations, etc.), with estimates for each the number of parking spaces lost.

Additionally,streetscape cross sections and recom- mendations for Railroad, Oak and Adams will be studied.
- Location and design of public including
ability features and community facility options, illustratinghow these ?t into the built environment - Alternative Concepts (short report, with graphics), -including: Graphics illustrating the alternative land use, circulation.and urban design plans with addi- tional sketches.visualizations includingsimula- tions, 3-D streetscape concepts for Main Street, and street sections for Main, Oak.Railroad and Adams needed to convey each alternative — Quanti?eddevelopmentpotential for each alter- native
T nity Workshop #2
This will be an opportunity to providefeedbackon the
alternative concepts and preferences in an engaging
workshop.Participants will be asked to weighin on the
concepts, as well as their ideas on policiesand strategies to be incorporated as part of a Preferred Concept or in the Speci?cPlan.
- Community Workshop 2 agendaand websitenotice
- Community Workshop2. includingattendance and
facilitation, and all necessary meeting materials
- Community Workshop 2 summary
eting #2 and Joint Planning
y Council Meeting
The consultant will present the alternatives at DTSC
Meeting 2 and a Ioint Planning Commission/ City
Council meeting (city is open to a community workshopas alternate format but emphasizesimportance of engaging the City Council and Planning Commission
early in the process). At these meetings, the consultant shall use creative, interactive techniquesto understand participants' preferences.This may result in a clear
preference for one alternative or in a hybrid concept
that combines components of each. Based upon input
received, the consultant shall developa preferred concept plan alternative that will serve as the basis for the Plan. Input received will be used to re?ne the alternative and develop the preferred alternative. Meetings with community groups will be conducted, within the
overall number of project meetings speci?ed toward
the end ofthe scope.
. DTSC Meeting 2 notice/agenda
- DTSC Meeting 2, includingattendance and facilita
tion. and all necessary meeting mate-rials
- meeting (Up to four (4) consultant/stat?meetings with com munity groups, residents, business owners, etc. upon request) Task DTC Me
Com
miss
ion/
Cit
D
eli ve
rabl es
/
M
ea
tin
a
s
k

3. Com
2mu
D
el
iv
e
r
Agenda Item #12.1.

A7
PHASE 4 — SPECIFICPLAN PREPARATION
Objective:Prepare thefullDraftSpeci?cPlan, incorporating the major substantive content developedduring precedingtasks.

Task 4.1 Preparation of Preferred Concept
Plan Alternative
Based on input received at the second DTSC meeting,
community meeting. as well as input received from
other methods of community outreach, the consultant. in consultation with City staff, will developa preferred concept plan alternative.which will serve as a basis for the draft Plan. The preferredalternative may be one of the alternative scenarios or a hybrid of the
alternatives. This step will be the most important and
public outreach-intensive part of the process, so the
consultant team must propose a creative and extensive
public outreach process. The proposed preferred concept plan alternative would be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation Commission. Active Transportation and
SustainabilityCommission, and followed by Planning
Commission and City Council.who would give ?nal
direction on the preferred concept plan alternative
prior to drafting the Plan. Consultant will attend the
PlanningCommission and the City Council meetings.
with attendance at other commission meetings within
the overall project meeting limits.

Following?nalization of the Preferred Plan, Dyett 8r
Bhatia will prepare a summary of existing and projected land uses and densityfor use by infrastructure sub-consultant, and by traf?c analysiszones for use by
the transportation sub-consultant.
o DTSC Meeting 3 notice/agenda (review preferred
concept plan) . DTSCMeeting3, includingattendance and facilitation, and all necessary meeting mate-rials.if neces- DTSC Meeting 3 summary - Community Workshop3 notice/agenda Workshop 3, including attendance and facilitation, and all necessary meeting materials .

Community Workshop3 summary - Four separate meetings with the Youth Advisory Council.Economic Development Advisory Com- mission, Parks, Recreation and Culture Commis- sion. and Transportation 8r Circulation Commis- sion - Planning Commission - City Council - Re?nements to the preferred concept plan alterna- tive based on input from the City Council Task 4.2 Prepar tion of Infrastructure
Development a d Services Plan
West Yost will describe infrastructure conditions and
improvements needed to support the preferredSpeci?c
Plan land uses in terms ofwater. wastewater, and storm
drainage. We will distinguish between improvements
needed for existing versus future developmentin the
Speci?cPlan area so future costs can be appropriately
attributed.

West Yost will estimate the buildout water demands
based on the preferred alternative deter-mined in Task

3. We will compare the water supplythrough 2045 to
the projectedwater demand from the City'sIntegrated
UtilityMaster Plan as well as the City’sWater Neutrality Policy(once the current update is completedand adoptedby the City Council). Dyett 5t Bhatiawillprovide a summary of existing and projectedland use and densityin an electronic, tabular format (e.g..Microsoft Excel or GlS) for the proposedSpeci?cPlan preferred
alternative. It is our current under-standing that the
City lacks adequate water supply for future growth.

We will estimate the level of future growth that can be allowed with the available water suppliesand suggest
options for additional supplies. However, thorough
evaluations of the supplyoptions are beyond this scope
of work.

West Yost will also estimate changesin water system
flows necessary to providewater supplyto and within
the Speci?cPlan area, the current water system capacity, and improvements needed to the water system at buildout of the Speci?cPlan.

West Yost will estimate the buildout wastewater and
storm drainage ?ows based on the preferred alternative determined in Task 3. West Yost will estimate the average wastewater dry weather flow (ADWF) and the
peak wet weather ?ow (PWWF) for existing conditions, current approved development in the Speci?c changesfrom the current General Plan with the Spe- ci?c Plan. West Yost will provide planning-levelevaluations and cost estimates for the recommended water. wastewater and storm drainagesystem improvements. Note regardingwater use: TheCity has a water neutral- ity policythat all new developmentmust achieve (refer to St. Helena MunicipalCode). The Speci?cPlan will model and forecast future water demand based on the proposed Speci?cPlan preferredalternative and deter- mine any shortfalls that exist. The Water Neutrality Policyis currently beingupdatedin collaboration with a consultant under the direction of the Public Works D
el
iv
erab
le
s/
M
ee
tin
a
n
Spacific Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.

n
Department and is expectedto be adoptedin 2024. The
Speci?cPlan water analysisshould be consistent with
this updated policy that will be adopted by the City
Council.

The draft Infrastructure Development and Services
Plan will be reviewed by staff and service providers.

Any comments willbe provided back to the consultant
for correction prior to inclusion into the Speci?cPlan
I
- Draft Infrastructure Developmentand Financing
Strategy Technical Memorandum
- Incorporation of staff and agency comments to pre
pare ?nal report forinclusion in the Speci?cPlan . GlS maps of existing utilities (sewer, water, storm drain) . GIS maps noting areas of future needed upgrades (sewer. water. storm drain)
Task 4.3 Prepare Publ R
Speci?c Plan
The consultant shall prepare a draft Speci?c Plan in
compliancewith State law. The updated Plan will serve
as the City's long range, comprehensiveland use, circu
lation. and implementation plan for guiding develop
ment within the Plan boundary.The Plan shall contain
the followingcomponents:
- Land Use Plan. Description of the land uses, maps,
diagrams, policies, developmentstandards, development guidelines, massing, etc. Focus areas for future development opportunities shall be studied and highest and best land uses shall be recom- mended utilizingmodel of high revenue generation.

It is assumed any new land use standards would be
implementedas a “Downtown Speci?cPlan Overlay
Zone" and also respect the historic fabric of buildings both within and outside of the Commercial 0 motor vehicles, transit, bicycles,and pedestrians. Policiesregardingcompletestreets. Urban Design. Design and developmentstandards for development,streetscapes, lighting. and open space includingtreatments for downtown gateways. alleys,publicamenities and way?nding throughout the Plan Area, includingway?nding sign locations. For Main Street streetscape, the preferred strategy will be shown in greater detail, withkeydimensions. intersection treatments, street trees/furnishing loca- tions, etc., using 3-D Sketch Up drawings where appropriate using the model previouslycreated, and two-dimensional drawings and photos/images as appropriate.

Whom
cher Streets.The base scope includes a prototypical cross-sectional drawingeach for Oak, Railroad, and Adams. As an optional task, using Sketch Up,
recommendations for salient improvements to Oak.

Rail-road, and Adams will be made, to create a uni-
?ed look and feel for Downtown. This will include
sidewalk widths, parking recommendations (e.g.
angledparking), intersection treatments. location of
any mid-block crossings, and street trees. City will
provide information on as-built conditions; otherwise the Consultant will use estimated information using GoogleEarth or another source.
thignal “Beforeand After" View Simulations13):

Using Sketch Up, photomontages,and other techniques, before and after views will be shown from three locations, selected in consultation with Staff.

These could include, for example, Main Street or
another street with mix of existing and new buildings, an opportunity site, and Lyman Park with adjacentnew buildingat former City Hall site.

Public Services. Includes information about services and infrastructure needed to implementthe Plan. Thisshould include speci?cpoliciesregarding
utilities, public safety, parks, educational facilities, libraries, and cultural facilities.

Access and Connectivity Plan. Addresses access
to and through the Plan area, with speci?c focus
on connecting developmentwith all transportation
modes including walking, bicycling(include Napa
Vine Trail Route), driving, and transit. Accessible
designfor disabled and elderlypersons should be a
component of this section.

Implementation and Financing Plan. Identi?es
actions and strategies for Plan implementation.
alongwith completiondate estimates, phasing.and
cost estimates. The strategy will consider streetscape
Plan implementationthat may be a private devel- opment obligation.The implementationplan will be formatted and organizedto show for each action who is responsible,the timing and resources needed to implement.The analysiswillbe based on the type of Master Plan improvements sought,industry stan- dards regarding who typically pays for what, the timing of public improvements relative to private development, commitments. statutory and legal considerations, and likelihood of funding from other sources (e.g., see below), among other rele- vant factors. Financing tools considered will likely include, without limitation, the following:

STOF HELENA
ic Draft eof the
vi
ew
D
e
iv
e
rab
l
s
s
/
Agenda Item #12.1.

4 - Area-speci?cdevelopmentimpact and/or in-lieu
fees(and related reimbursement agreements).
— Special assessments and taxes (e.g., MelloRoos Community Facilities Districts, business improvement districts).
- Private contributions and exactions.
- Tax increment ?nancing mechanisms (e.g.,
Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District or Community Revitalization and Investment Authority).

Each funding tool will be evaluated based on a variety of criteria. includingwithout limitation:
- Likelyrevenue generation
- Ease of adoption and implementation
— Cost burden and incidence
- Flexibilityover time
- Stakeholdersupport
An administrative draft Plan shall be prepared for
review byCity staff.Comments received shall be incorporated into the publicreview draft Plan. One meeting will be held with DTSC (#4) on policybrainstorming
during Speci?cPlan preparation.
- Administrative Draft #1 Speci?cPlan
0 Administrative Draft #2 Speci?cPlan
- Public Review Draft Speci?cPlan
The consultant shall conduct DTSC and Community
Meetings, meetings with the Parks and Recreation
Commission, Active Transportation 8r Sustainability
Commission, PlanningCommis sion, and City Coun
cil and any other method of outreach, followingprep
ent the Plan and to receive public comment and input within the limit of the overall number of meetings established forthe project - DTSCMeeting4 notice agenda .

DTSC Meeting 4. includingattendance and facilita tion. and meeting materials.if neces sary .DTSC Meeting 4 summary - Four separate meetings with the Parks.and Recre ation Commission. Active Transportation & Sus tainabilityCommission - PlanningCommission meeting to review draft Spe
ci?c Plan.includingattendance and presentation
- City Council meeting to review draft Speci?c Plan
includingattendance and presentation
- Up to 4 (four) consultant/staffmeetings with com munity groups. residents, business owners, etc. as needed Task 4.5 Commu
#4
Conduct a community workshop open to present the
Draft Downtown Speci?c Plan and solicit feedback.

This could be conducted as a formal workshop,drop
in open house, or a community event.
o Community Workshop4 notice/agenda
- Community Workshop4, includingattendance and
facilitation, and all necessary meeting materials
- Community Workshop4 summary
Task 4.6 Speci?
Referrals
State Law requires consultation with a variety of Fed
eral, State, regional, and local agencies whenever a
jurisdiction updates or emends its general plan (e.g.,
Native American Tribes, Military Branches.Airport
Land Use Commission). These statutes are located
throughout the Government Code and have varying
requirements for when draft and ?nal documents must
be submitted and how longagencies have to review and
provide comments. The consultants will maintain a
checklist of agency consultation requirements that we will use to ensure the City providesthe Speci?cPlan to the appropriate agencies. For budgetingpurposes, it is
assumed that only tribal consultation will be needed,
for which DBrBwill prepare a letter and ?le that with
State agencies
Tribal consultation letter re Final Draft of the Specific The consultant shall prepare a ?nal draft Speci?cPlan based on comments received during the review period in Task 4.3. .Final Draft Speci?cPlan Task Con Meetings Decisionduct Maker on Revie Draft of Plan the Speci?c w nit
y
House
c Cons and
ultati
on
Tas
k
—Prepa 4
.7
Pla n
D
el
iv
erabl e
s/
D
eli ve
rabl es
/
M
ee
ri
D
aw
nt ow
n
Specific Plan
D
el
iv
e
r
D
el
iv
e
r
D
el
iv
era
Agenda Item #12.1.

srl
HASE 5 — PLAN ADOPTI
Task 5.1 — Environmental Revie
The consultant will coordinate with the City regarding
the type of environmental clearance determined appropriate for the Plan buildout. The City has an important goalof streamliningthe environmental review process
forsubsequentdevelopmentprojects that are consistent
with the Downtown Speci?cPlan.

The project could use the adoptedGeneral Plan EIR for
CEQAclearance if the land use buildout is within the
scope of the General Plan. However, it is anticipated
that General Plan and zoning map amendments may
be needed, and thus additional environmental review
would be required. We believe that an EIR Addendum is likelyto suf?ce should no new impacts result.

Should new impacts result, a SupplementalEIR may be
appropriate; the basic e?'ort of the two would be similar, however, the SupplementalEIR will require public noticing (preparation of a NOP. scoping meeting, circulation of Draft EIR, and preparation and certi?cation of the Final EIR, which would add to the cost). This EIR Addendum would be detailed.would need to re?ect
HousingElement additional developmentas well as the
Speci?cPlan, and will cover the followingtopics:

Air Quality. Updated analysis of emissions under
buildout
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change.

UpdatedGHG emissions and energy calculations
Land Use, Population, and Housing. Updated information to re?ect increased buildout Public Services. Updated water and wastewater
demand, based on infrastructure analysis Technical
Memorandum
Transportation and Tra?ic. While forCEQApurposes
is to be used, at the time the General Plan EIR was pre- pared LOS was still the CEQAcriteria, and VMT was providedfor informational purposes. If an EIR Adden— dum is prepared,the same thresholds/informationwill be repeated.If a SupplementalFocused EIR is prepared, VMT thresholds will be used. Our scope includes prep- aration of both LOS calculations for 13 intersections (which would include as well as VMT, which would provide ?exibility in appropriate environmental docu- ment determination.

DKS will estimate the VMT impacts of the preferred
concept plan based on a single new model run of the
Napa SolanoActivity Based travel demand model (this
model run will also support developmentof future
intersection turning movement forecasts). This model
is maintained jointly by the Napa Valley Transportation Authorityand the Solano Transportation Authority. The horizon year and land use of this model have been recently updated to correspond to the regional
transportation plan. Plan BayArea 2050.

VMT will be reported for informational purposes in
the EIR. Should a SupplementalEIR be needed, DKS
will compare the resultingVMT metrics (home-based
VMT per population and home-based work VMT per
job) forthe speci?c plan area to the appropriate threshold of signi?cance (e.g. SB 743 implementationstudy that the City may be preparing or a regionalmetric).

No Initial Studywill be prepared — the Addendum does
not require an Initial Studyor any public circulation.

W“ the City determines
that a SupplementalEIR is needed, we would need
to work with the City to de?ne the scope of the HR.

This would include preparing an NOP, scoping meeting, Draft SupplementalEIR. and Final Supplemental EIR. If the topics and the basic analysisstays the same as in the EIR Addendum, the additional cost may be +/-
$30,000 (assuming that responses to comments do not
require more than 80 hours).

Wm below
outlinesthe scope for new (focused or Subsequent)EIR,
should it be determined that new EIR is needed. The
scope covers topics likely to result after careful initial screening based on a detailed Initial Study that will be done.Components of this will include: . Initial Study (138(3). D8rB will prepare an Initial Study to screen out for resources not
Speci?cPlan. The General Plan EIR will be cited as a resource as needed. Thesewould likelyinclude:
- Agriculture]ForestryResources
— BiologicalResources
- Geology/Soils Hydrology.Water Quality- Mineral Resources — Noise Tribal Cultural Resources Wild?re

OF STHELENA
Agenda Item #12.1.

i!
- NOP and Scoping (DBrB). DSrBwill prepare a NOP
to be submitted to all responsibleand trustee agencies and to the public.informing them that the City is initiating the environmental review required
for the Speci?c Plan. During the 30-day scoping
period, D8rB will prepare a PowerPoint presentation and meeting materials for a public meeting that will be held to take comments on issues to be
addressed in the EIR. . Draft EIR (D818, with DKS, WYA). DSKBwillprepare a project description that out-lines the components of the Speci?c Plan and provides quanti- ?ed projections of the population, housing. and
employmentthat would result from implementation. Developmentof mitigation measures and policies concurrentlywill be an iterative process in concert with ?nalization of the Speci?cPlan.such that goals, policies, and implementationmeasures can be used as mitigation measures.where appropriate, to ensure the Plan is self-mitigating to the extent
possible.The project descriptionwill form the basis
for the environmental analysis and will be submitted to City staff for review prior to commencing work on the technical analysis.

The D&B team will prepare an Administrative
Draft, Screencheckand Public Review Draft EIR. To
streamline environmental review and optimize the
timeline for completionof the project, the analysis
will draw on the specialstudies described later, as well as technical and specializedanalysesprepared in previous tasks. The Administrative Draft EIR
will contain the followingchapters:
— Introduction
- Executive Summary
- Project Description
- Environmental Analysis
— Airesthetics Quality Energy
- GreenhouseGas Emissions
— Historic Resources
- Hazards and Hazardous Materials
— Land Use, Planningand Population/Housing— Public Services and Water Supply - Recreation
Transportation
Utilities
- Other CEQAConsiderations. The EIR will discuss
growth inducement, irreversible commitment of
resources, and issues that were found not to be signi?cant during the scoping process. . Alternatives. The EIR will address a minimum of two alternatives (No Project and at least another
alternative) that could feasiblyattain the basic project objectives. Determination of speci?c alternatives will be done in coordination with City staff, and it is anticipated that some of the alternatives
developed earlier in the planning process will be
used to develop feasible alternatives for the EIR.

Followingapproval of the Screencheck Draft EIR,
the D8rB team will coordinate with the City for the
publication and publicreview of the Draft EIR.
- Final EIR (D&B). After close of the 45-day com- ment period, DBrBwill bracket and number each individual comment received within each com- ment letter and any comments received during the public hearing and will prepare responses to each
comment. Because it is not possible to anticipate
the number and extent of comments, our budget
assumes that 80 hours ofstaff time will be suf?cient.

DBrBwill prepare an Admin and ScreencheckDraft
FEIR for internal review along with a Final document for circulation ahead of hearings.

The additional (additional to the $63,300 for the Elk
Addendum in the scope) cost of the Elk (including Initial Study, NOP, and Draft and Final EIR) will be $52,000 (for a total EIR cost of $115,300). Should
a noise analysis be desired, that would add another
$10,000 to the cost.
- EIR Addendum
EIR NOD. D&B ing appropriate documents with the State Clearing- house and the City with the County TASK 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC The HEARING consultant will facilitate a public hearing with the Planning Commission to review and make a rec- ommendation to the City Council regardingthe Spe- ci?c Plan. The consultant team will make re?nements to the Plan based on Planning Commission input, if required.

D
ow
n
tow
n
Spaninc Plan
Agenda Item #12.1.

- Review and input on staffreport for meeting
- PowerPoint presentation
- Presentation
Council Adoptl
The Consultant will facilitate a City Council public
hearing to adoptthe Speci?cPlan.
- Review and input of staff report for meeting
- Presentation
l Specific Plan
Followingpublicreview of the Speci?c Plan.the Con
sultant will prepare the Final Speci?cPlan.
. Final Speci?cPlan
UDIES
In order to completethe scope of work, it is anticipated that the following technical studies will be needed
(additional studies for the purposes of the CEQAdocu
ment may alsobe necessary):

Parking Study
DKS will contract for the collection of all on-street and off-streetparking(up to 10 private lots) occupancy data for the study area. The inventory will include all on
street and off-street parking suppliedwithin the speci?c plan boundaries. The inventory will classify offstreet parking by private or public and note the hourly parking rate, if applicable.On-street parking spaces by block facewill be counted as marked versus unmarked,
metered or not, and any parking restrictions by time of dayor lengthof use will be noted. The presence of ADA
accessible spacesfor both off-street and on street parking will be noted. counts periods: weekdaymidday.weekdayevening. and Satur— daymidday. For future conditions.DKSwill:
o Model Parking Demand during the weekday mid- day,weekdayevening. and Saturday midday periods based on preferredLand Use Plan .

Calculate spaces lost from full or partial removal of parking on both sides of Main Street be-tween Adams Avenue and Spring Street (ULI report option) - Compare total parking demand during the peak
periods with the preferred Land Use Plan to the
remaining availableparking inventory and calculate
the additional publicparking supplyneeded to bring
average occupancy to no more than 85 percent
- Recommendations on what publicparking facilities
or strategies. including metering or timing limitation. fee strategies. etc. are needed downtown based on calculationsabove . Should signi?cant additional parkingsupplybe rec- ommended, DKS will prepare unit cost estimates for surface parking that can be used to implementan
in-lieu fee.

DKSwill prepare a traf?c studyto focus on intersection
operationalanalysisto support the ExistingConditions
Report and developmentof the preferredconcept plan.

For the tra?ic operational analysis.DKS will describe
the existing roadwaynetwork within the Speci?c Plan
area. map the study intersections. and supply a table
summarizing existing intersection operations. Existing
and future intersection operations willbe characterized using primarilyHighwayCapacity Manual methods as
implemented in the Synchro software package.This
scope does not include traf?c simulation (Simtra?c).

The intersection operationalanalysiswill be conducted
under the followingparameters:
- Up to 13 study intersections. to be determined in
consultation with the project team
- Studyperiodsto include weekdaymorning. weekday
afternoon.and weekend(Saturday)peakhours
For existing conditions analysis. recent turning move- ment counts are assumed to be available from the City’s Streets Master Plan project and are not included in this scope and budget.
movement a single future land use scenario to re?ect the preferred concept plan.Weekdayintersection turning movement forecasts will be developedfrom recent turning move- ment counts and outputs from the Napa SolanoActiv- ity Basedtravel demand model. Since the Napa Solano model does not include a weekend scenario. weekend turning movement forecasts will be based either on the middaymodel volumes or factors derived from the ReplicaPlacesweekdayand weekend scenarios. Two future network alternatives will be studied for the operationalanalysis:

P
R
O
P
O
S
A
L
CFOR Deliverable.

SPECIAL

8.TStudy
ra
f
?
c
T
as
k
—5.3 City A
.

T
a
s
k
—Fina 5.4
'o
n
H
ea
rin
g
D
o
cum
Agenda Item #12.1.

- With current roadwaycon?guration of Main Street
between Adams and Spring Street and Hunt Avenue
to remain open
- Removal of center turn lane on Main Street between
Adams and Spring Street and closure of Hunt Avenue between Main Street and Railroad Avenue Additional network scenarios will be analyzed as optionaltasks requiring additional budget.

DKS will summarize analysismethods and ?ndings in
a technical memorandum.
thignal Traf?c qunt for13Intersections:Additional
cost for collectingand processing data for 13 intersections for three periods(AM and PM peak period. and weekend peak period) will be $7,260. DKS would also
need the operationalmodel ?les from the General Plan
that were done byFehr and Peers; if these are not available.additional $3,000 would be needed. {1' 19“..” B l ll l5
_ LQsLThebase scope of work provides for intersection
operations analysisof two future scenarios: No Build
and Proposed Improvements (e.g.. Main Street CTL
removal and closure of Hunt). If additional scenarios
need to be analyzed. for example, improvements on Main Street but Hunt remaining open, DKS estimates $5,440 per additional scenario.
. Existing conditions intersection operationalanalysis to be summarized in tabular format - Map ofstudyintersections . Draft and ?nal technical memorandum c. Market and Fiscal Study
EPS will evaluate the market conditions and trends
in the Speci?cPlan. The analysiswill consider both local and national trends, including a focus on the commercial sector linked to tourism (e.g.,retail. dining, hospitality,accommodations). EPS will lever- age information from previous market studies con- ducted for the City with updated research and analysis to account for post-pandemictrends in retail, tourism. hospitalityIand the St. Helena's competitive attributes in this context. Among other things, the study will identify the market prospects for developmentcon- cepts at key opportunity sites identi?ed as part of the study process.

EPS will developan interactive ?scal model to estimate and compare how various land use concepts will a?'ect the City's General Fund budget.Speci?cally.the
analysiswill compare the likelykeyGeneral Fund revenues (e.g. property. sales, and hotel taxes) with the cost of providingmunicipalservices (e.g.publicsafety,
infrastructure maintenance) for each land use programs being considered in the Concept Plan Alternatives (see Task 3). The analysiswill inform selection of a preferredConcept Plan and support other City goals
as well as be integrated into the Implementation and
Financing Plan developedin Task 4.3.

SCOPE OF WORK ASSUMPTIONS
The Scope of Work and Budget are based on the followingassumptions:
- Environmental Analysis Budget. The budget for
the FIR Addendum is an estimate, but should likely
be good unless topics outlined in Task 5.1 in our
scope are changed.The additional budgetfor a SupplementalElR is an estimate and is based on analysis limited to the topics shown in Task 5.1 but with inclusion of NOP, a scoping meeting, tribal consultation. and 80 hour allocation for response to com- ments on the Draft EIR (Final EIR). - Consolidated Comments and Direction. City staff
will provide a single set of consolidated.non-con- ?icting comments on the review drafts of all documents, and documents will be ?nalized following consultant incorporation of staff comments. Where
multiple re-view drafts are provided in the Scope
(e.g. for the Speci?c Plan document). subsequent
reviews will be limited to changesmade in response
to comments previously provided or correction
of errors, rather than changesto work previously
accepted or changesin methodologiesor assumptions.
in via or trans- fer service. Staff review drafts will be provided in Microsoft Word for documents that do not include high level of graphics. No printing of plans or reports is assumed. D8rB will also provide native electronic ?les of all documents created by the con- sultant team upon completionof the project
—
these may be in Word or for graphic-intensivedocuments. in Adobe lnDesign. Maps will be provided in Illus- trator or ArcGlS format.depending on native for- mat.

Analysis and Trends Condi
tions
D
ow
nt ow
n
Speci?c Plan
F
isc
a
l
Anal
ysis
D
el
iv
era
Agenda Item #12.1.

5'
WV
eallocation byTasleubconsultant. Dyett & Bhaa reserves the right to reallocatebudget by task or nsultant team member.provided the overall proj ct budgetis not affected
ncreased Costs Due to Delay and Suspension.
hould the project extend for more than three years
for no fault of consultant.or the project is suspended
for longer than three months for no fault of consultant, additional budget may be needed for delay/ additional start-up costs, as reasonablyagreedupon
byCity and DBKB.

Our scope/budget include the following number of
total meetings. The scope may note addition-al meetings beyond those noted below; those meetings will be staff responsibility. Additional meetings can be
included for additional budget.

City staff: Bi-Weeklymeetings: 40 hour-long meetings assumed (allowing for holidays and periods, such as EIR public review) over a two-year period;
virtual, with the kickoff meeting followed by a site
tour in person if desired. Optional additional meetings as out-lined in the scope Community Workshops or Open Houses: 4; in-person or virtual Community Survey: 1
Stakeholder meetings: 6 to 8 hour-long meetings
conducted at project outset; assumed virtual
Other groups/businesses etc.: informal meetings. 6
to B; assumed virtual
Downtown Steering Committee: 4; assumed virtual;
an initial meeting can also be done in person without additional cost PlanningCommission and City Council: 5. including on joint meeting; assumed in per-son up to 4 or 5 if virtual with time-certain attendance, with additional ones to be conducted by staff Meeting R sibilities and Products
. Dyett 8r Bhatia will prepare agendas,meeting materials, print drawings and handouts for all public workshops.D&B will also prepare agendas for all
DTSC meetings, and prepare PowerPoints for all
publicand decision-makermeetings
- D&B will providemeeting summaries for all public
meetings and DTSCmeetings
- DBrBwill prepare and maintain a project website
where information on upcoming meetings will be
posted
- City staff will be responsible for conducting any
additional meetings (e.g. with additional commu
nity groups or additional commission) beyond those
speci?edas consultant responsibilityabove
- Planning Commission and City Council meeting
recordings/minutes will be prepared by the City, as per norm - City staff will be responsiblefor preparing and dis
tributing any meeting notices and staff reports . City staff will be responsiblefor providingcommu nity meeting space and any drinks or refreshments
OF ST. HELENA
espon
Cons
ultant
Agenda Item #12.1.

191:

Km Nu Nv h- an n» A: m-
"Theschedule proposed for t
h
i
s
ispresented pr in
oje
ct
a ?ow chart on the followin
g
and products pKey
a
g
e
.
meetings are shown per th
e
task description
a
s
in the Scope of Work. The g
r
a
p
h
i
c
shows 15-month a
schedule leading to release PDraft of Review
u
bl
ic
the Speci?cPlan and the Elk With another
two months of hearings,the shou beadopted in
ld about 17 months from proje
ct
Should asta Supplert. mental ElR be needed, two should beadded to the schedule, for a total of 19
Bhatia has been able 8r todeliver similar and Dyett on
timeframes. even For tighter we example, completed
the full drafts review public of the Windsor Down
Area town/Station Plan and full Draft Speci?c new EIR
months after in14ception. project
with adoption.

Comulum
E?un
Kkk-o? Heeling
anProduct
3 “
Sta keh
old
er
"
Cummiuion Ham"; Final Produn Dmmwn Sue?n; ‘3Mum; Cumming: mean; Cummuniry
can»: Survey 0-1 mu: Hearing FWM" Workshop! In\"nun; mr Ham: Open vle wx
Jan Feb‘ Mar May july Aug. Sept 0:: Nov June
422% #3
chmm Cumunl Mminu Eng-gun msnnm
1 ExistingCunduaonx Woman»! and Inlual eunuch 1ram-m
Sump-d. csm R
nPlln
Jmpg/cc mum
Frill"
mu
S
C
H
é
DUL
E
Mminl} r m‘ pw 5mm: u. m
m
-:

Add! umEll "
City o
f
Hel Downtown Plan Speo?c
ena
2014
Plvhnq R- can"!!! III
Ind M??tl
Emma. c-I Marin
Pr
op
os
ed
Schedule
1 Content Almmmv
u
4 Speci?cP
la
I C
uAmdm
ine
ixm
me
lk
um" and Re; can
c
Punnm
and ma y
s and
Adv [Id
[)Y
E
T
I‘
BkBHA'HA 5.
] Adden EI dum R
A Pa5m,
rki ng
O
Ex
En
ini ndi w
a TSandy
ra
‘ Dim-" I?
Agenda Item #12.1.

mm.
is
Sr. Hala- Dawnwwn Spod?e Plan
The worksheets on the followingpagesshow hours and
budget by task for all team members. The guaranteed
maximum feesfor our proposed scope of work identi-
?ed in our proposalis $402,957 without the environmental work.With $63.30() for the Elk Addendum (as described in Task 5.1),the total budgetis $466,257.

The worksheet also shows several optional tasks;
should the City wish to include all optional items
listed in the budget(with the exception of a Focus EIR) along with a contingency amount of $983, the total
budget would be $500,000. This does not include the
expandedcost for a Subsequentof Focus EIR, should it
be determined at a later stage that that this needed.

Fees include all personnel costs.sub-contractors’ costs, and direct costs, and deliveryof productsidenti?ed in
the Scope of Work. Sub-contractors’ costs and direct
costs will be billed with no administrative markup or handling fee. The fees will not be exceeded provided there are no changesin the Scopeof Services. Assumptions for the scope. includingassumed meeting attendance, are outlined toward the end of Section 2.2.

Ill—d I» a mu
Men Sharla.Prlndpal-ln-Owge «I II a m I: m I s I In is Andrew Hill.Meagan; Prinde I: III II )n I u u w Helen Plural", Anna-u :u «I n no I an m I Clare Kucen. Awash" II lb II In Karen Chant. Planner 2‘ u u 52 Dmkl Hint Urban DellplerlPlII-mer n so III) In In as Spqdalln w «I M II m m 20 Web DealganrojeuAnimm so u 14 to II In 4 In :I SIM I“ I“ IN «a ll Ll“ ‘ ID 0 LI" I‘D 1'.Kim, Principal z z I 2 E Van. PrelimHunger II I: II II sI u D. Blodc5r. Engineer . J I I ll 1 Carney. PrelenEn'lMer . I II II I A Ha; Anodau Engineer . II 14 so 11 1-Hello.5r. Dull"Erma“: 1 z B.Cnn. Orin Ednurnr - I l Aulmnx Engineer - )I ll 7‘ ll Aulmm Planner - In M u I) Frye“ Coer?murlAdmln I I SM 2! - - - - 3 III “I - III N jun-I l Maud, I 1 I M q 54. 15 n munanry I z 1 I0 I I9 54 u w l I l 34 I 1! - - ’0 I“ I Terence Bemmley. Prlndpal ll :4 n a II Chlre Vladi.Airedale as 4| 1| loo Ion Inn GneL And“: I] :4 10 SI 54
”THU 40 9‘ D as
Don; Moore Palm Manager I I I I I II
Melln: Duly. Summer I I I I I! n
Par-rid lollnmn.Sewer and Rouble Water I I I I4 II II Sun Eiglneer II 2 I so 41 n 7) Mannyllmenu.as names" I 4 u n It ' 4I! 41 1‘1 156 I1"
rm I z
c
'9'“
(m
an
u
al
' “ "m" an
d
1m: 1
rmml1I
Hump m
(mMow-hrmmmmAu (mm Mon: and 5m, MSway mu ram. hulk rum”an!“ Sway Ennuwaml w) B
U
D
G
M
IW
S
y
n- m
:
”CU
E
S

TASK IV D
K
S
An
na
”!
Agenda Item #12.1.

m.
. w . . . . ..

Sr. Halon:Downtown Spod?c Plan
Mun 3|“th Principal-Imam;- as ”Joe NJ” qu: I7.Iso 3.1150 um um um um sun Andrlw HIILhnklpuln‘ Pvlndpal :45 1M msu 1120 7.)” IJN mm . . . mm lu au
HIIINHunon. Anna-u Iss “so mm mm muse Lm sum . . . 14.1w ch:- Knurl. Ancchn Iss - - - Lao . um - - - Lac Karin Cray-I. Phnmr HS - mo . . . use . . - MIG Dunk] Hana. Urban DIanv/I’lannlr us .

I.m 7.1m Imn - 11m - - - nun . as Spuhllu Iss . 9,100 «mo lama Lun mm mm Wlb DuipIIPrulla Animal Ina um um um «no um um Iuoo Dlnu Cam In moo um moo um um 5.1m . Sub-nu! mm «as am nu» Inn nu- In! um Ls! 1mm 4 n:
- TIKllm,Prlndpll ns sso «so . mm
E Van. Prolu:Mam" no 7.2M - - - - 1.1- ulo MID - mm
DIslut. Sr. Enlinnr
1so . . . . . . no no . Lson 1 Fanny. PrclmEIIgInur IIs - . . . . - 1m 1.1m - 1.5m A Hu‘.Annchll Enlln- ans . . . . - . mm «m
. um

1.Huld. Sr. Dulgn Engiu r us - - - . - - ua . - m . B.Cruz 0-“: mer no - s . . . . um - - mu . Animus EII‘IIInr I99 . . - - - - 7,110 mm . NM: Ant-Ian: Hum-r m . . . . . . mm mm - IIJW PmloezCurdnawrleln II! In - . . . II! - IIs DIm: Cam mm tuna SM 1.11s - - - - 7.)” sun 11.7w - 1mm It l
JuanMoody m use an no um um H.040 - - 1w ml: . H-pn 5"qu ms In an: no loss was zuvs - . mm mus . DIr-a Com so so so Isa Inn 250 SM uso I.I4II Lln IUIB I»! m - - non ans Tomc- Bowl-y, Prlndpal m . 1.1“: mm mu: m
cI-Ir- Vluh.Anndul nu . mo uu 1,540 ) 000 Nm GouLAmchu no - Lao m 2.400 Am SILT“ - 1J8 mm H.“ - luau nun
Doug Moon Prey-I: Mung-r Isl m Isl m as LIIIs Minn: Duffy. StanIIwu-r III In I,1II I la nu 5.04 Purkkjuhmun. Sway and Punhl- W In an 1.4". nu 4.21: we Sun Balk-u:-ll us no Lac MN 15 II ".7“! MumyleII-nu.GI: Tnhnkhn I‘D . no no mm: 7.510 ElizabethDay-r. Wu-r SM )5: )5! 1m 7m zuo I I Mnlnlmdn II III - m an Au .2 ms 1 7 157 t M t w W TOTAL «mo a sun Luau : mm a nun mmm u b
u
t!
) Tod. hd. El Mn ‘ “£
15 1 W
15 Adam-I Wnldy hog-u Phi-pm Hum ! w a" ham K-uum-nh?wl 3 Imp. mm... In! Out.Adult-.1“! lulrold s umw sun-am 0) s 1' um I.» u ”mum": sx m
Youdop-Ih—nlc-n'q 3
ImnInIM-m)
rm
crmJYukl 5I41AManagua .
' Ham; hm
5'" mmrnq
nA m. Can- mum
“Km,“ 711 l:1"“"m'" runaway (7:: My? Pal-I'M W!” mm
"mm“ '5'va Dun-ch
I
D
ow
nt ow
n
Plan Spaci?c
symm- D
EA
-
lo
c
Yet:

Agenda Item #12.1.

R
E
S
U
Agenda Item #12.1.

Master of City Planning
Master of Landscape Architecture
University of California.Berkeley
RegentsFellow
ThomasChurchAwnrdfor Design
(?rst prize)
OutstandingGraduateStudent
Instructor Award
Bachelor of Architecture
(First Class)
Schoolof Planningand Architecture.

New Delhi.India
Mr. Bhatia's projects have won 30+
awards from the American Plan
ning Association.as well as awards
from the Urban Land Institute and
the Congress for New Urbanism.
and the Ahwahnee Award. He has
been Fellowof the German Academic
ExchangeService (DAAD) and the
Asian Cultural Council (Rockefeller
Rajeev Bhatia is a planner and urban designer. whose work is place-based,cen tered on fosteringlivableand sustainable communities. He is one of BayArea's most experiencedplanners. with 30 years of experience in leading dozens of Bay Area speci?cplans. general plans, Ele. and other planningassignments. as well as projects throughoutthe Western United States, with current clients for urban designassignments including San Diego, Honolulu.Oceanside.City of Los Angelesamong others. He is well versed in community participation and engagement. and in working with diverse community groups and decision makers.and ?nding common ground
He bringsexceptionalexperience in preparing BayArea downtown and other speci?c plans (about one dozen completed).combined with vast experience in workingin Napa and Sonoma counties, includingfour generalplansin the two counties (includingrecentlyCity of Napa) as wellas severalspeci?c plans (recentlySonoma DevelopmentalCenter and Santa Rosa Downtown.and previ ouslyWindsor Downtown). Within the last three years he has also completed the Union City Station Area Speci?cPlan.Livermore Isabel Neighborhood (Station Area) Speci?cPlan.and BayhillSpeci?cPlan (San Bruno). He has also led completeEIRs on most of these assignments. He bringsfamiliaritywith St Helena.havingserved as Participating Principalon the General Plan update.

Projects led by Mr. Bhatia are shapingsome of the most livable and vibrant communities in California. Examplesinclude the Downtown San Diego Plan (with 15.00:) housingunits built and approvedsince plan was adopted15 years ago).the Capitol Area Plan in Sacramento for the State of California(which has shapedthe largestState office developmentin California‘s history in a mixed use TOD setting). and MilpitasStation Area Speci?c Plan (with 7.000 housing units plannedaround future BART station). He recentlycompletedstation area planning for Honolulu's new urban rail.includingplanningfor the most intense areas (Downtown, including proposal for a new high-risedistrict adjacentto Downtown) and the most transformative corridor (Kalihi). as well as advising the city on a new citywide framework for station area zoning.

Relevantexperience includes:

Sonoma DevelopmentalCenter Speci?cPlanand Elk
BayhillSpeci?cPlan (San Bruno; incorporates YouTubeheadquarters expansion) and EIR .SharpPark Speci?cPlan (Paci?ca) and EIR - Union City Station Area Speci?cPlanand Elk .

ElCamino Real/ChestnutArea Speci?cPlan (South San Francisco) and EIR - Serramonte/CollinsMaster Plan.Colma Santa Rosa Downtown Speci?c Plan and EIR Specifi
c
Pla Design and Urban
ns
Bay Ar ea
Ra
je
ev
Bhati AICP
a,
Ur
ban
and Plznnerx Reglnnzl E
d
u
c
Pr
in
ci
pa
A
w
ar
Agenda Item #12.1.

San PabloAvenue Speci?cPlan (San Pablo) and EIR
ValleyFair Santana Row Master Plan (San 1056)
Winchester BoulevardMaster Plan (San Jose)
Livermore Station Area ("Isabel Neighborhood”)Speci
?c
Pand EIR
l
an MilpitasStation Area Speci?c Plan and Elk
Santa Clara Station Area Plan and Elk
San José (Diridon) Station Area Plan
LakeMerritt Station Area Speci?c Plan and Elk (
Downto wn
Oakl
and) Windsor Downtown/Station Area Speci?cPlan and Elk
PleasantonDowntown Speci?c Plan
Genentech Campus Master Plan (South San Francisco)
BioMarin Campus Master Plan (San Rafael)
ElCamino RealCorrdior Plan and Zoning EIR (South Fra
nci
sco
)
BrisbaneBaylandsSpeci?cPlan (City ledalternative)
Extensive experie
nce,
for incl speci?c plans; downtowns such most asudi
ng
Windsor.San Di
eg
o.
and mixed-use for Chicago regulations San (recently
; Diego);corridors Real and Camino South asSan Francisco, El inTDM parkingregulati
ons.
for and Genentech BioMarin inCampus, Campus
cl
ud
in
g
(San Rafael). Un
der
wa
y
(all standards for cityw Oakland objective design
ide uses except
indust
rial).

Mr. Bhatia led over comprehensiv California general plans throughout 35 e (including2
0 Park, Area Santa Rosa,ohnert and Petaluma including Bcities. ay in Sonomarinclude completed Recently general and plans Napa (city) ongoing ge
ne
ral
include Oakland, plan and Sacramento Fair?eld. Oceanside. s
OceansideCorridors Plan and Elk
Hillcrest FocusArea (San Diego)
Honolulu Station Are
a P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Mission ValleyCom
munit
y
(San Pl and Diego) Elk
CapitalArea Plan.Sa
cram
en
to
(client: California) of State
San Diego Downtown
More and comple speci?c including program asgeneral plans. EIRs. 35 te well sPlan for Area Regional Transportation Bay SCSI MTC. ev e
ral
P
ro
g
ra
Envnon ReVIew
memal
Ur ban
Regional and Planner:

O
ut
S
Id
e
Bay Area G
en
eral
Plans
Agenda Item #12.1.

2022 APA California Statewide
Award of Excellence. Santa Rosa
Downtown Station Are Speci?cPlan
zon APA Northern California
Award of Excellence.

Comprehensive Plan, Santa Rosa
Downtown Station Are Speci?c Plan
2018 APA Award of Excellence.

Vallejo General Plan Update and HR
2018 APA Award of Merit. Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan Update
2016 AEP Outstanding Public
Involvement Award. Palo Alto
ComprehensivePlan
2008 Clear Vistas Design
Competition. Regina.SK
St. Helena General Plan and EIR. Andrew assisted t
h
e
with the Ci comple
ty tion of a targetedupdate to the General Plan, focused policies in cor p
or at
in
g
to address new State requirements that have come into the since was plan last updatedand extending the horizon year of the p
lan
.
central the issu toes effort include growth management. economic develo pment
,
histori resource c preservation, publicsafety.and agriculturalpreservat ion.

An also led the
dre w
EIRon the Plan.

Santa Rosa Downtown Station Are Speci?c Plan and And led multi a rew disciplinaryteam in preparing the Santa Rosa Downto wn Stat Area Speci?c
ion Plan (DSASP) Update.which comprehensivelyretoole
d
thate aserves aspl
an blueprint for developmentand preservation in a 720- acre the ar surroun
ading Downtown SMART Station at the heart of the city. DS incorporate AS sP
innovative new strategies and standards to incentivi ze hig transit
hde
nsi
ty.
oriented projects. remove barriers to development,i and connec tivity walkability.heightensense of place, and help realize Rosa’s Santa full potential.By combiningrigorous background an
al
ys
is
with athoughtful.
inclusiveapproach to stakeholder and community en
g
ag
em
ent
.
the planning
process generateda bold plan that garnered widespread
the com insupp
ort munity and was adopted unanimously by the City C
ou
nc
il.
theopathvin
g successfulimplementation.

Union City Station District Speci?c Plan and Elk.transform to a 47o-acre area around the Union City BART Statio
n.
tUnio Station City
nh
e District Speci?c Plan seeksto foster a largemixeduse with sub unique
districts.complementedbyengaging and attractive p
u
bl
ic
with multiple spa
ces. new streets and pedestrian/biking connection to en ha
nc
e
walk conne
ctivity ability, and access. Andrew was a participating princi pal
the Bhatia on8r Dyett
that led preparation of the plan and also worked suc
ces
sfu
lly
behalf of then City with architects and owners of a keysite in the p l
a
n
enhance walk are to
a ability, orchestrate densities to capitalizeon BARTac ce
ss,
and foster enhanced
publicrealm and integration with the broader Station
Andrew Hill is an awardwinning
urban with land planner use expertise in
planning.community engage
ment,
and evironm Innovative review.
ental collaborative.his work is roo
ted
sustainable acommitment toinstrong place
makingand meaningfulstak
ehol
der
involv has led He multi-disciplinary
ement
.
teams in preparing long ran
ge
for pl communities throughout California.
a
n
s
and he possessesover 15years and leadership pr experience managem ent oj ec
t
in the ?elds of planning,cons
truct
ion
and Apartic engineering. managem
ent. ular focusofAndrew'srecent has been facilitate ondeveloping tostrategies in?ll developmentin strategic climate and resilience, engage promote residentswhomay not norma
lly
civic proesses. pain
rti
ci
pa
te
Master of U
rb
an
(MUP) Plan
ning McGillUniv
ersit
y Honors Bac
hel or
(BA Hons) of Arts
University o
f
Ontario
Hill R
e
c
e
nt
Assig
nment
s
Ur hznand Plznner: Regional E
d
u
c
a
Pr
in
ci
pa
A
w
ar
Agenda Item #12.1.

Pleasanton Downtown Speci?c Plan and Elk. Downtown Pleasanton is highly successful, with a vibrant mix of uses, community events, independent busi nesses, and historic homes. As the City looks to relocate its civic center and rede velop the 13-acre site where it is currently located, signi?cant new opportunities emerged downtown. The updatedSpeci?c Plan provides guidance for transform ing this area into a new mixed-use destination while retaining the small-town feel of the Downtown. The Plan also ensures that small-scale in?ll throughout the Downtown contributes positively to the existing urban fabric, focusing on appropriate land use mix; economic development; transitions and context-sen sitive urban design;and streetscape and multi-modal connectivity. Andrew led the Dad; team in ?nalizing the Plan and preparing a programmatic HR for the project.

Crow Canyon Speci?c Plan Update. San Ramon is a vibrant, growing commu nity with a strong job base and a diverse, well-educatedpopulation.Andrew led the team assisting the City with an update to the Crow Canyon Speci?c Plan intended to recalibrate the vision for a 135-acre area in the northwest of the city and re?ne implementing actions needed to support successfulredevelopment.A keyproject objective is to create a walkable villagecenter at the heart of the plan area with high-quality designthat contributes to the character ofthe community Througha series ofstudy sessions and workshopswith the PlanningCommission, D&B worked to de?ne desired designoutcomes and create objectivedevelopment and designstandards for multifamily and mixed use development.Multimodal connectivity. retail vitality, and creekside development were also issues central to the project.

Sixth CycleHousing Element Experience:

City ofMonterey City of San Pablo Town of Ross Fairfax City of Turlock DY
ET
T
8KBHATIA
um“ anal PmmRe; n
d
Agenda Item #12.1.

Sonoma Developmental Center Speci?c Plan. Ms. Pierson was instrumental in producingthe Speci?cPlan for the Sonoma DevelopmentalCenter, a retired State owned care facility.Her work on the project included drafting the plan and supporting policies.leadingand supporting community outreach efforts to a diverse range of stakeholders, determiningland use allocations, drafting publicrealm designs.and conducting?nancial analysisto work towards a plan that satis?edboth the community's vision for the site and the needsfor ?nancial feasibilityand housingin the Sonoma Valley Theplanwas successfullyadopted bythe Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in December 2022.

Oceanside General Plan Update. Ms. Pierson is leadingthe OceansideGeneral Plan Update,a complrehensiveupdate for the third largest city in San Diego County. TheGeneral Plan Updateenvisions the future of Oceansideas a diverse visitor destinationwith a distinct identityand focus on mixed-usedevelopment alongthe City's major transportation corridors Ms. Pierson has been engaged in all phasesofthe planning processfor the GeneralPlan and is currentlydraft ing the ?nal Elementsand policies
Smart and Sustainable Corridors Speci?c Plan. Concurrent with the Oceans ide General Plan Update.Ms. Pierson is leadingthe City's Smart and Sustain able Corridors Speci?cPlan (SSCSP). a Speci?cPlan focused on revitalizing the three main east-west corridorsin Oceansideas vibrant pedestrian-oriented communities. bene?tting from in?ll and redevelopmenton currently vacant and underutilized sites. Ms. Pierson hasbeen involvedin all phasesof the Plan's production and is currentlyworkingcloselywith subconsultants to ?nalize the Speci?cPlan.
tributed to new portions of Union City's zoning code for districts establishedby the Union City Station Area Speci?c Plan. Additions to the zoning code were written to both improve on the existing code.and integrate wellwith what the City alreadyhad in place. Moreno Valley General Plan and Housing Element Update. Ms. Pierson has contributed research and writing to severalchaptersof the Moreno Valley General Plan Update as well as providingsupport forsections of the Housing Element Update.

Helen Pierson hasarchitecture and that her informs bindesign ac
k
gr
o
u
n
d
work as a planner. Pier Gneral and Plans and has specializes Speci?c in son a range of skills an
d
that her land puse including experie work. support
rince o
r
planning, data an
al
ysi
s,
and graphic design reea community outreach. 3d
rch. modeling. Her res ear ch
include intere environmen planning. equity‘driven
sts
tal justice, and thedata of the analysis planning process. in Master of Urb
an
Pla
nni
ng
Columbia Uni vcrs
ity Bachelor of A
rch
ite
ct u
re
Washington St. Louis in
H
el
e
n
Piers
on
R
ec
e
nt
Assig
nment
s
D
Y
E
T
T
81BHATIA U
rb
an
and Regional Planner: E
d
u
c
a
Agenda Item #12.1.

Master of Urban and Regional
Planning
University of Michigan
Master of Science in Ecosystem
Science and Management
University of Michigan
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies and Spanish University of Michigan
UCLA Extension, Successful CEQA
Compliance:A SIep-By—SlepApproach
University of California.Los Angeles
Oceanside General Plan Update. Ms. Kucera has been involved prim arily
in
drafting the General Plan’s Safetyand Resilience Element.Vital and able Resources Element.and Healthyand LivableCommunity Eleme nt.

Sonoma Developmental Center Speci?c Plan and Elk. Ms. Kucera the lead author ofthe £111 for the SDC Speci?c Plan. ThePlan and ElR, ad op
te
d
in
2021. set a framework for conserving 750 acres of habitat and open sp ac
e
and
redevelopinga core campus with housingand jobs. while maintaining key historic elements.

Town of Fairfax Housing Element Elk and Safety Element. Ms. K u
c
era
is
the lead author of Fairfax Housing Element EIR. Her other works producing research on existing hazard mapping and wild?re progr ams in
preparation for drafting the Safety Element.

Town of Ross Housing Element Elk and Safety Element. Ms. Ku cer a
pre
pared the public review draft ofthe Ross Housing ElementEIR.with fo cu
s on an analysis of biological resources.greenhousegas emissions, cul tur
al
re
sources. noise.transportation, wild?re.and geologicalhazards.

Paci?ca General Plan Elk. Ms. Kucera contributed to the Elk. and with providing responses to over 700 comments from the public. and organizations.

Oakland GeneralPlan Update.Ms. Kucera has been involved primaril y
dr
aft ing the GeneralPlan'sSafetyElementand Climate Change Vulnerabili tyAssess ment. Her other work has included updating the Housing Element.i n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
summarizing the City's zoning code and writing the housingneeds ass ess me nt and housingconstraints sections.

Carson General Plan and Elk. Ms. Kucera prepared an Initial Study/ Negati
ve
Declaration for the Carson Housing Element update and is contributi ng
theo
environmental review and analysisfor the General Plan EIR.with a on an analysisof geologicaland seismic hazards.

Napa General Plan and Elk. Ms. Kucera contributed to the enviro nment
al
review and analysis to the Elk for the GeneralPlan update.Sheis the author for the population and housingchapterand assisted in the wr iti
ng
the
land use and recreation chapters.

Clare Kucera is a multi
discip
linary
with environmental anoplanner emphasis
review.climate changere
s
i
l
ie
and Ms Kucera physical planning design.
is dedicatedto connectin
g
and social and sciences etosustainably equitably
c
o
l
o
g
y
integrate humans into n
a
tu
ra
l
She has research expertise producing syste inms. and written chaptersof elements backgro plan general inreports; und cluding housing.safety. and evironmental open space, noise:
analysisfor a variety ofCalifornia acrossddressing topics including utilities, geology.land u
se,
reand greenhouse air gas quality emissions. creat
io
n,
C
l
a
r
e
Kuce
ra
R
ec
en
t
Assig
nment
s
D
Y
E
T
T
8: BHATIA U
rb
an
and Flinn": Rexlona
l
E
d
u
c
a
Agenda Item #12.1.

Karen Chavezis a multidisciplinaryplannerwith expertise in community en gagement. environmental planning.and housing.Ms. Chavezhas contributed research and writing for technical backgroundreports. community outreach reports. and environmental analysisfor a variety of projects across Califor nia. addressingtopics includingtransportation. public services and facilities, recreation. agriculturalfarmland and forestland, and hydrologyDrawing on her backgroundin environmentalplanningand growing up the SalinasValley.

Karen recognizes the in?uence ofthe built environment on physicaland mental health and strives to planhealthyand sustainablecommunities. Karen has native Spanish?uency
City of Monterey Housing Element Update. Ms. Chavez is the lead planner for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update for the City of Monterey. being preparedalongsidean update to the City’sSafetyand Land Use Elements.She has been the principal author of backgroundreports on housing needs and constraints. She has also been integral in the publicoutreach for the project, includingthe developmentof interactive surveys and ?yers, as well as facilitation of various pop-up outreach events in Monterey.

City of San Pablo Housing and Environmental JusticeElement Update. Ms.

Chavez is assisting with the preparation the 2023-1031 Environmental Iustice Element for the City of San Pablo, which is being developed in tandem with the City’sGeneral Plan Housing Element Update.Her responsibilitiesinclude providing an assessment of the previous Housing Element's progress. assessing the demographicbackgroundand the City’scurrent housingneeds.as well and Spanish in the City. City of Turlock Housing Element Update. Ms. Chavez is the lead planner for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update for the City of Turlock. Her re sponsibilities include assessing the demographicbackground and the City's current housingneeds.as well as facilitating outreach events in both English and Spanishin the City. Town of Woodside Housing Element Update and Elk. Ms. Chavez is the lead planner for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update for the Town of Wood side.beingpreparedalongsidewith the Environmental Impact Report for the Housing ElementUpdate.She is the primary author of the Housing Element and has been involvedin updating the Housing Element, including analysis of the Town's zoning code to calculate the sites inventory. She is also the primary author of environmental review and analysis for the Housing Element. City of Oakland Environmental lusticeUpdate. Dyett 8t Bhatia is assisting the City of Oakland with a comprehensiveupdate to its General Plan.includ ing the creation of a new Environmental JusticeElement. Ms. Chavez has contributed to community engagement efforts.including labelingand orga nizing environmental justice focus group notes. and weaving themes found in engagement into the Draft Environmental JusticeElement.

Master of City Planning
Universiiy ofCalifornia.Ber
kel
ey Bachelor of Science in Earth
Science.Minor in Urban 8r
Regional Planning
Universiiy of California.Irvi ne UCSD Extension, CEQA
University ofCalifornia. San
Nicol Chavez
e
R
ec
en
t
Assig
nment
s
Ur
bzn
and Flannzrx Rellnnal E
d
u
c
a
P
la
n
1 A.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Honolulu Public Views Study. Devaki is the project urban designerprepar ing analysisand recommendations to preserve views in urban Honolulu. The project is Honolulu’s ?rst ever comprehensiveassessment of views to maintain an overallsense of the city's landforms as urban developmentoccurs. and will result in establishment of view corridors.and zoning height and bulk limita tions to preserve views.

Oakland - Objective Design Standards. Ms. Handa is involvedwith this project that will developprocedures.regulationsand objectivedevelopmentstandards to streamline the approvalof residential, mixed-use, and commercial projects Her efforts include research on existing buildingtypologies. as well as creating visualsto helpdescribe the new designstandards for multiplebuildingtypes.

City of Monterey General Plan and Housing Element Update. Ms. Handa is involved in the community outreach aspect portion of the plans. by creating online surveys to help understand where the community would like to see future housingprojects in Monterey.

Oceanside - Smart 8r Sustainable Corridors Speci?c Plan. Ms. Handa is in volved in the Sustainable Corridors Plan which will seeksto channel future housing and employmentgrowth into the City's commercial corridors while maintaining the integrity of adjacentresidential neighborhoods.The work in cludes contributingto the Existing Conditions Report and the creating visual simulations of various developmentalternatives alongthe three corridors.

Sharp Park Speci?c Plan. Ms. Handa contributed to the development of a speci?c plan for the vibrant town center of Paci?ca. including the develop ating area community Sonoma outreach.Developmental Center Speci?c Plan. Ms. Handa has been involved with a variety of tasks in the Speci?c Planning Process.including assessing opportunities and constraints. and creating visual simulations of various de velopmentalternatives for community outreach. Crow Canyon Speci?c Plan Update. Ms. Handa is an urban designer contrib uting to the development of Crow Canyon’sspeci?cplan. including develop ment of objective standards for multi-t‘amilyand mixed-use development. Union City Station District Speci?c Plan. Ms. Handa is contributing to the development of the speci?c plan. including helping to develop the urban design and chapter of the existing conditions report. creating visual simula tions of various developmentalternatives surrounding the Union City BART as well as community outreach efforts.

Devaki Hand
a
habothrchitecture and multid background in
aiscipli snary
urban design she various tools her integrat into graphic including work. es 3Dmodeling. and Adobe architec Creative Suite. Her career drafti in ng ture and plan
ning
has included of commer designvelopment institutional.
cial and resid
ential
proje
cts.

Master of Architect ure
and Urban
Design
ColumbiaUniversit
y
G
S
A
P
P
Bachelor of Archite
cture SushantSchoolof A
rt
an
d
Architecture
D
e
v
a
k
i
Handa U
rb
a
n
Desig
ner/
Plann
er
R
ec
e
nt
Assig
nment
s
&BHATIA Regional Plznners and E
d
u
ca
Agenda Item #12.1.

Masters of Community and
Regional Planning
GraduateCerti?cate in Geographic
InformationSystems(GIS)
Iowa State University, Ames
Bachelor of Architectural
Engineering
Institute of Engineering, Tribhuwan
University.Nepal
Miss Bhattarai bringsmore than 1 years of experienceworking with GIS th e ?eld of Urban Planning She is our in house expert on ESRI's ArcGIS, Analyst,3DAnalyst,Network Analyst.31) Visualizationand Modeling, Online.Google.Sketchup,AutoCAD and AdobeIllustrator.

At Dyett 8r Bhatia.Ms Bhattarai has worked on an array of projects ran g
in
g
from General Plan.Station Area Plans.Downtown and Corridor Plans , ronmental Impact Reports. RedevelopmentPlans, and Zoning Ordinanc es.

M
s Bhattarai is involved extensivelyin all phases of planning including graphicAnalysis,Existing Condition Reports, Alternatives Analysis.Pr ef
err
ed
Plan.BuildoutScenarios.and Environmental Impact Reports.Ms. Bhatt arai
ha
s experienceworkingwith multipledata sources.conductingresearch, col lec
tin
g.
re?ning and analyzingdata.digitizing and editing spatialdata.editi ng
at
tr
i butes.merging and joining data from di?'erent sources.presenting data geo graphicand tabular formsand designing and producingadvancedcartog raphic products.Ms. Bhattarai has prepared graphic displaysand maps for of the award winning projects led by Dyett 8t Bhatia. Her abilityto createc l
e
a
r.
detailed and beautiful maps using ArcGIS has been appreciatedby our c lien
ts
. Regional Plans/EIRs. Plan Bay Area EIR.Contra Costa Transportat ion
Au
thority 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan Update.

General Plans and Related EIRs. Ceres.Belmont.Half Moon Bay.C ar
ls
b
a
d.

Woodland, Turlock.Paci?ca.Visalia.San Pablo, Fresno, Princeton.Ame ric
an
Canyon. DalyCity. Emeryville.

Station Area/Speci?c Plans. Windsor Station Area/Downtown Speci ?c
Pl an
, HonoluluStation Area Plan.Southeastern San DiegoCommunity Plan San Diego Commerical Imperial Corridor Master Plan.Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, Livermore Isabel BART Station Area Plan, Mission Community PlanUpdate.

Zoning and Form-Based Codes. Richmond Zoning Ordinance Updat e.

S
an
ta
Cruz Corridor Planning and Zoning Code Update.San Carlos Zonin g
O
rd
i nance Update, Emeryville Zoning Update.Tahoe Regional Planning CodeUpdate.
ls
h
a
Bh
att
ara
i
R
e
c
e
nt
Assign
ments
S
en
io
r
GIS Specialist
D
Y
E
T
T
&BHATIA U
rb
an
and Reglnnzl Planners
,/
Agenda Item #12.1.

a:

Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Action Plan Updates, CA. Erin managed the DKS role for this project which Involved travel demand modeling. operational analysis, and performance metric development for the updates ofthe subregional Action Plans The Action Plans cover geographic subregions of Contra Costa County and serve as the foundational documents for CCTA's overall countywide transportation plan. The performance etrics used in this round of Action Plan updates have been xpanded to address safety. equity, and sustainability. in addition the more traditional roadway and intersection level of service etrics For this project, DKS has prepared a set of land use recasts consistent with MTC's Plan Bay Area 2050 and a set of seline 2050 model outputs These outputs have been used to ecast metrics, including VMT per service population. greenhouse emissions, intersection delay. and peak period travel times and ds among others.

Napa, CA. Erln managed the
nd future transportation network
0 the Transportation Element
lied City's travel demand model
t and future LOS and VMT. DKS
Plan Update. CA. Erin managed sportation Authority to update he oversaw public outreach. nd performance measures, deling for plan alternatives for all map preparation, visual ent layout. ailroad Safety Study. Dixon, CA. crossing improvement plan convenience and accessibility ssed how growth would affect tions adjacent to the railroad m
e
tom
fo
ba
for
gas
spee
City of Napa General Plan Update.

DKS role in analyzing the existing a
among other tools to assess curren prepared a Transportation Impact S the environmental document (EIR)f Napa Countywide Transportation this project for the Napa Valley Tran its long-range transportatlon p an. 5 development of goals object ves, a and coordinated trav I demand mo The DKS team was also responsrble communications desrgn and do um Dixon Area Advanced Traf?c and R DKS deve oped a comprehensive r to enhance safety while preserving for all trave ers This study a so asse traf?c on C ty roadways and nt rsec

ERINVACA,AIC
P
rin's experience i
s multimodal inplanning,
ansportation impa
ct
transportation impact anfee
aly
ses
,
velopment. and dema model application.
nd
MS, Transportation Engin
eerin
g.

Master of City Planning.
of California, Berkeley
BS, CivilEngineering.

Princeion University
Coursework in statistical
programming and data sc
ien
California Pro
fess
ion
al
Traf?c
Engineer No
American Inst
itut e
of Certi?ed
Planners. 321
55 S
E
L
E
C
T

PROJECT EXPERIENCE RELEV
ANT
C
I
T
Y
OF HELENA ST. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN

PROFESSI

ONAL HIGHLIG
HTS

EDUCATIO
N
S
E

TRANS PLANNER
PORTA
TION
Y
E
A
R
S

OF EXPERIEN
CE
R
E
G
I
S
T
R
16 Tota
l
9 with
Agenda Item #12.1.

ERIN VACA, TE, AICP
crossings as well as the traf?c impact of potential grade separatio ns
or closures. Appropriate crossin
g
safety improvements at the seven at-grade railroad crossing loc atio
ns
and impacts onadjacent roadways
and intersections were determined by reviewing crash data. anal yzin
g
traf?c impacts/ railroad of
bene?ts crossing improvements and recommendations for safety improve ments
consiste with the Dixon General
nt Plan 2040 transportation goals and UPRR policies. Erin served a s
this pmanager for effort.
roj e
ct
Dixon Streets Master Plan. Dixon.CA. Erin managed this study the City of Dixon assessed long term roadway capacity needs based on the City's most recent GeneralPupdate. DKS analyzed roadway lan
cross section as well as intersection operational performance u n
d
er
Plan gene buildout conditions.
ral In addition, DKS recommended changes to the City's engineering standards dregarding service es
ig
n
volumes.

STA Big Data Consultancy. CA. DKS advised the Authority (STA )
obig products data theirosupport n
planning analyses. DKS led a big data bootcamp presentation fo r
and leadership, Sstaff advised STA
T on selection of a big data product. and assisted staff in conductin g
sev analyses. These include
era
l an analysis of commute trip making in the l-BO corridor for the p u
rp
o
se
of Travel Demand marketing
Management programs and analysis of trip origins and destinatio ns
the corridor alon SR-37 that bemight
g diverted to rail. Erin was the DKS project manager for this S
E
N
effort.

I
O
R
-TRANS PLNER CONTINUED
PORTA
TION
C
I
T
Y
OF ST. HELENA DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Agenda Item #12.1.

‘SR-GOITheodore Interchange PA/ED Traf?c Study, Moreno
Valley, CA. Senior Planner for the traf?c study. The SR-GO/Theodore interchange is currently a low-capacity facility that will not be able to accommodate signi?cant planned development that would access SR-60 at Theodore Street. The team analyzed the traf?c bene?ts and challenges to compare seven proposed interchange con?gurations.

Daniel was responsible for travel demand modeling and oversaw traf?c operations analysis. Client: City of Moreno Valley. 'Stockton Blvd Corridor Complete Streets. Sacramento. CA.

Dan was the lead traf?c engineer for a study to evaluate potential changes to a 4-mile segment of urban arterial that was built as an intercity auto route and now needs to serve a variety of user types (pedestrians. bicyclists, transit users. etc.). Dan used SACOG's regional travel demand model to forecast future demand, as well as the effect that changes to the corridor might have on parallel routes.

He also performed VlSSIM micro-simulation operations analysis for a particularly challenging intersection. Client: City of Sacramento. 'Guam Island-wide Program Management, Guam. USA. Senior Planner for traf?c and transportation issues. This program management contract is a precursor to what will be an approximately $30 million effort to upgrade infrastructure on the island to in 2010-2014. Parsons Brinckerhoff is providing a traf?c impact analysis of projects related to the development ofa new Marine base and expansion of Air Force and Navy installations. Dan developed socio-economic inputs for a new Guam travel demand model, traf?c forecasting and roadway analysis for the Guam and CNMI Military iel brings a wide variety of transportation en
gin
eer
ing
and
ning experience from work throughout Calif
orni
a.
anBringi
ng
ineering background to planning. he speciali zes?nding new in odologies for data-driven planning for road
ways
,
active modes,
sit site developments, and general plans. D
ani
el
has experienc
e developing, validating. and applying travel models
economidbehavioral modeling using discre
te
chmodels,
oi ce
tiple regression. and factor and cluster analy
sis.

He has also been
onsible for building and evaluating microsimulati on
models.
iel is experienced with various transportation asoftware n a
l
y
si
s
as VlSSIM, VISUM, VISTRO.Synchro/
SimTraf?c,
Cube/ Tran
sCA
D.
ager, ArcGlS.HCS, FREEVAL.and Traf?x.

MS‘ Transportation
and POIle.Univers
ily of California, Davis
B 5. Civil Engineeri
ng, California Polytech
nic
Sta
te University. San Lui
s
Dan
plan
tran Voy meth with and mul resp Dan such
S
E
L
E
C
T

PROJEC RELEVA PERIENCE EX
NT
C
I
T
Y
OF ST. DOWNTOWN SPECiFIC HELENA PLAN

PROFESSIO

NAL HIGHLIGH
TS

EDUCATI
ON
Califo
rnia
Prof
essi
onal Traffi c No 2676
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L

MODELING LEAD
Y
E
A
R
S

OFEXPERIE
NCE
L TE
17 Tot
al
<1with
Agenda Item #12.1.

D
Relocation SEIS and signal timing for Guam traf?c on-call studies. Client: United States Department of Defense.
‘California Statewide Rail Market Analysis, Sacramento. CA. Provided market analysis in preparation for a new state rail plan that incorporates high speed rail. Daniel aggregated and synthesized a variety of origin-destination data sources including existing rail ridership. the California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM). and FRA’s CONNECT.to create a tool to show potential rail demand along corridors and between markets, for scenarios including phases of California High Speed Rail, and inter-state high speed rail. Client: California State Transportation Agency.
‘Fresno Strategic Service Evaluation, Fresno, CA. Daniel applied the Fresno COG travel demand model to prepared travel-time heat maps to compare the accessibility of key locations by transit versus driving.

Client: Fresno Council of Governments.
‘Santa Clara County Expressway Program Support Services, Santa Clara, CA. The scope includes planning and design services for a series of expressway corridor studies in Santa Clara County on a task order basis. Daniel is the traf?c analysis task lead for the Montague Expressway corridor study. The scope also includes modeling this major arterial in VISSIM and developing and testing operation improvements.

Client: Santa Clara County.
‘l-15 Express Lanes PA/ED.San Bernardino County, CA. The scope includes the preparation of a project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) evaluating the feasibility of introducing express lanes on a 14-miie section of HS in San Bernardino County. The project would construct two managed lanes in each direction in the existing median for most of the corridor and a single lane in the rest. Dan used the San Bernardino Travel Analysis Model to prepare travel forecasts and then performed microsimulation analysis to determine the effects of vehicles weaving to and from the managed lanes. Cliwent: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority.
'World Logistics Center Environmental Impact Report/Speci?c Plan, Moreno Valley, CA. Daniel was a lead modeler/traf?c engineer preparing future traf?c forecasts and traf?c operations analysis for the traf?c impact assessment of what will be one of the largest logistics centers in the United States. The study included forecasting the traf?c that will be generated by tens of thousands of workers, analyzing the section was evaluated using the RivTAMTransCAD model. 'Regional Truck Fee Update, Riverside County. California (Client: Riverside County Transportation Commission). CA. Lead modeler for updating an impact fee for new logistics warehouses as a mechanism for paying their fair share of the cost of freeway improvements necessitated by increased truck traf?c. Used the RlVTAMmodel to identify existing and future freeway deficiencies. forecast the growth in truck traf?c that is attributable to new warehouses in Riverside County. and determine the fair share contribution that could potentially be charged to new warehouses. 'Projects prior to joining DKS.

CI
T
Y
OF ST. HELENA DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
A
N
IE
L
BLO TE
CK,
Agenda Item #12.1.

City of Sacramento Grid 3.0 and Central City Speci?c Plan, Sacramento. CA. Sea assisted in evaluating planning alternatives for the Downtown Sacramento street grid. Evaluation metrics included mode share, vehicle miles of travel. vehicle hours of delay, and street segment volume-to-capacity ratios for all streets in the downtown area Sean performed a high-level review of the existing transit data and the projected growth in transit operations to provide the City with recommendations for targeted improvements to the transit system including enhanced bus stops, queuejumps and new dedicated transit lanes. Sean provtded model data and model postprocessing for the preferred alternative that was developed through this process for the Central City Speci?c Plan. He also provided data that helped the City de?ne a methodology to address VMT impacts related to SB 743 including developing maps that show high-quality transit proximity and development densities for the Central City.

City of Rancho Cordova On-Call Transportation Support Services.

Rancho Cordova, CA. For the past nine years, Sean has provided support to the City of Rancho Cordova on a wide variety of transportation related projects. This includes signal warrant studies, modeling support. TIA review. access management review, special event parking design, grant support, traf?c impact fee updates, and City of Sacramento Transportation Impact Analysis On-Call. Sacramento, CA. For the past nine years, Sean has completed numerous Transportation Impact Analyses for the City of Sacramento through their TIA on-call. This has included analysis of roadway projects. commercial and residential developments, schools, parking

SEAN CARNEY, EIT
Sean offers a broad range of analysis skills i signal timing, traf?c operations analysis, transportation sys
tem
and plan
ning. crash data and safety analysis Sean works with public agencies to identify and resolve the transpor
tation
of today issues
and plan around the travel demand of the fu
tu
re
.

He isexperience in
d
providing both quantitative and qualitative an
a
l
y
s
i
s
all methods for of
mobility and has worked on projects through
out
Nort California.
hern Oregon, and Texas to address the needs of transit, traf?c. and active mobility demands. Sean is adept apvarious
pl
yi
ng
software packages for traf?c analysis includi
ng
Sy
nch
ro/
Si
mT
raf
?c,
Vissim. ArcGlS.and Cube.

8.5. Civi
l Ca|ilornia State P
ol
yt ech
ni c
Universit
y,
Luis SaObpo
n

PROFESSIO

NAL HIGHLIGH
TS

EDUCATI
ON

ENGINEER/

PLANNER
Callf
crnia
Engi in
neer Train
ing
No 146088

OF EXPERIEN
CE
R
E
9 Tota
l
9 with
Agenda Item #12.1.

structures, and various other development types. These studies have ranged in size from single parcel developments to entire plan areas and have included analysis of on-site circulation, parking, driveway access. local streets and intersections. interchanges and freeways, and construction diversion analysis.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Program for Arterial System Synchronization. CA. Sean worked on the MTC PASS program for four years evaluating and updating signal timing on corridors of regional signi?cance. Through this program. Sean has evaluated, developed timing for. and implemented signal timing on more than 200 signals utilizing a variety of platforms including Econolite Centracs and Ares, Siemens SEPAC, McCain 233 and 2033, lntelight Maxview, and other systems.

Pier Avenue Multimodal Corridor Study, Oceano. CA. Sean is currently working with San Luis Obispo County to evaluate multimodal improvement concepts for Pier Avenue. This corridor is just under

0.5 miles long but serves as a key community access and as access to one of California's only beach vehicle recreation areas. The project seeks to find the best utilization of existing right of way to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to this tourist destination. This project is being done with signi?cant input from the local community to ensure that the developed concepts meet and serve local needs.

North 12th Street Complete Street PA/ED, Sacramento. CA. Sean provided traf?c analysis and intersection concept plans for the installation of a new Class IVbikeway on North 12th Street. He evaluated delay and queuing impacts of the project and made recommendations for intersections that posed a particular challenge. Speci?cally. Sean worked with City staff to ensure that the proposed intersection design concepts for North 12th Street and North B Street met California MUTCD requirements while clearly and ef?ciently directing intersection operations. This included recommendations for bicycle signals and striping that were recently approved by Caltrans. Additionally, a concept design for a protected intersection at North 12th Street and C Street where the Class IVbikeway terminates was developed to improve regional bikeway connectivity and safety.

Broadway Complete Streets Project. Sacramento. CA. Sean completed a traf?c analysis for the City of Sacramento's proposed roadway diet on Broadway Street. Work included HCM analysis of the modi?ed intersections along Broadway as well as analysis of intersections on parallel corridors that would be affected by the shift in traf?c caused by the road diet. Travel patterns were made consistent with the Sacramento Downtown Speci?c plan which was being developed in parallel to this effort.

Grant Line Road-Sheldon Feasibility Study. Elk Grove, CA. Traf?c Operations/Access Management. Sean worked with the City of Elk Grove staff to evaluate the feasibility of corridor improvements on Grant Line Road between Elk Grove Boulevard and Calvine Road. This work included providing strategic advice regarding intersection and median treatments, access management, safety evaluation, and intersection delay evaluation. This work was then used to assist the City in preparing data for a SB1 Local Partnership Program grant application in 2018 for a portion of this project. This preparation work included providing VMT, expected crash reduction, and emissions calculations using the available Caltrans calculation tools and the SacSim model.

T
R
A
N
SP
O
R
T
A
TI
O
N
-CONTINUED ENGINEER/

PLANNER
C
I
T
Y
OF ST. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC HELENA PLAN
E
A
N
CAEIT
RN
EY
, Agenda Item #12.1.

STA Countywide Local Road Safety Plan. CA. DKS prepared a Countywide Local Road Safety Plan for STA and their member agencies. This included an analysis of safety needs as well as outreach covering education, enforcement, and emergency services.

Alex assisted with the production of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) applications for signalized and unsignalized intersections in Solano County
Half Moon Bay Podesta Analysis, CA. DKS provided preliminary transportation impact analysis and site access assessments to guide the early planning phase of a mixed-use project. For this project.

Alex evaluated existing pedestrian and cycling conditions in the study area adjacent to a high school and proposed potential future infrastructure improvements to improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

Hood River Westside Park Traf?c Study. OR. For this project.

Alex identi?ed existing pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and proposed future improvements as part of the proposed Westside Park plan. Alex also evaluated motor vehicle crash data and identi?ed collision-prone locations near the study area.

ODOT Newport Transportation System Plan Update. OR. DKS led address multimodal needs through 2040. The focus of this update was to apply practical design techniques to get the best outcomes for the City. and to address gaps in the development review guidelines to include site re-development. Alex provided support for the development of evaluation criteria to evaluate planned walking, cycling and motor vehicle infrastructure upgrades on the basis of improving safety and accessibility for all modes as part of the Newport Transportation System Plan Update.

ALEXANDRAHAAG
is a transportation planning and en
g
in
e
e
r
in
g
associate with
.Her previous work experience is multimodal toplanning
ies. traf?c operations analysis. andrsafety analysis for both o
ad
private and public sectors. Workingatransp engineer
ortatio sn
anada beforejoining DKS.Alexand
ra
ass the planning in
iste
d
design of transportation projects public from bike
launches and vision zero initiati ves
and tomajor infrastructure
ay planning. She also has experi ence with signal and timing ions. parking studies, and micro
simul
ation
modeling analysis.

Master of Science Cio
and Regional Plann
ing, University of Toront o Bachelor of Applied S
c
ien
c
e
in Civil Engineering,
of British Columbia
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
TI
O
N

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE
C
I
T
Y
OF ST. DOWNTOWN HELENA SPECIFIC PLAN

PROFESSIO

NAL HIGHLIGH
TS

EDUCATI
ON
Alex
DKS
the in C highw operat and share
Y
E
A
R
S

OF EXPERIEN
CE
5 Tota
l

1.5 wi
‘h
D
K
S
Agenda Item #12.1.

Siskiyou County General Plan Update. Siskiyou County, CA. DKS is preparing an update to Siskiyou County's Circulation Element including policies, SB 743 compliant VMT thresholds and analysis, and Safety Element SB 747 compliant analysis. Sylinda is analyzing and summarizing existing mobility trends and conditions in Siskiyou County. Analysis of demographic. socio-economic factors, vehicle miles traveled, and pavement condition index including manipulating data and emulating data graphics is included in this update.

Santa Maria Holiday Inn TIA Peer Review. Santa Maria.CA. The City of Santa Maria requested DKS Associates to perform Traf?c Impact Analysis Peer Review to a proposed development to ensure compliance with City. state and county standards. DKS is an on-call consultant to the City of Santa Maria and is tasked with reviewing TlA’s performed and submitted to the City.
'Tolowa Dee-ni' Connected Communities Plan. Tolowa Deeni' Nation.Green DOT Transportation Solutions, CA. Sylinda previously worked with Green DOT Transportation Solutions on the development of the Connected Communities Plan for the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation in Del Norte County. The Plan evaluated and identi?ed gaps in tribal land infrastructure and areas in desperate need of pedestrian safety improvements. Sylinda provided technical 'Grant Writing Support. Various Agencies, Green DOT Transportation Solutions, CA. While at Green DOT.Sylinda provided excellent grant storytelling and data input for various agencies on state and federal grant opportunities. Sylinda has developed grant narrative for the following grant programs:
- Caltrans Sustainable Communities Clean California - Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) ylinda Is an ex
p
er
ien
c
ed
transportat
experience in also has She
and is dedicate
d
pub Invol theo
ving Sylinda is dedi
cated
disa toensuring
equitable and transportat

SYLINDAVILL
ADO
5 ion planner with three years of
outreach experience community
process. Iic the planning in
communi?es dvantaged gain
Ion.

EA Geography
, California Sta
te
Chico U
ni ve
rsi
ty,
AS Wildland &
Forestry. Citr us C
oll
eg
e

PROFESSI

ONAL HIGHLIGH
TS

EDUCATIO
N

OF EXPERIENC
E
r
3 Tota
l
<1wit
h
Agenda Item #12.1.

WW
WWW“!
Economic St Planning Systems, Inc.

Jason oody
"\
Managing Principal
Jason has worked at EPS for over 25 years and has been Instrumental In building the ?rm's practice in Northern California. He has extensive experience in real estate market and ?nancial analysis, public ?nance, and economic development strategies. Jason regularly works for both public and private sector clients, focusing on the feasibility and economic Implications of individual projects as well as development and provision of public services and infrastructure to larger areas, Including downtowns, mixed-use districts, corridors, and entire cities. He has developed specialized expertise with tourist-oriented economies, particularly smaller communities linked to California’s abundant natural, recreational, and agricultural resources (e.g., wine country, coastal communities, ski towns).

Downtown Napa Speci?c Plan and General Plan Update: EPS provided market and development feasibility analysis to revitalization strategies for a downtown that has subsequently evolved as a vibrant, mixed-use district. EPS subsequently provided economic analysis to support the General Plan Update.

Santa Rosa Downtown Speci?c Plan: EPS evaluated the market and development feasibility of vertical-mixed use residential and commercial development in this historic downtown.

Downtown Sebastopol Specific Plan: EPS provided market analysis and a ?nancing strategy for the evolution of an underutilized commercial district into a mixed-use town center serving residents and visitors to California's Wine Country.

Paci?ca General Plan Update and Sharp Park Speci?c Plan: EPS provided economic analysis focused on how this small coastal City could further leverage its tourist, retail, and recreational assets. EPS subsequently evaluated market conditions and developed a ?nancing plan for a historic downtown adjacent to Sharp Park Beach.

Sausalito General Plan Update: EPS served as the lead economist for the Sausalito General Plan Update, a small and relatively affluent coastal community located on the San Francisco Bay that also service as a major tourist destination. on how this small coastal City in the San Francisco Bay Area could further leverage its tourist, retail, and recreational assets. Downtown Pieasanton Speci?c Plan: EPS provided strategic market and development feasibility analysis focused on how a relatively small downtown can carve out an effective commercial market niche In a mature and highly competitive regional market. Downtown Orinda Precise Plan: EPS evaluated a range of economic and market issues to inform a downtown Precise Plan and Housing Element approval. Downtown Walnut Creek Precise Plan: Working for the City, EPS evaluated the market and ?nancial feasibility of various mixed-used redevelopment options for a sub-district of Downtown. 1330 Broadway, Suite 4 0 Oakland CA 94612 510.341.9150 jmoody@epsy com www epsy om presentatlon at CALEB
annual conference. June zlst, 2023
"Preparing for In?ll Housing In Retail &
Office Developmens,'urban Land
lnstltute TAP Report for Orange County
Council of Governments (OCCOG)
"Revitalizing the Commercial Strip with
Housing,’ allfomla Economic
Snapshot Quarterly Report. CALED,
December 2022
“Bay Area Downtowns, Post Pandemic
Pmspects,’ Bay Area P annlng Directors
” Meta hosted weblnar, June 10, 2022
u
." San Mateo Counc of C tlu, May 22, 2022 "Repositioning Languishlng Asses' Building for the Missing Middle. ' UL! Urban Revital zauonCounc
, Fall 2020 "COVID 19: Cross-Cutting Trends toward a New Reality. " Lambda A pha lntematlonal Spring / Summer, 2020 "The DNAof Downtowns, Typologia and successFactors", Wat Coast Urban D strict Fomm, Spring 2020 Master of Public Policy, UC
Berkeley, 1995
BA in Economics, UC Santa Cruz,
1988
Budget Analyst for City of San
Francisco (1995)
Research Analyst, Fisher Center
for Real Estate and Urban
Economis (1994-5)
Business Analyst, Port Authority of
New York/NewJersey (1994)
Washington, DC (1989—1992)
S
E
L
E

EXPERIENCE PROJEC MANAGEMENT
T
P
u
b
li
c
at
i
o
n
s/
P
T
he
Land Use Ec of on
om
ics
Pr ev
io
us
Employ
ment
E
d
u
c
Agenda Item #12.1.

Ca!
n5
Master of Public Policy,
Mills College, 2022
Bachelor of Arts In
Government, College of
William & Mary, 2018
Account Clerk, City of
Concord Finance Department,
2015 - 2022
Megan Gregory joined the ?rm in 2022 and brings academic and professional experience in local government, urban economics, and housing policy. tion and Housing Needs Assessm
EPS assisted the City of Healdsburg In characterizing the existing workforce In Healdsburg and assessing the need for additional housing affordable to those working In Healdsburg. EPS produced a quantitatively based housing needs assessment which Is responsive to policy objectives. EPS continues to conduct research and provide analysis on housing element implementation questions posed by City staff and the Healdsburg Housing Element Working Group.

The City of Benicla is Interested In exploring potential uses for a large parcel of privately owned land, Identi?ed as the North Study Area. EPS supported City staff and planning consultant efforts by conducting a market analysis of potential land uses as well as a study of emerging sectors in the region. EPS also conducted a feasibility study and ?scal Impact analysis on several development scenarios, identifying tradeoffs associated with various land use types. istoga Im
The City of Callstoga contracted EPS to update the development Impact fee program. EPS ls reviewing the current fee structure as well as the status of City Capital Improvement Programs. EPS will conduct a complete review of the City's capital facilities needs and prepare the nexus-based cost allocation necessary to develop an updated fee schedule. As part of this analysis EPS will also develop options to convert development fees to vary with residential unit size, as required AB 602.
herman s V
To help the Port address vacancies and faltering business performance, EPS undertook a collaborative engagement with Port staff that leveraged lntemal data, past district studies, and lntemal working strategies already under consideration.

EPS evaluated market conditions, characterized Port real estate assets, considered past public realm studies, and studied intematlonal waterfront district exemplars. rkeley Aff ti
As part of the MillsCollege Master of Public Policy Program, Megan conducted a detailed analysis of land use policy Incentives for affordable housing production fo r Councilmember Lori Droste’s use in preparation for the 6‘“Cycle Housing Element.

Megan researched housing market conditions and the historic context contributing t the City's struggle to produce affordable housing. Additionally, Megan conducted analysis to evaluate whether the housing units being produced In the City were distributed equitably. Megan provided recommendations on next steps to Improve the production and geographic distribution of affordable housing in Berkeley, CA. e
g
a
n
Gre
gor
y
Associa
te
133 450 Broadway Suite Oakland, CA94612
.0
510 mgregorv www.epsys.mm
@epsvs. cum
H
ea
ld
sb
ur g
Housing Element Implementa
or da
bl e
Housin Policy ves Incen
g
' Revitaliz Strateg
ation
Ec
on
o
mi
c
Planning Inc. &Systems,
B
eni
cl a
North Study Area S
E
L
E
C
T
E
D

EXPERIENCE PROJEC
T
T
he
Land Ec Use of ono mic
s
p
ac
t
Update Fee
Pr ev
io
us
Employ
ment
E
d
u
c
A
B
O
Agenda Item #12.1.

Bottomley Associates Urban Design & City Planning, Oakland, CA 1999 - present.

Sonoma County Development Center Speci?c Plan, Sonoma County/Dyett & Bhatia Benicia North Area Vision Plan, City ofBenicia/Ben Noble Planning El Camino Real/GB] Street Improvements, City of South San Francisco/Mark ThomasInc.

Harbor Industrial Area Speci?c Plan, City of Belmont/Good City Inc.

Newark Old Town Speci?c Plan/Thomton Avenue Street Redesign, City of Newark/Rhoades Planning Group
Safe Routes for Seniors/Downtown Improvements Project, City of Hayward/W-Trans Capitola Objective Development Standards, City of CapitoIa/Ben Noble Planning MountainView Transit Center Urban Design Guidelines, City of Mountain View Lakeside Park/Fairyland Entrance Bellevue Drive Improvements, City of Oakland Decoto IndustrialPark/Union City BART Area SpeCi?c Plan, Union City/Dyett & Bhatia Bayhill Speci?c Plan, City of San Bruno/Dyett & Bhatia
Benicia Eastern Gateway Mixed-Use Zoning Standards, City of Benicia/Ben Noble Planning Innovate 680: Shared Mobility Hubs Program, CCTA Kimley-l-Iom Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan, City of Mountain ViewNTA/Kimley-Hom Millbrae Downtown and El Camino Real Speci?c Plan, City of Millbrae/Mintier-Hamish Millbrae BART Station Access Plan, City of Millbrae Kimley-Horn Latham Square Permanent Plaza Design, City of Oakland
18‘hStreet Streetscape Improvement Project, City of Oakland East San Jose Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan, City of San Jose Kimley-I—Iom I-IongguoCity Expansion Concept Plan, Panxian, China
East Santa Clara Street Urban Village Plan, City of San Jose El Camino Real PDA Plan, City of Redwood City Dyett & Bhatia Downtown Plaza and Pedestrian Corridor Design Plan, City of Napa Baijin New District Master Plan, Guiyang, China
Oakley Downtown Spec1?c Plan Update, City of Oakley
Lincoln Square Alice Street Neighborhood Park Project, City of Oakland Winchester Boulevard/Santana Row Urban Village Plan, City of San Iose/Dyett & Bhatia Citywide Transportation Plan for Redwood City, City of Redwood City/Fehr & Peers

MLEV DES
ENU: SUITE
Principal Terence Botto
mley
overn has thirty and has of experience completed years
hundred urban design- a
n
d
ci plannirojects. His work and focuses onpedestriantyngrelate d
transportation-oriented d
e
v
e
l
o
p
planning and projects. Work capital improvement products include land use and dev
elo
pm
ent
master zoning design guidelines, and detailed plans, standards, design and construction streets and Projects typically involve for public spaces. public engagement proce
ss,
anBottomley has extensive community experience facilitating Mr. d meetings and workshops
.
aismember the American Institute Planners of Certi?ed (AICP) and a CalifomiaregisteredArchitect. Bottomley Design Planning founded &He Lin an
ds
ca
pe
Oakland,California, in

ASSOCIATES
U
R
B
A
N
5DEsst CITY PLANNING T
E
R
E
N
C
E
BOTTOM
LEY
1cm 5
202 an: o
FAX s 0. 5:04
3 5:

Se
le
ct
ed
Project
s
B
a
c
k
g
we GRA
N
D
AV
a
Agenda Item #12.1.

Terence Bottomley

- Lake Merritt BART Station Area Master Plan, City of Oakland/Dyett & Bhatia - Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan, City of Menlo Park/W-Trans - El Camino Real and Downtown Speci?c Plan, City of Millbrae/Mintier-Hamish - BART Silicon Valley TOD and Station Access Study, VTA/Kimley-I—Iom - Downtown Transit Center Master Plan/Broadway Streetcar Study, City of Redwood City/CDM Smith
- Carolan Avenue Complete Street Improvements, City of Burlingame/Kimley-Hom - Belmont Village Speci?c Plan, City of Belmont/Dyett& Bhatia - Fruitvale Alive Gap Closure Streetscape Project, City of Oakland/AECOM - Grand Boulevard Initiative: El Camino/Arroyo Complete Street Improvements, City of San Carlos/Mark Thomas & Co.
- Napa Riverfront/Riverside Drive Vision Plan, City of Napa - Stanford in Redwood City Precise Plan, City of Redwood City - SR 29 Gateway Corridor Improvement Plan, County of Napa/Dyett & Bhatia - Grand Boulevard Initiative: Complete Streets Case Studies Project, SamTrans w/Caltrans and the Cities of Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and San Carlos - Guominsen Village Plan, Panxian, China
- Grand Boulevard Initiative: Multi-ModalTransportation Corridor Plan, SamTrans wNTA, San Mateo C/CAG, Caltrans
- Peralta Hacienda History Trail/Park Renovation Project, City of Oakland - Downtown Brentwood Streetscape Master Plan/Improvement Project, City of Brentwood - Winchester Boulevard Development Master Plan, City of Campbell - Chuandong Satellite Areas Growth Plan, Tongren, China - SVRT/BART—to-SanJose Station Areas Vision Plan, Santa Clara VTA - 14'hAvenue Streetscape Improvement Project, City of Oakland - Marina Shores Village / Peninsula Park Precise Plan, City of Redwood City 0 Downtown Riverfront Urban Design Master Plan / Schematic Design Plans, City of Napa - Downtown Winters Master Plan, City of Winters
- Wusitai New Town Master Plan, Wuhai, China
- East Campbell Avenue Master Plan, City of Campbell
- Josie sz Neighborhood Park Renovation, City of Oakland - Napa River Parkway Master Plan, City ofNapa - San Jose Medical Center Land Use/Health Care Study, City of San Jose/PICA Inc. - Inner Telegraph Avenue/Uptown Streetscape Improvements Project, City of Oakland - Soscol Avenue Corridor / Downtown Riverfront Development Guidelines,City of Napa - Foothill Boulevard/SeminaryAvenue Transit Hub Master Plan, City of Oakland - Underhill Housing Area Streetscape Design Manual, UC Berkeley - Telegraph Avenue Pedestrian Streetscape Improvement Project, City of Oakland - AlamedaPoint Bay Trail & Parks Master Planning, City of Alameda - Downtown Oakland Streetscape Master Plan, City of Oakland - Ashland/Bayfair BART Transit Improvements, Alameda County Redevelopment Agency - Tannery Bend Design and Development Guidelines, City of Napa - Charleston/Arastradero Com'dor Improvement Plan, City of Palo Alto - Main Street Silicon Valley Corridor Study, Joint Venture Silicon Valley Agenda Item #12.1.

Terence Bottomley

Tamien Station Site Development Master Plan, City of San Jose, VTA, Barry Sw en
so
n
Builder
MacArthur Boulevard Streetscape Master Plan, City of San Leandro Gardner/Atlanta, Josefa/Auzerais, and Spartan/Keyes Neighborhood Plans, City SJose an Hegenberger Road Streetscape Improvements/Urban Design Coordination, City O a
kl
a
n
d
Central San Leandro/BART StationArea Revitalization Strategy, City of San Le an
dr
o
Freedman Tung & Bottomley Urban Design, San Francisco, CA, 1988 - I999. Co nd
uct
ed
or
participated in over sixty urban planning- and design-related projects.

Downtown Mountain View Transit Center, Santa Clara Valley Transportation A ut
h
or
it
y
Downtown Lodi Transit Center Master Plan, City of Lodi
Evelyn Avenue Corridor Precise Plan, City of Mountain View Civic Center/Hayward BART Site Development Master Plan, City of Hayward Downtown Ventura Speci?c Plan, City of Ventura
Central City Speci?c Plan & Revitalization Strategy, City of Yuba City Old Mountain View Neighborhood Improvement Plan, City of Mountain View Boulder Creek Village Speci?c Plan, County of Santa Cruz Downtown Precise Plan, City of Cathedral City
West San Carlos Street & The Alameda NBD Revitalization Strategies, City of Jos e Plumas Boulevard Streetscape/Town Square Project, City of Yuba City Palm Canyon Drive/Highway 11l Streetscape Improvement Project, City of Cat hed
ral
City
Downtown Phoenix Streetscape Improvements, Phoenix AZ
Downtown Gateways & Broadway Streetscape Renovation, City of Redwood C it
y The Planning Collaborative, San Francisco, CA. 1984 - 1988. Managed and/or pa rti
ci
pa
te
d
in
over twenty land use-, CEQA-, and urban design-related projects.

Master of Cit
y
Economic Design, University Development/Urban ofCalifornia, Berkeley; Eis
ner
the Pri Fine Design, Urban Ats inEnvironmental College Design for of ze Scholarship
Bachelor of S
c
i
e
n
c
e
Environ University inPlanning/Landscape Rutgers Architecture, mental
American Associati
on American Architects of Landscape
American Associate of Architects,
Urban La
nd
In
sti
tu
te
Me
mber
,
AmInstitute ofCerti?ed Planners, AICP
eric
an
Regi
stere
d
of Califomia 3031 Lands Architect, State #
cape
R
eg
is
tr
at
io
ns
/
C
er
ti
?c
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
Af?liations E
d
u
c
Agenda Item #12.1.

Associate, Bottomley Associates Urban Design & City Planning, Oakland, CA, 2007 - present Safe Routes for Seniors Downtown Improvements Project, City of Hayward/W-Trans Benicia North Area Vision Plan, City of Benicia/Ben Noble Planning Harbor Industrial Area Speci?c Plan, City of Belmont/Good City Inc.

Newark Old Town Speci?c Plan/Thomton Avenue Street Redesign, City ofNewark/Rhoades Planning Group
MountainView Transit Center Urban Design Guidelines, City of Mountain View/VTA/ Kimley-Hom
Union City BART Area Speci?c Plan, Union City/Dyett & Bhatia Latham Square Permanent Plaza Design, City of Oakland
Bayhill Speci?c Plan, City of San Bruno/Dyett & Bhatia
Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan, City of Mountain View/VTA/Kimley-Hom Lakeside Park/Fairyland Entrance Improvements, City of Oakland El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Improvement Project, City of South San Francisco/Mark ThomasInc.

Newark Old Town Speci?c Plan/Thomton Avenue Redesign, City of Newark/Rhoades Planning Group
East Santa Clara Street Urban Village Plan, City of San Jose Citywide Transportation Plan for Redwood City, City of Redwood City/Fehr & Peers Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan, City of Menlo Park/W-Trans Downtown Redwood City Transit Center Master Plan/Broadway Streetcar Study, City of Redwood City/CDM Smith
Carolan Avenue Complete Street Improvements, City of Burlingame/Kimley-Hom Fruitvale Alive Gap Closure Streetscape Project, City of Oakland/AECOM Grand Boulevard Initiative: El Camino/Arroyo Complete Street Improvements, City of San Carlos/Mark Thomas & Co.

Napa Riverfront Riverside Drive Vision Plan, City of Napa Grand Boulevard Initiative: Complete Street Case Studies Project, SamTrans/ Caltrans, Cities of Daly City, South San Francisco, San Bruno, San Carlos Grand Boulevard Initiative: Multimodal Access Strategy & Design Guidelines, SamTrans/ VTA/Caltrans, Kimley-Horn
Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project, City of Brentwood 14‘hAvenue Streetscape Design Project, City of Oakland
BOTTOMLEY DEION IS PLANNING goo GRAND AVENUE surr: zoz OAKLAND a TEL: alone: 3503 FAX s o as: 9:304 Ms. Vlach fo
cu
se
s
policylanning and for ondevelopment capital improvements-related projects. Her master has included and regulatory of preparation development plans documents, a
s
asnd urban design, mapping, transpor streetscape-related computer tation- imaging, co
mm
uni
cati
ons
graphics, architecture drawings. and construction landscape Ms. Vlach will take the exam architect licensing 2022. in
ure
Se
le
ct
ed
Compl Street-Related Projects
ete
BO
TT
OM
LE
Y

ASSOCIATES
UR
BA
N
DES 5CITY PLANNING
IGN
C
L
A
I
R
E

AICP VLAC
H,
B
a
c
k
g
Agenda Item #12.1.

Master Arbor, University Michigan, UDesign, 2007 of Ann r
b
a
n
Master Plannin University Michigan, of 2007 Arbor,nn
g, BA. in College, Poughkeepsie, 2004 Vassar Studie NY, s,
Claire Vlach

Research Assis
tant,
University of Urba Planning Michigan, Arbor,nn M1, Department, n 2004-2007
Americ Institute of Certi?ed AICP Planners,
an
R
e
gi
st
ra
th
u
s/
C
er
ti
fi
E
d
u
c
Agenda Item #12.1.

Associate Urban Designer, Bottomley Associates Urban Design & City Planning, Oakland,CA, 2015 present
Safe Routes for Seniors Downtown Improvements Project, City of Hayward/W-Trans El Camino Real/GBI Street Improvements, City of South San Francisco/Mark ThomasInc.

Sonoma County Development Center Speci?c Plan, Sonoma County/Dyett & Bhatia Newark Old Town Speci?c Plan/Thomton Avenue Street Redesign, City of Newark/Rhoades Planning Group
Mountain View Transit Center Urban Design Guidelines, City of Mountain ViewNTA/ Kimley-Hom
Union City BART Area Speci?c Plan, Union City/Dyett & Bhatia Latham Square Permanent Plaza Design, City of Oakland
Bayhill Speci?c Plan, City of San Bruno/Dyett & Bhatia
Lakeside Park/Fairyland Entrance Improvements, City of Oakland Benicia Eastern Gateway Mixed-Use Zoning Study, City of Benicia/Ben Noble Planning Bayhill Speci?c Plan, City of San Bruno/Dyett & Bhatia
MountainView Transit Center Master Plan, City of Mountain View/VTA/Kimley-Hom Benicia Industrial Park Plan, City of Benicia/Dyett & Bhatia Church Street In?ll Housing Study, City of Napa
MillbraeBART Station Access Plan, City of Millbrae/Kimley-Horn El Camino Real and Downtown Speci?c Plan, City ofMillbrae/Mintier—Hamish Citywide Transportation Plan for Redwood City, City of Redwood City/Fehr & Peers Menlo Park Transportation Master Plan, City of Menlo Park/W-Trans Newark Old Town Speci?c Plan, City of Newark/Rhoades Planning Group East Santa Clara Street Urban Village Plan, City of San Jose Belmont Village Speci?c Plan, City of Belmont/Dyett & Bhatia Downtown RedwoodCity Transit Center Master Plan/Broadway Streetcar Study, City of Redwood City/CDM Smith
Winchester Boulevard/Santana Row Urban Village Plan, City of San Jose/Dyett & Bhatia
Grand Boulevard Initiative: El Camino Real Complete Street Improvements, Samtrans/City of South San Francisco/Mark Thomas & Co
Downtown Plaza and Corridor Design Plan, City of Napa
Camino Real &
BarronLEv DESIGN 5 PLANNIN e00 GRAND AVENUE SUITE 202 OAKLAN TEL: arose: 3503 FAX a

0.553
Ms. Goel has aexperi architectural design with background inurban design in ence principles an
d
plannin detailed She desrgn speCIalizes inand constru of production g documents f
o
r
pranging from urban bown?eld and planning redevelopment campus r
o
j
e
c
t
s
small neighb
orhood
in?ll work Her involves designvelopmen graphic &representation ts. written report
s,
indesign guidelines, master and &plans designs. plaza streetscape cl
u
di
n
g

ASSOCIATES
U
R
B
A
N
DESIG 6. CITY PLANNING
N
R
I
T
U
GO
EL
B
a
c
k
g
E
x
p
er
ie
a
a a
aacm
ction
to
Agenda Item #12.1.

Pr Manager
oj
ect for infrastructure support during the City’sGeneral Plan Update that included potable water, sewer collection systems, wastewater treatment, drainage storm and ?ood control. Doug prepared a background report, assessedi n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
requirements and costs for both GPU land use alternatives and prelan, ferr
ed
and contributed to the GPU Environmental Impact Report. In a d
di
ti
o
n,
West Yost
is updating the Storm Drain Report based on the new General and providin g
stormwater development support to identify infrastructure nee ds
anfor timing
d speci?c projects.

P
ro
je
c
t
Manag
er. Doug assisted the City with updates to the Background Report the 2035 GPU for the 2040 GPU Domestic Water and Water Supply, StormDSewer rai n
ag
e,
and Wastewater Treatment sections. He also provided support Gr ee
nh
ou
se
Gas Reduction opportunities related to these utilities. The workfor this project will also include the review of the GPU policies and the of a TechnicalMemorandum that summarizes the estimated water dfor e
existing conditions, buildout of the current General Plan, and a land GPU use alternative. For the GPU EnvironmentalImpact Report, West Y os
t
aprepar wi
ell Storm Drainage TM and Sewer/WastewaterTM that identify po te
nt
ial
of the impacts
GPU and recommended actions to reduce the impact to an insi gni
?ca
nt
level.

Doug Moore’s experience includes infrastructuregeneral tofor updates su p
p
o
rt
plans. This general plan update support has foc
use
d
background onpreparin
g
reports quantifying and identifying required inf
ras
tru
ctu
re
and supporting
the Environmental Impact Report for the genera
l
pupdate also has Doug
ls.
a
n
experience in storm drainage facility master pla
nni
ng,
stormw computer
ater modeling, facilities planning, preliminary design
,
dand specifications
e,
s
i
g
n
construction and capital cost estimating, projectpandroject e
r management. He has provided initial planning, design, and construction period engineering services for four large detent
ion
basi ech of projects,
n which created signi?cant wildlife habitat areas. has performed wastewater treatment plant planning and facility evaluation
s.
has prepared potable H
e water demand estimates and facility evaluations
.
also skilled Hispreparing at
e potable water, wastewater, and stormwater eva
lua
tio
ns
for development
-specific plans and environmental impact reports. Doug quickly developing sat ki
ll
e
d
infrastructure concepts and plans that minimizewithout costs compromising system performance.

Professional CivilEngineer,
California No. 58122,
Nevada No. 19924
5, CivilEngineering, University
f California, Davis
BS,Geology, University of Oregon
BS,Mathematics, University of
Oregon
CaliforniaStormwater Quality Association FloodplainManagement California Water Environment Association, Sacramento Area Section 2011 Engineering Achievement Award — Dry Creek Levee Relocation at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Roseville American Society of Civil Engineers, Sacramento Section 2011 SmallFloodControl Project of the Vear - Dry CreekLevee Relocation at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Roseville EXP
ERI Gener
alEN
CE
of Pl and Ongoing City Dxon, CA: Update Support,
an
W
ES
T
Y
OS
T
Wate
r.

E
n
gi
n
ee
re
D
ou
g
Mo PE
ore,

STAFF TITLE
: YEARS OF E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E
:

PROFESSION
AL
REG
IST
RAT
ION
Sa
cr
am
en
to
General Plan City of CA: Sacramento, Updale,
P
R
O
F
E
S
SI
O
N
A
L

AFFILIATIONS
Enginee
ring
Man II
ager
31 A
Agenda Item #12.1.

ws
Project Manager for the preparation of a Water SupplyAssessment for the City of Pleasanton Downtown SpecificPlan Update. Tasksincluded projection of water deman ds for the project, evaluationof water supply availabilityand reliability, and preparation of a Water Supply Assessment report in compliance with the requirements of SB610.

Project manager for the preparation of an 53610 Water Supply Assessment for the City of MilpitasMetro Plan Speci?c Plan.The Proposed Project, to be developed over the next 20 years, includes 7,000 units of new, multi family residential development (approximately 14,000 new residents), and new non residential development includin g of?ce, retail, research and development, light manufacturing, and hotel uses. Tasks included development of water demand projections, evaluation of available water suppliesfrom the City’sSFPUCand ValleyWater water supplies and preparation of the Water Supply Assessment in accordance with the requirements of SB610.

Project Manager for the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, in accordance withthe requirements of CaliforniaSenate Bill610, for the City of Tracy’sproposed Tracy VillageSpeci?c Plan.The Proposed Project willbe a master planned, age qualifie d community that willinclude up to 600 single family detached homes, in additionto a community building,pool and a series of lakesand open spaces. Tasksincluded preparation of estimates of the projected water demand for the proposed project and, together with the City’sother projected water demands, comparison to the City's anticipated availablesupplies under normal, single dry, and multiple dry year hydrolog ic
conditions. This comparison was then used to determine the suf?ciency of the City's existing availablewater supplies (includingsurface water supplies purchased from the Bureau of Reclamation,treated surhce water purchased from the South San Joaquin .. -....:....- ..v u..- -. . n. ..n Elizabeth’sexpertise is in water resources and multi- project disciplinary teams. She has experience leading water design planning studies and projects and specializes in water supply and infras
tructu
re
planning. master has She prepared
more than 24 water and utility master pl
an
s,
supply than mor 20water assessments,
e and more than 30 urban water manageme
nt
pla She has also other prepared many
ns. studies and plans for clients including gro
un
dw
ate
r
studies, drought response and water
shortage contingency plans, facility opem
tions
plans and plans operations emergency
, involvingthe evaluation of existing facilit
ies,
eva of and existing future water
lua
tio
n
demands, identi?cation of system de?cie
ncies
needs, supply and evaluation of water
alternatives, and development of recom
mendat
ions
for capital She has improvements.
prepared preliminary and detailed desig
ns
fsupply facilities such aswater piplines,
o
r pump stations, reservoirs, and canals. El
iz
ab
et
h
President isaWest Yost Vice and serves
on West Yost's Board of Directors.

Underground Storage Tank
Installation
UCDavisExtension, 32-hour
Course, Groundwater Hydrology
UCDavis Extension, 32-hour
Course, Principles of Toxicology
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Association of CaliforniaWater Agencies WateReuse Association EXPE
RIEN Water
CE
S
u
p
pl
y
Pleasanlon, for Pleasanion Plan, Asses Downtown Speci?c sment CA:

El
iz
a
b
et
h
PEDrayer,
MS, Structur
al
En
gi ne
eri
ng
,
University o
f
Berkeley
BS,CivilEng
ine
erin
g,
Universit
y of Californi
a,
WE
ST
YT
O Wafe
r.

E
n
gi
n
e
er
M
il
pi
la
s
Plan Supply of Metro Waer Milpitus, Speci?c CityA: Assessment, Village Plan, Supp for the of Assessment Speci?c CA:ity Tracycy, ly

STAFF TITL
E.

YEARS OF E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E

PROFESSIO
NAL
RE
GIS
TR
ATI
ON
S
Prof
essio
nal
Civil Engineer,
Calif
ornia
No. 46872
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
Vice Pr
esi
de
nt
35 E
D
U
C
A
T
Agenda Item #12.1.

w
Project Engineer.

Contributed to the collection system portion of the Draft Master EIRSupplement analyzingthe effect on the collection system. This included estimating dry and w et weather flows for buildout of the current General Plan and for the preferred lan d plan in the General Plan Update. A qualitative assessment was made of the effec t of the changes in land use on the collectionsystems of the three entities that ar e
involvedin the collection, conveyance treatment and disposal of wastewater in t City of Sacramento.

Project manager for the wastew
ater master plan for the City. Project focused on a system-wide flow monitoring progr am, inflow and in?ltration analysis, development of a fully-dynamic hydraulic model allmodel inputs using lnfoSWMM, evaluation of the system under existing and f dry weather and wet weather ?ow events, and development of a capital improv ement program. The project involved review of land use data and Significant Industrial that contribute flow to the sewer system. The model was developed from GIS,su rv
e
y
data and record drawings. The model was calibrated to measured dry weather a n
d wet weather flows and used to evaluate the system under dry weather conditio ns
a
n
d wet weather storm events for current and future flow conditions.

Project
engineer responsible for development of a fully dynamic model of the wastewate r collectionsystem. Flowswere based on a previously developed model. Updated ?les were used to develop the hydraulic model and flow monitoring data was us e
d
to
calibrate the model for both dry and wet weather ?ows. The model was then us ed
to
analyze system capacity, identify de?ciencies and recommend improvement pro jec
ts.

Patrick Johnston is a civilengineer who focuse
s
plannin design, and the o
ng, construction support services for water and w
as
tew
at er
and evironmental systems
projects. Hisexperience includes preparing de
si
gn
evaluating plan and speci?cations,
s
treatment alternatives, modeling wastewater hydraulic developing wate systems, r utility master planning documents, preparing administration, esti contract mat
es,
construction survey layout and construction supply for and water wastewater projects.

Patrick's experience includes collection system modeling ausing variety of software packages. Patrickhas experience develop billing data water to wastewater loads, calculating Ianduse-based f
l
developing fact and futurelow
ors projections based on planning documents an
d
ldata. Prick has experience
develop flow monitoring plans, analyzing flowdata flow and using monitoring data to calibrate the dry weather weather flowor components wet collection system models.

MS, CivilEngineering,
University, Stanford, C
A
BS,CivilEngineering, T
u
ft
s
University, Medford,
American Society of Ci
vi
l En ineers
P
at
ri
c
k
Johns PE
ton,
WE
ST
Y
OS
T
Water
. E
n
gi
n
e
er
EX
PER Sacram
ento IEN
CE
Plan of Updafe, Sacramento, CA: Gener Ci'y
al
Sewe
r
Plan, of Eval and Capacity City Davis, CA: Assessment
ua'
ion

STAFF TITLE
: YEARS OF E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E
:

PROFESSION
AL
REG
IST
RAT
ION
S
W
usi
ew
ate
r
Slocklon, of City Plan, CA: Master
Prof
essio
nal
Civil Engineer,
Cali
forni
a
No. 59028 Norther n
Pipe Users
Group
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L

AFFILIATIONS
Princip
al
EIn
g
29in
e
e
r
Agenda Item #12.1.

8: BHATIA
Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO 2026-
AUTHORIZING 1) AMENDMENT #1 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DYETT

AND BHATIA FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AN ADDITIONAL $89,840 FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $598,840; AND 2) A BUDGET INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,840 USING GENERAL FUND RESERVES.

RECITALS
A. On February 27, 2024, the city entered into an agreement with Dyett and Bhatia for preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan for a not to exceed cost of $500,000; and B. The original scope of work anticipated that an addendum to the General Plan EIR would provide CEQA compliance; however it is evident that with infrastructure limits and land use intensification, to achieve CEQA compliance, a full EIR is required; and C. The CEQA compliance documentation for an EIR, public review and Final EIR are a substantial work effort and the current budgeted hours are insufficient, therefore a budget amendment is necessary; and
D. The City of St. Helena and Dyett and Bhatia now desire to amend the Agreement for an additional $98,840 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $598,840.

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

1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to STH Contract FY2024-055 with Dyett and Bhatia in the amount of $98,840 for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $598,840.

2. Funding is as follows:

Funding Details Fund GL Account Amount
Budget Increase
Using Fund Balance General Fund 101-45-00-21-45 $98,840 TOTAL $98,840
Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on January 13, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Deasy: __________
Agenda Item #12.1.

Council Member Barak: __________
Council Member Spadarotto: __________
Council Member Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
Agenda Item #12.1.

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: FY 2024-055 Dyett and Bhatia
AMENDMENT #1
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DYETT AND BHATIA; STH CONTRACT NO: 2024-055 PERTAINING TO PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR AN ADDITIONAL $98,840 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $598,840.

This First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Dyett and Bhatia STH Contract:

FY 2024-055 dated February 27, 2024 ("Agreement") is made as of this ____ day of _______, 2025 by and between the City of St. Helena and M-Group, Inc.

RECITALS
A. On February 27, 2024, the city entered into an agreement with Dyett and Bhatia for preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan for a not to exceed cost of $500,000; and B. The original scope of work anticipated that an addendum to the General Plan EIR would provide CEQA compliance; however it is evident that with infrastructure limits and land use intensification, to achieve CEQA compliance, a full EIR is required; and C. The CEQA compliance documentation for an EIR, public review and Final EIR are a substantial work effort and the current budgeted hours are insufficient, therefore a budget amendment is necessary; and
D. The City of St. Helena and Dyett and Bhatia now desire to amend the Agreement for an additional $98,840 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $598,840. .

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 4.A. The total compensation that may be paid under the Agreement as set forth in Section 4.A is hereby amended to an amount that shall not exceed $598,840.

2. Scope of Services. The Scope of Services as set forth in the Agreement is hereby amended to include the additional scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

3. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this Agreement upon the terms, conditions, and provisions above stated, the day and year first above written.

Agenda Item #12.1.

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: FY 2024-055 Dyett and Bhatia

DYETT AND BHATIA
By: _____________________________

Print Name:_______________________
Title: ____________________________
CITY OF ST. HELENA
a Municipal Corporation
By:_________________________________
Print Name: Anil Comelo
Title: City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney, St. Helena
ATTEST:
____________________________
City of St. Helena City Clerk
Andrew Bradley
Agenda Item #12.1.

First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement STH Contract: FY 2024-055 Dyett and Bhatia

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item #12.1.

Downtown St. Helena Specific Plan
EIR Scope of Work
- 1 -
St. Helena Downtown Specific Plan
Additional Scope of Work to Prepare full EIR instead of an EIR Addendum The Scope of Work for the Downtown Specific Plan currently anticipates preparation of an Addendum to the General Plan to fulfill environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Given the extent of changes relative to the General Plan, a full EIR will likely be needed; the scope for this is provided here. The following Scope of Work would replace the current scope in Task 5.1: Environmental Review.

Initials in parenthesis reference firms as follows:

D&B: Dyett & Bhatia
DKS: DKS Associates, Transportation Planners
CSA: Charles Salter Associates, Noise Consultants
PHASE 5 – PLAN ADOPTION
TASK 5.1 – ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Objective: Prepare a full Program EIR to identify and mitigate the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan. Structure the work plan to streamline environmental review and facilitate timely completion of the project. Integrate planning and environmental review to ensure that policies are written to mitigate or avoid environmental impacts to the extent practical. No Initial Study is needed or will be prepared as the City has decided to prepare an EIR.

A. NOP and Scoping (D&B). D&B will prepare a draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) for City staff to review. The NOP will include all CEQA-required details including project description, dates of public review and dates/location of the public scoping meeting. D&B will submit a draft NOP in Microsoft Word format for City review. Upon receipt of one round of consolidated comments on the draft NOP, D&B will prepare a final PDF copy of the NOP for City staff to post on its website and for distribution to its distribution list.

D&B will assist with filing the NOP with the State Clearinghouse. It is assumed that the City will complete the Napa County Clerk filing. The NOP and relevant correspondence received in response to the NOP will be attached as an Appendix to the Draft EIR. The scope of the EIR will be adjusted, if necessary, based on the comments received.

The NOP will screen out topics for resources not present or unlikely to be significantly impacted by the EIR. These would likely include:
• Geology/Soils
• Mineral Resources
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Wildfire
A virtual Scoping Meeting will be held during the 30-day NOP review period to introduce the community and responsible agencies to the EIR process and obtain input on the EIR Agenda Item #12.1.

Downtown St. Helena Specific Plan
EIR Scope of Work
- 2 -
scope of work. Notice of the scoping meeting date, time, and location will be provided in the NOP.

It is assumed that the City will do the AB 52 and SB 18 tribal notification and consultation if that is determined necessary.

B. Admin Draft EIR (D&B, with DKS, CSA). D&B will prepare a project description that outlines the components of the Specific Plan and provides quantified projections of the population, housing, and employment that would result from implementation.

Development of mitigation measures and policies concurrently will be an iterative process in concert with finalization of the Specific Plan, such that goals, policies, and implementation measures can serve to limit adverse environmental impacts. The project description will form the basis for the environmental analysis and will be submitted to City staff for review prior to commencing work on the technical analysis.

The D&B team will prepare an Administrative Draft, Screencheck Draft, and Public Review Draft EIR. To streamline environmental review and optimize the timeline for completion of the project, technical work conducted for the EIR—such as related to transportation and noise—will be folded into the EIR itself rather than published as standalone technical reports (detailed information such as traffic and noise counts would be presented in appendices). The Administrative Draft EIR will contain the following chapters:
• Introduction
• Executive Summary
• Project Description
• Environmental Analysis. It is anticipated the EIR will evaluate the issue areas listed as follows.
– Aesthetics: This section will provide an analysis of impacts of the Plan on key visual and open space resources within the Planning Area, including Lyman Park the Main Street Electrolier Street Lights, Telegraph Alley, and the Sulphur Creek Bridge. Programmatic analysis will evaluate buildout changes, such as height increases or different building footprints for potential impacts, including potential loss or obstruction of identified aesthetic resources. – Agriculture/Forestry Resources. The only agricultural resources in the Planning Area are the vineyards at the City-owned library site. The potential loss of these will be identified.
– Air Quality: Operational air quality impacts associated with buildout will be evaluated by determining whether the Plan is consistent with the most recently adopted Air Quality Plan prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as well as with their recommended analysis thresholds.

Both construction and operational emissions from the buildout of the project will also be assessed using the CalEEMod emissions model.
– Biological Resources: Downtown St. Helena is largely an urbanized environment containing developed commercial uses. For most areas not covered with Agenda Item #12.1.

Downtown St. Helena Specific Plan
EIR Scope of Work
- 3 -
impermeable surfaces, such as buildings and roadways, the vegetative community consists primarily of non-native grassland and landscaping.

However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated Sulphur Creek as critical habitat for steelhead trout; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife identifies the Quercus lobata woodland alliance (valley oak woodland) as sensitive natural community along the Sulphur Creek corridor; and there may be potential for occurrence of Erigeron greenei (Greene’s narrow-leaved daisy), a special status species, throughout the Planning Area. The EIR will analyze impacts to these resources.
– Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions: D&B will prepare a programmatic GHG analysis to address the potential net increase of GHG emissions during construction and operation activities associated with additional buildout resulting from the Specific Plan. This section will provide an overview of the current regulatory framework regarding GHGs/climate change, including but not limited to the California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), Senate Bill (SB) 97, SB 375, SB 32, Executive Order B-55-18, the CEQA Guidelines, and any of the City’s applicable policies or regulatory measures. The analysis will quantify carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units associated with operational emissions attributable to the net change of buildout that may be associated with the proposed project. Emission factors and methodologies will be used to calculate GHG emissions utilizing VMT data and the CalEEMod emissions model (for non-transportation related emissions).
– Historic Resources: Based on the Specific Plan, D&B will prepare an analysis associated with the potential impact of the Plan on any identified Historic Resources, such as the St. Helena Historic Commercial District and individuallylisted buildings. – Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The EIR will evaluate the potential for new development to be exposed to contaminant releases per CEQA Appendix G Guidelines. The Planning Area currently has two open State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) cleanup sites and one California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) cleanup site. Hazardous materials may also be transported through the Planning Area along Main Street, which serves as State Route 29.
– Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding: A portion of the Planning Area along Sulphur Creek is within the 100-year floodplain. Potential impacts will be evaluated.
– Land Use, Planning and Population/Housing: This section of the EIR will describe potential physical and policy conflicts related to proposed land uses in the Planning Area, and will analyze the effects of the Plan on access to housing within the Planning Area. The EIR will evaluate the consistency of the Plan with other potential applicable plans and policies, such as the St. Helena General Plan.
– Noise: Charles Salter Associates (CSA) will conduct long-term (e.g., 72-hour) Agenda Item #12.1.

Downtown St. Helena Specific Plan
EIR Scope of Work
- 4 -
continuous noise measurements at up to three (3) locations in the Planning Area, and analyze the measurement data and calculate daily noise levels. CSA will use the results to calibrate the traffic noise analysis and calculate traffic noise levels based on provided future traffic volumes, speeds, and truck percentages for each roadway segment to be included in the model. D&B will complete the Noise section of the EIR based on the CSA technical information. – Public Services: This section of the EIR will analyze the effects of the proposed Specific Plan buildout on the provision of public services within the Planning Area, including schools, fire safety and emergency response, and police services. – Recreation: D&B will conduct an analysis of effects of the Specific Plan buildout on recreational resources in the Planning Area including Lyman Park. – Transportation: The transportation chapter will draw from the analysis conducted as part of the Traffic Study. DKS will conduct one model run to project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the Project. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant impacts and incorporated as implementation measures, if appropriate, to ensure that the Plan is self-mitigating to the extent possible. This assumes that the analysis of mitigation measures would not require new traffic volumes forecasts or VMT analysis that necessitate re-running the Napa Solano Activity Based travel demand model. The transportation analysis/write-up will be integrated within the EIR (no separate technical memorandum will be prepared). – Utilities: This chapter will assess the potential impacts of the Specific Plan buildout on provision of utilities including wastewater, solid waste service, water supply, and telecommunication, based on infrastructure analysis Technical Memorandum to be prepared by West Yost as part of Task 4. The scope assumes that a Water Supply Assessment will be prepared separately by the City of St.

Helena.
• Other CEQA Considerations. The EIR will discuss growth inducement, irreversible commitment of resources, and issues that were found not to be significant during the scoping process.
• Alternatives. The EIR will address a minimum of two alternatives (No Project and at least another alternative) that could feasibly attain the basic project objectives.

Determination of specific alternatives will be done in coordination with City staff, and it is anticipated that some of the alternatives developed earlier in the planning process will be used to develop feasible alternatives for the EIR. DKS will qualitatively analyze up to 2 project alternatives, including the No Project. The qualitative analysis assumes no additional runs of the Napa Solano Activity Based travel demand model to estimate the VMT impacts of the alternatives.

D&B will prepare a complete Administrative Draft EIR for City staff review, and City staff will provide one set of consolidated comments. Following this, D&B will prepare a Screencheck Draft EIR. Following staff approval, the public review Draft EIR will be prepared.

C. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (D&B). After close of Agenda Item #12.1.

Downtown St. Helena Specific Plan
EIR Scope of Work
- 5 -
the 45-day comment period, D&B will bracket and number each individual comment received within each comment letter and will prepare responses to each comment. D&B will also prepare the MMRP that identifies each mitigation measure, timing, entity responsible for implementation, and method of compliance. The MMRP will be provided with the Administrative Draft Final EIR for City review. Because it is not possible to anticipate the number and extent of comments, our budget assumes that 82 hours of staff time will be sufficient for the Final EIR/MMRP. D&B will also prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD) following project approval.

Meeting:
• Scoping Meeting
Deliverables:
• NOP, NOC, Draft EIR, Final EIR and NOD. D&B will be responsible for filing appropriate documents with the State Clearinghouse and the City with the County Clerk
BUDGET
An additional $98,840 will be needed for the scope of work outlined above. The table on the following page shows additional budget (additional to the EIR Addendum budget in the current Scope of Work) by firm for the EIR effort.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Downtown St. Helena Specific Plan
EIR Scope of Work
- 6 -
Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Public Works
DATE: January 13, 2026
FROM: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and approval of a Resolution providing approval to apply for a Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant to convert the Lower Reservoir properties into a
public park.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Consider and Approve the Resolution

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose of this action is to seek City Council approval to apply for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant to fund a project to convert the Lower Reservoir
properties into a public park.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:

Created by Congress in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was a bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, water resources and our cultural heritage, and to provide recreation opportunities across the nation. The LWCF Grant-InAid program provides federal matching grants to state, local and tribal governments for acquiring land and developing outdoor recreation facilities like parks, playgrounds and trails, funded by offshore oil and gas revenues without taxpayer dollars. Administered by the National Park Service, and locally by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, these funds have been utilized for creating, expanding, and improving public recreation spaces for community health.

DISCUSSION:

In October 2025 staff submitted an inquiry to the California Department of Parks and Recreation regarding the current LWCF Grant-In-Aid application cycle and eligibility requirements. The intent was to explore the opportunity to secure grant funding to facilitate the conversion of portions of the Lower Reservoir property to a public park.

The Lower Reservoir is located near 2800 Spring Mountain Road and is a collection of four City owned parcels that contain the City's drinking water holding tank, the Lower Reservoir, the dam and outfall structures as well as portions of Spring Mountain Road and Bieber Lane. Staff received positive feedback from the California Department of Parks and Recreation regarding the proposal and has proceeded to develop a complete application package for submission and consideration for the LWCF Grant. The application package includes the following items:

Agenda Item #13.1.

 Parcel Exhibit: As a condition of the grant participation, the participating parcels will be deed restricted in perpetuity to provide for public access and recreation as detailed in the language of the attached resolution. The Parcel Exhibit highlights a reconfiguration of the four city-owned parcels to separate land to convert to a park and that will be deed restricted in perpetuity and land that will remain unencumbered to provide for the existing city facilities including the water storage tank, dam and outfall. An Exhibit detailing the existing parcel configuration is provided as Attachment 2. An exhibit detailing the proposed parcel configuration and identifies the boundary of the land intended to be encumbered is provided as Attachment 3. These parcels will need to be reconfigured through a series of lot line adjustments as part of the grant approval and award process.  Site Plan: As part of the application, the City is to provide a conceptual site plan of the new park facilities. The City's preliminary conceptual plan is provided as Attachment 4, and includes a walking path around the reservoir, benches, parking, signage, bathroom, shade structure, picnic tables, and a dock. This plan is conceptual and subject to review and approval at subsequent City Council meetings, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Staff.  Budget Narrative: As part of the application, staff has prepared a budget narrative to reflect all participating costs associated with the parcel modifications, project administration and management and the project construction costs. This is included as Attachment 5. The preliminary application estimate stands close to one million dollars.

If awarded the LWCF Grant will provide reimbursement of up to fifty percent of the approved project. The City obligation would be funded from Park Impact Fees which has a current balance of nearly $975,000 (per 12/9/25 Annual AB1600 Fee report to Council). Staff is requesting City Council consideration and direction regarding scope and the preliminary application materials provided. If the staff proposal and grant conditions are acceptable to the Council, staff is requesting the Council approve the resolution allowing a continuation with the application process. Once approved, staff will begin coordinating with stakeholders, residents and commissions regarding the design and final application materials. If the LWCF awards the City the grant, subsequent City Council action will be required including approval of required agreements, property modifications and project design and budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None
GOAL:

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

Agenda Item #13.1.

Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Existing Parcel Configuration
Attachment 3 - Proposed Parcel Configuration
Attachment 4 - Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment 5 - Budget Narrative
Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -
APPROVING THE CITY OF ST. HELENA’S APPLICATION

FOR THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

LOWER RESERVOIR PARK PROJECT

RECITALS
A. The Congress under Public Law 88-578 has authorized the establishment of a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid program, providing matching funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and developing Facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and B. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for administration of the program in the State, setting up necessary rules and procedures governing applications by local agencies under the program; and
C. The applicant certifies by resolution the approval of the application and the availability of eligible matching funds prior to submission of the application to the State.

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

1. Approves the filing of an application for Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance for the proposed Lower Reservoir Park Project; and

2. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant Administration Guide; and

3. Agrees to abide by 54 U.S.C. §200305(f)(3) which requires, “No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation use. The Secretary shall approve a conversion only if the Secretary finds it to be in accordance with the then-existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only on such conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to ensure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.”

4. Certifies that said agency has matching funds from eligible source(s) and can finance 100 percent of the project, which up to half may be reimbursed; and

5. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

6. Appoints the Public Works Director as agent of the applicant to conduct all negotiations and execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited Agenda Item #13.1.

to, applications, contracts, amendments, payment requests, and compliance with all applicable current state and federal laws which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.

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

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Deasy: __________
Council Member Barak: __________
Council Member Spadarotto: __________
Council Member Summers: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
Agenda Item #13.1.

009-131-013-000
022-190-007-000
022-190-002-000
009-131-038-000

19.6 ACRE

3.19 ACRE

CITY PARCEL SPRING MOUNTAIN ROADCITY PARCEL SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD · 22.79 TOTAL ACREAGE WITHIN THE PROPOSED LWCF BOUNDARY MAP · MAP PREPARED 12/16/2025 · FOUR EXISTING CITY OWNED PARCELS WILL NEED TO BE

RECONFIGURED TO ACCOMMODATE TWO LWCF PARCELS AND TWO CITY

PARCELS WHICH ISOLATE FACILITIES INCLUDING WATER TANK, DAM, INLET STRUCTURE OUTFALL AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.

LWCF Boundary Map For Lower Reservoir Park, City of St. Helena, LWCF Project Number LW-28-007, In the County of Napa County **Existing Parcel Configuration**
(E) STRUCTURE TO BE
REMOVED - 800 SF EXISTING DAM AND

APPRUTENANCES

ENTRY POINT
CA DEPT. OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CITY OF ST. HELENA

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
DATE
DATE
Agenda Item #13.1.

009-131-013-000
022-190-007-000
022-190-002-000
009-131-038-000

8.89 ACRE

3.37 ACRE

CITY PARCEL CITY PARCEL SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD · 12.26 TOTAL ACREAGE WITHIN THE PROPOSED LWCF BOUNDARY MAP · MAP PREPARED 12/16/2025 · FOUR EXISTING CITY OWNED PARCELS WILL NEED TO BE

RECONFIGURED TO ACCOMMODATE TWO LWCF PARCELS AND TWO CITY

PARCELS WHICH ISOLATE FACILITIES INCLUDING WATER TANK, DAM, INLET STRUCTURE OUTFALL AND CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.

LWCF Boundary Map For Lower Reservoir Park, City of St. Helena, LWCF Project Number LW-28-007, In the County of Napa County **Proposed Parcel Configuration**
(E) STRUCTURE TO BE
REMOVED - 800 SF EXISTING DAM AND

APPRUTENANCES

ENTRY POINT
CA DEPT. OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CITY OF ST. HELENA

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
DATE
DATE
(E) SHED TO BE

CONVERTED TO
BATHROOM - 300 SF
Agenda Item #13.1.

009-131-013-000
022-190-007-000
022-190-002-000
009-131-038-000

8.82 ACRE

3.25 ACRE

CITY PARCEL CITY PARCEL SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD

SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD

ENTRANCE TREATMENT

TRAIL GRADING

SHED DEMOLITION

BATHROOM INSTALLATION

FENCE REMOVAL

STAIR CONSTRUCTION

LANDING PAD

RAILING

MAJOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION

TRAIL CLEARING

MINOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION

SHORE ACCESS INSTALLATION

ADA PARKING PAD

SHORE SHADE STRUCTURE

PICNIC TABLE

ENTRY PONT
DOCK

ROCK FORMATION

UTILITIES
SEPTIC

TRAIL SURFACE COURSE

GARBAGE CAN
BENCH
SIGN

PROJECT AND HISTORY SIGN
LWCF Site Plan For Lower Reservoir Park, City of St. Helena, LWCF Project Number LW-28-007, In the County of Napa County Agenda Item #13.1.

Project Name:

Project Number: 06-
Grant Amount:

A. Scope of Work Elements
(General Description)
B. Number
of Units
C. Cost
Per Unit
D. Total
Line Cost
E. LWCF Grant
Amount
(Federal Share)
F. Match Amount
(non Federal
Share)
G. Total
(Grant + Match) Cost
H. Category
Subtotals
I. Pre-Award
Planning Cost
J. Milestones
(Month/Year)
K. Percentage (%)
Complete
L. Basis of Cost (Methodology)
for each line item
M. Justification
for each objective/scope item
Instructions listed below each cost category. Include the number of units for each scope of work element. For example, if a project includes 5 Full Court Basketball Courts. "Full court basketball courts" would be listed in column A, then column B would list the number of basketball courts ("5").

For costs that are a 1:1 ratio, enter "1".

Include the PER UNIT cost for each Scope of Work Element. For example, column A - "Basketball Court", column B - 5 UNITS, column C - $150.00 cost per unit, column F - Total Line Cost $750.

This column autocalculates.

This column autocalculates. This column
autocalculates.

Enter the pre-award planning costs that will occur before NPS awards the project. Pre-Award Planning Costs can only be backdated up to three years from the date of application submission to NPS. ORLP projects are limited to 25% of the total project cost and LWCF has no limit. Remember, no ground disturbance can occur before the award is made. Examples include Section 106, Design Costs, CEQA, and NEPA.

Applicant: List the month and year each line cost is estimated to be complete. If the project is selected, these dates are flexible and can change throughout the grant performance period.Grantee/Post Award: Update the month and year of each line
with each progress/status report and reimbursement request to reflect updated estimates, or actual date of completion.

Applicants: List the percentage complete of each line at the time of application.Grantee/Post Award: Update the percentage complete of each line with each progress/status report and reimbursement request.

Describe the methodology for how each cost was estimated. For example, engineering estimates, prior construction experience, etc.

Example: For completion of the project.

Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective Grant Administration - Stephanie killingsworth 120 $75.00 $9,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $4,500.00 Jan-27 0% Prior Construction Experience Grant Compliance and TrackingParcel Maps / Lotline Adjustments 4 $15,000.00 $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 Jan-27 0% Prior Construction Experience Lotline Adjustments to reconfigure parcels to demarcate new park from existing facilitiesParcel Maps Administration 80 $115.00 $9,200.00 $4,600.00 $4,600.00 $9,200.00 $9,200.00 Jan-27 0% Prior Construction Experience Lotline Adjustments to reconfigure parcels to demarcate new park from existing facilities Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $78,200.00 $78,200.00 $78,200.00 $73,700.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective Design 1 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 Jun-27 Prior Construction Experience Project Contract Document GenerationSite Historical and Cultural Resources Report 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective Construction Management 160 $110.00 $17,600.00 $8,800.00 $8,800.00 $17,600.00 $0.00 Jan-28 Prior Construction Experience Project Oversight $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $17,600.00 $17,600.00 $17,600.00 $0.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective Mobilization 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 Jan-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Standard Bid ItemUtilities 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $37,500.00 $37,500.00 $75,000.00 $0.00 Jan-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Water and electric to bathroomTrail Grading 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 Jan-28 0% Prior Construction Experience ADA Compliance $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $115,000.00 $115,000.00 $115,000.00 $0.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective Shed Demolition 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 Jan-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Replace with BathroomFence Removal 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 Jan-28 0% Prior Construction Experience New park Access $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective ADA Parking Pad 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience ADA Compliance

3. Acquisition only - Relocation expenses
Cost of relocation expenses & payments.Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature. Including studies, investigations, surveying, mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, and drawing reviews. For example: Section 106, NEPA, CEQA etc.

Detailed Budget Narrative
Direct costs associated with administrative or clerical services integral to the project or activity. Individuals involved can be specifically identified with the project.

Conversion of decomissioned reservoir to a park.

When listing the cost of land, structures, right-of-way, appraisals, etc., include the Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and acres.

2. Acquisition only - Cost of Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc.1. Administrative and Legal Expenses Lower Reservoir Park (LW-28-007)
Project Scope: State: California

9. Construction
Construction means installation and materials associated with the scope of work elements. Only a general description is needed. Some examples are age 5-12 playground(s), shade structures, athletic field with natural turf and field lights, walking paths with lights, perimeter fencing, large and small dog park with fencing, etc.

6. Project Inspection Fees 4 & 5. Architectural and Engineering Fees7. Site Work/Site Prep Mobilization, grading, trenching, etc.

8. Demolition and Removal
Inspection fees including municipal inspection and other required professional inspection fees. 12/23/2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

Entrance Treatment 2 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenet Signage - Wayfinding, Rules, Warnings 4 $400.00 $1,600.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetMinor Trail Construction 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetStair Construction, Landing Pad, Railing 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetShore Shade Structure 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetBench 4 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $4,800.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetGarbage Cans 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetMajor Trail Construction 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $37,500.00 $37,500.00 $75,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetParking Stalls 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetPicnic Table 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetBathroom Installation 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $250,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetRock Formation with Existing Rocks 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetSeptic 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenet $0.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenet Trail Surface Course 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetProject and History Sign 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenetDock 1 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 Jun-28 0% Prior Construction Experience Project componenet $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $682,400.00 $682,400.00 $682,400.00 $0.00 Scope of Work Elements Number of Units Cost Per Unit Total Line Cost (auto calculated) Federal Share Match Share Total Grant + Match (auto calculated) Category Subtotal Pre-Award Planning Costs Month/Year % Complete Cost Methodology Justification Objective $0.00 $0.00
Subtotals (Columns D,G, and H should match) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $506,600.00$506,600.00
$1,013,200.00

0.00%
$163,700.00

16.16%

10. Contingencies Costs
Pre-Award*Note: ORLP projects are limited to 25% pre-award costs.

LWCF projects do not have a pre-award cost limit.

By submitting this document, the APPLICANT understands that this form will be used to establish the expected GRANT deliverables that must be completed before final GRANT payment is processed as specified in the LWCF Grant Administration Guide. The APPLICANT understands the ELIGIBLE COSTS shown in the LWCF Application Guide. The APPLICANT also understands that the remaining portion of the estimated total project cost not funded by an LWCF grant is the required MATCH. *Although this is the current rate of reimbursement estimate based on this budget narrative, should the grantee spend less than the full grant amount listed or the total project cost change, the rate will change.

Total Federal ShareTotal MatchTotal Pre-Award CostTotal Project Cost (sum of all category subtotals) Rate of Reimbursement*
12/23/2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

Lower Reservoir Park
Grant Application
January 13, 2026
Agenda Item #13.1.

LOWER RESERVOIR PARK
• Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) grants provide funding for the
acquisition or development of land to
create new outdoor recreation
opportunities for the health and wellness
of Californians.
• A Pre-Application Was Submitted by Staff
in the Fall of 2025.

Agenda Item #13.1.

APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
• 2-Year Program Cycle
• 50% Project Reimbursement
• Perpetual Property Restrictions
• Public Access
• Land Substitution
• 5-Year Delivery Schedule

• Maximize Grant Funds
Agenda Item #13.1.

CITY CONSIDERATIONS
• Significant Parcel
Reconfiguration
• Consistency with the
Parks Master Plan
• Utilization of Park
Impact Fees
• Neighborhood Support
• New Park Operations
• Safety, Security,
Emergency Access

Agenda Item #13.1.

PARCEL MODIFICATIONS
Separation of
City Utility
Facilities and
“Park” Parcels Page 1003 of 1047
Agenda Item #13.1.

WALKING TRAIL
• ½ Mile Pathway Around Lake
• Stairway to top of Dam
• Future Connectivity on Spring
Mountain Road

Agenda Item #13.1.

AMENITIES
• Signs
• Bathroom
• ADA Parking
• Dock
• Shade Structures
• Benches & Tables

Agenda Item #13.1.

NEXT STEPS
• Complete Application
• Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
• Stakeholder / Resident Engagement
• Community Field Trip / Open House at the Reservoir
• Present Completed Project Scope to City Council
• Grant Award

Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Recreation
DATE: January 13, 2026
FROM: Ashley Sylvester, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution approving a facility use agreement between the City of St.

Helena and St. Helena Little League for the use of
baseball facilities located at Crane Park.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

City Staff and the City Attorney recommend approving the proposed resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council Resolutions 97-32 (1997) and 2018-80 (2018)

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

St. Helena Little League and the City of St. Helena wish to enter into a long-term facility use agreement for the shared use of baseball facilities at Crane Park to support local Little League activity.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no change to fiscal impact with the approval of this resolution from what is currently accounted for in approved City budgets. The proposed agreement updates
the terms and agreements from the previous agreement,
with impact to City staff expected to be similar to what is in place to existing agreement. Any future facility
improvements will either be funded directly by St. Helena Little League or will come forward as a proposed CIP
project with accompanying budget requests.

BACKGROUND:

The City owns certain real property in the City of St. Helena commonly known as Crane Park. On November 4, 1966, City and Napa Valley Little League, Inc., a non-profit group d.b.a. St. Helena Little League (Little League), entered into an Agreement and Lease wherein City leased to Little League a portion of Crane Park for the purpose of allowing Little League to develop the leased premises with two baseball diamonds and use the baseball diamonds for Little League baseball.

The Lease term commenced on April 1, 1967, and ran for an initial period of 30 years through and including March 31, 1997. On March 25, 1997, the St. Helena City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-32 renewing the lease for an additional 20-year term commencing on April 1, 1997, and expiring on March 31, 2017. On June 26, 2018 the St. Helena City Council adopted Resolution 2018-80 renewing the lease for an additional 5-year term, extending the lease through June 2023.

Agenda Item #13.2.

A part of the 2018 agreement included renovation and updates to the baseball facilities, which St. Helena Little League undertook in 2021 and 2023.

In recognition of Little League’s dedication to delivering a long-standing community benefit, as well as their commitment to providing past and future facility improvements, both the City and Little League are interested in entering into an updated and extended facilities use agreement that provides for a robust Little League program, a comprehensive maintenance plan, and a coordinated used of a community-wide asset.

DISCUSSION:

St. Helena Little League provides a valuable service to our community by providing the opportunity for hundreds of youth to take part in baseball and softball activities on an annual basis. In order for the program to successfully take place, SHLL requires a consistent space for the players and families to practice, play games, and gather. In addition to their regularly scheduled activities, SHLL provides community gathering opportunities in the form of community events such as the opening day festivities and end of year celebrations.

Over the terms of this agreement, Little League has operated in good faith, worked collaboratively with City Staff on facility use and maintenance needs, and made improvements to the facility that have benefited both Little League participants as well as the overall community. Of recent note was the contribution of new sod on the two baseball fields, which was donated and installed by Little League, estimated at approximately $50,000, as well as improvements to the grandstands and dugout areas, estimated at approximately $300,000. The city's cost for water for the ball field is approximately $60,000 per year and is absorbed by the city.

In Fall 2024, Little League representatives and City staff picked-up conversations about entering into a new and extended facilities use agreement Since the terms of the existing lease have been in place for over twenty years, City Staff, the City Attorney, and Little League Board recommend entering into a new agreement to ensure the terms, each party's responsibilities, and process for potential future facility improvements are accurately defined. Over the past two years, the two parties represented by city staff and boardmembers that has changed, have negotiated in good faith and brought forward a draft agreement for the Council's consideration.

The draft agreement includes defined use times that meets the needs of Little League, as well as community use, maintenance standards and roles, and a defined process for any future proposed facility improvements. The agreement has been put together with input and review from the Little League Board of Directors, The City Attorney, and City staff in the Recreation and Public Works Departments.

While not comprehensive of all areas within the agreement, a high-level framework of facility usage, maintenance responsibilities, and term length are highlighted below:

Agenda Item #13.2.

Steering Committee:

A steering committee will consist of representatives from St. Helena Little League, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works. This group will meet, at a minimum, twice annually and will be responsible for reviewing and setting facility standards, be the points of contact for maintenance and scheduling matters, and ensuring regular communication and ongoing collaboration between the two agencies.

Facility Use:
- Little League Season: January – June
 Little League has exclusive scheduling use of the baseball facilities  City may schedule use during this time, when not in use by Little League, and by confirming with representatives from the Steering Committee  When ball fields are not in use for Little League activities, they will remain open and accessible for community access
- Little League Postseason: July 1 -July 31
 Little League has priority scheduling use to accommodate postseason and/or allstar activities.  Dates of use will vary from year-to-year, based on regular season outcomes.  City, or other parties approved by the City, may schedule use during this time, when not in use by Little League and by confirming with representatives from the Steering Committee
 When ball fields are not in use for Little League activities, they will remain open and accessible for community access.
 City will be provided access to implement 4th of July festivities - Offseason: August – December
 City, or other parties approved by the City, may schedule programs during this time
 When not scheduled for use, ball fields will remain open and accessible for community access
Maintenance Responsibilities:
- City Responsibilities (year-round)
 Mow outfields
 Maintain irrigation system
 Trim and manage trees
 Pest control and weed abatement
 Maintain restrooms, walkways, fences, fountains, trash receptacles and all shared park amenities in accordance with the established maintenance procedures and schedules.
 Provide space for Little League Board meetings
 Pay and provide access to all utilities
Agenda Item #13.2.

- Little League Responsibilities (during Little League Season and Postseason)  Mow and maintain infield areas, including weed abatement  Prepare fields (lining, dragging, mound work, equipment) for all game and practice use
 Conduct minor repairs to irrigation system (such as sprinkler head adjustment or replacement)
 Clean and maintain dugouts, snack bar, grandstands, batting cages  Inspect baseball facilities and report safety and/or maintenance concerns  Manage, install, and remove temporary signage on an agreed upon schedule  Prepare facility for hand-off to City staff between postseason and offseason periods
Term Length:

The contract is designed to balance the needs of the Little League and the City. it provides the Little League with a relatively long-term agreement but also provides the city with the possibility to terminate the lease in the unlikely scenario that the city needs the site for an alternate purpose. The key terms are as follows:
 20-Year Agreement
 Option to terminate with 12-month notice
 Status updates provided to Parks and Recreation Commission and/or City Council every five years
 Maintenance responsibilities and schedule of use amendable as an exhibit within the agreement.

GOAL:

Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 7: Enhance Organizational Effectiveness
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

St. Helena Little League Lease Agreement
SHLL Proposed Renovations
SHLL FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT - 2026
SHLL FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION-2026
Agenda Item #13.2.

A. City owns cert
ain
rea the inof property City St. Helena, County State of Napa, l California, com mon
ly
know Crane which Park, includes baseball two ?elds (east and west n ?elds) with gran
dsta
nds
for each btting ?eld, cages, snack abar inetween thewo ?elds, the asphalt areabtheall?elds andround the grandstands, and parking lots e
t
(“Crane Park B
as
eb
all
Facilit
ies”). B. City and SHLL wish tointo enter agrement whereby the City auhorizes SHLL to use Crane’Pa
rk
prov asthis inAgreement
ided
City has the r
i
toenter the of portion any Crane Park Baseball Facilities during the of us Crane Park B
a
s
e
b
a
ll
Faciliti bylong assuch SHLL, does entry no interfere with SHLL’s es proper and re
as
on
ab
le
of the us Park Crane Baseball Facilities inaccordance with ths Agreement.

City shall als
o
rtheight, but the not duty, and incooperation with toSHLL, remove any e
t
a
i
n
objectionable from the Park Crane Baseball Facilities.

This (the is“Agreement”) made and etered into this July 2018 (“Effective 1, Date”), by an
d
bthe of St. City aHelena, California municipal corporation (“the City”), et
w
e
e
n
and Napa V
all
ey
Littleague, aNon-Pro?t Inc., d.ba. St. group Helena Littleeague e ("SHLL"). C
it
y
anSHLLre sometimes referred hereinafter toindividually asnd “Party” d collectively a s
t“Parti
es".

The use of th
e
Park Fcilities shall include such areassreasonably for necessary SHLL to enjoy Cra
ne
PaFciliti suchnack asbar, grandstands for each ?el ,the asphalt area rkes, between the andround the grandstands, batting and cages, parking 1ts.

ONS, ATTACHM
ENTS.

Except as o
t
h
e
r
provided all herein, decorations or attachments made SHLL bythe Crane to Park Baseb
all
Fashall the require City’s prior written approval, which approval shall benot ci
lit
ie
s
unreasonab
ly
w
it
h
h
el
d.

3. RIG
HT
TOENTER TOAND EJECT VISITORS.

The City perm SHLL theous Crane Park Baseball Facilities for ayouth baseball it program. Cit and SHLL also may the agree toofhe us Crane Park Baseball Facilities for y other athle
tic
eve subj ect toprior approval andgreed tobyexecuting awritten Addendum to nts this Agree
ment.

NOW, inaccordance the of mutual and covenants promises contained this in Agreem
ent
and other good Valuable consideration, of receipt which ishereby acknowledged, it is agr
eed
asfollo
ws:

AGREEME
NT BET
WE
EN
CITY OF ST. HELENA SHLL AND
U
S
E
OFREAL PROPERTY.

S
T
H
CT: 2019-O04
O
N
T
R
R
E
C
I
T Agenda Item #13.2.

sive Use during the season (February 1 through June 15) and Priority Use 16 to July 31).
i. “Exclusive Use” means only SHLL can use the two ball?elds. ii. “Priority Use” means that SHLL gets ?rst choice atdays and times of use for the two ball?elds and the City may use the two ball?elds when not reserved by SHLL.
2) Mow baseball ?eld in?elds (during the Exclusive Use and Priority Use periods), which will include edging and the disposal of grass clippings into a SHLL provided green waste bin during the season.
3) Vandalism mitigation
4) Clean the dugouts, snack bar, grandstands, grounds in and around the two baseball ?elds of trash and beverage spills
5) Maintain dugouts, snack bar, grandstands, and grounds in and around the two baseball ?elds, to an agreed upon standard for safety and appearance 6) Paint dugouts and grandstands as needed with like kind paint and color (must provide paint, painting tools and labor)
7) Keep clean,maintain and repair batting cages
8) Repair all ?eld perimeter fencing (out?eld, foul line and backstop) 9) Maintain irrigation system and make repairs (must provide replacement irrigation parts) during the Exclusive Use and Priority Use periods. 10)Herbicide spraying (this will be shared between the City and SHLL) 11)All sign boards removed from the out?eld fences at the end of July 12)Cinders shall be stored in an area designated by the Parks Maintenance Manager and kept covered when not being accessed for use
13) Shall use and maintain storage shed located behind the Head Start building 14)Responsible for the ordering and cost of Port-a-Potties, as well as their cleanliness and servicing, which will be removed at the end of Priority Use period. City will pay for a 50% of Port-a—Pottyif both parties agree to leave it on site for both City’s and SHLL’s use; City will pay for 100% if Port-a-Potty left on site or will rent one should SHLL opt to have their unit removed after the Priority Use period.

Department to their request.
1) Empties all t
r
a
s
during cans Little (daily needed League during asthe off season; season).
2) Mows baseb
all
?eout?eld (week1y/ twice week atime permits asnd needed if lds during postseaso
n
play.
3) Maintain irri
gat
ion
and make 1“system from repairs August until the last City league teams cease prcticesl games.
d
MAIN
TENA
NCE

OFCRANE PARK BASEBALL FACILITIES
A. Ci
§y’
s
Rig and Responsibilitie
hts s:

C.Resgonsi of the and SHLL: Cigy
bilities
B.Rights Sand Responsibilities:
1) E
x(
cJ
l Agenda Item #13.2.

The Parties acknowledge an
d
that integral anfactor the allowing inCity SHLL’s of use g
re
e
Crane Park Baseball Facil
ities
iscontribution SHLL’s the Park Crane toBaseball renovate Facilities. After the City C
ou
nc
il
for the construction City for the Park contract approves Crane Baseball Facilities renovati
on,
shall contribute SHthan anless of amount not the 50% incost LL cash and/or professional ser
vic
es
Year inand minimum of athe of 50% 1, cost inyears pr
2, 3, and 4, for the renovati
on
of Park the Crane Baseball Facilities. SHLL’s made Contributions in excess of the 50% of the mini for beyars 2-4, inclusive, will mutually agreed upon mu
m
by the Steering Committee. thfails the SHLL event services and/or provide cash tobefore onr e the Contribution Date, City termhe after providing Agreement notice SHLL of right its inat
e
to cure under the “REMEDI
ES”
secti of this Agreement.
on
The Parties will hold ncommittee meeting least steering at once inrdr year topr o
n
-b
i
n
d
i
n
g
review collaboration the Parties and toogoing ensure ad the success growth of relationship be een Par The committee isauthorized needed astomeet review issus tie
s.
related to the use andthe Park ofBaseball Crane Facilities. The stering committee composition shall co
nsi
st
the of SHLL and other board president and oe the Parks member, City’s & Recreation Directo
r
Park aMaintenan Manager.
nce
d 11. CONTRIBUT
ION.

SHLL shall not permit or activities the Park Crane any orBaseball programs Facilities that violates a
n
y
localawregulation. fed or alcoholic or No beverages, illegal state, era
l,
substances, adv
erti
sin
g,
smoking tobacco shall bethe products or permitted Park onCrane pets , Baseball Facilit
ies
duSHLL’s this Agreement. use topursuant
rin
gFEES.

During the time beginning when league programming and City ends before February 1st
, tofhat need bmade cost any repairs the baseball necessary to?eld irrigation sys
te
m
shalred be$500 exceed aneach. amount tonot up
l
UTILITIES.

SHL
L
all radio, and media rights television, athletic for SHLL conducted the evnts on e
t
a
i
n
s
Cran
e
Baseb Fields and Bar Snack this Agreement. topursuant
all
SHLL ma
y
cadmissio fees athletic admission Such fees shall betoevents. sole SHLL’s hn
ar
g
e
property.

9. M
E
D
I
A
RIGH
TS.

City the of pay and services the costs ga, electric, for Park sewer Crane Baseball water, Faci
lities
. S
T
E
E
R
I
N
G

CONINIIT
TEE.

A
C
T
I
V
I Agenda Item #13.2.

All required insurance shall be obtained fr
o
m
of iss recognized responsibility licensed
ue
rs
to do business in the State of California
. Sshall furnish City tocerti?cate aof
H
L
L
insurance required under subparagraphs Aof this BSection later than noweeks two prior to SHLL’s ?rst use of the Crane ParkFacilities and byFebruary 1st each of year thereafter. All such insurance requir
ed
bemaintai tobySHLL shall beprimary
ned and not contributingwith any insurance wh
ich
maintain. may Cit All poicies shall contain
y an agreement by the.insurer that such pol
ici
es
shall benot modi?ed, cancelled, or nonrenewed except upon at least thirty (30) written prior notice City. torenewal A certificate shall be provided prior to expir
ation
the of current policies. shall SHLL cause
City and its of?cials, officers, agents, and additional ansinsureds its onCGL and property damage insurance policies. S
H
L
L
shall each cuse policy berequired tokept
and maintained by it under this Agreeme
nt.
shall Sprovide with Cy of the copies
H
L
L
policies of such insurance policies and
/or
cer of insurance evidencing such
tifi
cat
es
insurance upon execution of this Agreeme
nt
atime from tohereafter asreasonably
n
d
requested by City.

At its sole cost and expense, SHLL sh
all
caompre general liability insurance
rrhensive
y
for protection of SHLL from any liabili
ty
arofccidents out any otherrccurence
isi
n
g
causing any injury and/or damage to a
n
y
or pethe Park onCrane property Baseball
rs
on
Facilities due directly or indirectly to t
h
e
usor thereof bythe occupanc insured, or any
ey person claiming through or under the i
n
s
u
r
e
d
.

SHLL’ liability policy shall have limits of
s not less than $5 Million per occurrence $5Million annual which limit aggregate, can be met with a combination of prima
ry
anumbrel policies SHLL shall also carry
dla workers’ compensation and employers
’
liinsurance inof less than amounts not
a
b
il
it
y
$100,000 per accident per employee / policy and limits, automobile liability coverage with a minimum combined s
i
n
g
l
e
$5limit of Million bodily (for injury and/or
property damage). However, to the ext
ent
isSHself-insured for of workers’ purposes
LL compensation, it shall be deemed to b
e
icom the with tofhis rm provision.
nplia
nce
Policy limits and deductibles shall be annual obasis the byParties and adjusted if commercially reasonable an
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.

At all ti duri the ofis term Agreement, itssole atnd SHLL, cost agrees expense, ng and sha
ll
and maintain damage insurance property protecting the Park Crane Baseball Faciliti
es
frdamag
oe.
1 2.

IANDNDEMNIFICATION. D
. of Subrogation Rights. C
. OInsuranc Provisions.
te
h
e
r
Insurance. A
. PInsurance.
r
o
p
e
r
t
y Agenda Item #13.2.

Except for the City’s sole negligenc
e
will omiscondu SHLL defend (by will protect,
rful ct, counsel reasonably satisfactory to hold and harmless, and itsndemnify City officials, of?cers, agents, and empl
oyee
s,
and each of from all them, against any
claims, losses, liabilities, actions, and of causes judgments, andction, costs expenses (including reasonable atto
rne
ys’
fees and occasioned by, costs) arising orutf,
any accident or other occurrence, c
a
u
s
i
n
g
in?icting or bodily injury, damageeath, to
any person or property, happening doin, about the orf upon, premises Crane ne Park Baseball Facilities, or due di
re
ctl
y
indirectl or tohe Park SHLL’s of use Crane
y Baseball Facilities or any part there
of
bySHLL or claiming any through under person or
SHLL. The provisions of this sub
para
grap
h
shallurvive termination of this Agreement
with respect to any damage or injur
y
oprior such termination. to
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
TERM.

SHLL shall, at its s
o
le
and the have right coprivilege of expense, attaching, painting affixing, st or exhibiting SHL
L
Park the Crane Baseball onFacilities provided that: signsuch shall (1) comply with City shalluch signs (2) change the not of Park Crane stucture Baseball Facilities;suchall betaken signs down the conclusion at ofnd SHLL’s season, h no later than July 3
1 s
t
each ofshall damage year, the Park not Crane Baseball Fields and Snack Bar or SHLL shallsuch any damage (notwithstanding paragraph 5and such (4) herein); signs shall be subje
c
t
the written toCity’s prior approval, which shall beapproval reasonably not City releases fromor SHclaim any for lss recovery damages or itsf to LL property, whi
ch
isnsur under valid and collectible insurance policies the ofoextent ed any recovery under such insurance. This waver only applies when bypermitted the applicabl
e
of insurance. pshall SHLL beresponsible the for of any pament o
li
c
y
applicable pr
op
ert
y
deduc
tible.

This Agreementlast for of a5-years period bginning July 2018 and eing June 2023. 1, 30, If by February neither 20wishes make Party changes toanyhis shall Agreement, it 23 automatically b
e
rfor additional an5-year period, and that continuing inuntil ocyclene of the two Parti
es
wchange the length tohe ofr nature agreement.
is
h
es

14. TERMI
NATIO
N.

Either Party termhis for Agreement byany giving the reason other ninty Party (90) inate days advanc
e
during which notce, time, mutual tohe Parties pursuant agreement, may engage in ne
go
tia
tio
ns
for the continuation the of Agreement.

SIG
NS.

SIILL’s
icontain shall provision arequiring the insurance carriers their wave to rights o
f
sallndgainst additional City well insurance insureds, asCity u
b
r
o
g
a
t
i
o
n
carriers
.

E.Indemni?c of City.
ation
1 Agenda Item #13.2.

If any clause, p
r
o
vi
si
o
n
section orf this Agreement for shall, any
reason, be held illegal o
r
ibythellgality any orf invalidity such clause, provision court, or section shall not affec
t
the of remaining aprovisions clauses, and this or Agreement sections, n
y
shall be construed and such illegal ifasnvalid orsection had clause, provision or not been contained herein. I
n
any cobligation agreement or contained this insheld Agreement to a
s
e
be in violation of law, t
h
e
n
suc obligation shall or beagreemen the deemed btoor agreement th obligation of the Parties
, the full permitted bytextent law.

18. ASSIGNMENT
.

Any and a
ll
notherr communication any herein for provided shall begiven bywriting in o
ti
c
e
s
registered cemail, receipt byreturnquested, hand or delivery, receipted Federal by rti
?e
d
Express, c
o
u
ri
e
r,
other similar and or reliable bycarrier, or con?rmed facsimile electronic mail or which shal
l
add each Party toforth asset follows:
ress
ed
Withheld.shall have the adSHLL right exhibit advertising signs during toSHLL events, di
ti
on
,
subject to written Cit prior which approval, shall approval bereasonably withheld. not y’s

16. A
Each notic shall bedemed have been toprovided the of earliest the atfollowing: (a) at e time isactu the received; in(b) orf case hand overnight delivery courier suchervices or ally
This A
gr
ee
m
en
t
beamended only byawritten may instrument the approved and City SHLL.

Parks & Recr
eatio
n
Depart
ment André Pichly
1480 Main S
tr
e
et
St Helena, C
A
9 4
5 7
4 707-968-
9222
This A
gr
ee
m
en
t
rnutual shall beassigned not withritten both of Parties. except consent Public Work
s Carlos Uribe
1480 Main S
tr
e
e
t
St Helena, C
A
9 4
5 7
4 707-967-
2871
Robbie M
ey
er
1430 How
ell
MRoad
ou
nta
in
Angwin, 94
50 8
707-312-
0633
A
n
d
acop to:
y
IfSH
LL
:

If Ci
ty
: Agenda Item #13.2.

In the event that SHLL fails to timely make any threquired thisopaymeursuant nts e Agreement, and such payments remain unpaid after t thirty days written Ci 0) (3the notice, ty
’s City may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) da ys
adwritten notice SHLL. toSHLL’s
va
nc
e
failure to provide insurance certi?cates and/or copi
es
the of insurance policies evidencing
coverage required herein shall bar SHLL’s use of th
e
Park Baseball acilities until proper
evidence of insurance is provided. If default shall bethe observance inor performance of any of the other covenants or conditions in this A
gr
ee
m
en
t,
which isAgreement required to
observe and perfonn and such default is not cured wi
thi
n
thirt days after (30) SHLL’s of receipt
y the City’s written notice (or if such default cannot be r e
a
s
cured within days, thirtyen (30)
SHLL shall have a reasonable time to cure said defa
ult
faith pro good inSHLL diligently
vid
ed
proceeds to take steps to cure said default within sa
id
thday (30) SHLL shall period), ifor
irt
y
abandon or fail to use or maintain the Crane Park Ba
se
ba
ll
Facilit herein agedsduring the
ies term of the Agreement, then City may treat the occu rrenc
e
of thene or ay more foregoing
events as a default or breach of this Agreement, an
d
itstoption termiate at this may
Agreement and/or seek other rights and remedies a
t
inThe equity. lor remedies contra
ct, a provided for herein are cumulative and are not ex clu
siv
e
otherf that remedies any bemay
available to any party at law or in equity or otherwise . 21. NO WAIVER; MODIFICATIONS IN WR
ITI
NG.

No failure or delay by either P
ar
ty
inexercis right, or hereunder remedy any shall power,
ing operate as a waiver thereof. No s
i
n
g
l
e
or partial exercise ofsuch right, any shall remedy or power, preclude any other or further exe
rcis
e
ther exercise ofrther any right,emedy. or power,
eof No amendment,modi?cation, s
u
p
p
l
e
waiver of terminatio or povision this any to
n, Agreement, or consent to any d
e
p
ar
tu
re
shall bethe effective unless shall therefr besame in
om, writing and signed or on behalf the becharged the Party toenforcement with thereof. Any amendment,modi?cation or sup
ple
me
nt
ofr thisoany provision Agreement, waiver
any provision of this Agreement, any the consent from tenns-of departure toany provision of this Agreement, shall be effec
tive
onl the instance the speci?c and for speci?c for purpose y which made or given.

22. RATIFICATION OF
as Federal Exp
ress
guarantee with dayelivery, day; within the next inoner (c) case of d registered U.S. ?ve withi days. time (5) From the Parties change tomayime, and name n address of a Pa
rty
dereceive notice. toSuch change the designated ofshall beinprson sig
na
te
d
writing to the o
t
h
e
r
and Part provided asherein.
y

20. REME
DIES.

Except asexpre
ssly
ame this byAgreement, the Lease extended previously (as Resolution by nde
d
No. _) shall fullorce inand effect, City SHLL hereby the ratify Ths same.

Agreement sha
ll
bindi and inure the benefit of upon toParties and their respective eng successors, hei
rs,
assign
ns.
dREE
MEN
T.

E
N
T
I
R
AG
Agenda Item #13.2.

This Agreeme
nt
cthe hereto entire beween Parties pertaining toagreement o
n
st
it
u
te
s
subject matters and uerstandings, all preliminary negotiations, and supersedes prior or contemporan
eous
discu hereto connection the understandings the of inr parties with ssion
s
subject matters

23. EXEC
UTIO
N

COUNTER IN
PARTS.
/;l
//
This beofsimultaneously several executed each which shall bemay incounterparts, an or
ig
in
al
allnd which shall of the constitute but and instrument. one same IN the into Parties have made and etered thise inof Agreement City WHERE OF, St. the of Effective Date. as
By:

MPrestwi City Manager
arch,
k
AS TOFRM: C
I
T
Y
OF ST. HELENA
. Attorney C1ty
A
T
T
E
af
o
p
o
s,
T
h
o
S
H
Ci
n Agenda Item #13.2.

Estimate
Dp Buitders Date Estimate #
1304 °ak Ave‘
9/14/2022 22.0914 St. Helena ca 94574
Name I Address
DP Builders
Prolect
Crane Park Grnndsmnds
Item Description
Jf
Qty. Cost Total
The followingproposal is fortwo ballfieldgmndstands with two dugouts each.

Ruuf:

Demolition Remove existing roo?ng, ?ashing and fascia boards. Dispose debris. 12.60000 l2.600.00 Carpentry Patch dry-rot 2x6 sheathing as needed. Remove approximately 6" offlhe ends I 30,000.00 30,000.00 of the exposed nine: tails. Seal and cap ends of newly cut ends. Replace two 4x support beams. Furnish and install new fascia and metal ?uhings.

Note: Dry-rot may extend beyond 6". However this ismemaximumlength we recommend to cut back the existing ra?crs sn as to main a minimal overhung at low end of mo? Replacement option is offeredbelow.

Alternate ADD: 0 10100000 0.00
Option to remove and replace roof structure in its entirety. New 4x beams and m?ers.new 2x6 sheathing.

Roo?ng New ?ashing and torch-down roo?ng on 2 grandstand roofs and 4 dugouts. l 15,000.00 15,000.00 Paint Re-paint all surfaces that are now painted and ceiling of grandstand roofs. 1 7500.00 7,500.00 Grandstand seating area: Demolition Remove all existing deck boards down to framing. l 19,400.00 19.40000 Carpentry Repair ?aming members as needed. Full extent not known at thistime. 1 l l.200.00 ll.200.00 Allow 6 train days and $4000 in materials.

Decks Furnish and install new lx? Trex "Select" (or equal) decking to seats and l 104,000.00 104,000.00 vertical areas. Faeevscrewfasteners.

Fencing Furnish and installnew. 2—panel, lockablewroughtironentry gates at l 19,000.00 19,000.00 grandstands entrance and new lockabledoor to each announcer room.

Fencing Replace chaimlinkfencingalong front efgrandstands and dugouts.

I
l 10,000.00 10,000.00
Prices good for 30 days Total
Signature

Agenda Item #13.2.

Estimate
DDBunders Date Estimate #
1304 oak Ave. 9/14/2022 22-0914 St. Helena ca 94574 ——--—I Name I Address
DP Builders
Project
Crane Park Grandstand:

Item Description Qty!‘ Cost Total
Doors Replace all slomgc doors withnew non—x-atcdmetal doors frames and 1 21,400.00 21,400.00 hardware.

Carpentry Replace all backstopboards with new 22:) 2. 1 6,600.00 6,600.00 Dugouvs:

Carpentry Demolish wood paniun ofdugmns and re-build walls, beams and moftc I 47.20000 47.20000 match slyle of grandstand roof structuna. with 2x6 ra?zrs 3' on comerwith 2x6 V-gmovz: shcathing. new metal ?ashing and wood fascia.

Prices good for 30 days
Total s3o3.9oo.oo
Signature

Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
1 FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF ST. HELENA AND NAPA VALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE, INC.

This Facilities Use Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this January 13, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of St. Helena, a California municipal corporation (“the City”), and Napa Valley Little League, Inc., a California non-profit corporation d.b.a. St.

Helena Little League (“SHLL”). City and SHLL are sometimes referred to hereinafter individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

RECITALS
A. City owns certain real property in the City of St. Helena, County of Napa, State of California, located at 360 S. Crane Ave. and commonly known Crane Park, which includes two baseball fields (east and west fields) with grandstands for each field, batting cages, a storage shed used for storage of SHLL’s equipment, a snack bar located in between the two fields, and associated facilities (collectively “Crane Park Baseball Facilities”) as illustrated in Exhibit A.

B. On November 4, 1966, the Parties entered into an Agreement and Lease, whereby, amongst other terms, the Parties agreed that SHLL would construct two Little League baseball fields and accompanying facilities, including a stadium or bleachers, as well as storage and concession sales rooms for the exclusive use of SHLL. Said Agreement and Lease provided for a term of thirty (30) years, with an option for extension of an additional twenty (20) years.

C. On February 26, 1997, SHLL requested approval of City of the exercise of the twenty (20) year option, and on March 25, 1997, the City approved Resolution No. 97-32, extending the Agreement and Lease for an additional period of twenty (20) years.

D. On July 1, 2018, the Parties entered into a new Agreement providing for the use and management of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities for five (5) years, with the automatic renewal thereof until such time that the Parties wish to change the length or nature of the agreement.

E. The 2018 Agreement anticipated certain renovations and updates to the Crane Park Baseball Facilities, which SHLL undertook at its sole substantial cost in 2023.

F. City and SHLL hereby wish to enter into an amended and restated agreement whereby the City authorizes SHLL to use Crane Park as provided in this Agreement.

In recognition of SHLL’s commitment to the construction, maintenance, and continued improvement of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities, City and SHLL wish to again enter into to a long-term agreement whereby the Parties agree upon the terms for SHLL’s use and maintenance of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities as provided in this Agreement.

Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
2 NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:

1. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.

2. USE OF FACILITIES.

The City permits SHLL to use the Crane Park Baseball Facilities for a youth baseball and softball program, as set forth in this Agreement.

A. Little League Season - January 15 through June 30. During the period from January 15 through June 30 of each year (the “Little League Season”) during the Term of this Agreement, SHLL shall have exclusive scheduled use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities to operate a youth baseball and softball program. In advance of each season and no later than January 1, SHLL shall submit a schedule of anticipated use to the City. During the Little League Season, the City may utilize fields for other activities and events when not in use by SHLL by coordinating with SHLL’s representatives on the Steering Committee (defined below) to avoid any overlap or negative impact to scheduled SHLL activities. Any party authorized to use the Crane Park Baseball Facilities shall be advised that they may not access or use SHLL’s equipment, storage, concession, or scoreboard facilities without consent of SHLL.

B. Little League Postseason - July 1 through July 31. During the period from July 1 through July 31 (the “Little League Postseason”), SHLL shall have first priority to schedule use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities for SHLL activities. In advance of the Little League Postseason period and no later than June 15, SHLL shall submit a schedule of anticipated use to the City. SHLL will notify City of any additional use needed to accommodate postseason activities as soon as feasible, but City cannot guarantee unscheduled maintenance if use dates are not scheduled two weeks in advance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City reserves first priority to use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities each year for City Fourth of July festivities. The City will notify the Steering Committee at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the days and times when the City will use the Crane Park Baseball Facilities for City Fourth of July festivities to avoid any overlap between City and SHLL activities. The City, general community, or any party approved by the City, may use the Crane Park Baseball Facilities during the Little League Postseason Period, when not being utilized by SHLL by following the City’s facility rental process and subject to the review and approval of the Steering Committee for conflicts with City or SHLL activities. Any party authorized to use the Crane Park Baseball Facilities shall be advised that they may not access or use SHLL’s equipment, storage, concession, or scoreboard facilities without consent of SHLL.

C. Offseason - August 1 through January 14. During the period from August 1 through January 14, the City or any other party authorized by the City may use the Crane Park Baseball Facilities. Any other party authorized to use the Crane Park Facilities shall follow the City’s facility rental process and be advised that they may not access or use SHLL’s equipment, storage, concession, or scoreboard facilities without consent of SHLL. SHLL may similarly reserve use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities during such Offseason pursuant to the City’s facility rental process. SHLL shall not be charged a rental use fee for such use, so long as SHLL Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
3 is the responsible party and such use is in accordance with operating or supporting SHLL’s youth baseball or softball program.

D. Nothing in the foregoing shall alter that when the baseball fields are not in use for SHLL, City, or other reserved activities, they will remain open and accessible for community use without prior reservation.

E. SHLL shall have exclusive access to and use of the snack bar, grandstand storage rooms, batting cages, scoreboard operating spaces and controls, and storage shed located on the Crane Park Baseball Facilities on a year-round basis unless otherwise approved by the Steering Committee for temporary use of any such facility by others, or as agreed to in writing by and between SHLL and City or any third party granted access and use of such facilities.

F. The City and SHLL may also agree to the use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities for other activities and events subject to prior approval from City and agreed to by following the City’s facility rental process.

G. SHLL shall be entitled to non-exclusive use of such areas as are reasonably necessary for SHLL to operate its youth baseball program at the Crane Park Baseball Facilities, including but not limited to the public restrooms and parking lots at Crane Park.

H. Within one month prior to the commencement and one month following the completion of the Little League Season, and following the end of the Little League Postseason period, the Steering Committee will participate in a walk-through of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities (the “Annual Meetings.”). SHLL’s representatives of the Steering Committee will timely initiate scheduling each of the walk-throughs.

3. RIGHT TO ENTER AND TO EJECT VISITORS.

City has the right to enter any portion of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities during the use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities by SHLL, as long as such entry does not interfere with SHLL’s proper and reasonable use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities in accordance with this Agreement. SHLL shall have the right to eject visitors for misconduct in accordance with Little League Internationals rules and regulations from the Crane Park Baseball Facilities in the sole discretion of SHLL and its authorized agents, including any umpire acting on its behalf. SHLL should contact the St. Helena Police Department for any misconduct within Crane Park Baseball Facilities if such misconduct exceeds SHLL’s ability to reasonably enforce said ejection and/or poses a threat to the wellbeing of any Crane Park users.

4. MAINTENANCE, ALTERATIONS, AND IMPROVEMENTS
A. MAINTENANCE OF CRANE PARK BASEBALL FACILITIES
Subject to City’s general obligation to maintain Crane Park, each Party’s specific ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the Crane Park Baseball Facilities hereunder are set forth in Exhibit A. At each of the Annual Meetings, the Steering Committee shall review each Party’s responsibilities under this Agreement for the ongoing maintenance and operation of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities and related Crane Park infrastructure. The Steering Committee may discuss Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
4 changes to the Parties’ respective obligations at any Annual Meetings. If the Steering Committee recommend any revisions to Exhibit A, such proposed changes shall be memorialized in an amended Schedule 1 on the mutual agreement to such amendment.

B. FACILITY ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS.

The Parties acknowledge and agree that an integral factor in City’s agreement to provide exclusive and priority use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities is the past improvements and renovations made by SHLL, as well as its stated efforts and plans to make future improvements and renovations to the Crane Park Baseball Facilities. Any future alterations, improvements, or renovations to the Crane Park Baseball Facilities during the Term of this Agreement beyond the regular maintenance described in Schedule 1 shall be proposed by SHLL at its discretion and shall be conducted at SHLL’s sole cost unless the Parties expressly provide otherwise in separate written agreement. All alterations, improvements, renovations, or other similar projects proposed by SHLL shall be discussed by the Steering Committee and submitted to the City in writing for review and approval. The City may place conditions on any such projects as deemed necessary or appropriate by the City in its discretion, which may include but are not limited to securing building permits, bonding and insurance requirements, and inclusion of appropriate requirements for SHLL contractors. Proposed projects shall be considered by City as to whether such project constitutes a donation to City and, if such determination be in the affirmative, shall be considered and accepted or declined by City in conformance with the City’s then-operative Donation Policy, as it may be amended from time to time. The installation or completion of alterations, improvements, or renovations to the Crane Park Baseball Facilities as contemplated herein shall not require amendment to this Agreement, but the parties may enter into a separate agreement for such project if deemed necessary or appropriate by either Party. Nothing herein shall preclude City from making improvements or renovations to the Crane Park Baseball Facilities at its own cost, provided, however, any such improvements are submitted in advance to the Steering Committee and shall not be made at a time that would interfere with SHLL’s use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities pursuant to this Agreement unless agreed to in writing by SHLL.

5. STEERING COMMITTEE.

A steering committee (“Steering Committee”) to manage the execution, communication and scheduling under this agreement is established that shall consist of two SHLL board members or their designees and the City’s Community Services Director and the City’s Public Works Director or their designees.

A. The Parties will hold the Annual Meetings defined in Paragraph 2.H. at least twice per year in order to review collaboration between the Parties and to ensure the ongoing success and growth of the relationship between the Parties.

B. The Steering Committee is authorized to further meet as needed to review issues related to the use and maintenance of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities.

C. The Steering Committee members shall be the points of contact for all scheduling related matters under this Agreement. Required notifications related to scheduling may be made via electronic mail between the Steering Committee members.

Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
5 D. To the extent any provision herein calls for approval of the Steering Committee, such approval shall consist of the written approval of a member of the Steering Committee for the party to whom the request is made. For example, if a City-desired use during the Little League Season is requested through the Steering Committee, Steering Committee approval shall be made by written approval of a SHLL representative to the Steering Committee.

E. The Steering Committee is not a public agency, is not to act by majority vote, have any quorum requirements, or be subject to open meeting laws. To the extent any disagreement amongst the Steering Committee cannot be resolved internally to the Steering Committee, such decisions are reserved to and shall be resolved by further agreement of City and SHLL. The Steering Committee shall have no authority to make any amendments hereto, including to Schedule 1. Any such amendments shall be approved in writing by the Parties’ authorized representatives.

6. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.

SHLL shall not conduct or permit any activities or programs on the Crane Park Baseball Facilities that violates any federal, state, or local law or regulation. No illegal substances, smoking, tobacco products, or pets shall be permitted on the Crane Park Baseball Facilities. SHLL may add signage, which shall be subject to City review and approval, that may be posted in and around the Crane Park Baseball Facilities to help enforce the rules set forth in this Section. SHLL shall comply with all applicable laws or ordinances pertaining to City Parks.

7. ADMISSION FEES.

SHLL may charge admission fees to SHLL events held at the Crane Park Baseball Facilities. Such admission fees shall be SHLL’s sole property. If any such event takes place outside of Crane Park Baseball Facilities, SHLL will follow all regulations as set forth in the City’s approved rental policy.

8. MEDIA RIGHTS.

SHLL retains all radio, television, and media rights for SHLL athletic events conducted in the Crane Park Baseball Facilities pursuant to this Agreement.

9. UTILITIES.

City will pay the costs of gas, electric, water, and sewer services for the Crane Park Baseball Facilities on a year-round basis.

10. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION.

A. Liability Insurance.

At its sole cost and expense, SHLL shall carry comprehensive general liability insurance for protection of SHLL from any liability arising out of any accidents or other occurrence causing any injury and/or damage to any person or property on the Crane Park Baseball Facilities due directly or indirectly to the use or occupancy thereof by the insured, Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
6 or any person claiming through or under the insured. SHLL’s liability policy shall have limits of not less than $1 Million per occurrence and $2 Million annual aggregate, or if less the maximum coverage available under the applicable Little League International policy in which SHLL participates. Furthermore, any vendors or contractors participating in SHLL’s use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities shall be required to obtain the same level of insurance coverage unless otherwise covered by SHLL’s policies.

B. Other Insurance Provisions.

SHLL shall furnish to City a certificate of insurance required under subparagraph A of this Section no later than January 1st of each year. All such insurance required to be maintained by SHLL shall be primary and not contributing with any insurance which City may maintain. All policies shall contain an agreement by the insurer that such policies shall not be modified, cancelled, or non-renewed except upon at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to City. A renewal certificate shall be provided prior to expiration of the current policies. SHLL shall cause City and its officials, officers, agents, and employees to be identified as additional insureds on its CGL and property damage insurance policies. SHLL shall cause each policy required to be kept and maintained by it under this Agreement. SHLL shall provide City with copies of the policies of such insurance policies and/or certificates of insurance evidencing such insurance upon execution of this Agreement and from time to time thereafter as reasonably requested by City.

C. Waiver of Subrogation Rights.

City releases SHLL from any claim for recovery for any loss or damages to any of City’s property which is insured under valid and collectible insurance policies to the extent of any recovery collectible under such insurance. This waiver applies only when permitted by the applicable policy of insurance. SHLL shall be responsible for the proportionate share of any applicable property deductible.

SHLL’s insurance shall contain a provision requiring the insurance carriers to waive their rights of subrogation against City and all City additional insureds, as well as City insurance carriers.

D. SHLL’s Indemnification of City.

Except for the City’s sole negligence or willful misconduct, SHLL will protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to City), hold harmless, and indemnify City and its officials, officers, agents, and employees, and each of them, from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, actions, damages, and causes of action, judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs) occasioned by, or arising out of, any accident or other occurrence, causing or inflicting bodily injury, death, or damage to any person or property, happening or done in, upon, or about the premises of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities, and due to SHLL’s use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities or any part thereof by SHLL or any person claiming through or under SHLL. The provisions of this subparagraph shall survive termination of this Agreement with respect to any damage or injury occurring prior to such termination.

11. TERM.

Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
7 This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty (20) years beginning March 1, 2026, and ending Feb 28, 2046.

Parties agree to provide updates to the Parks and Recreation Commission and/or City Council (at the City Council’s discretion) as requested, or at a minimum of each five-year increment prior to the season start date of that same year.

12. TERMINATION.

A. Either Party may terminate this Agreement for any reason by giving the other one (1) year advance written notice, during which time, pursuant to mutual agreement, the Parties may engage in negotiations for the continuation or revision of the Agreement. If the one (1) year notice occurs during a Little League season, the City will allow the next full season to be completed before termination takes effect.

B. Either party may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event of the insolvency or winding up of SHLL.

C. With Cause: In the event of a material breach hereof by either Party, and such breach not being cured pursuant to the procedures set forth in Paragraph 18 below, either Party may terminate this Agreement with ninety (90) days’ advance written notice, during which time, pursuant to mutual agreement, the Parties may engage in negotiations for the continuation or revision of the Agreement.

13. SIGNS.

SHLL shall, at its sole cost and expense, have the right and privilege of attaching, affixing, painting or exhibiting SHLL sponsorship signs on the Crane Park Baseball Facilities provided that:
(1) such signs shall comply with any applicable City ordinances; (2) such signs shall not change the structure of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities; (3) such signs shall be taken down at the conclusion of the Priority Use Period (excluding any approved permanent signage), shall not damage the Crane Park Baseball Facilities or SHLL shall repair any such damage (notwithstanding paragraph 5 herein); and (4) such permanent signs shall be subject to review and approval by the City and compliance with the City’s signage policy, as it may be amended from time to time. In addition, SHLL shall have the right to exhibit advertising signs during SHLL events.

14. AMENDMENTS.

This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument approved by the City and by SHLL.

15. SEVERABILITY.

If any clause, provision, or section of this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held illegal or invalid by any court, the illegality or invalidity of such clause, provision or section shall not affect any of the remaining clauses, provisions or sections, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid clause, provision or section had not been contained herein.

Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
8 In case any agreement or obligation contained in this Agreement is held to be in violation of law, then such agreement or obligation shall be deemed to be the agreement or obligation of the Parties, to the full extent permitted by law.

16. ASSIGNMENT.

This Agreement shall not be assigned except with mutual written consent of both Parties.

17. NOTICE.

Except as otherwise set forth herein, any and all notices or any other communication provided for herein shall be given in writing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by receipted hand delivery, by Federal Express, courier, or other similar and reliable carrier, or by confirmed facsimile or electronic mail which shall be addressed to each Party as set forth as follows:

If to City:

Community Services Department
Ashley Sylvester
1088 College Ave
St Helena, CA 94574
707-968-9222
[email protected]
And a copy to:

Public Works Department
Joe Leach
1088 College Ave
St Helena, CA 94574
707-967-2871
[email protected]
If to SHLL:

Little League President
P.O. Box 241
St. Helena, CA 94574
[email protected]
Little League Treasurer
P.O. Box 241
St. Helena, CA 94574
[email protected]
And a copy to:

Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty
Joshua S. Devore
1500 First Street, STE 200
Napa, CA 94559
707-261-7000
[email protected]
Each such notice shall be deemed to have been provided at the earliest of the following:
(a) at the time it is actually received; or (b) in the case of overnight hand delivery courier or services such as Federal Express with guaranteed next day delivery, within one day; or (c) in the case of registered U.S. Mail, within five (5) days. From time to time, the Parties may change the name and address of a Party designated to receive notice. Such change of the designated person shall be in writing to the other Party and as provided herein.

18. REMEDIES.

SHLL’s failure to provide insurance certificates and/or copies of the insurance policies evidencing the coverage required herein shall bar SHLL’s use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
9 until proper evidence of insurance is provided. If default shall be made in the observance or performance of any of the other covenants or conditions in this Agreement, which Agreement is required to observe and perform and such default is not cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice (or if such default cannot be reasonably cured within thirty (30) days, then the defaulting party shall have a reasonable time to cure said default provided SHLL in good faith diligently proceeds to take steps to cure said default within said thirty (30) day the defaulting party), and the non-defaulting party may thereupon at its option terminate this Agreement as provided in Paragraph 12 herein and/or seek other rights and remedies at law, contract, or in equity, except that City shall not be liable in damages to SHLL, or to any other person, due to any breach of this Agreement by City, and SHLL covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages against City based on a default under this Agreement. The remedies provided for herein are cumulative and are not exclusive of any other remedies that may be available to any party at law or in equity or otherwise.

19. NO WAIVER; MODIFICATIONS IN WRITING.

No failure or delay by either Party in exercising any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof. No single or partial exercise of any such right, power, or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power, or remedy. No amendment, modification, supplement, termination, or waiver of or to any provision of this Agreement, or consent to any departure therefrom, shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed or on behalf of the Party to be charged with the enforcement thereof. Any amendment, modification or supplement of or to any provision of this Agreement, any waiver of any provision of this Agreement, and any consent to any departure from the terms of any provision of this Agreement, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which made or given.

20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

This Agreement, including the Exhibits and Schedule hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matters hereof and supersedes all negotiations, preliminary understandings, and all prior or contemporaneous discussions or understandings of the parties hereto in connection with the subject matters hereof.

Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
10 21. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS.

This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have made and entered into this Agreement in the City of St. Helena as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
ATTEST:

By:

Anil Comelo, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
NAPA VALLEY LITTLE LEAGUE, INC.

By:

Name
Title: President
Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
i
Exhibit A
Schedule of Maintenance Responsibilities as of January 1, 2026 In addition to the general obligations under the Agreement, each Party shall be responsible for the performance of and/or have the right to undertake the following maintenance and management activities:

City Responsibilities:
1) Empty all trash and recycling cans within the Crane Park Baseball Facilities in accordance with the City’s established park maintenance procedures and schedules. 2) Mow Baseball Fields’ outfields year-round as part of the City’s mowing schedule for City parks.

Mows infields during periods outside of the Little League Season and Priority Use periods. Such obligations may be contracted to third parties with notification and discussion with the Steering Committee.
3) Maintain irrigation system in its entirety on a year-round basis. Consult with Steering Committee and provide annual updates to Steering Committee on expected water usage levels and/or restrictions.
4) Manage gopher and pest control and coordinate with contractors when necessary. 5) Responsible for weed abatement and control within the Crane Park Baseball Facilities. All such work shall be conducted in conformance with the City’s integrated pest management regulations. 6) Trim trees within Crane Park as necessary to ensure clearance around the two baseball fields, concession room, and batting cages.
7) Maintain the restrooms, parking areas, roadways, walkways, fences, drinking fountains and other amenities in Crane Park in conformance with the City’s established park maintenance procedures and schedules. Promptly perform emergency maintenance or repair of same upon identified need by any party.
8) Clean and maintain all areas of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities following City use or City authorized events during the Little League Season and Priority Use Periods, and at all other times outside the Little League Season and Priority Use Periods. 9) Provide space for SHLL Board Meetings at the City’s Carnegie Building, or such other City facility, as SHLL may reserve with City. SHLL responsible for submitting requested on or before January 1 each year.

Agenda Item #13.2.

83578.00008\42951235.1
ii
SHLL Responsibilities:
1) Mow the two baseball field infields during the Little League Season and the Priority Use Period, which will include edging and the disposal of grass clippings into a SHLL provided green waste bin or otherwise by third party contractors.
2) Report all vandalism to the City’s Operations manager for proper documentation and mitigation. 3) Clean the dugouts, snack bar, grandstands, and asphalt areas in and around the two baseball fields of trash and beverage spills following any activity held by SHLL. 4) Maintain dugouts, snack bar, grandstands, and grounds in and around the two baseball fields. Any maintenance beyond minor cleaning and repairs must be coordinated with City staff and if deemed necessary, follow the City’s Acceptance of Charitable Gifts and Donations Policy. 5) Keep clean, maintain, and repair batting cages.
6) Inspect Baseball Facilities for safety and appearance throughout the Little League Season and Priority Use periods and report any safety or maintenance concerns to Parks Operations Manager or Steering Committee as appropriate. 7) SHLL may make minor repairs to the irrigation system (such as repairing sprinkler heads) during the Little League Season and Priority Use periods, if completed by contracted landscaping company. Any requested repairs outside of minor fixes or adjustments will be requested in writing to the Steering Committee. All repairs will be documented and provided to the City’s Public Works Department.
8) During the Little League Season and Priority Use Period, conduct weed abatement and control on the baseball fields in conformance with the City’s integrated pest management regulations, a copy of which shall be provided to SHLL. Any weed abatement outside of hand or mechanical approaches, will be documented and shall be available to City staff for review on a monthly basis. 9) Remove all signs from the outfield fences within two weeks of the conclusion of the Priority Use Period.
10) Cinders shall be stored in an area designated by the Parks Operations Manager and secured in a manner that is in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 11) Use and maintain storage container located behind the Valley Oak building. 12) May order and pay the cost for rental and regular servicing of any portable amenities (Port-aPotties, handwashing stations, etc.) as deemed necessary by SHLL to support regular baseball activities or related SHLL events. All rentals shall be through a duly-licensed supplier and placement location will be subject to City review and approval. Any portable amenities temporarily installed by SHLL pursuant to this paragraph shall be removed at the end of the Priority Use Period each year.
13) Provide annually a schedule to City of the SHLL season upon preparation of the same, provide notice of any SHLL events during any other time, and advise City of changes thereto as soon as practicable.

Agenda Item #13.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Facilities Use Agreement with St. Helena Little League for Use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities.

WHEREAS, City owns certain real property in the City of St. Helena, County of Napa, State of California, located at 360 S. Crane Ave. and commonly known Crane Park, which includes two baseball fields (east and west fields) with grandstands for each field, batting cages, a storage shed used for storage of SHLL’s equipment, a snack bar located in between the two fields, and associated facilities (collectively “Crane Park Baseball Facilities”); and WHEREAS, The City and St. Helena Little League (“SHLL”), have a long-standing relationship for the construction, use, operation, and maintenance of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities for youth baseball and softball programs; and WHEREAS, The City and SHLL previously entered into a Facilities Use Agreement governing the use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities, dated July 1, 2018; and WHEREAS, The City and SHLL desire to enter into an amended and restated Facilities Use Agreement to provide for the long-term use, maintenance, and management of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities while ensuring continued public benefit and community access; and WHEREAS, The proposed Facilities Use Agreement provides for a twenty (20) year term beginning March 1, 2026, and ending February 28, 2046, establishes priority and non-exclusive use periods, assigns maintenance responsibilities, and includes insurance and indemnification provisions protective of the City; and
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that approval of the Facilities Use Agreement supports youth recreation, preserves and enhances public park facilities, and is in the best interest of the City and its residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA AS FOLLOWS:

1. Approval of Facilities Use Agreement.

The City Council hereby approves the Facilities Use Agreement between the City of St.

Helena and St. Helena Little League for use of the Crane Park Baseball Facilities, substantially in the form presented to the City Council.

Agenda Item #13.2.

2. Authorization.

The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Facilities Use Agreement on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, and to take such actions as are necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on January 8, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Council Member Barak: _____
Council Member Deasy: _____
Council Member Spadarotto: _____
Council Member Summers: ____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ______________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
Agenda Item #13.2.

1/10/26
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Deasy, and Council Members Barak, Spadarotto, and Summers:

I am honored to be the current President of Saint Helena Little League, and write on its behalf. SHLL is the premier local youth sports provider, providing baseball and softball activities for approximately 300 children per year, ranging from our 6-year olds in Coach Pitch, to our 14-year old Junior’s League team.

For more than sixty years, Saint Helena Little League has been an integral part of our community. Charted with Little League International in 1961, the Napa Valley Little League Inc. – our formal name – entered into a thirty-year agreement with the City in 1966, under which SHLL, at its own cost raised from the community, built the fields and stadiums at Crane Park – which the City acquired, in part, with money donated by the League. That original thirty-year agreement was then extended for a further twenty years by exercising the option to do so.[1] In 2018, the League and City entered into a new fiveyear agreement, which automatically renews for additional five-year periods.

The current 2018 agreement contemplated a significant capital improvement project to the Little League complex, which the City would contract and pay for, and the League would subsequently reimburse over time.[2] That never happened.

Instead, following the COVID interruption, the League carried out and entirely funded, through community contributions, the substantial revitalization of the grandstands, spending nearly half-a-million dollars on the facility without City funding. In sum, over the past sixty-plus years, the League has raised and spent millions of dollars to make the Crane Park facility what it is today. But it does not own it.

Over the past several years, the League and multiple iterations of City staff have been discussing a refreshed long-term agreement to manage the positive and mutually beneficial relationship. These discussions have culminated in the proposed twenty-year agreement on your Agenda that provides both a long-term framework and a flexible schedule of management and maintenance actions to be overseen by a joint City and League Steering Committee. The League is greatly appreciative to all of the dedicated City staff who have worked to prepare the Agreement and continue the long-term success and sterling reputation of Saint Helena Little League.

There is just one problem: Staff has insisted on including a one-year, at will and without any reason, termination provision that renders the entire agreement worthless. And we Agenda Item #13.2.

mean this literally: as it can be terminated at will at any time without any payment, it has no value.

This places the League in an impossible position. It cannot responsibly solicit money from donors and spend money to improve a facility that it can be ejected from for no reason at any time without compensation or reimbursement of those expenditures. While this is of course unlikely, it is the reality of the proposed agreement. No prior agreement for the League’s use of the baseball facilities – which we built – had such a provision.

While the League would very much like to renew the capital project envisioned in the 2018 agreement – including, among other things, substantial improvements to the snack shack, construction of a new restroom, replacement of worn fencing, controlling erosion on the fields, and installing lighting – it would be doing so in the face of an ephemeral agreement that could be handed to a competing organization with just one season’s notice. This is not hyperbole, and is exactly what has been included in the proposed Section 12 a. of the Agreement presented to the Council in the agenda.

Little League is not a monopoly on youth baseball. While it is certainly the most wellknown and well-respected youth baseball organization, there are competing organizations. Many of those are for-profit or require substantial fees to participate. If the City maintains a unilateral right to terminate SHLL’s use of the Crane Park baseball fields, it could sell those rights to the highest bidder; or repurpose the facility into something else entirely. We are aware that the City has even included the Crane Park baseball fields in analyses of potential housing sites.

SHLL has every intention of continuing to serve the Saint Helena community, providing the premier youth sports opportunity in town at a facility of the highest level. It wants to continue to improve that facility – but doing so requires raising and spending substantial sums of money on a facility it does not own to benefit the public. Without a real longterm agreement that will secure its use of the facility, it makes raising funds – an increasingly challenging task – and reinvesting them in the City’s facility that much more difficult.

We look forward to working with the City in the coming years to build an even better Crane Park facility. Saint Helena Little League is an entirely volunteer organization.

From our board members, to our coaches, to our snack shack hosts, to our umpires, there are countless Saint Helenans that contribute selflessly to make this organization great.

We simply ask for a partner in the City that recognizes the value of what it has, and is not keeping one foot out the door just in case.

We thus respectfully request that the City Council approve the proposed agreement included in the Agenda, but delete the termination-at-will provision in Section 12 a.

Agenda Item #13.2.