City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 13, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena
PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Public Forum" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.
The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website.
Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line City Council agenda.
Simultaneous Spanish interpretation services during meetings can be scheduled upon request. To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].
The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.
Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público. Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected].
El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor: Michelle Deasy, City Council Members:
Aaron Barak, Kate Spadarotto, Billy Summers
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Estimated start time: 6:05 p.m.
5.1. Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2025.
Regular City Council - 09 Dec 2025 - Minutes
11 - 22
6. PUBLIC FORUM:
Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern
not on the agenda during Public Forum. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes. Each person is entitled to speak on any non-agendized item only once at any meeting. Brief questions by Council Members for clarifications may be posed and answered, and Council Members may make requests that items be placed on future agendas, but in accordance with state law, no substantive discussion or action may take place unless and until the matter properly appears on the agenda.
Estimated start time: 6:10 p.m.
6.1. Public Comment - Michelle Covell 1
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 2
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 3
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 5
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 6
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 7
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 10
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 11
Public Comment - Tim Hall
23 - 236
7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND AB 1234 REPORTS:
Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.
Estimated start time: 6:20 p.m.
7.1. Water Neutrality Presentation 237 - 241
8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
9. STAFF BRIEFING
9.1. Discussion on A Year of Celebration: Sesquicentennial Events & Activities and Receive Guidance Regarding Preliminary Events.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ashley Sylvester, Recreation Manager
Recommendation:
Provide guidance to staff regarding the preliminary events, activities, programs, and fundraising efforts presented in this report for the City’s Sesquicentennial celebration.
Staff Report - Sesquicentennial Special Events, Programs, and Activities - Pdf
Presentation
Public Comment - Elaine de Man
Public Comment - Maddie Chandler, Sustainable St. Helena 243 - 269
10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public (present at the meeting) may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action,
for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote) Estimated start time: 6:45 p.m.
10.1. Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing a FY2025-26 $100,000 Budget Amendment to Increase Appropriations for Additional Sludge Hauling Fees Due to Higher-Than-Anticipated Operational Needs, Funded by Wastewater Enterprise Fund Reserves.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.
Staff Report - Additional Sludge Hauling Funding - Pdf
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 10
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 11
271 - 293
10.2. Waiver of second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending Sections 1.12.200, 17.05.100, 17.32.010, and 17.32.020 of the St.
Helena Municipal Code pertaining to the enforcement regulations for Short-Term Rentals.
CEQA Determination: Exempt from the requirements of CEQA under the “General Rule”, Section 15061 (b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will have no impact on the environment.
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Recommendation:
1. Find that the proposed changes to Chapters 1.12, 17.05, and 17.32 of the St. Helena Municipal Code are exempt from CEQA Guideline 15061 (b)(3); and
2. Waiver of second reading and adoption of a proposed ordinance (ZOA 25-004) amending Sections 1.12.200, 17.05.100, 17.32.010, and
17.32.020 of the St. Helena Municipal Code pertaining to short term rentals.
Staff Report - 2nd Reading Short Term Rental Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25-004) - Pdf
295 - 307
10.3. Consideration of a Resolution to set a Public Hearing for 6:00p.m.
Tuesday, February 24, 2026, to consider objections to the proposed annexation of the property identified as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 009-391-035, located on Spring Street in St. Helena, CA, into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District, MSD Annexation No. 154.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:
Staff request City Council to adopt a resolution to consider the applicant's request and order a public hearing to be scheduled for February 24, 2026.
Staff Report - Set a Public Hearing to Consider a Sewer Annexation - Pdf
309 - 314
10.4. Water Supply and Forecasting - November 2025
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
Recommendation:
Receive and file.
Staff Report - Water Supply and Forecasting - November 2025 - Pdf 315 - 322
10.5. Waiver of second reading and adoption of an ordinance (ZOA 25-005) amending Sections 17.22.050 (Alcoholic Beverage Sales) and
17.16.030 (B) (Residential Development Standards - Residential Zoning Districts Table, Endnote 5a), of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
Recommendation:
1. Find the proposed amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and
2. Waiver of second reading and adoption of a proposed ordinance (ZOA 25-005) amending Sections 17.22.050 (Alcohol Beverage Sales) and 17.16.030(B), endnote 5a of the City of St. Helena Municipal Code (ZOA 25-005).
Staff Report - Second reading of an ordinance amending Sections
17.22.050 (Alcoholic Beverage Sales) and 17.16.030 (B) (Residential Development Standa - Pdf
323 - 329
10.6. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Recruitment for an Assistant Public Works Director (Operations).
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Staff Report - Authorization to Recruit Assistant PW Director - Pdf Public Comment - Mark Smithers
Public Comment - Kelly Wheaton
331 - 337
10.7. Consideration and Proposed Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 1 for the Extension of Contract to BluePoint Planning Professional Services Agreement for the Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan. There is no additional cost required for the extension of this contract.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ashley Sylvester, Recreation Manager
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution authorizing Amendment No. 1 for the Extension of the BluePoint Planning PSA.
Staff Report - Amendment No. 1 for the Extension of End Date to BluePoint Planning Professional Services Agreement for the Parks, Recreation and Trail - Pdf
339 - 376
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Estimated start time: 7:00 p.m.
11.1. Consideration and proposed approval of a Resolution approving the annexation of the property known as 1380 El Bonita Avenue, St.
Helena, CA (APN 009-432-001), into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1 MSD Annexation No. 153.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the annexation of the territories into the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1 MSD.
Staff Report - Public Hearing to Approve a Sewer Annexation No. 153 - Pdf
Presentation
377 - 386
11.2. Introduction and waiver of first reading of an Ordinance to implement the Triannual California Building Standards Code Adoption and Modifying Chapter 15 of the St Helena Municipal Code to Make Certain Local Amendments
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Philip Henry, Chief Building Official
Recommendation:
The Community Development Department, Building Division recommends the City Council:
1. Find the proposed amendments to the Building Code is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061 (b) (3) the ‘General Rule’; and
2. Introduce and waive first reading and adopt by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance titled “Amendments to St. Helena Municipal Code Title 15 Buildings and Construction, Adopt and Amend in full the 2025 California Building Standards Code, Title 24.
Staff Report - Introduction and waiver of first reading of an Ordinance to implement the Triannual California Building Standards Code Adoption and Mod - Pdf
387 - 480
11.3. Request by City Ventures, LLC for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide three existing parcels totaling 2.53 acres into 42 lots, 41 for condominium purposes, one lot for common areas to be owned by the future homeowners’ association, and one 0.1-acre lettered lot, Parcel A, to contain the riparian corridor not for development. The applicant also requests City Council authorization to pay the water neutrality in-lieu retrofit fee pursuant to SHMC Section 13.12.030. The two items currently before the City Council for review are a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and the Water Neutrality in-lieu retrofit fee request.
A Demolition Permit for three existing single-family residences located 481 - 869
at 1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring Street was approved by the Planning Commission by a vote of 4-0 at the regularly scheduled December 2, 2025, Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 4). In addition, Minor Design Review of the project architecture, landscaping, and site improvements for the proposed 41 townhomes has been ministerially approved by the Community Development Director (Attachment 8).
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Mike Janusek, Contract Planner
Recommendation:
For the reasons described above, staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) authorizing the applicant to pay the Water Neutrality In-Lieu Retrofit Fee pursuant to SHMC 13.12.030; and
2. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 2) approving, pursuant to a statutory exemption under PRC 21080.66, the requested Vesting Tentative Map No. TSM25-001, File #PL24- 065 for the Spring Grove Project.
Staff Report - Spring Grove Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Water Neutrality In Lieu Fee Request - Pdf
Presentation
City Ventures - Spring Grove Presentation (PDF)
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 1
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 2
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 3
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 4
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 5
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 6
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 7
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 8
Public Comment - Daniel Hale 9
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 4
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 8
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 9
Public Comment - Michelle Covell 10
Public Comment - Tamara Sorensen 1
Public Comment - Tamara Sorensen 2
Public Comment - Wayne Leong 1
Public Comment - Wayne Leong 2
Public Comment - Tom Belt
Public Comment - Joshua Parke
Public Comment - Charles Covell
Public Comment - Phylis Anderson
12. OLD BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 8:00 p.m.
12.1. Consideration and adoption of a Resolution authorizing: 1) Amendment 871 - 988
#1 to St. Helena Contract FY 2024-055 with Dyett and Bhatia to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Specific Plan for an additional $98,840 for a total contract amount not to exceed $598,840; and 2) a budget increase in the amount of $98,840 using General Fund Reserves.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the attached resolution.
Staff Report - PSA Amendment #1 with Dyett and Bhatia for Downtown Specific Plan EIR - Pdf
13. NEW BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 8:15 p.m.
13.1. 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.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation:
Consider and Approve the Resolution
Staff Report - LWCF Grant Application Authorization - Pdf Presentation
989 - 1006
13.2. 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.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ashley Sylvester, Recreation Manager
Recommendation:
City Staff and the City Attorney recommend approving the proposed resolution.
Staff Report - St. Helena Little League Agreement - Pdf Public Comment - St Helena Little League
1007 - 1037
13.3. Establishment of 2026 City Council assignments to various City and regional Committees, Boards, and Commissions.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager
Recommendation:
Attachment 1 provides a list of current intergovernmental appointments.
Attachment 2 provides a list of Ad Hoc appointments available to fill.
Staff recommends City Council review and provide affirmation or recommended changes to appointments.
Staff Report - 2026 City Council Assignments to Various City and Napa County Committees, Boards and Commissions - Pdf
1039 - 1047
14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
14.1. A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) H. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
I. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) J. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
K. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee L. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
M. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports
15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for January 27, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on January 9, 2026.
Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision
Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.
If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St. Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.
MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742. The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.
Present: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
Absent: Council Member Billy Summers
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dohring called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Dohring led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
City Clerk, Andrew Bradley noted that item 10.6 would be removed from the consent calendar along with item 11.1 which was moved to a date certain of January 13, 2026.
Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to approve the amended agenda.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
5.1 Consideration and proposed approval of the Special City Council Meeting minutes of November 18, 2025, and the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2025.
Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve the Special City Council Meeting minutes of November 18, 2025, and the Regular Meeting minutes of November 25, 2025. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:
Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
6. PUBLIC FORUM:
Leslie Stanton and Deanna Griffin addressed the City Council.
7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, and AB 1234 REPORTS:
Acting City Attorney, Andres Booher noted that there was no reportable action from the Special Closed Session meeting on December 9, 2025.
A report was made by Interim Director of Community Services, Ashley Sylvester on upcoming City events.
8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
8.1 Arbor Day Proclamation 2025
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Mayor Dohring presented Arbor Day Proclamation to City Staff representative, Victor Neri of Parks and Trees.
City Manager, Anil Comelo, reported on a procedural change regarding the timing of the next Arbor Day proclamation presentation.
9. STAFF BRIEFING
9.1 Status Report on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Napa County Municipal Service Review (MSR) process
City Manager, Anil Comelo reported on the item.
10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote)
10.1 This item was pulled.
Receive and File FY 2024-25 Annual AB 1600 Report on Development Impact Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
Fees.
10.2 Adoption of a resolution certifying the Measure T Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for Fiscal Year 2024-25 and a resolution certifying of 6.67% Equivalent Fund expenditures for Fiscal Year 2024-25 under Measure T Program.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolutions.
10.3 Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution (1) Authorizing the hiring no more than two part-time, fixed-term staff to augment the Public Works Department staff to deliver a number of Capital and Operational improvement projects; (2) Rescinding Resolution 2025-117 authorizing execution of an agreement for services with Haley Aldrich, Inc.; and (3) Authorizing use of previously appropriated funds in the Capital Improvement Plan or the Public Works Operations budget for the cost of such employees.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Joseph Leach, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Recommendation:
Adoption of the Resolution.
10.4 Waiver of second reading and adoption of an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2025-002) to amend Section 17.16.030, end note 5 and Section 17.35.050(A) of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding excluding covered porches and similar structures from gross floor area.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:
1. Find that the proposed changes to Chapters 1.12, 17.05, and 17.32 of the St. Helena Municipal Code are exempt from CEQA Guideline 15061 (b)(3); and
2. Introduction and waive the first reading of a proposed ordinance (ZOA2025- 002) amending Section 17.16.030, end note 5 and Section 17.35.050(A) of the of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
10.5 Consideration of Reappointment of Brian Cramer to the Napa County Mosquito Abatement District
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager
Recommendation:
Adopt resolution to reappointment of Brian Cramer to the Napa County Mosquito Abatement District Committee.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
10.6 This item was removed from the consent calendar.
Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution (1) Awarding the Tank 2 Rehabilitation Project to Cal Sierra Construction Inc. in the amount of $1,168,500; (2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Construction Contract with Cal Sierra Construction Inc; (3) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve Change Orders not-to-exceed 15% of the Contract price; and (4) Authorize the Recommended Budget Amendments/Transfers.
CEQA Determination: Class I Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation:
Approve the Resolution
10.7 Consideration and Approval of a Resolution Creating Capital Improvement Project W26-03 Water Treatment Plant Modular Housing and Authorizing Associated Budget Adjustments.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.
10.8 Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Recruitment for a Director of Community Development.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to approve items 10.2 - 10.5 and items 10.7 and 10.8 The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
10.1 Receive and File FY 2024-25 Annual AB 1600 Report on Development Impact Fees.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
Recommendation:
Receive and file Annual AB 1600 Development Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025.
Administrative Services Director, Mandy Kellogg gave a brief report on the item and answered initial questions from Vice Mayor Deasy.
Mayor Dohring opened public comment; no public comment was received.
Discussion was turned over to the Council where comments and questions were made.
Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy moved to approve item 10.1. The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 **THIS ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO A DATE CERTAIN OF JANUARY 13, 2026**
1. Triannual California Building Standards Code Adoption Modifying Chapter 15 of the St Helena Municipal Code.
a. First reading and proposed adoption of the Ordinance titled “Amendments to St. Helena Municipal Code Title 15 Buildings and Construction, Adopt and Amend in full the 2025 California Building Standards Code, Title 24
11.2 Introduction and waiver of first reading of an ordinance amending Sections
17.22.050 (Alcoholic Beverage Sales) and 17.16.030 (B) (Residential Development Standards - Residential Zoning Districts Table, Endnote 5a), of the St. Helena Municipal Code to correct clerical errors and inaccurate references.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
Recommendation:
Introduce and waive the first reading of the proposed Ordinance of the City Council of the City of St. Helena amending Sections 17.22.050 (Alcohol Beverage Sales) and 17.16.030(B), endnote 5a of the City of St. Helena Municipal Code (ZOA 25-005) and find the proposed amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guidelines Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
Section 15061(b)(3).
Senior Planner, Jackie Oneal presented on the item.
Mayor Dohring opened the Public Hearing; no public comment was received.
The discussion was turned over to the Council.
Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to approve staff's recommendation.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
11.3 Introduce and waive first reading an Ordinance, amending Chapter 3.04 of the Municipal Code Purchasing of Supplies, Equipment and Services, and Procedures for Public Works Projects to update the City Manager's signing authority and add a new section providing Authority to Adopt Implementing Regulations and Administrative Policies.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:
Introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council amending sections 3.04.050.1, 3.04.120, 3.04.120, 3.04.130, 3.04.140, 3.04.150,
3.04.170, 3.04.175 and 3.04.340 of Chapter 3.04 of Title 3 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding the City Manager's authority to approve certain supplies, equipment, and public works up to a certain monetary value.
City Manager, Anil Comelo introduced the item. Administrative Services Director, Mandy Kellogg presented the item.
Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; no public comment was made.
The discussion was turned over to the Council where questions and comments were made.
Mayor Paul Dohring moved to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on roll call carried by the following vote:
Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy
RECUSE: None
12. OLD BUSINESS
12.1 Adopt a Resolution authorizing existing water customers in the Magnolia Oaks Subdivision to connect to their potable water service for irrigation purposes.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Eric Janzen, Assistant Public Works Director Recommendation:
Approve the Resolution.
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director, Joe Leach reported on the item.
Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; Public Comment was received by Leslie Stanton and Celeste Neeley.
The discussion was turned over to Council where comments and questions were made.
Council Member Aaron Barak moved to adopt the recommendation of staff, with the further provision that staff is authorized to evaluate and implement, at its discretion, appropriate means of absorbing the associated costs related to the removal and capping of the meter. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Mayor Dohring called for a 10-minute recess at 7:50 p.m.
Council reconvened at 8:01 p.m.
12.2 Parks, Recreation & Trails Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mara Strickler, City Librarian
Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
Recommendation:
Provide feedback regarding key findings and preliminary recommendations presented by BluePoint Planning for final draft of the Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan.
Deputy Director of Community Services, City Librarian, Mara Strickler introduced Mindy Craig from BluePoint Planning who made the presentation.
Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; public comment was received by Tracy McBride.
The discussion was turned over to the Council where questions and comments were made, specifically as it pertains to funding of the project.
13. NEW BUSINESS
13.1 Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution approving the Pavement Management Plan and approving the Measure U 5-Year List of Projects CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director, Joe Leach reported on the item.
Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; public comment was received by Tracy McBride.
The discussion was turned over to the Council for deliberation.
Council Member Aaron Barak moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
13.2 Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $25,000 of Hardship Assistance Funding for Backflow Prevention Installation Requirements Following Detection Through Smart Water Meters.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
Recommendation:
Approve the attached resolution.
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works, Joe Leach reported on the item.
Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; No public comments were made.
The discussion was turned over to the Council where questions and comments were made.
Council Member Aaron Barak moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Mayor Dohring asked for a motion to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.
Council Member Kate Spadarotto moved to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Aaron Barak and on voice vote carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES:
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN:
RECUSE:
13.3 Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Lease-Purchase Agreement with Enterprise Fleet Management to lease Nine (9) New Operations Vehicles for the Public Works and Community Services Departments and Purchase One (1) New Operations Vehicle for Public Works for a total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $463,794, Including a 2% Contingency, and to Lease Comparable Vehicles if the Specified Models are Unavailable.
CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Carlos Uribe, Assistant Public Works Operations Manager Recommendation:
Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works, Joe Leach presented the item.
Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; public comment was made by Leslie Stanton.
The discussion was turned over to the Council. It was the consensus of the Council that the item be continued to a future meeting pending additional data.
13.4 Consideration of a Resolution: 1) Approving a First Amendment to the Employment Agreement with City Manager Anil Comelo effective July 20, 2025, and 2) Approving the Publicly Available Pay Schedule in Accordance with the Requirement of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, for Executive Management.
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
City Manager Anil Comelo introduced Acting City Attorney, Andreas Booher who reported on the item.
Mayor Dohring opened the Public Comment; no public comment was received.
The discussion was turned over to the Council for deliberation.
Council Member Aaron Barak moved to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Council Member Aaron Barak, and Council Member Kate Spadarotto
NOES: Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy
ABSENT: Council Member Billy Summers
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
13.5 2026 City Council Meeting Calendar
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager
Recommendation:
Review the 2026 calendar and provide direction in regards to City Council Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
meeting dates.
City Manager, Anil Comelo reported on the item.
Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; no public comment was received.
It was the consensus of the Council to adopt the 2026 calendar - canceling the first meeting in July, the second meeting in November and the second meeting of December.
14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
Vice Mayor Deasy spoke on attending the recent Parks and Recreation meeting.
14.1 A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) H. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
I. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) J. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
K. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee L. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
M. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Agenda Item #5.1.
Regular City Council
December 9, 2025
______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
_________________________
Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
Agenda Item #5.1.
!"
# $
%&
'()'*)(+(,
'(-++
.
/01
2
34
56!1 "4#7
5
89!
89!
56!1 "4#7
.
8 14
:& 14
56!1 "4#7
8 !5
& !5
56!1 "4#7
.;
1
:;
1
56!1 "4#7
<!!
8
=!!"&
!1 ! "
# >? !
!"
#7
<!
.
=!
: "!
8 1
@
& 1
4 "
#7
% 51
A14
B 51
14 "
# CD
EFGHIJ
KDLM
EFGHIJ
FNO
FPPJ
QRST
UVMFWDNX
FU
F
IMUDOMNYZ
[MUYMI
CFIOG
PM\MI
]
M^LMIVY
R
IMFO
FPH_O
O_IDNX
Y`M
ab
PFUY
NDX`Y
cHI
IMcMIMNLMd
CDX`PDX`YMO
VFIFXIFV`J
FNO
DNLP_OMO
PDNW
YH
c_PP
PM\MId
bHTDNX
cIHT
Y`M
cHITMI
ab
b`FDIJ
bDYG
LH_NLDP
TMTeMIJ
PHNXfTM
IMUDOMNY
FU
gMPP
FU
PFgGMIJ
R
cMMP
PDWM
Y`DU
DU
Hc
_YTHUY
DTVHIYFNY
YH
`DX`PDX`Yd
hU
R
UFDO
PFUY
NDX`YJ
g`DL`
FVVMFIU
PHUY
FU
Y`M
iDOMH
UYHVVMO
IMLHIODNXJ
DU
g`FY
[MUYMI
DU
UFGDNX
DU
YH
NHY
I_U`d
[FUY
NDX`YJ
Y`FY
gFU
NHY
F
gHIWU`HVd
aPMFUM
UMM
c_IY`MI
eMPHg
cHI
g`FY
DY
TMFNU
YH
`FiM
F
gHIWU`HVd
R
UVMNY
F
XHHO
VHIfHN
Hc
YgH
OFGU
IMFODNX
Y`M
jHNDNX
LHOMJ
Y`M
UYFk
IMVHIYJ
Y`M
XMNMIFP
VPFNJ
FNO
`H_UDNX
MPMTMNYJ
YH
ODUL_UU
FY
Y`DU
lgHIWU`HVm
g`DL`
gFU
TG
_NOMIUYFNODNX
Y`M
fTM
YH
ODUL_UU
`Hg
Y`M
jHNDNX
LHOM
DU
OHDNX
UDNLM
DYSU
FOHVfHNJ
FNO
FPUH
Y`M
PFIXMI
LHNYM^YJ
FU
F
VPFNNDNX
LHTTDUUDHN
FNO
H_I
IHPM
YH
eM
UYMgFIOU
Hc
Y`M
XMNMIFP
VPFN
FNO
H_I
LHTT_NDYGd
RY
DU
LPMFI
YH
TMJ
THUY
Hc
Y`M
LHTTMNYU
FNO
gHIOU
Y`FY
`FiM
IMFP
U_eUYFNLM
FIM
_NcHIY_NFYMPG
PHUYJ
FU
DY
gFU
IMLHIOMO
DN
nonpJ
FNO
NHYMO
PFUY
NDX`Y
Y`FY
THUY
Hc
Y`MUM
LHTTMNYU
gMIMNSY
FOHVYMOJ
FNO
FIM
NHg
FXFDN
UFPDMNYd
h
gHIWU`HV
g`MIM
gM
LH_PO
`FiM
`FO
IMFP
ODUL_UUDHN
YH
gHIW
H_Y
UDXNDqLFNY
YHVDLU
gFU
Y_INMO
DNYH
r_UY
F
HNM
gFG
ODFPHX
GMY
FXFDNd
R
FT
XMN_DNMPG
UVMNODNX
T_L`
VMIUHNFP
fTM
YH
ODXMUY
TFYMIDFP
Y`FY
NMMOU
YH
eM
ODXMUYMOJ
LHTVIM`MNUDiMPG
FNO
LIDfLFPPGd
hU
TFNG
HY`MIU
`FiM
FU
gMPP
DN
Y`MDI
V_ePDL
LHTTMNYUd
hNO
_NcHIY_NFYMPG
DY
UMMTU
PDWM
Y`MIM
DY
DU
NMiMI
Y`M
IDX`Y
fTMJ
HI
MNH_X`
fTM
YH
ODUL_UU
DY
DN
OMVY`
cHI
TMFNDNXc_P
FNO
MkMLY_FP
MNXFXMTMNYd
hNO
NHg
DNUYMFO
Hc
UVMFWDNX
FY
F
lgHIWU`HVm
R
FT
FUWMO
YH
UVMNO
THIM
Hc
TG
fTM
V_sNX
g`FY
R
`FiM
cH_NO
DNYH
e_PPMY
VHDNYUJ
cHI
MFUM
Hc
ODXMUfHNd
t`FY
GH_
OHNSY
_NOMIUYFNO
DU
Y`M
FTH_NY
Hc
fTM
DY
gH_PO
YFWM
TM
YH
OH
Y`FYJ
YH
OH
DY
gMPPJ
FuMI
R
r_UY
UVMNY
OFGU
LHTeDNX
Y`IH_X`
DY
FPPJ
IMFOG
YH
ODUL_UU
FY
Y`M
gHIWU`HVd
Rc
R
LFTM
YH
Y`DU
gHIWU`HVJ
TDU_NOMIUYFNODNX
Y`M
XHFPJ
VMI`FVU
FXFDN
DY
DU
TG
cF_PYd
R
`HVM
VMHVPM
IMFOvPDUYMN
YH
Y`M
gHIOU
iMIG
LFIMc_PPG
cIHT
Y`HUM
g`H
gIHYM
DN
FNO
HI
UVHWMd
w`M
U_eUYFNLM
DU
Hc
_YTHUY
DTVHIYFNLM
YH
Y`DU
YHgNSU
c_Y_IM
XIHgY`J
FNO
U_UYFDNFeDPDYGJ
`MFPY`J
UFcMYGJ
FNO
MNU_IDNX
UMIiDLMU
cHI
FPPd
hNO
DY
IMx_DIMU
UDsNX
OHgN
FNO
IMiDMgDNX
Y`MUM
OHL_TMNYU
DN
F
IMFP
ygHIWU`HVdS
hNO
_NOMIUYFNODNX
Y`M
c_PP
DTVFLY
DY
`FU
HN
H_I
LHTT_NDYGd
hY
Y`DU
VHDNYJ
R
FT
LHNLMINMO
Y`FY
Y`M
aPFNNDNX
bHTTDUUDHNSU
IHPM
FNO
IMUVHNUDeDPDfMU
FIM
eMDNX
LHTVIHTDUMOd
R
YFWM
TG
HFY`
YH
UMIiM
Y`DU
LHTT_NDYG
UMIDH_UPGJ
FNO
DY
DU
OMMVPG
YIH_ePDNX
YH
cMMP
Y`FY
Y`DU
IHPM
DU
eMLHTDNX
DNMkMLY_FPd
R
qNO
TGUMPc
FY
F
LIHUUIHFOUd
tM
HuMN
FLWNHgPMOXM
Y`FY
VFUY
DUU_MU
gMIM
OMcMIIMO
HI
lWDLWMO
OHgN
Y`M
IHFOJm
LHNYIDe_fNX
YH
Y`M
L`FPPMNXMU
gM
cFLM
YHOFGd
hU
R
gFYL`
Y`FY
VF\MIN
LHNfN_MJ
R
LFN
FPIMFOG
MNiDUDHN
F
THTMNY
qiM
GMFIU
cIHT
NHgzg`MN
nop{
FIIDiMU
FNO
gM
FUW
`Hg
gM
XHY
`MIMd
R
`HVM
Y`FY
g`MN
Y`FY
fTM
LHTMUJ
Y`DU
THTMNY
DU
IMTMTeMIMO
FU
HNM
g`MIM
Y`MIM
gFU
FN
HVVHIY_NDYG
YH
VF_UMJ
x_MUfHNJ
FNO
OH
eM\MId
hU
EId
CFIOG
LF_fHNMOJ
Y`M
IDUW
DU
NHY
DN
FUWDNX
`FIO
x_MUfHNUJ
e_Y
DN
L`HHUDNX
NHY
YHzFNO
DN
ODUFVVHDNfNX
Y`M
LHTT_NDYG
gM
FIM
TMFNY
YH
UMIiMd
|}~|
~ |
¡¢£¤¤¥¦¦§§§¦£§£¨¤
Agenda Item #6.1.
!"
#
$
%
&
'
()*+,-./0*,12345
#
6
072,,8-1-,*9.-3:5
$
%
;<-=>-3-)=?*3@;33*1=?*35A
B*,,=+*)=?*3@C-=.DE2,<2345A
FGH2-1-C=342+,-IE:G*.-J5K
L
;3:-3J21-M-=)32345N
#
O
#
P
Q
'
FG?1-1JR(=JJ21-5
S
T=G2,2:=?*35
#
S
IE:G*.-J5
$
%S
Agenda Item #6.1.
!
"
"#
$%
" &
'((!
)*)+,-.+,/.*
01*)
2
3+
34
0*/
3
5 6
7
,18)1
999+":
66
&+";
Agenda Item #6.1.
!
"
#
$
%
$
&'()**
+,*
-.'()**/(,*01()'*(23(.4 56)
7897:98;8<
=>;?
@&
A &0B0
C*D20
-&C*D20/('BE2)**F03G,4H
@0
C)1'FG
-IJ)1'FG/('BE2)**F03G,4H
KFJ1*L
M10J*B
-0N10J*B/('BE2)**F03G,4H
&'()**
C*02B
-.'()**(J*02B/G.0'3(.4H
O)0F
P02)
-O)0F3P02)/NN0L3(.4H
KFJ1*02
M)*1
-0FJ1*023N)*1/NN0L3(.4H
+)1'2I)*1
P01F*1
-+P01F*1/('BE2)**F03G,4H
2*
-2*/*F'0FL'F*23(.4H
KF'
+.*
-K+.*/('BE2)**F03G,4H
C0F'*
Q0*
-J0F'*.01)0*/G.0'3(.4H
+01
&(+1F0(
-(.((1F0(/.0(3(.4H
&'()0*
+0J010
-.'..<8R/G.0'3(.4H
S)F
&)F*1
-TN.)F*1/*01)'F3F*4H
60.010
U1*F2*F
-0.010/,0FG01JI1I*1'*23(.4H
K01F
M010
-0N010/('BE2)**F03G,4H
V0*
UI0J01
-2I0J01/('BE2)**F03G,4H
M'B
U..*12
-MU..*12/('BE2)**F03G,4H
&'()**
+,*
-.'()**/(,*01()'*(23(.4H
S0('*
F*0
-TF*0/('BE2)**F03G,4H
P0BF*
W*FG
-L0BF*/*FG01()3(.4 %
@N'(
+..*F
-IN'((..*F/('BE2)**F03G,4
R
00().*F2
X7;
&MY
ZO[ODKW
@WK[
MUOD\K6][U
U^&&KD_
&W+3IJEH
+CO
K[KW_U]U
U^&&KD_
C+3J(`H
D*,'2*J
UI1'FG
Z1,*
P0*1
[*10'B
D*I1a;?778<3IJEH
PK6OD
[O^6DKW]6_
@W]+_3IJEH
bccd
efeghgij
k
lmfe
ncophqed
rcoe
gcser
teimtdhgi
sle
begetmq
uqmgj
vlhnl
k
mo
rwxohygi
zct
pwxqhn
ncooegs{
|k
}~
k
}
u
~
}
{
}
}~
kj
u
lere
tepteregs
o
fhevr
mr
m
terhdegsj
vlc
lmr
denhded
sc
fcqwgseet
mr
m
u
mr
m
ncoowghs
retfhne{
kg
ptepmthgi
zct
sle
eneoxet
j
vctrlcpj
k
tefheved
sle
cghgi
cdej
begetmq
uqmgj
mgd
gwoetcwr
pwxqhn
ncooegsr{
c
egrwte
slhr
vct
hr
gcs
qcrsj
k
lmfe
ctimghed
hs
hgsc
slhr
dcnwoegsj
vlhnl
vhqq
retfe
mr
te
begetmq
uqmg
cz
m
rether
cz
dcnwoegsr
k
pqmg
sc
ptepmte{
k
lcpe
cw
fhev
slhr
mr
sle
ncgsthxwcg
cz
rcoecge
ptcfhdhgi
m
¡¢£¤¥
¡¥¤¦¥
§¥
¥¨©¥ ¡¥
ª
§¥
¤«¢¬«¥
£¥{
~r
tezetegned
hg
sle
umts
®
bu
dcnj
k
lmfe
hgnqwded
o
mgmqrhr
ptefhcwrq
rwxoh¯ed
cz
sle
mset
ewstmqhs
ucqhnj
hsreqzj
mr
veqq
mr
mg
mgmqrhr
cz
sle
pthgi
btcfe
uj
hg
ncopmthrcg
sc
}wgset
mr
mg
e°mopqe
mr
sc
sle
moxhiwhs
hg
sle
nmqnwqmcgrj
qemfhgi
ocge
cg
sle
smxqe{
}mpp
}cqhdmr{
±²³´µ¶¶µ
·²¸
¹º»µ¶¶
¼½¾¿ÀÁ¾ÁÃ
ÄŽÁƽÃ
ÇÀ½Â¾ÁȽ
ÈÉ
Ê˽ÅÁÀÈÆÌÃ
ÍÎÎÇ
¼Ä
ÏÐÏÑÒÓÔÑÒÕÔÐ
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Hi all,
I am beginning to compile some of the notes I’ve taken while reading the zoning code, General Plan, public comments, and related materials. This may require several documents, as there is a significant amount of information.
Please note that my intention in doing this is to contribute in good faith as a form of community service—bringing attention to my observations through the lens of my professional expertise, and hopefully helping make these documents more accessible and translatable. These are objective observations, offered in the spirit of being constructive, and I hope you find them helpful.
Abbreviations:
GP – General plan
ZC – zoning code
WNP – Water neutrality policy
CC – city council
PC – planning commission
HE – housing element.
Why this is important:
• General Plan Language: “Preserve” vs. “Protect”
The General Plan specifically uses the term “preserve”—not merely “protect”—with respect to land within the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Based on my review, some of the by-right housing sites appear to convert or encroach upon green and/or agricultural land that the General Plan explicitly calls for preserving. For this reason, the selected housing sites do not appear to be consistent with the General Plan. • High-Quality Design / Avoidance of Big-Box Development The General Plan emphasizes high-quality design and explicitly discourages big-box development, including in residential growth. The Spring Grove project, at approximately 40 feet in height, is significantly out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and reflects a “big-box” housing typology. As proposed, the project does not appear to comply with the General Plan’s design policies.
Agenda Item #6.1.
• Sustainable Growth and Long-Term Resource Planning
The General Plan requires that growth be sustainable over the long term and not strain natural resources, public services, or quality of life. In response to questions about water availability, staff has relied on the Water Neutrality Policy (WNP). However, there are several concerns:
o As many have noted, the current WNP is outdated and is not truly “neutral.” There is no net water savings under the existing framework. The policy now relies on in-lieu fees that effectively cover only the cost of approximately one year of water use.
o Other jurisdictions use in-lieu fees to fund the infrastructure improvements necessary for long-term, sustainable growth. St. Helena’s current approach does not appear to do this. o The City has chosen to defer updating the WNP rather than proactively evaluating what is required to ensure sustainable growth. From a long-term planning perspective, the responses to date are underwhelming and concerning.
o Please see my attached public comment from the Water Neutrality Forum, which outlines these issues in detail. I have also included an example showing how the Spring Grove project applied the WNP and significantly reduced its in-lieu fees compared to the Hunter project. This comparison demonstrates that the current WNP calculations are overly broad and do not reasonably require new development to offset the water demand it creates.
o In short, my recommendation is to update the existing water-use calculations—using the RSA methodology applied to the Hunter project—to establish a more realistic delta in gallons per minute (GPM) saved per household. I have included a side-by-side comparison in the attached document. o This update should not take months. It could be implemented quickly, and the resulting in-lieu fees could be used to address existing water infrastructure needs as well as those created by additional growth.
Wayne Leong and Tom Belt have both submitted substantive comments regarding the Water Neutrality Policy (WNP), underscoring why this issue is urgent. Many others have raised similar concerns over the years; however, with new RHNA-related development now moving forward, the need to address the WNP is even more critical. As a General Plan policy, ensuring that growth does not strain existing services must be clearly calculated, documented, and demonstrated. This is a fundamental responsibility of city leadership.
This urgency is also reflected in the City Council’s stated goals, including:
2. Infrastructure & Environment: Upgrading streets, water systems, and facilities, and adopting sustainable practices and climate resilience strategies.
3. Water Security: Ensuring a reliable water supply through prudent management and smart meter technology.
Stormwater, Overflow Design, and Planning-Phase Oversight Another key issue raised in Wayne Leong’s documents concerns stormwater overflow design and overflow routing.
During the Planning Commission meeting, I asked what would happen if the privately owned lift station associated with the bioretention system were to fail, causing runoff from new impervious surfaces (pavement and roofs) to flow into and flood neighboring properties. The response was that liability would rest with the property owners.
This represents a significant planning-phase oversight. The explanation given was that civil, plumbing, and related systems would be reviewed as conditions of approval during the building permit phase to ensure code compliance at that time. The problem with this approach is that building-phase review typically analyzes systems within the project boundary, not within the broader neighborhood or watershed context. That broader analysis is the responsibility of the planning process.
As a result, the City risks approving projects that appear code-compliant in isolation but create future failures and liabilities for homeowners—precisely the residents we are trying to house, retain, and integrate into the community. In this sense, the process is failing future residents before they even move in.
Code, Intent, and the Forgotten Role of the General Plan In his comments at the December 16 Planning Commission workshop, Wayne Leong spoke to the broader issue:
that the current code framework allowed an outcome that few, if any, appeared to support. This included individuals who are generally supportive of additional housing, such as Mary Stephenson and Planning Commissioner Autumn Anderson, who worked on the Housing Element. From the dais, it was clear that even among housing advocates, there was concern that the Spring Grove project misses the underlying intent.
What Wayne articulates—and what my own review supports—is that this outcome is not solely the result of state law. It is also the product of our locally adopted Zoning Code and Housing Element. As Joshua Parke noted in his document, the major failure has been the omission of the General Plan as the controlling framework.
In reviewing the Zoning Code alongside the General Plan, it is clear that the Zoning Code explicitly states that the General Plan holds supremacy. The General Plan is the guiding policy document, and all other documents must be Agenda Item #6.1.
consistent with it. The urgency, therefore, is not only to review individual projects, but to examine how the Zoning Code and Housing Element—through specific language and implementation details—have failed to produce outcomes aligned with the community’s stated goals and intent.
Below, I will highlight several relevant General Plan policies and explain why each is important in understanding where these conflicts arise.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Notes:
• Growth Management and Zoning Code Clarity
Growth management policies and the Zoning Code should clearly specify acceptable building heights and densities.
These standards guide new development toward a high-quality built environment and ensure that quality of life, infrastructure capacity, and natural resources are strategically planned to accommodate growth. At the same time, they establish what must be protected and preserved to maintain the town’s character.
Preserving community character is not merely aesthetic—it is foundational to St. Helena’s economic vitality. If too much character is lost, the town risks losing the very qualities that attract people to visit, shop, dine, stay, and invest here. As a community located in a valley built on tourism, keeping character at the forefront of growth decisions is essential to long-term sustainability.
Agenda Item #6.1.
NOTES
• While these policies may seem self-explanatory, their importance lies in the emphasis they place on infrastructure capacity and avoiding strain on existing systems—particularly stormwater management. Growth must be evaluated not only in terms of units provided, but in terms of whether supporting infrastructure can safely and sustainably accommodate that growth.
• The General Plan also addresses development relative to the Urban Limit Line (ULL). It allows consideration of areas beyond the ULL only as needed, and specifically when infill development within the ULL would harm community character. Even then, the Plan prioritizes the use of already developed sites first, rather than the conversion of agricultural or greenfield land
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
NOTES
• When reading these policies, it is important to consider the context of a 40-foot building proposed within an area predominantly composed of single-family residences. This is particularly relevant because the Zoning Code has not been written with sufficient clarity to protect single-family neighborhood character in the manner the General Plan states is required. This is one of the ways in which the Spring Grove project appears inconsistent with General Plan policies.
• A key question is: How many 40-foot buildings currently exist in St. Helena, and where are they located? Understanding this existing context is essential to evaluating whether new development is appropriate in a given location. Placing 40-foot buildings within predominantly single-story neighborhoods does not align with the General Plan policies as written. This principle is commonly referred to as context-sensitive development.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
I want to highlight the importance of the point above.
The General Plan identifies what are often referred to as the “fingers of green”—open and agricultural areas within the Urban Limit Line that are intended to be preserved. These areas are not incidental; they are a deliberate planning strategy to maintain community character and spatial separation.
In reviewing the Housing Element and the selection of housing sites, it appears that some of these designated “fingers of green” have been identified for development. This approach does not align with the General Plan and fails to protect the town’s character. Importantly, the General Plan uses the term “preserve,” not merely “protect,” in reference to these areas, indicating a higher standard and stronger intent to retain them in their existing condition.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Chapter 7: Community Design is particularly rich in guidance and intent. It contains extensive policy direction that would be best understood by reading the chapter in its entirety, as nearly every section is relevant. The excerpts highlighted here are only a small sample and serve to illustrate several principles that have been lost—or insufficiently carried forward—into the Zoning Code and Housing Element. These omissions contribute directly to the inconsistencies and outcomes we are now seeing, and underscore the need to re-anchor implementation tools to the General Plan’s original intent.
This chapter is explicitly identified as CRITICAL, and for good reason. It directly ties community design to public health, safety, and quality of life.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Public Health, Safety, and Quality of Life
We frequently reference the need to protect public health and safety, as well as overall quality of life. Open space plays a major role in all three:
• Open space is a fundamental component of physical and mental health, recreation, and overall quality of life in St. Helena.
• For young families, the rural connection—the ability to see and experience the landscape, history, and roots of the place—is central to a sense of place, community identity, and continuity. • This chapter makes clear that these values are not secondary; they are core planning principles.
I do not believe the Housing Element adequately accounted for these factors when selecting certain sites.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Specific Site Concerns
• As shown on the map, Site 10 is existing agricultural land and functions as a finger of green within the ULL. Under the General Plan, this area should be preserved. • The area near the library, including the pathway and trail, is designated as open space. This too is a finger of green.
o If these spaces are ever considered for development, it should only be for a clear, meaningful, and community-serving purpose, not primarily for revenue generation. o Given our limited resources—land, water, infrastructure, and natural open space—the General Plan directs the City to be extremely careful in how these areas are used.
Importantly, the General Plan provides a clear framework: if utilizing green open space within the ULL would place the town’s character at risk, then growth should instead be directed elsewhere—including consideration of areas outside the ULL that are specifically preserved for future need. The Plan does not support sacrificing internal green fingers simply because they are within the ULL.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
My closing thoughts
The General Plan is the City’s supreme guiding policy document. It establishes the long-term vision for growth, character, infrastructure, resource protection, and quality of life, and it explicitly holds precedence over the Zoning Code, Housing Element, and all implementing regulations. These subordinate documents are required to be consistent with—and to faithfully implement—the General Plan’s policies and intent.
Based on the observations outlined above, there are clear indications that elements of the Zoning Code and the Housing Element have been applied, and in some cases written, in ways that do not fully align with the General Plan—particularly with respect to preservation of open space and agricultural land within the Urban Limit Line, context-sensitive development, infrastructure capacity, water and stormwater management, and protection of community character. These are not minor considerations; they are identified in the General Plan as critical to public health, safety, and quality of life.
For this reason, it is essential that dedicated time be spent critically analyzing the Zoning Code and Housing Element through the lens of the General Plan. This review should focus not only on compliance with state law, but on whether local policies are producing outcomes consistent with the community’s adopted vision and stated priorities. Doing so is necessary to ensure that future development serves the long-term interests of St. Helena, protects what makes the town unique, and provides housing in a way that is sustainable, equitable, and aligned with community values.
This document is intended as an initial set of observations to bring attention to these issues. A more detailed analysis and set of recommendations will follow in a separate document when time allows.
This review is time-intensive, and I hope it provides value to the community and decision-makers. If it is not useful, I would appreciate feedback so that my efforts can be directed elsewhere.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Spring Grove
Water Neutrality Report
February 10, 2025
A. BACKGROUND
To ensure compliance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy, City Ventures is submitting a water neutrality analysis for the proposed Spring Grove Subdivision. This analysis outlines the anticipated water consumption for the development and presents potential options for water off-set mitigation.
B. CURRENT THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
There are currently three homes on the property: one 4-bedroom, one 3-bedroom, and one 2-bedroom.
According to the St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development section on water demand analysis for existing water use, 150 gpd/bedroom should be used. This equates to a theoretical domestic water demand to be 1,350 gallons per day for the current homes.
Address Bedrooms Gal/Bedroom
1447 Spring 4 150
1505 Spring 2 150
1515 Spring 3 150
Gallons/Day 1,350
Gallons/Year 492,750
* Current landscape irrigation not supplied by city water but by well onsite C. PROPOSED THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
The proposed development includes 41 lots with side-by-side townhomes, consisting of 41 3+ bedroom units. Water demand for the project is calculated based on the water usage of fixtures and appliances, determined by the number of occupants, in accordance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy for Development.
The following outlines the water performance requirements for fixtures and appliances.
Fixture # Unit Day Occupant
Toilet 3 Flushes 1 1
Faucet 0.25 Minute 3 1
Shower 8 Minute 1 1
Kitchen Faucet 4 Minute 1 1
Clothes Washer 0.37 Load 1 1
Dishwasher 0.1 Load 1 1
Agenda Item #6.1.
Water usage from fixtures and appliances will comply with the minimum standards set by the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy.
Fixture Gallons Unit
Toilet 1.3 Flushes
Faucet 1.5 Minute
Shower 2 Minute
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 Minute
Clothes Washer 19,7 Load
Dishwasher 6.3 Load
In accordance with the City of St. Helena's policy, the analysis assumes two occupants per bedroom.
Following the City's Water Neutral Policy for Development, the estimated domestic water demand for the proposed project is 11,462 gallons per day. The calculations are included below.
Occupants
Units Bedrooms Per Bedroom Total
41 4 2 328
Fixture Unit Times/Day Gals/Unit Occupants Gals/Day
Toilets 1 3 1.3 328 1,279
Sink Faucet 0.25 3 1.5 328 369
Showerhead 8 1 2 328 5,248
Kitchen Faucet 4 1 1.5 328 1,968
Clothes Washer 0.37 1 19.7 328 2,391
Dish Washer 0.1 1 6.3 328 207
Total Gallons/Day 11,462
Total Gallons/Year 4,183,496
D. THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE WATER DEMAND
For the proposed project landscape irrigation will be supplied from a well on site. According to Municipal Code 13.12.010 landscape water usage will not be included in the water neutrality study.
Agenda Item #6.1.
E. PROPOSED WATER NEUTRALITY MITIGATION
The existing theoretical water usage on the property is 1,350 gallons per day, and the proposed developments theoretical water usage is 11,462 gallons per day. Therefore, to comply with water neutrality the development must offset 10,112 gallons per day. This can be done by either retrofitting residential and non-residential properties with low flow devices or by paying an in-lieu fee that is equivalent to the cost of retrofitting enough homes, as provided by Municipal Code 13.12.020. The calculation of the in-lieu fee is attached below.
F. IN-LIEU RETROFIT FEES
The proposed project will increase water usage by 10,112 gallons per day. Therefore, the project proposes to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the cost of retrofitting showerheads, faucets, and toilets in existing homes to comply with the required water savings.
The theoretical water use for homes with retrofitted low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Table 2- Theoretical Water use with retrofitted low flow fixtures per residence Flow Occupants
Fixture Rate Duration Daily Uses Number Gal/Day
Showerheads 2 8 1 8 128
Sink Faucet 1.5 0.25 3 8 9
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 4 1 8 48
Toilet 1.3 1 3 8 31
Clothes Washer 19.7 1 0.37 8 58
Dish Washer 6.3 1 0.1 8 5
Total Gal/Day - (1) 4-Bdrm Home 280
Total Gal/Day -(41) 4-Bdrm Homes 11,462
Table 3- Theoretical Water Use Saving per Residence
Gallons/Day
Theoretical Water Use - Old Fixtures 600
Theoretical Water Use - New Fixtures 280
Savings 320
To offset the anticipated water demand of the proposed project, 7,248 3-bedroom residences will need retrofitting with low flow fixtures.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Table 4- Required Residences needing retrofitting
Gallons/Day
New Water Demand 10,112
Water Savings per Home (Retrofit) 320
Residences Needing Retrofit 32
The expected cost of retrofitting existing homes with new low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Table 5- Retrofit Material Cost per residence
Fixture Qty Cost/Unit Total
Showerhead 2 $178 $356
Sink Faucet 2 $135 $270
Kitchen Faucet 1 $225 $225
Toilet 2 $200 $400
Clothes Washer 1 $700 $700
Dish Washer 1 $520 $520
Total Estimated Material Cost Per Residences $2,471
Table 6- Retrofit Labor Cost Per residence
Fixture Hours Qty Hourly Cost Total
Showerhead 1 2 $90 $180
Sink Faucet 1 3 $90 $270
Kitchen Faucet 1 1 $90 $90
Toilet 2 2 $90 $360
Clothes Washer 2 1 $90 $180
Dish Washer 2 1 $90 $180
Total Estimated Labor Cost per Residence $1,260
The total estimated cost is the sum of the estimated material and labor cost per residence.
Table 7- Total Retrofit Cost
Total Estimated Cost to Retrofit $3,731
Residences Needing Retrofit 32
Total Estimated In-Lieu Fee $119,392
Agenda Item #6.1.
Proposed low flow fixture costs are listed below. These were found on build.com and ferguson.com on September 20, 2024.
o Showerhead- Delta, Kayra, Monitor 14 Series Shower Trim in Chrome- Model#: T14233 o Sink Faucet- Delta, Kayra, Two Handle Widespread Bathroom Faucet in Chrome- Model#:
3533LF-MPU
o Kitchen Faucet- Delta, Coranto, Single Handle Pull-Down Kitchen Faucet in ChromeModel#: 9179-DST o Toilet- Western Pottery- 1.28G Elongated Bowl Easy Height- Model#: 832-T8HET o Clothes Washer - Samsung - 4.5 Cu. Ft. High-Efficiency Stackable Smart Front Load Washer with Steam and Super Speed Wash - Platinum
o Dish Washer- LG - 24 in. in Stainless Steel Front Control Dishwasher- Model #: LDFN3432T o Labor Cost cited in table 6 are estimates for contractors in the St. Helena area found on https://www.taskrabbit.com
G. CONCLUSION
The proposed project theoretical water usage is 11,462 gallons per day. The existing theoretical water usage on site is 1,350 gallons per day. Therefore, the project must save 10,112 gallons per day or pay an in-lieu fee to comply with St. Helena water neutrality policy for development. The project will pay an inlieu fee of $119,392, equal to the cost of retrofitting enough residences with low flow fixtures to offset the proposed theoretical water use.
Agenda Item #6.1.
1 Michelle Covell
From: Michelle Covell
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:27 PM
To: '[email protected]'; Erika Opp
Subject: Please include this on Public forum of Nov. 18, 2025 city council agenda.
Dear City Council,
I will try to keep this brief and to the point. I am wring to you purely as a resident. • I saw Tom’s post regarding the Water Neutrality Policy appearing on the November 18th public forum. • My comments here focus on the policy itself, parcularly how its current structure allows for inconsistent calculaons of water savings and in-lieu fees.
• In reviewing mulple water neutrality reports, I noced significant discrepancies in the theorecal water-use savings per resident. These differences appear to stem from the absence of clearly defined “gallons saved” standards for replacing exisng high-flow fixtures with low-flow fixtures in the policy. • Because the policy leaves these calculaons open to interpretaon, applicants may subjecvely determine their own savings assumpons. This results in large variaons in in-lieu fees, depending on which methodology is used.
• One previously submi0ed project report (Hunter, by RSA) uses a more reasonable and transparent formula for calculang actual water savings. I believe this approach could serve as the basis for updang the Water Neutrality Policy, removing ambiguity and strengthening consistency. • When applying that more standardized calculaon model, the resulng in-lieu fee differences are substanal— demonstrang why clearer guidelines are essenal.
• Another major concern is that the policy, as wri0en, only calculates savings for one year of neutrality, even though new water users will connue drawing from the system indefinitely. The policy does not address longterm neutrality or how perennial usage should be offset.
I raise these points for the following reasons:
1. Fairness and proporonality: Current in-lieu fee calculaons may significantly undervalue the long-term water impact of substanal new residenal development.
2. Infrastructure realies: Our community connues to experience aging water infrastructure, seasonal supply challenges, and occasional pump failures. A policy that accounts only for one year of neutrality does not reflect these long-term constraints.
3. Our community is experiencing connually rising rates, which have now reached unsustainable levels.
4. The water neutrality policy is a potenal method for addressing costs for repairs and maintenance of the system, not just on the water rate studies and water bills.
5. Future RHNA-driven growth: As the City accommodates addional units in coming years, each project will cumulavely increase demand on a limited water supply and potenally strain exisng infrastructure.
6. Drought resilience: The City should consider how Water Neutrality Policy reform could address cyclical drought years, including whether neutrality should account for mul-year supply variability.
7. Supply guarantees: Will future versions of the policy consider water purchases from Napa, or require contractual assurances for summer-month reliability?
8. System capacity and pressure: Recent pump failures required reliance on imported water with lower pressure.
With future increases in users and demand, how will pressure and reliability be protected if similar failures occur again?
Agenda Item #6.1.
2 I am aware that the Water Neutrality Policy has been brought up before, and that Staff has been working on addressing it. It would be great to understand the meline of this, as well as the current thought process for it’s update. Is there a status update?
As residents of this community, we are bearing the consequences of past decisions over which we had no control and cannot change.
It feels unfair that residents must pay for these decisions, especially when our water quality has recently been less than ideal.
Access to clean drinking water is a basic human right, parcularly at the rates we are currently paying.
I strongly believe this burden on residents needs to be reevaluated.
As a resident in a Council–City Manager form of government, my understanding is that concerns such as these should be directed to the City Council, who then communicates them to the City Manager for follow-up with staff. I also hope to receive a response—whether from the Council or through the City Manager—so I know the concerns have been processed.
Thank you for your me and consideraon.
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #6.1.
!
"
#
"
$
% &'()**
+,*
-.'()**/(,*01()'*(23(.4
51'
6786987:7;
<=>?
@&
A &'()**
+,*
-.'()**/(,*01()'*(23(.4B
@C'(
+..*D
-EC'((..*D/('FG2)**D03H,4
IJKL
MKNOL
IOPLQRST
UQVJ
MKNOL
IJKWJNT
XOYRVQZ[J[\JLWT
KR]
^_K`T
aMN
bQJcW
KW
K
LJWQ]JR_T
RO_
QR
KRN
O_PJL
LOZJd
e
PKbJ
WJbJLKZ
fORQRS
VO]J
Q_J[W
e
QR_JR]
_O
LKQWJ
gOL
]QWVYWWQORh
POcJbJLT
e
cOYZ]
ZQiJ
_O
\JSQR
cQ_P
cPK_
e
\JZQJbJ
QW
_PJ
[OW_
jLJWWQRS
QWWYJT
KW
Q_
]QLJV_ZN
K`JV_W
OYL
K\QZQ_N
_O
[JJ_
OYL
klmn
O\ZQSKoORW
KR]
_PJ
W_K_J]
SOKZW
Og
OYL
pJRJLKZ
qZKRr
sPQW
VORVJLR
KLOWJ
gLO[
K
[JJoRS
e
cKW
KWiJ]
_O
KtJR]
\N
uJZWOT
]JbJZOjJLvW
LJjLJWJR_KobJ
gOL
_PJ
^jLQRS
pLObJ
jLOwJV_T
jLQOL
_O
_PJ
qZKRRQRS
XO[[QWWQOR
PJKLQRSr
e
KtJR]J]
ORZN
_O
KWi
VZKLQgNQRS
xYJWoORWr
yRJ
LJWjORWJT
QR
jKLoVYZKLT
LKQWJ]
WQSRQzVKR_
VORVJLRr
{|}~|
|
|
{
|
^jLQRS
pLObJ
jLOjOWJW
YRQ_WT
Og
cPQVP
KLJ
]JWQSRK_J]
KW
K`OL]K\ZJr
sPJWJ
YRQ_W
KLJ
WjZQ_
JbJRZN
YRQ_W
K_
{
YRQ_W
K_
{ e
KWiJ]
cPN
RORJ
Og
_PJ
K`OL]K\ZJ
YRQ_W
cJLJ
_KLSJ_J]
K_
{
~r
uJZWO
W_K_J]
_PK_
_PJ
fORQRS
VO]J
]OJW
RO_
LJxYQLJ
Q_r
sPQW
QR_JLjLJ_KoOR
cKW
ZK_JL
VORzL[J]
\N
VORWYZoRS
W_K`T
cPO
]QLJV_J]
[J
_O
_PJ
eRVZYWQORKLN
lOYWQRS
kJxYQLJ[JR_W
WJVoOR
Og
_PJ
fORQRS
VO]J
KR]
RO_J]
_PK_
_PJ
VO]J
QW
[OLJ
ZJRQJR_
gOL
|
}}
~
jLOwJV_W
_PKR
gOL
LJR_KZWr
^JJ
VO]J
WJVoORW
K_
_PJ
JR]
LJgJLJRVJ]r
nW
VYLLJR_ZN
cLQtJRT
_PJ
VO]J
kJxYQLJW
~
Og
_PJ
QRVZYWQORKLN
YRQ_W
_O
\J
K_
{ nZZOcW
_PJ
¡¢£
¡¤¥¦
_O
\J
{
|~
§¨
©
ª~
~}©
©
acQ_P
KR
QRVJRobJdT
£
{T
cQ_P
RO
LJxYQLJ[JR_
_O
jLObQ]J
ZOcJL«QRVO[J
YRQ_W
eR
O_PJL
cOL]WT
gOL
OcRJL«OVVYjQJ]
jLOwJV_WT
_PJLJ
QW
|
¬|©
_O
jLObQ]J
YRQ_W
K_
{
~r
®|¯}©
©
°±
|
|
²~|©
³~
nVVOL]QRS
_O
OYL
lOYWQRS
´ZJ[JR_T
µ¶
©
·µ
°±
|©
LJxYQLJ]
\N
¸¹º
gKZZ
cQ_PQR
_PJ
»
¼
|
¼
{|}
VK_JSOLQJW½KjjLO¾Q[K_JZN
¿ÀÁ
©©~
~|r
ÂJ_
ORZN
Og
YRQ_W
QR
[OW_
POYWQRS
]JbJZOj[JR_W
KLJ
LJxYQLJ]
_O
\J
K`OL]K\ZJT
KR]
gOL
OcRJL«OVVYjQJ]
jLOwJV_WT
_POWJ
K`OL]K\ZJ
YRQ_W
[KN
JRoLJZN
KbOQ]
_PJ
ùĹÅ
nMe
VK_JSOLQJWr
sPJ
^jLQRS
pLObJ
jLOwJV_
QW
K
VZJKL
J¾K[jZJ
_O_KZ
YRQ_W
ÆJLO
YRQ_W
K_
ùĹÅ
nMe pQbJR
ZQ[Q_J]
WQ_JW
KR]
K
zbJ«NJKL
o[JZQRJT
e
]O
RO_
WJJ
K
LJKZQWoV
jK_P
_O
KVPQJbQRS
Ǻ
ZOcJL«QRVO[J
YRQ_W
cQ_POY_
^QSRQzVKR_
jPQZKR_PLOjQV
QR_JLbJRoORT
MJKRQRSgYZ
K[JR][JR_W
_O
_PJ
fORQRS
VO]J
_O
\JtJL
_KLSJ_
_PJWJ
QRVO[J
ZJbJZW
Agenda Item #6.1.
!" #$! % &#$'($ ( !()"$#$ *+,
$&-!%#
. $
/0123 %%#/4($))# ($$!5"(#4##4#! 0 +6#'0+!37!$!& "))#8
9: "
4#%;#"
( $!& !&(#'99<=
9 -!>?0@A0A@A0
< !(%!/#"B
CB
'(##"/(6%$!$%*+,
$&-!D!/EF
!$GHIJKLMNOPPNQRORLSTRULVRLNQPWKLRLVXKJPYNQROSZOZ[PT\Z]XKL^T_ZUKL`TK_ONZab
c($$)#- #/ ! #!$!&
#!4(4( $!&/)(8
<!
$$! #%!/
!#. $##&#"6)%!$
<!! #/#6#d$! %( ("
eCfg
hf
c(#& %!(
!%"(
$!0+!#i!/)$ /#!"0jk " &&(($%/
(# 4 #!#& #/4#%#5'$! "$!&8
>0*. $#$!&
l
mn
'($ ($o!! $/)#($
$-60!%!"0
E0p$%$-!&
$7
('#" $!&$744%$$(%$&(!"%#) 0 @0k%)$!&# ($ ##. $#%!(#" $6 $$/'$! "$!&899
#"$!! !EAEqdAAE
r!"#//$- % ($!&()#$%#/#$"!
s$!"!""###$ -!$($!@A44)#)#/$!(#. $# ##/# #"
&7$!&'; -6/$%$!-!&6$!""/$&(
c(#. $#%!%5
%#:)!$6'$6
'!"))$!&t)#- #/4#!$#'
#&$6#'# #5#0
""$-!/'4%$/d )$"
D0&0'4#)#!#" ($"#!G%/!&!#" %!"#!'/ -)#6$"!-( $!&0
$ !-!&( $&!##( $!& %0
u
vB
f
C
s( ! #!%%$( # ##!))# ())#8 9!
"6)%!!6
$i
/#$&(j(!3 ($6($!!"""$#4#;#"
( $!&')#$!&2#6:%)0
r:$%$7%#5d#)#" -!($%-!&!/(%$!$% %;#" #. $#%!D !w$ $(
&!#)!G
x(#4 ($6$!& ##d$! %( $!&&
*. $#4 # )7!$!&#$$"!-o -!'"$!&6# $"$!&!"$!4## ##$!
c(##o $%)$ -!0k! %% !$- #<$4#!$'!# /)#)#/6 (6" $!"
4$!&$%$#"6)%!)y#!'# -!&$!#%!!"#" ")#)#/:#6! '#:
0
z
f{f|
C}
c($))# ())#$! !$!$( #2!#~!')#- #/(2#(r!&%!~$ $D2~ )0FG'($ ($%$))#64%#5##$"!-"6)%!0$%& 0
|f
h
k
$6# !"#%$!$!& #!( $!&&(# &((/ #7!$!& "$#$y!!"))$"0k #) /#. (< ! $!"; /:%$!8 rk#&-!&#. $#%!4#!#d )$")#
c(#%!4
$!*+, !-!&
p
#& -!(: "# !w$ $($!!
Agenda Item #6.1.
!
"
#$%
&
#
'
#
(
#
)
Agenda Item #6.1.
!"#$%%&'&()*&)(+,%#-./#%0/1&23.%43/#%0+*25/6.#%787798:%;<=#9>?+@/*A+6#9B/5+946&3)"01
Agenda Item #6.1.
!"##$$$%&'()*+!(
,-,./%0*1#2*&34,.(5,.(,6#7',$#89:8#;2<=5*>,=< >/(,=9?98=@2A BCDEFCGHBHIJKL
Agenda Item #6.1.
!"
#$%%
&'&()*+(),+'
-.'&/
0(01-',0
23
4).5&.
666( 733
#( 8
Agenda Item #6.1.
Each time some version of this item has come before Council or the Planning Commission, I have endeavored to set the record straight.If at first you do not succeed, try try again… Let me be clear: this matter is before you because the St. Helena Municipal Code was altered outside of the required legal process. That phrase, while polite, is a euphemism. In plain terms, it was illegal activity, and it's illegal for obvious and important reasons. We should not sugarcoat it, excuse it, or minimize it, unless we want to invite more of the same.
Each time this item returns, the staff report mentions my name in connection with its emergence. And each time, it repeats a timeline that is purposefully crafted and deliberately misleading. This version is no exception. The “Background” section continues to distract from the core issue: a clear and improper alteration of City Code, an act that rests squarely with M. DeRosa. The extensive paper trail shows she has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that fact. I wish that weren’t the case. But that wish does not mean we should allow this, or any other incorrect version of the record, to remain uncorrected.
The only relevant background should be stated plainly:
On October 17, 2024, during a routine application process, an applicant and the (now former) City Planner discovered that the Municipal Code had been improperly altered from the version approved by City Council in October 2023. The altered version was quietly posted in late September 2024.
This discovery surprised both the applicant and the (then-new) City Planner, who had no prior involvement in the code revision process. What followed was a pattern of distraction, misdirection, and improper use of City resources, all aimed at suppressing the discovery and avoiding accountability. That sideshow has no place in this discussion or in the staff report. It belongs elsewhere and is within the remit of senior City management and the Council.
The central question “How and why was the Municipal Code improperly changed?” was asked on the record on October 17, 2024, and directed to M. DeRosa. It went unanswered.
After months of silence, during which the applicant’s project was stalled, legal counsel was retained and submitted the same question, with expanded reasoning, on December 6, 2024. Again, no response.
Finally, in February 2025, the City Attorney acknowledged that the Code had, in fact, been improperly altered. Even then, several more months passed before the offending language was removed and the Code corrected to reflect what had actually been adopted in 2023.
Despite this, City staff attempted to reintroduce the previously altered language, citing a legal opinion from the City Attorney, an opinion that was ultimately withdrawn after being found to be ill-informed.
That version was endorsed by the Planning Commission based on that now-rescinded opinion, and the matter was brought before City Council for direction.
Only after the flawed opinion was withdrawn, and after deliberate Council review, was the City Attorney directed to redraft the Code accurately.
Let there be no mistake: there has been no confusion in this matter. What there has been is a deliberate effort to obfuscate, distract, and in some cases, misdirect municipal resources.
The ordinance before you tonight is the product of the City Attorney, based on clear Council direction and deliberate and informed legal review: PORCHES ARE NOT TO BE COUNTED AS INTERIOR SPACE.
They remain regulated, configured, measured, and accounted for in other sections of the Code.
Daniel Hale 1851 Madrona Avenue
Agenda Item #6.1.
It is my understanding that the matter before you tonight involves a relatively narrow review of a specific section of the municipal code related to porches.
What is not on the agenda this evening, but remains a serious and unresolved issue, is the broader swath of municipal code changes that were made outside of the legally required process. These unauthorized alterations occurred sometime between the Planning Commission approval and City Council’s lawful adoption of the code in October 2023 and the version that was finally later published online in October 2024.
Let me be clear: any changes made outside the legally required process are unenforceable. This not only undermines the legitimacy of the specific sections in question, but also calls into question the enforceability of the entire Saint Helena zoning code. Moreover, it puts the City at risk of having its entire municipal code decertified by the State should they also make that discovery. That outcome could carry significant and lasting consequences.
Since these discrepancies were discovered last October, there have been repeated and reasonable requests for a full and accurate accounting of all changes made during that period. To date, that accounting has not been provided.
While this issue is not noticed for discussion tonight, it remains critical. I strongly urge the Planning Commission and City Council to prioritize it. A clear path must be established, not only to identify all unauthorized changes, but to understand how and why this occurred, and to ensure it does not happen again.
So far, this matter has not been treated with the urgency it deserves. I would also point out that the current issue regarding porches has now taken nearly a full year of City time and resources…resources that could have been better directed elsewhere.
I encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure that the upcoming December 16 “workshop” on the “measuring of” and “implementation” of the new Municipal Code allows sufficient time to take up these matters, and that both the public and staff come with clear expectations about the seriousness of what must be addressed. That workshop should not simply be a review of how the code is functioning in practice, but a pivotal step toward restoring the integrity of the City’s governance processes.
Thank you.
Daniel Hale, 1851 Madrona Avenue
Agenda Item #6.1.
Planning Commission Members,
I don’t understand something, I need some help, and i’m hoping you can provide some clarity. I am unfortunately writing to call to attention to the fact that a section of code which was illegally changed regarding this issue before the commission has not been addressed. I am attaching below a public comment which was submitted on 5.12.25 to the City Council. After submittal of this public comment the item was pulled from the agenda to be remedied.
After the item was pulled I was contacted by the City attorney Ethan Walsh and was asked a series of questions around the issue and we discussed this particular verbiage change that has to date not been addressed and is still not addressed in the agenda item currently before the commission.
In the conversation with Ethan I asked why it was that Maya was still under the city’s employ after so many past instances that merited removal for cause. I also asked specifically who would be Ms. Derosa’s legal council should a citizen bring suit regarding the illegally changed code language. His response was that in such an event he would act as her legal council. After the call I realized that while the expressed intent of the city attorney placing the call was to provide trustworthy outreach to the community, I couldn’t help but feel I was simply being asked questions to see what information could be gleaned.
After this item was pulled from the agenda and was addressed by the council they specifically instructed staff and the city attorney to reach out to myself and others in the community that had brought the item to their attention in order to aid in crafting the language of the solution. Despite this directive, I did not receive any subsequent communication from the city.
Please note that zoning code section 17.34.050 B.4 has yet to be addressed. The council adopted legal code language of the section reads:
“Unenclosed Porches. Porches where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed.”
The language in the currently published code which was illegally changed from the council adopted version reads:
“Unenclosed Porches. Covered porches for nonresidential uses where a minimum of three sides are unenclosed”
Additionally, please note that the entirety of the section was changed in substance.
I am at a loss for why this section remains changed from the council adopted version.
Perhaps the commission can gain clarity from staff and council as to why this section remains unrestored. Was there dialogue with LWC around these section changes and if Agenda Item #6.1.
so can this dialogue be shared so we can better understand why they advised Ms.
Derosa to change the language of the adopted version without proper process? Additionally can we understand how much this process has cost in terms of LWC, city attorney, and city staff fees? This should have been a simple correction, can you please help me understand why this has taken as long as it has and why we still have multiple sections of the code that do not reflect the legally adopted version? Thank you for your time and commitment to the bettering of our town.
Public comment submitted to council on 5.12.25:
All Current City Council Members,
The insertion of the term “uncovered” within table 17.16.030(B) is unfortunately one issue of many around a complex subject matter that becomes entangled within other aspects of the code and creates a great deal of conflict the deeper you look. It’s very difficult to explain all the potential implications and consequences of code changes in this context without being concerned you’re quickly losing your readers attention and causing them to be disinterested and move on. That said it all matters a great deal, and unfortunately most won’t realize to what degree until they are faced with the unintended consequences down the line.
In the interest of being succinct, this agenda item is in no way close to being ready for a vote. If you were to vote yes you are still in direct conflict with the unadulterated adopted zoning code update (more on that below). If you vote yes and adopt the proposed version you are throwing a great many properties into noncompliance. If you vote yes and adopt the proposed version many properties will be very much within their rights to enclose their porches to become interior conditioned space since you will be defacto counting them toward FAR, and the city won’t be entitled to impact fees . If you vote no and accept the staff recommendation of eliminating 17.34.050(1)(b) you will be eliminating a nonsensical line item of code but you will be creating ambiguity and not resolving the issue at hand.
It took a year for the council adopted version of the zoning code to be published online.
In the period of time between its adoption and the online published version the available version of the newly adopted code was the print version adopted by the council on October 24, 2023. During this time many projects began planning stages and many were changed due to it’s adoption. Unfortunately when the published version of code came available online there were changes that were not anticipated and approved through a formal process. Yes errata changes were incorporated, however more than these were inserted. Yes the insertion of “uncovered” into 17.16.030(B) was one, however it was not the only one and voting one way or the other on the agenda item does not solve the issue of code being changed without formal process, or the issue around counting specific porch configurations toward FAR. The foundation of how Agenda Item #6.1.
porches are calculated toward interior space (FAR) was also changed in 17.34.050(B) (4) and this has not been addressed.
Within Rules of Measurement the definition of how you are to determine what counts toward FAR was also changed and this hasn’t acknowledged or dealt with. Here is the official council adopted code version:
Note B(4)
Agenda Item #6.1.
Here is the current version posted on the city website:
This change was not a part of the errata sheet. Note that the unapproved change for B(4) as it has been changed completely. This is not a clerical adjustment it’s a complete change in policy and it has far reaching consequences within the code. Not only has “covered” been introduced but so has “nonresidential” and rather than simply being able to use a reference of one long unenclosed dimension it has been changed to a minimum of three sides unenclosed (very few porches are unenclosed on three sides).
This change has not been noted at any point by the city attorney and this change is not acknowledged or addressed within the agenda item presented by staff.
Wouldn’t the appropriate step to take in this instance be to simply acknowledge that a mistake was made and revert 17.16.030(B) to match the council adopted language Agenda Item #6.1.
within the Rule of Measurement in 17.34.050(B)(4)? This would certainly be the simplest approach and would not throw existing properties into noncompliance. It would also be relatively easy to interpret and would not create a situation where exterior uninhabitable areas are counted toward the interior habitable space of FAR.
Upon reading the staff report for the agenda item and the city attorney’s response to the issue it appears at face value that one is to understand the addition of the term “unenclosed” as a singular clerical edit beyond the errata sheet for the purpose of providing clarity. The staff statement of purpose for the meeting reads the intent of the adoption of the agenda item is to:
This does not make sense as the current version of code already exempts uncovered balconies, porches, decks and other structures from gross floor area. What the proposed change does do is add the restriction of covered porches becoming an addition to FAR. In addition to this while the verbiage of the report insinuates that the justification is to lessen density of lot development, section 17.34.050(A)(2)(f) is a section that specifically refers to commercial property, not residential. It’s worth noting that saying “covered porch” is confusing as the very definition of “porch” within the code is :
“Porch” means a roofed approach to a doorway usually extending from the exterior wall of the structure and requiring ground supports.
We don’t count garages, or accessory structures or other exterior built conditions toward FAR because they are not conditioned habitable space and are counted toward lot coverage. How does it make sense to count exterior porches toward interior habitable space?
It’s very clear that the planning commission did not understand what it was voting on when this recommendation was pushed through. There is so much wrong with so many aspects of this it’s absurd. This is one small part of the new zoning code that creates a great deal of conflict within the code but it is not the only one. We need a streamlined approach to citizens being able to bring discovered issues before council. Having to pay Agenda Item #6.1.
a 10K fee to place any zoning code amendment on the agenda calendar does not further a mission toward betterment.
I do not have a project I am planning in St Helena. I’m simply reaching out on this matter as it is clear that mistakes were made that need to be addressed and I think as a council it should be your priority to make sure that proper processes are followed and that the information you are relying on is true and forthright. As someone who does plan projects with varying degrees of complexity I can say that having code change on a whim behind closed doors without procedures is a massive legal liability for professionals, and for municipalities. It is essentially a moving target of law for a process that takes an immense amount of time and consideration.
Yours Truly,
Joshua Parke
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Charles Covell
To: Public Comment
Subject: PC Meeting 10/21/25 Item 5.1
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:28:35 PM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I strongly support the pending amendment to the zoning code which concerns the exemption of porches from floor area calculations.
I request more clarity on how Planning staff, and the expert consultants at Lisa Wise it deferred to, and that we were paying for, could conceivably view the change that gave rise to this controversy as having “no substantive impact”? The staff report goes on to clearly list four examples of very substantive impacts of the change. Other clearly substantive impacts, such as lowering residential property values, were noted by the city attorney’s staff report in July.
My question to staff would be how these experts in the field could get this so wrong? Sincerely,
Charles Covell
Park Street
St Helena
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Charles Covell
To: Michelle Covell; Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers Cc: Xinia Gamero; Public Comment; Erika Opp
Subject: RE: [External] Public comment for Today"s City Council Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:04:38 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
My public comment:
Members of City Council:
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent public comments made by Mr. Hale and Mrs. Covell, as well as any others who oppose the proposal to exclude porches from floor area exemptions. I believe this change represents a significant and unjustified shift in long-standing policy, one that would erode homeowners' rights and undermine the character of our community.
It appears that the Community Development Director has circumvented both legal precedent and due process in advancing this proposal. Unfortunately, this action has gone largely unnoticed by the public. At the recent Planning Commission meeting where this change was reviewed, only my wife and I were present to voice our objections. Despite some commissioners expressing reservations, the proposal was still approved unanimously and forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
This vote, in my view, was based on a misrepresentation of the issue.
The current proposal would overturn an already weakened policy established during the 2023 revision of the zoning code, which redefined porches as structures open on all three sides, a more restrictive definition than the previous one allowing walls on up to three sides. Now, the exemption of porches from floor area calculations—a sensible and well-established standard—is also under threat.
I find it troubling that the Community Development Director, who described herself as "agnostic" on the issue in a conversation with me, has nonetheless actively promoted this change. If neutrality were truly her position, a minor correction to the “rules of measurement” section would have sufficed. Instead, we are faced with a sweeping policy shift that contradicts the intent and spirit of our community planning documents.
The justification offered—namely, the goal of “reducing massing”—is not supported by the General Plan 2040 or the 2016–2019 Housing Element. These documents emphasize sustainability, livability, and the promotion of human interaction—goals that are best served, not hindered, by the inclusion of welcoming, covered porches.
I respectfully urge the City Council to reject this proposal. It is unnecessary, misaligned with our broader planning goals, and detrimental to the quality and character of our neighborhoods. Covered porches are an essential feature of livable, community-oriented design and should not be penalized through restrictive floor area calculations.
Charles Covell
Agenda Item #6.1.
Principal
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
From: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:30 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Charles Covell <[email protected]>; Erika Opp <[email protected]> Subject: Public comment for Today's City Council
Hello,
I have another public comment to add. It is dated today’s date. I am including a public comment dated 20230510 – for reference. It was written when the code was up for adoption, and there was a joint hearing.
Please add to the agenda.
Thank you,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #6.1.
Subject: Deep Concerns Regarding Planning Commission Recommendation on Code Amendment Dear Members of the St. Helena City Council and Planning Commission, On April 15, the St. Helena Planning Commission considered an amendment to the municipal code that will soon come before the City Council for a final and binding decision. I feel compelled to express serious concern about both the process and the substance of that meeting.
The hearing offered a troubling example of how fundamental misunderstandings—or outright disregard—of the City’s municipal code can lead to decisions with far-reaching and unintended consequences.
Commissioners used the foundational code principles of lot coverage and maximum building square footage interchangeably. Meanwhile, the staff report omitted any discussion of this distinction or how the insertion of the word “uncovered” would effectively nullify one of these key standards. This revealed not only confusion about the differences between these critical metrics, but also a lack of understanding of how they interact within the broader framework of our zoning regulations.
Although some Commissioners expressed concern that the City should not "fiddle" with isolated portions of the code as issues arise, paradoxically, that is exactly what occurred. A material policy change was recommended without discussion of its broader impact on related code sections, nor any meaningful consideration of its effect on built projects or the character of our city. This alteration exacerbates an already problematic rule changed in the previous code update—one that treats applicants inconsistently and fails to account for how porches function in various architectural contexts (one side open, two sides open, three sides open, or wrap-around conditions), all of which perform critical mass-mitigating functions and create vital engagement and interplay between indoor and outdoor spaces.
Public comment—both in writing and in person—was respectful and grounded in thoughtful analysis. These contributions clearly explained how the proposed amendment would undermine the intent and application of the municipal code, citing real-world examples. Unfortunately, this input appeared to be insufficiently considered. The Commission’s unanimous recommendation, based largely on a staff report that failed to fully explore the ramifications of the change, did not reflect the kind of informed, responsive decisionmaking that St. Helena residents deserve.
This process raises fundamental questions about whether the City is adhering to its own rules and procedures. If there is an intent to recalibrate the development standards reflected in footnote * of Table
17.16.030, that process must be undertaken transparently, deliberately, and legally. The current approach —retrofitting policy to justify or sanitize a prior, ill-considered and improperly executed code alteration— undermines public trust and the integrity of our institutions.
I urge the Council and Planning Commission to recommit to the principles that guided the communityinvolved code reform process completed just last year—principles rooted in transparency, inclusive public input, and a comprehensive understanding of how individual code changes shape the broader built environment. Porches, in particular, are not trivial design features—they are foundational to the architectural and cultural identity of St. Helena. Amending code language hastily and without full consideration of the consequences dishonors both the process and the product of that hard-won reform.
Ultimately, when public input is dismissed and procedural safeguards are overlooked, it discourages civic participation and weakens the quality of our local decision-making. I do not believe that serves St.
Helena, its citizens, or its future. I respectfully request that the City Council reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation and initiate a transparent, comprehensive review of the relevant code sections.
Sincerely, Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Joshua Parke
To: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers; Public Comment; Xinia Gamero Subject: [External] 5.13.25 Agenda Item 11.1
Date: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:28:03 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 6.53.11 PM.png
Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 6.52.50 PM.png
Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 5.13.25 PM.png
All Current City Council Members,
The insertion of the term “uncovered” within table 17.16.030(B) is unfortunately one issue of many around a complex subject matter that becomes entangled within other aspects of the code and creates a great deal of conflict the deeper you look. It’s very difficult to explain all the potential implications and consequences of code changes in this context without being concerned you’re quickly losing your readers attention and causing them to be disinterested and move on. That said it all matters a great deal, and unfortunately most won’t realize to what degree until they are faced with the unintended consequences down the line.
In the interest of being succinct, this agenda item is in no way close to being ready for a vote. If you were to vote yes you are still in direct conflict with the unadulterated adopted zoning code update (more on that below). If you vote yes and adopt the proposed version you are throwing a great many properties into noncompliance. If you vote yes and adopt the proposed version many properties will be very much within their rights to enclose their porches to become interior conditioned space since you will be defacto counting them toward FAR, and the city won’t be entitled to impact fees . If you vote no and accept the staff recommendation of eliminating 17.34.050(1)(b) you will be eliminating a nonsensical line item of code but you will be creating ambiguity and not resolving the issue at hand.
It took a year for the council adopted version of the zoning code to be published online. In the period of time between its adoption and the online published version the available version of the newly adopted code was the print version adopted by the council on October 24, 2023. During this time many projects began planning stages and many were changed due to it’s adoption. Unfortunately when the published version of code came available online there were changes that were not anticipated and approved through a formal process. Yes errata changes were incorporated, however more than these were inserted. Yes the insertion of “uncovered” into 17.16.030(B) was one, however it was not the only one and voting one way or the other on the agenda item does not solve the issue of code being changed without formal process, or the issue around counting specific porch configurations toward FAR. The foundation of how porches are calculated toward interior space (FAR) was also changed in 17.34.050(B)(4) and this has not been addressed.
Within Rules of Measurement the definition of how you are to determine what counts toward FAR was also changed and this hasn’t acknowledged or dealt with. Here is the official council adopted code version:
Agenda Item #6.1.
Note B(4)
Here is the current version posted on the city website:
This change was not a part of the errata sheet. Note that the unapproved change for B(4) as it has been changed completely. This is not a clerical adjustment it’s a complete change in policy and it has far reaching consequences within the code. Not only has “covered” been introduced but so has “nonresidential” and rather than simply being able to use a reference of one long unenclosed dimension it has been changed to a minimum of three sides unenclosed (very few porches are unenclosed on three sides). This change has not been noted at any point by the city attorney and this change is not acknowledged or addressed within the agenda item presented by staff.
Wouldn’t the appropriate step to take in this instance be to simply aknowdege that a mistake was made and revert 17.16.030(B) to match the council adopted language within the Rule of Measurement in 17.34.050(B)(4)? This would certainly be the simplest approach and would not throw existing properties into noncompliance. It would also be relatively easy to interpret and would not create a situation where exterior uninhabitable areas are counted toward the interior habitable space of FAR.
Upon reading the staff report for the agenda item and the city attorney’s response to the issue it appears at face value that one is to understand the addition of the term “unenclosed” as a singular clerical edit beyond the errata sheet for the purpose of providing clarity. The staff statement of purpose for the meeting reads the intent of the adoption of the agenda item is to:
Agenda Item #6.1.
This does not make sense as the current version of code already exempts uncovered balconies, porches, decks and other structures from gross floor area. What the proposed change does do is add the restriction of covered porches becoming an addition to FAR. In addition to this while the verbiage of the report insinuates that the justification is to lessen density of lot development, section 17.34.050(A)(2)(f) is a section that specifically refers to commercial property, not residential. It’s worth noting that saying “covered porch” is confusing as the very definition of “porch” within the code is :
“Porch” means a roofed approach to a doorway usually extending from the exterior wall of the structure and requiring ground supports.
We don’t count garages, or accessory structures or other exterior built conditions toward FAR because they are not conditioned habitable space and are counted toward lot coverage. How does it make sense to count exterior porches toward interior habitable space? It’s very clear that the planning commission did not understand what it was voting on when this recommendation was pushed through. There is so much wrong with so many aspects of this it’s absurd. This is one small part of the new zoning code that creates a great deal of conflict within the code but it is not the only one. We need a streamlined approach to citizens being able to bring discovered issues before council. Having to pay a 10K fee to place any zoning code amendment on the agenda calendar does not further a mission toward betterment.
I do not have a project I am planning in St Helena. I’m simply reaching out on this matter as it is clear that mistakes were made that need to be addressed and I think as a council it should be your priority to make sure that proper processes are followed and that the information you are relying on is true and forthright.
As someone who does plan projects with varying degrees of complexity I can say that having code change on a whim behind closed doors without procedures is a massive legal liability for professionals, and for municipalities. It is essentially a moving target of law for a process that takes an immense amount of time and consideration.
Yours Truly,
Joshua Parke
Design Principal | Zwischen Studio
206.218.5615
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Michelle Covell
To: Paul Dohring; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers Cc: Charles Covell; Xinia Gamero; Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment Regarding Zoning code "Uncovered" topic Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 4:10:27 PM
Attachments: image002.png
To:
City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Department Staff, and Citizens of St. Helena I would like to respectfully raise concerns regarding the recent insertion of the word “uncovered” in End Note 5.
As presented in the staff report—prepared, reviewed, and approved by Community Development Director Maya DeRosa—and later confirmed by the City Attorney at the April 15, 2025, public hearing, this change has been characterized as a “clerical edit.” Definition:
A "clerical edit" refers to minor, non-substantive corrections such as fixing typographical, grammatical, or formatting errors that do not alter a document's meaning or intent.
However, the addition of the word “uncovered” significantly changes the interpretation of the exemption. It alters how square footage is calculated, reducing the allowable buildable area for homeowners. This is not a mere correction—it has real implications.
Director DeRosa clarified that this change does not prohibit porches or patios, but it does mean that homeowners must now choose between covered outdoor areas and additional livable space. For existing homes, current porches and patios will now count against allowable square footage, reducing flexibility for future remodels or expansions.
We understand the policy goal: to discourage oversized new construction deemed out of character with existing neighborhoods. However, this approach—framed as a minor edit—compromises the very character we’re trying to preserve.
Historic homes in St. Helena, especially those in the Historic Preservation Overlay, often feature Italianate or Queen Anne architecture with welcoming front porches and wrap-around verandas.
From the Masonic Lodge’s covered balconies to the classic porches on Adams, Charter Oak, and Allyn streets, these design elements are integral to our town’s identity. They’re not just decorative— they're functional spaces where neighbors gather, families connect, and visitors fall in love with our community.
By including only “uncovered” spaces in the exemption, this change disproportionately affects not just large homes, but modest, historic, and mid-century homes alike. It undermines property owners’ ability to make reasonable, small additions to accommodate growing families or evolving needs.
More critically, this change blurs the line between two distinct zoning concepts:
Lot Coverage (which already includes porches and patios in its calculations), and Agenda Item #6.1.
Maximum Buildable Square Footage (which, historically, has exempted covered outdoor spaces).
Calling this a clerical correction is misleading. This is a policy shift—and one that deserves full public process, transparency, and thoughtful deliberation.
This change also risks rendering many existing homes nonconforming and may discourage future investment or home improvement. It runs counter to efforts to maintain housing diversity and affordability in our community.
I believe the root of this issue lies in an oversight by a consultant, which was then adopted by staff without adequate analysis or public input. Once the error was pointed out by a professional, the issue became politicized instead of being resolved through open, honest discussion. The staff report, while technical in tone, lacks clarity and fails to distinguish key terms—making it difficult for residents and decision-makers alike to grasp the true impact.
We’ve seen the consequences of past oversights—our water system being a prime example. Let’s not repeat history.
If you are in a position to vote on this matter, I thank you for your service and the time you dedicate to our town. I urge you to carefully review the differences between the original and amended code, understand the implications of the word “uncovered,” and consider the distinction between Lot Coverage and Maximum Buildable Area.
Try applying the new calculations to your own home. If you would like any assistance in this, I am more than happy to help.
Let’s ensure our decisions are informed, transparent, and in alignment with the values and character of our town.
Questions for Consideration:
In the spirit of transparency and good governance, I respectfully request that the following questions be addressed by staff and commissioners before any final decisions are made regarding the insertion of the word “uncovered” into the zoning exemption:
1. What is the distinction between the Lot Coverage Calculation and the Maximum Buildable Square Footage Calculation?
Understanding how these two measurements function independently—and together—is essential to evaluating the impact of this change.
2. If covered porches, patios, and pergolas already count toward Lot Coverage, what is the rationale for having them also count against the Maximum Buildable Area? Is there a clear benefit that justifies this double-counting?
3. Does this change require homeowners to choose between having covered outdoor spaces and interior livable area when remodeling or expanding? If so, how does that align with community goals for livability, family growth, and sustainable home design?
4. Could this insertion render existing homes legally nonconforming? If yes, what are the implications for homeowners, particularly regarding future renovations or Agenda Item #6.1.
additions?
5. How will this affect historic homes, many of which feature generous wraparound porches and outdoor areas?
Will this discourage investment in maintaining and restoring historic properties—the very homes that define our town’s architectural character?
6. For homes that become legally nonconforming, what options would a homeowner have if they wanted to make modest changes, like adding a small room or a covered porch? Would they be required to remove interior space to stay within code?
7. As we face hotter summers and increased energy demands, why would we disincentivize porches and patios that offer shade and help reduce energy consumption? Shouldn't our zoning policies encourage passive cooling and sustainable design?
8. Was the insertion of this word truly a clerical edit, or was it a more substantive change that may have been made in error?
If it was not clerical, should the process behind its inclusion be further examined to ensure accountability and trust in the code revision process?
9. Lastly, given the limitations on public comment—three minutes per speaker, with no opportunity to respond to discussion—should the structure of these hearings be revisited? If the goal is to foster public participation and benefit from the insight of experienced professionals in the community, should there be more opportunity for dialogue during these critical discussions?
Respectfully,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #6.1.
Public comment 2
5.13.2025
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect
St Helena resident for 10 years
As I review the staff report, the PC hearing presentation, the documents attached, the timeline of events, and the past public comments I’ve made when the revised code was up for adoption, I cannot sit back and not put in writing my thoughts and analysis of this crucial and pivotal point we are in.
For the last ten years, I have worked on many projects, and applied the zoning codes.
When it was brought to my attention in March about the insertion of the word “uncovered” to this exemption, my first thought was, what is an uncovered porch? What is an uncovered patio? Is it just a concrete slab? That does not even make sense.
Definition:
Porch: a covered shelter projecting in front of the entrance of a building.
After reading the article in the St. Helena Star, I was shocked by the events described. Dan Hale had reached out to inform me about significant zoning code changes and the importance of public awareness, especially among those familiar with zoning terms.
I was surprised to learn that Dan was not interviewed for the article.
I spoke with Director DeRosa on March 20, 2025, and had a cordial conversation regarding the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ in the exemption. I asked where and why this change was made. She explained that it was a clerical edit intended to clarify the intent of the code, referencing specific definitions and sections. Director DeRosa stated she was neutral on the matter but emphasized the need for consistency in the code. As someone familiar with the code’s history and application, I found her explanation unclear.
She said she would send me the relevant definition to clarify the reasoning behind the edit.
After reviewing the definition, I attempted to understand the rationale behind inserting the word ‘uncovered’ but found none.
On March 21, I followed up with Director DeRosa via email to clarify my interpretation of the code and definition. I explained that there is no inconsistency between the definition and the exemption, emphasizing that the definition is accurate and that the exemption clearly refers to ‘buildings and areas.’ I also cited relevant code sections and included a graphic plan to demonstrate that the insertion of ‘uncovered’ is not a clerical edit, but one that significantly affects calculations.
Director DeRosa responded on March 24, stating she would review the materials in more detail. I followed up on April 4 to check on the status, and she replied later that day, explaining that, based on stakeholder interviews, there was a concern that new residential rebuilds are out of context with neighborhood scale and massing. She concluded by stating that staff’s role is now to await direction from the Planning Commission at the April 15 hearing. However, she did not address the specific concerns I had raised in my previous correspondence.
If you have not yet reviewed the staff report, accompanying letters and documents, or Dan Hale’s timeline of events, I would appreciate the opportunity to offer some commentary. I have thoroughly read and analyzed all of these materials, including the presentation from the Planning Commission hearing
Planning Commission Hearing 4/15/25
Director Derosa presents a slide show in addition to her formal Staff Report, written, reviewed, and approved by her.
In her opening slide, Director DeRosa presented the background of the zoning code changes, noting that the process took three years to develop. She highlighted public feedback indicating that the residential standards were too ‘generous,’ and that new homes were often being built to the maximum floor area ratio, which in many cases was out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Please note - there were other public comments from residents, stakeholders, and professionals that DID NOT say the standards were “too generous.” I attached my public comments for reference from the adoption hearing of the proposed code changes.
Please refer to the zoning map below. The larger new homes that have been considered out of character with surrounding neighborhoods—particularly the few controversial examples I’m aware of—are generally located within the green-shaded areas of the map, corresponding to the A-20 zoning district.
In contrast, the orange and yellow-shaded areas represent the LR, HR and MR zoning designations, which are characterized by smaller lots and are situated closer to the town center. This visual distinction is important when considering the context and impact of zoning changes.
Agenda Item #6.1.
After three years of work on the zoning update and following the formal adoption of the code in October 2023, staff and the code consultant identified an inconsistency. The consultant recommended adding the word ‘uncovered’ to clarify the gross floor area exemption. It is important to note that this change occurred after the formal adoption of the code.
Director Derosa said “When we publish any new code, the code publisher reaches out and asks questions of staff about, did you really mean this, what is the intention of it, should we change it. So, the consultant was acting as the code publisher, like “I think this would improve the clarity of the code.”
This raises a significant issue: after the code was formally adopted, the word ‘uncovered’ was added to the exemption without formal review or public input. Did staff review and discuss the consultant’s suggestion? Was there any deliberation on how this change would impact the code? What was the process behind this decision? Is this legal? As we have heard over and over, this was seen as a clerical edit. This is misleading.
This slide highlights an inconsistency between the rules of measurement and the exemption. The rules of measurement specify that the floor area calculation includes, ‘in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof, excluding two feet on each side for a standard roof projection.’ This contradicts the exemption, which previously excluded structures like balconies, porches, or decks where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed, as shown in the screen capture of the former code prior to the 2023 adoption. Also shown below is the amended code that was approved, and with the redline of the “uncovered” that is being recommended by staff in the meeting today.
Please take note of the words “existing development” and the zones this applies to. It does not include A-20.
Please take note of the change to the end of the two notes: the former code says, “atleast one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed, and the amended says “unenclosed on at least three sides.” These are significant.
PRE-2023 CODE, AKA FORMER CODE.
Amended adopted 2023 code with redline of the proposed insertion Agenda Item #6.1.
Director DeRosa explained that the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ was intended to ensure consistent interpretation. Instead of deleting the contradictory rules of measurement, the addition of ‘uncovered’ to the exemptions was proposed to achieve consistency. Deleting the rules of measurement b would have been a clerical edit. Inserting the word uncovered changes the policy, historically, and as it was adopted in 2023.
The second bullet point under slide “Background” on right, is a very confusing way to present Lot Coverage. She indicates that the Lot Coverage measurement already excludes unroofed and uncovered decks, patios, porches, landings, and balconies from the calculation.
However, she does not clearly state that Lot Coverage calculations do include covered structures such as porches, patios, and decks, which is the big distinction between calculating FAR or maximum buildable area. Lot Coverage is a distinct metric with its own maximums, and it includes these covered areas, as the term ‘Lot Coverage’ implies. This calculation looks at the bird’s-eye view of the property, as shown in the table below with highlighted maximums.
The timeline presented by Director DeRosa is important to consider alongside the timeline provided by Dan Hale in his public comment. According to Director DeRosa, the code rewrite took three years with public input and was formally approved. Following adoption, edits were made, and the revised code was published with these staff edits. However, Dan Hale was working on a project based on the code as adopted in October 2023, with no public notification of these post-adoption changes or opportunity for public input on the edits.
In the fall of 2024, after developing a project with no issues in review with Planner Aaron Hecock, Hale submitted his application.
During the Design Review process, he discovered the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ in the exemption for maximum buildable areas, which caused his project to fall out of conformance. In his timeline, he sought clarification on how this change was made, but after months of trying to obtain answers, he was forced to hire an attorney. The use of the word ‘subsequently’ in the second bullet point implies that Dan Hale only noticed the change and then hired an attorney. However, as his public comment notes, he had been attempting to get answers on his own before resorting to legal counsel. Moreover, it appears that someone filed a police report claiming threats, and an article in the St. Helena Star portrayed his actions unprofessionally.
In December, Dan Hale’s attorney (as seen in the Farella Braun + Martel letter in the staff report documents) sent a letter to Director DeRosa requesting clarification on the origin of the word ‘uncovered.’ The letter explained how the insertion of this word significantly alters the code, both historically and as adopted.
In February, the city’s attorney responded (see BBK letter in the staff report documents). The letter highlighted that staff had initially viewed the change as a clerical edit or ‘cleanup’ of the code. However, after discussions with the attorney’s office, the City decided to remove the word ‘uncovered’ and proceed with the process involving the Planning Commission and City Council. And so, here we are.
Here is the letter from BBK.
Agenda Item #6.1.
On February 27, 2025, an article titled ‘Citizen, Staff Clash Over Zoning Change’ was published in the St. Helena Star. The first paragraph refers to a ‘minute section’ of the St. Helena city code, but this is not a minor issue. The section in question is significant and impacts many people. After considering the background information provided, the article may appear in a different light than it would have otherwise.
The analysis suggests that both the pre-2023 code and the adopted October 2023 code had the same definition. The use of the word ‘however’ seems to imply that there was an issue with the absence of the word ‘uncovered’ in both versions. The second point claims that these edits bring internal consistency to the code, helping users understand the intent of that section.
However, several questions arise: As noted in the ‘background’ slides, community input focused on concerns about large homes not aligning with the character of the town. These homes are typically located in the A-20 zoning district, as shown on the zoning map. Yet, the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ impacts the light orange Medium Density Residential (MR) zone as highlighted in the exemption. Does this inserted word affect any of those “large homes” that were in the public input? The presentation continues to show slides of the location of the end note 5. I highlight that this is in the zoning districts at the top of the table, which does not have A-20.
Slide titled “Alternatives to Staff Recommendation”
Director Derosa’s comment is “The staff report does also bring up, because this is a quasi-policy discussion, so if the planning commission wanted to be more generous in how we allow people to utilize gross floor area, we could do the opposite of MY recommendation but it would be, staff would still recommend in that case of not wanting to add the “uncovered” we would still, to have the internal consistency with the code, we should go ahead and delete 17.34.030 1 b which currently provides guidance that where no walls exist, areas covered by the roof are included in floor area calculation.” Slide below, “This is the redline that we would take out, again, this would be if you want to go a completely different way with this.” A troubling aspect of this issue is that Director DeRosa states she is ‘agnostic’ about the insertion of the word ‘uncovered’ and would be comfortable with either outcome. However, her presentation heavily favors her recommendation, with only about one minute dedicated to the ‘Alternatives to Staff Recommendation.’ What does alternatives to staff recommendation mean? This slide, in particular, warrants close attention—it addresses the ‘clerical edit.’ Removing the item on the rules of measurement would resolve the identified inconsistency in the current code. However, inserting the word ‘uncovered’ is not a clerical adjustment. It materially alters how calculations are made for properties in the Medium Residential zones (the orange areas on the zoning map). It affects how porches and patios are designed—potentially eliminated—to preserve interior living space for families, placing additional burdens on homeowners.
Strikingly, the A-20 zone (green areas on the map), which was cited in the background as the source of public concern during stakeholder meetings, is not meaningfully addressed in this analysis. One must ask: does the general public understand the zoning map well enough to grasp why some homes can expand significantly while others face new restrictions? I attended the Planning Commission hearing on April 15, 2025—Tax Day and the Tuesday following St. Helena’s spring break, a time when most families are unlikely to be closely following Planning Department agendas, staff reports, or public comments. Is that a coincidence?
I listened to the presentation, delivered my public comment, and stayed to observe the commissioners’ deliberations. It quickly became clear that the terminology and calculations—such as those related to lot coverage and building area—had become confusing and were being used interchangeably. The discussion seemed overly technical and difficult to follow. I attempted to raise my hand for clarification, but public comment had already closed.
Watching this formal review of a significant zoning code change unfold in a state of visible confusion raised serious questions for me about the legality and transparency of the process. Volunteer commissioners—many without backgrounds in city planning or architecture—were being asked to weigh in on complex technical changes with long-term consequences. I want to be clear that I mean no disrespect to any commissioner. I appreciate their unpaid commitment and civic service, and I am not seeking to single anyone out. I simply offer the following quote and observations for those who have not viewed the hearing, to provide an objective lens through which to assess the decision-making process that led to what can be simply summarized as a unanimous vote.
FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE
Agenda Item #6.1.
At the conclusion of the April 15, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, I spoke with Director DeRosa. I asked whether the commissioners fully understood the distinctions between key terms like Lot Coverage and Maximum Buildable Area—formerly known as Floor Area Ratio in the MR district. She responded that she had met with commissioners and coached them on these differences. I expressed concern that, during the hearing, commissioners appeared to use these terms interchangeably while making a significant decision.
Director DeRosa reiterated, as she had told me in a March phone call, that she was “agnostic” about this matter. I asked again how, as the Director of Planning and someone who understands these definitions, she could classify the insertion of the word “uncovered” as a mere clerical edit. Her response referred back to the community input—the concern that large homes are out of character for St. Helena.
However, that explanation does not align with the facts. The homes in question—those considered oversized—are generally located on larger lots in the A-20 zoning district. The insertion of the word “uncovered” affects the smaller lots closer to town. As I stated in my initial public comment: this is not a clerical edit. This is a substantive change that impacts how families design and live in their homes.
Why am I taking the time to prepare and deliver another public comment? Because this issue is about more than whether a single word should be inserted into a code section. I want to hear the truth.
This public comment is meant to challenge the narrative that has been presented—one that appears, at times, misleading and disingenuous. This is about transparency, accuracy, and accountability in how code changes are introduced, implemented, and communicated to the public.
The St. Helena Star published an article after the Planning Commission hearing suggesting this issue had reached a “peaceful resolution” and that porches “now count.” But I ask you: Is this a peaceful resolution? Did you read my first public comment and the big questions that need clarification?
It would be easier for me to stay silent—not raise questions, not speak up, not challenge a flawed process. But I can’t do that.
Because the process, as I witnessed it, is broken. And the consequences are real. I raise my hand to speak on behalf of others who oppose this change but may not feel empowered or as knowledgeable to speak. I demand answers. The truth.
Why is the word “uncovered” really being inserted?
Who is responsible for allowing this to go this far, without public process or input? Why does local media coverage appear one-sided or incomplete? Who determines that this code section is “minute” when it has clear and broad impacts? Words matter. Code is law. Why does it appear that the highly paid professionals are not taking this more seriously? And finally, I ask:
Is it not concerning that the individual who identified an unauthorized code insertion was later portrayed negatively? Who filed that police report?
If anyone object to future edits in the zoning code, will they be similarly silenced? If individuals raising questions are met with retaliation or false accusations, that’s a serious ethical and potentially legal concern.
These are not just rhetorical questions. They are about the integrity of the public process, the trust in our institutions, and the right of citizens to engage without fear of retaliation.
There is a stigma: don’t get on the bad side of the Planning Department or the Planning Commissioners. Once you do, it can feel like you have a target on your back. Many believe it’s safer to stay quiet, to let others speak out, so you don’t end up in the public eye—or worse, face subtle retaliation on future projects. This is real.
We need to change that. We need genuine public input—especially from professionals who understand the terminology and the real-world impact of these policies. Our voices must be heard, acknowledged, and respected, not dismissed or blacklisted. Public hearings should foster collaboration, not reinforce power imbalances.
We need professionals in decision-making roles to stay within their authority, to answer questions honestly, and to communicate transparently and in a timely manner. No one wants to hire an attorney just to get clarity—but that becomes the only option when the process lacks openness and accountability. Thank you for taking the time to listen.
A quote from a commissioner deliberating at the 4.15 Hearing.
I’m looking at this from having grown up here all my life, born and raised here....I think of what St Helena was, and I know everything has to modernize, but I’m looking at lot coverage. If you get a birds eye view, and there’s a roof on it, I tend to think the rule of taking two feet off, and counting it as square footage, will reduce bulky big mansions. Now from a working-class view, a roof is kind of expensive, and no light gets through it, and that’s different than a trellis and what we saw here.
But I think that, look, we already have in our city, where they want something 3 floors high, that includes low-income housing, yet we want to individual mansions to not include these covered bird-eye view, lots..... In order to keep our small town small, is trying to reduce the coverage, and there’s two ways to do it, and I discussed with Maya, as we saw from the square footage to, but I tend to think that the advice of using covered or rooved is important, that if sunlight goes through it that it doesn’t count as square footage, and that reduces the mass. Because some of these lots that we’ve been looking at, at least since I’ve been here almost a year now, they’re pretty large lots, wineries and all that.... I’m a builder, if you want to build something beautiful uncovered, unwalled I should say, because that’s the word play here we’re looking for, we really need clarity in moving forward, if there are not going to be three walls... I tend to like the recommendation of clarifying this, and hitting it all in what do we want in the General Plan of St Helena to look like, I mean like I said it does reduce it, they want to reduce anything that has to do with low-income housing and anything affordable, then why not this be it as well, to keep it small as we can when it comes to the rules.
Councilmember Lester Hardy said (in addressing Mr. Eastman’s comments regarding FAR vs Setbacks, approx. 2hrs 24 minutes in the video:)
“I think this is an area that merits some care and thought before we make a final determination, what we really want in standards and how they’re going to work. We need to look at what is proposed, thinking that what we will see ultimately is a built environment where some significant number of property owners will build to the limits of whatever envelope is allowed. That’s just how things work in our context. And if we think about that, and we don’t like what that looks like in our imaginations, then you know that’s a reason to think about doing some things differently. And if we look at it, and given the way which we’ve limited that envelope and the other key elements of the standards that we think we’re going to like that environment as it builds out, then we’re good. But I, my own situation, is that I haven’t really thought about it enough to be sure I have a clear sense in my own mind how to grapple with the kinds of questions that Mr. Covell has presented. And as I say, it looks to me like it has different consequences in different settings and I don’t think we should ignore that. So that raises a kind of larger and problematic question about how we manage our process moving forward. I did have a conversation with Director DeRosa earlier today about this and I know there is a lot of interest in getting this all done, and I appreciate and tell anyone who talks to me about this, that perfection can’t be the goal, that doesn’t work, but I think we want to take enough time to be sure on the more challenging questions that have come up through comments and discussions that we’ve taken enough time to be sure we’re comfortable with the answer…. I think when things get hard, I think that’s when we need to slow down. If the decision is difficult and it’s not easy or obvious, that’s when we need to take a little bit more time.”
Key takeaways as I interpret Councilmember Hardy:
• Don’t make a change unless you are sure you understand the depth of every word that you are making into law.
• “a lot of interest in getting this all done” – Don’t change something just to get it done, unless you know for sure what you are changing works better than the previous code, and are ready to face the repercussions.
I think this is good advice coming from a lawyer.
This is an excerpt from my public comment made two years ago, 5.10.23.
I attached these two comments for your reference as I believe they are relevant still today.
They were written as the code was being presented for adoption.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Public comments Re: Zoning Dra and Joint Meeng held 5/10/2023 My name is Michelle Liu Covell and I am a resident of St Helena since 2015.
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, Staff, and the public.
There are a few points I would like to address regarding the comments made during the meeng held 5/10/23. This is mainly regarding the FAR vs Building Footprint item towards the end of the meeng.
To reference the recording, this begins about 2 hour 19 minutes where Roger Eastman, of Lisa Wise Consulng, addresses FAR for residenal zones in response to Mr. Covell’s public comment. I have transcribed Mr. Eastman’s comment below.
“The decision was made long me ago, working with staff to eliminate FAR from the residenal zones.
FAR is a blunt instrument for controlling building form for the best of mes and a lot of codes in today’s best pracces are eliminang FAR from residenal zones. So you will sll see [it] in the commercial zones, and a lot of the form-base code work that I do, where form is a principal code that you’re trying to drive, FAR is just too blunt of an instrument, so it’s not included. The comment was made that maybe the 2000 SF was too small and that we should eliminate that and we should go back to FAR. Perhaps the answer is, especially given the situaon where Mr. Covell had at 2200 SF home, can we not just rely on the setbacks for the zone and just leave it at that? It’s just one opon that I have not discussed with Director DeRosa but maybe instead of that building footprint limitaon, which in their case, would require a second story, because you can certainly build up but it is more expensive of course, he can certainly build up rather than out, so it becomes do we just rely on the setbacks to limit the footprint, or do we sck to we don’t want the footprint to grow anymore than it is, therefore require the building up, and he wouldn’t have to lose 200 SF. That’s his nonconforming building. So that’s really the queson for you. For someone like Mr. Covell to build up if he wants to expand his home to allow him to expand within the footprint of the setback.”
His points in summary as I interpret it:
• FAR is not a good approach in residenal zoning
• Perhaps the 2000 SF Max Building Footprint is also not a good approach • Perhaps le:ng the setbacks be the only limitaon is a be;er approach Mayor Dohring menoned he is a visual learner. Let me provide some graphics of these three approaches.
FAR APPROACH:
The current residenal zoning code uses FAR to calculate how much building area can be on a parcular parcel. FAR is Floor Area Rao. In simple terms, it is a percentage. I have copied the MR FAR table below for your visual and provided a graphic example. For example, if you have a 10,000 SF lot, the FAR is .31 (31% of 10,000 sf) and you are allowed 3,100 SF of gross floor area. This approach does not define the building “footprint” but just the max square footage of the building.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Here is a graphic of the FAR approach based on a 45 x 200 lot, a 100 x 200 lot, and a 200 x 200 lot, with the areas highlighted above. Red line is building setbacks, black line is parcel outline.
Agenda Item #6.1.
MAX FOOTPRINT APPROACH:
From the Dra Zoning Code October 2022 the suggested change in the code was to put a Max. Primary Building Footprint based on lot widths, which removes the parcel area out of the equaon, and gives you a Max. building footprint size based on your lot width. If your lot width is greater that 45, your max building footprint is 2000 SF. You could have a lot that is 45 wide by 200 long (9000sf) or a 100 wide by 200 long (20,000 sf), or a 200 wide by 200 (40,000 sf just less than an acre), your Max. building footprint is 2000 sf. See graphic.
The Max. 2000 SF building footprint approach forces you to build up, a second floor, if you would like to expand your exisng home. In exisng older homes, foundaons and walls were not built with this kind of “future proofing” of building up. To go up, these exisng homes could need major foundaon retrofits and rebuilding structural walls to handle the added loads of a second story, which in some cases, you might as well tear down the house. Surgery to exisng homes can be more costly than just starng from scratch, and building anything in this valley is extremely expensive. Not just construcon costs, but all of the design and permi:ng fees that go along with it.
Agenda Item #6.1.
SETBACKS APPROACH:
Mr. Eastman said FAR is a blunt instrument and is not included in today’s best pracces. He suggests instead of a building footprint limitaon, maybe just rely on setbacks to limit the footprint.
Here’s a graphic for that. No FAR, no building footprint limitaon, just the setbacks, and maximum lot coverage.
The red lines show the MR zone setback, 20 front and rear setback, and 10 sideyard, and using a 40% Max. Lot coverage for MR per the dra code:
My point of these graphics and pause on the two minutes of discussion, is to give you a visual sense of how codes – laws - can significantly impact people, proper+es, and communi+es. If you are unable to visualize these significant differences in the words that are wri0en, then please pause and take a moment to try to gain that visual before deciding it should become law.
I’d like to take a moment to discuss social impacts of just this code item. I offer a playout of the op+on of maximum footprint 2000sf.
A middle-class family of two working parents with 2 children, with aging parents, working in covid mes remong from home, has a 3-bedroom 2-bathroom house, 2000 sf of habitable space here in St Helena, with 1 bedroom converted to a home office, 1 bedroom for the children, 1 bedroom for the parents.
There is no space for the grandparents to stay, and the parents would like to have another child. They would like to add 500 sf to their home. With this max 2000 sf footprint, they would need to build up.
With construcon costs of $800/SF, construcon costs come in around $400,000.00. As a rough esmate of professional and permit fees around $200,000 (architect, structural engineer, civil engineer, energy consultants, surveyor, reports etc) and their home is luckily not deemed historic, to add 500 SF, they’re looking at $600,000.00. In this valley, they already are facing extreme costs to live here, to eat here, to support local, and to try to make their $1million 1960s flipper ranch home work. These are the Agenda Item #6.1.
“affordable modest” homes of this town currently. How many people can afford to make this addion? Not many.
So what happens? People move farther away, they take their money to buy a bigger house, and work farther away. Let’s say remote work stops for them and they have to start commung back to the valley for their jobs. Traffic congeson gets worse, polluon gets worse. This change to this code just pushed out a young family trying to make it work here.
More families move away. Schools close. Businesses cannot find employees to fill the jobs we need.
Does this sound familiar? We are already living in ripple effects that have been caused by policy makers in this town. Poor foresight and poor planning. Water, lack of funds, etc. This is happening not just in this town, but all over. We are part of the larger urban fabric.
I ask you, are you qualified to make these types of changes? Do you feel like you have a good enough understanding of the codes to understand the repercussions and ripple effects that these laws have on people? Zoning code is Urban planning; Urban planning affects society in so many ways. IT IS NOT JUST WORDS.
Councilmember Lester Hardy said (in addressing Mr. Eastman’s comments regarding FAR vs Setbacks, approx. 2hrs 24 minutes in the video:)
“I think this is an area that merits some care and thought before we make a final determinaon, what we really want in standards and how they’re going to work. We need to look at what is proposed, thinking that what we will see ulmately is a built environment where some significant number of property owners will build to the limits of whatever envelope is allowed. That’s just how things work in our context. And if we think about that, and we don’t like what that looks like in our imaginaons, then you know that’s a reason to think about doing some things differently. And if we look at it, and given the way which we’ve limited that envelope and the other key elements of the standards that we think we’re going to like that environment as it builds out, then we’re good. But I, my own situaon, is that I haven’t really thought about it enough to be sure I have a clear sense in my own mind how to grapple with the kinds of quesons that Mr. Covell has presented. And as I say, it looks to me like it has different consequences in different se6ngs and I don’t think we should ignore that. So that raises a kind of larger and problemac queson about how we manage our process moving forward. I did have a conversaon with Director DeRosa earlier today about this and I know there is a lot of interest in ge6ng this all done, and I appreciate and tell anyone who talks to me about this, that perfecon can’t be the goal, that doesn’t work, but I think we want to take enough me to be sure on the more challenging quesons that have come up through comments and discussions that we’ve taken enough me to be sure we’re comfortable with the answer…. I think when things get hard, I think that’s when we need to slow down. If the decision is difficult and it’s not easy or obvious, that’s when we need to take a li9le bit more me.” Key takeaways as I interpret Councilmember Hardy:
• Don’t make a change unless you are sure you understand the depth of every word that you are making into law.
• “a lot of interest in ge:ng this all done” – Don’t change something just to get it done, unless you know for sure what you are changing works be;er than the previous code, and are ready to face the repercussions.
Agenda Item #6.1.
I think this is good advice coming from a lawyer.
As Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, Planning Commissioners, staff, as you partake in this law decision making – do you feel qualified to make a ruling on this? If not, recuse yourself. Please don’t just vote if you’re unsure. Be 100% sure.
Wring zoning codes should be done by people who understand historically, visually, economically, and socially the impacts that will come out of it.
Once you put this zoning code into effect, it applies to everyone. It is unclear whether there will even be any recourse. If anyone has a special case, or an undue hardship, they may have to go through a Variance process if even allowed. If a code turns out not well thought-out, the city will need to try to amend this code. In either case, this is me-consuming and costly, not just the processing fees, but also the professional fees. This will have made it harder for people to build, to live, and to thrive here. This will push out the low income, middle class, and any diversity.
If the goal is to make things easier, please do so. Really understand what you are doing. The words become Law, and that has ripple effects that will reverberate for years to come.
Here is screen cap of the Variance fees for reference, not including what professional fees cost to do the drawings/reports/documents for the submi;al.
My background: I am an architect licensed in California; I have been working in St Helena since 2015 with my husband Charles Covell. Prior to that, I worked in San Francisco for another 10 plus years in single family residenal, master planning, hospitality, higher educaon, and commercial projects. I have a Masters in Architecture from CCAC and a Bachelors in Environmental design and Architecture from UC Berkeley.
I can visualize these words. My queson is, can you? Even with my background, I am not an urban planner, and I do not claim to know the answers. However, I can see within just a few minutes of the meeng yesterday, that visuals are needed, and the team making these proposed law changes need to talk more about what they are wring. And if you are unsure of something, don’t write it into law. (I am the lady with the very well-behaved toddler at the joint meeng yesterday) Thank you for your me. RespecSully, Michelle Liu Covell Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
xx\\\\\\ “mm mm \\\\\\\\\
\\\Ill!!lll//
\x\\\\\\\\\\IIIIIIIIII// I”
‘ “\\\\\\\\\\\|Illl"llll
‘-
”
‘ .
,
, \\\\\\IIIII Hull
m
‘ “nun“ I u"!
a
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
B. “or a single-family dwelling, regardless of parcel size, is four thousand two hundred (4,200) square feet. The maximum gross floor area may be increased by four hundred (400) square leet per parcel tor construction of an accessory dwelling unit in compliance with Section J ZJj? QQQ.0- w
1. One covered parking space of two hundred (200) square feet in size;
2. Nonhabitable accessory buildings less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size;3. A nonhabitable basement or attic as de?ned in subsection D of this section; 4' I
. . . ;
5. A legally constructed building which exceeds the maximum floor area permitted by this chapter and which is destroyed by fire, ?ood,landslide or other act of God. Such a building may be rebuilt with up to the same amount of floor area. subject to development plan review and approval by the city in accordance with Section 1Z]§ 959.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
‘r‘\«‘ - pm a.acasmm wow
sen/we Commema‘ (SC) - mmymm Agncu'lum mam
|:| WmeN(w) a Woowands s Walevshéd (WW1
Hugh 9mm mama m,Mzmum mm mam: m»
:1 Low Densxly nemenm (my
ow new Wesvdsnha‘ onem mem a WWW 23 Spam man
:1 Mm Hume Park Ovenay
1;; mm Exempnon mm:
C] mama Dnvé‘apmem Ovm‘ay
Em Mammy mes
:15: He‘ena Urban m,:1 Paw:
Walerways
Acumenby memy Comm omnm'Moles 1 Parce‘s sumac: to the mono PressOvsnay am \denh?c? an a sepmm map‘ mFresevvanon Ove?ay Map e2 Keller‘0 mm a ‘ m nu:Gencrm wanraFm Dver‘ay n3 rmsZumng Map Is sub‘ecq nochange amhe used ,0, rererenceFor memos! anmdaltminrmanmv we“? Conlam me any ofsv Ha‘Depzmwem c Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
mmm
my...mmmmlmmxnl?mlnxmzmu?‘u"Mrmmmlbhn jmmrmulm
mn?mm
Agenda Item #6.1.
Include iootprints a! principal and
accessmy structures, including
garages and Carports
Exclude unenclosed and unroafed
decks, uncovered patios, and
balconies less than 18 inches
above ?nished grade
Excludeswimming paois andhat tubs nut enciosed inreeled structures ar decks 'gure 1734.060: Determining Lot Coverage
Excludeone nun-habitable
accessory structures of less than —‘—>
120 square ieet in ?oor area
IIL.._
Exclude trellises
Exciude unmafed porches,landings, and Stairwaysless than 18 inches above ?nished grade
Exdudesaves androof overhangsprojecting up to 3
?fmm waiis
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
1 Michelle Covell
From: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 11:34 AM
To: Michelle Covell
Cc: Charles Covell
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area
Attachments: LWC_PC Meeting and Open House Flyer_English and Spanish_081120.pdf Hi Michelle, thank you for your email below. Yes, I did review and I understand your concern about limitations on what can be built on a lot related to covered outdoor spaces. But it is also important to note that roofed decks, patios, porches and balconies count towards Lot Coverage as well (SHMC 17.34.060 A-defines what is exempt from Lot Coverage). So you already have that limitation on buildable area.
For further background, you may recall early in the zoning code update process a Recommendations Memo was prepared and discussed following stakeholder interviews that happened in early 2020 about what needed to change in the code. This was presented to a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on May 5, 2020 for further public review and comment. (see link here https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=630)It is from this early phase in the code that there was direction to reduce the overall buildable areas in residential districts. All aspects of what contributes to scale and massing was considered. Because the original zoning code already noted that areas covered by a roof count towards gross floor area, our intention in the clerical edits to the code about “unroofed” porches, etc was only to bring consistency throughout the code. I have copied below a section of the consultants Recommendation Memo:
Stakeholder Interviews
As the first step in community outreach, LWC conducted a series of one-on-one and small-group stakeholder interviews between February 19 and March 4, 2020. A total of 33 individuals were interviewed at the Carnegie Library or over the phone. Interviewees included local businessowners, architects, civic leaders, developers, and appointed and elected officials. The interviews were the first step in understanding the range of issues to be addressed during the Zoning Code update, with the goal of gathering insight and perspective from a variety of codeusers and decision-makers.
At the interviews, stakeholders discussed the need for more creative housing types, density and strategic infill; observations about new residential rebuilds that are out of context with neighborhood scale and mass; the need for a reduction in allowable floor area ratio (FAR); the lack of clarity in design review findings; and the overly restrictive list of uses permitted in the Downtown.
Staff’s role at this point is to receive direction from the Planning Commission at the 4/15 meeting. If the Commission determines that they do not want to have “uncovered” added to End Note 5(b)(iv), staff recommends that they direct staff to also delete in the Rules of Measurement section, SHMC 17.35.050 A (1)(b) which currently provides guidance that where no walls exist, areas covered by the roof are included in floor area calculation. This would eliminate the inconsistency with the current code.
Happy to discuss further.
Have a great weekend,
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
Agenda Item #6.1.
2 1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected]| http://cityofsthelena.gov/planning PLEASE NOTE: We have transitioned to .gov for our email address and website. My new email is [email protected] From: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 9:23 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; Michelle Covell <[email protected]> Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area
Hi Maya have you any chance to review my email and any response? Thanks.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Date: 3/24/25 3:14 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area
Thank you Michelle for your comments below. I will review these in more detail in the days ahead.
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected]| http://cityofsthelena.gov/planning PLEASE NOTE: We have transitioned to .gov for our email address and website. My new email is [email protected] From: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 1:21 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: Charles Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [External] Definition of floor area
Hi Maya,
Thanks for sending this definition of ‘Floor Area’ over.
Agenda Item #6.1.
3 I understand there are different ways to calculate / determine ‘floor area’, some departments look at net and some look at gross, and I understand that in some calculations, they include roof eaves. For example Napa County’s floor area is defined to include roofs – and this goes into the calculation for fire sprinklers, for example commercial buildings under 3600 sf (including roof overhangs), don’t require fire-sprinklers.
I think what concerns me is that as I read the FAR calculations MR from 2017 (screen capped below) prior to the consultant rewriting the code, the FAR calc has a specific section C, that says “the Following buildings and areas are exempt” from the FAR, number 4. a Balcony, porch, deck and other structure where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed. It acknowledges the subtraction of this floor area from the FAR calculation.
Adding the word “uncovered” to item 4 changes what is exempt. Now covered porches/decks are NOT subtracted from the FAR calculation.
The addition of the word “uncovered” significantly changes the objective of the FAR calc, and reduces the amount of interior livable space a project can develop.
The definition that you scanned in for “floor area” is not wrong.
But it does not explain the edit to the FAR exemptions. The FAR as originally codified allowed you to subtract Porches/decks that is acknowledged as an area, and it did not specify, on purpose, whether those were covered or uncovered, that it was just exempt.
I have a graphic below to help hopefully visualize the significance of this.
Agenda Item #6.1.
4 I took this off the web as it shows a color coated diagram of a house with a covered front porch and back porch.
Floor Area per the definition would include the orange, the blue and the grey. No problem.
FAR calculation:
With the original code – the porches are exempt, do not need to include that blue area in your FAR calculations.
The Code (with the amendment to include “uncovered” item 4) - Because the Porches are covered, that area has to be included in your FAR calc, and since the FAR allowance did not increase, now you’d have to shrink the whole design.
This makes people have to choose between having porches/outdoor covered decks, vs interior living space.
As we are very fortunate to live in St Helena, and the reasons why many people move to live here, is to enjoy this excellent weather and the beautiful community.
Forcing people to develop uncovered porches or decks, so that it doesn’t have count towards the FAR calculation is a very unfortunate change to the code.
I strongly support not including the word “uncovered” to item 4.
Agenda Item #6.1.
5 I also strongly urge the review of these “clerical” changes with a fine lens of scrutiny, and hope that the community’s reliance on our professionals to understand how impactful misedits are to this already expensive endeavor of building and permitting.
Respectfully,
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Please note we have updated our email address, please use this email address moving forward.
From: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 5:51 PM
Agenda Item #6.1.
6 To: Michelle Covell <[email protected]>
Subject: Definition of floor area
Hi Michelle, great to talk to you today! Hope I helped address some of your questions about the zoning code and please note the date of 4/15 at 6 pm for when we will have a Planning Commission meeting with the formal code amendments related to covered porches and what is not included in gross floor area calculations. That packet and materials should be published by 4/7.
You asked about the wording in the prior code, I have attached the page with the definition of floor area.
Have a great rest of your week and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any other questions.
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected]| http://cityofsthelena.gov/planning PLEASE NOTE: We have transitioned to .gov for our email address and website. My new email is [email protected]
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: kara smith
To: Public Comment; Erika Opp
Subject: [External] Public comment regarding the word “uncovered” in the zoning code for the St. Helena City Council agenda
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 4:12:45 PM
I am writing as a concerned citizen of St. Helena regarding the word “uncovered” in the zoning code.
I am adamantly against adding the word "uncovered" and have questions regarding this:
Why was this word inserted?
What other words were inserted without process?
My husband and I have lived here for 11 years and over time have renovated our 1960's modest ranch style house. Complying with codes is complicated and oftentimes frustrating.
Penalizing residents who are trying to make outdated smaller homes up to modern living standards by limiting livable space due to "uncovered" porches and pergolas seems completely outrageous, especially without explanation.
Who would have a porch that is not covered? This seems like a basic standard to an exterior of a house and why should it penalize one's overall conditioned livable space as it relates to their lot size? Why would we penalize someone who has a covered outdoor patio to provide shade in a place where temperatures soar? Not to mention the additional shade that would be provided towards home exteriors and energy efficiency?
None of this makes sense, which is why we ask WHY is this considered a clerical error? And WHY does the city not seem to want to have an open discussion with the citizens who are asking for answers?
Thank you!
Kara Smith
St. Helena Resident
--
kara smith
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Charles Covell
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment: Agenda Item 12.2 treatment of covered balconies, porches, etc. 7/22/25 Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 1:28:34 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Honorable Council Members:
I am writing in opposition to the proposed change that would eliminate the exemption for covered porches, balconies, and other open-air structures from the calculation of gross floor area for residences. This proposition does not align with the language of the 2040 General Plan and 2019 Housing Element documents that were developed to guide the 2023 updates to the St Helena Municipal Code, Chapter 17 Zoning.
The original mandate of the 2040 General Plan (Sec LU2.E) called for updates to zoning standards to “to encourage the following criteria (among others) …setbacks, building massing and configuration consistent with older parts of neighborhoods.” (Italics mine). Notably, this section does not reference floor area, nor does it instruct the city to require these characteristics—only to encourage them.
Absent is any call for the reduction of allowable floor areas, not to mention the regulation of openair structures like porches.
This language was a call for thoughtful, contextual design, not a mandate to limit architectural expression or flexibility.
Porches, if anything, can be an important tool for building designers to assist in the General Plan goal of consistency of scale and massing. They soften and break up building mass and scale, not to mention support the General Plan goals of sustainability and enhancing the character of neighborhoods. Look at some of St Helena’s most iconic old homes and explain how they would have the same appeal or character without their porches. It is difficult to imagine any principled opposition to such features.
Building scale and massing is sufficiently addressed by other rules already added to the new code.
Lot coverage rules exist to restrict the total buildable footprint, including porches. The 2023 zoning code update reduced it from 40% to 35%. Street frontage, setback lines, height limits and step back rules further limit and confine massing to a fixed envelope, with or without those masses being covered porches.
I urge the Council to vote NO on this proposal and preserve the longstanding exemption for most covered porches and balconies from residential floor area calculations. Let’s maintain the tools that allow good design, contextual scale, neighborly charm, and ultimately our residents to thrive in St.
Helena.
Sincerely,
Charles Covell
Principal
707.968.9280
Agenda Item #6.1.
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Charles Covell
To: Public Comment
Subject: Second Public comment: Agenda Item 12.2 treatment of covered balconies, porches, etc. 7/22/25 Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 2:00:46 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Honorable Council members,
I am adding this public comment in response to the staff report issued online by city council dated July 22, 2025. This report provided some possible clarity into why we are still all here discussing the creation of a change to the recently adopted code that would effectively downzone most residential properties by including porches in the calculation of maximum floor area. The term “downzoning” refers to changes to the code that would erode property values and development rights.
The matter before the council tonight is reminiscent of past attempts originating with city staff and its consultants to downzone residential areas. These efforts date to at least 2023, when the draft zoning code was released for public review. In May of that year, I wrote a public comment about the draft’s insertion of a limitation on primary residence footprints in the medium density zone of only 2000 square feet, regardless of lot size. Thanks to the efforts of engaged residents and professionals, that provision was ultimately removed, and more historically consistent standards were retained.
This attempt, as we know, was originally couched as a “clerical edit” and is now being brought to council with a full staff report (the third different one written about the topic this year.) Is there authorization for an ongoing effort to slip downzoning provisions into the code? In the ‘Discussion’ section of the report, Mr. Walsh lists three policy perspectives as argument in favor of the code edit.
Included in the third bullet point is the opinion that: “this could result in homes that…are less expensive on resale…”
Regardless of how it would impact home prices, this statement acknowledges that indeed this is a very material change to the language that should be of significant interest to most homeowners in town, and the very opposite of a clerical edit. It also does not appear to have been an innocent mistake.
Shouldn’t such a measure first demonstrate that it will achieve a certain desired result? Shouldn’t such a change that touts the reduction of property values be subject to public awareness and discussion? or even subject to a citywide referendum like a sales tax increase would be? It certainly has the potential to financially impact residents’ finances more significantly than a half-cent or even one-cent sales tax.
It is only inferable from the staff report that the goal of this move may have been to (somehow) make housing more affordable, though we have not seen that explicitly stated. We all know that housing affordability is a real and serious issue. There remains a lot of creative thinking and deliberation to address it. However, will removing the floor area exemption to build open-air covered structures and porches from homeowners really solve affordability? Might it not further drive up prices due to scarcity?
Agenda Item #6.1.
California is probably the nation’s greatest test case that more regulations do not lower housing costs. It seems like a desperate gambit that limiting residential floor areas will lead to more housing being built, however unjust but well-intentioned the effort to do so might be.
But this only presumes that solving housing affordability was an impetus to pursuing this policy so relentlessly. Has this been stated plainly, and be in response to direction provided by the General plan or other official means? Has any evidence been provided to show that this would even work? I would also like to note here that a few “stakeholder” comments (opinions) in a workshopping session have also been cited as justification during this process by staff and its consultants. Should these comments constitute the legitimate underpinnings of a major material policy change at the expense of homeowners? Who gets to choose which comments are heeded and which ones ignored? I ask as having been one of the original stakeholders interviewed at the start of this process, who incidentally did not cite any need to reduce homeowner floor areas.
Please vote no on the proposal.
Thank you.
Charles Covell
Principal
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #6.1.
Public Comment:
I understand that there is an item on the agenda today regarding changes to the code that were made after final approval without regard to the legal process. I want to highlight that there are numerous changes reflected in the published code that have not yet been reviewed or discussed publicly. Although the list of these changes has been requested from staff multiple times, it has not been provided.
While many of these revisions are being described as “clerical edits,” including the one under consideration today, even minor changes—such as the insertion of a single word or a comma—can materially alter the meaning and application of the code. The recent addition of the word “uncovered” is a clear example of a small change with significant impact.
Transparency in this process is essential. There is a process to make these changes and this process is there for a reason and must be followed. Residents, architects, and property owners rely on the published code to make informed decisions about home purchases, remodels, additions, and new construction.
When the code is in flux or not clearly documented, it undermines public trust and makes it impossible for stakeholders to plan with confidence.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Deborah Claymon
To: Erika Opp; Public Comment
Subject: Do Not Proceed w/ Building Code Change related to outdoor space Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 11:41:44 AM
City Council and City Manager:
In short — Please listen to the informed voices from our local architects and builders, residents and real estate professionals — and please reverse any changes to building codes related to covered outdoor space and related issues
Changes to building codes should be legal, public and well-researched.
If a problem has been discovered, an error made — FIX IT EXPEDITIOUSLY for the benefit of all. Obfuscation and delay should not be tolerated.
Housing challenges for our town should be addressed in other ways.
Thank you
Deborah Claymon Boeschen
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: John Skupny
To: Public Comment
Subject: Iten 12.2 - 439-479
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 3:06:47 PM
To the City council et all,
I firmly object to the direction of considering covered porches as part of the footprint of any house in St. Helena.
As a resident for over forty years, homeowner, and business owner in St. Helena, I do not want you to diminish the value of anyone’s home or my home by designating our square footage and thus diminish our FAR potential.
How about you do some real forward thinking and planning so that we do not have to ensure the zoning tragedy
at the corner of Fir Hill and Madrona. A disgusting, over blown, obscene McMasion and scar on our town.
Work for us, not against us!
John G. Skupny
1961 Vineyard Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
707-695-2537 mobile
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Joshua Parke
To: Paul Dohring; Xinia Gamero; Erika Opp; Michelle Deasy; Aaron Barak; Kate Spadarotto; Billy Summers Subject: Item 12.2
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 8:29:17 AM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-07-22 at 7.42.08 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-07-22 at 7.42.44 AM.png
For public comment please.
Good morning,
After reading over this report several times it’s unfortunately very clear that the information presented is completely inaccurate. Section 17.34.050 which is attached to the staff report as Attachment No. 2 and is a fundamental basis of the argument was changed after the adopted council approved version of the code. Ethan is aware of this and must have forgotten. It was one of the central points of our conversation, yet for some reason it’s referenced without acknowledgment of it being changed erroneously by staff after the code was adopted.
This means that the timeline presented in this report regarding LWC advice for clarifications and when they were applied does not line up.
The verbiage was changed from:
“Unenclosed Porches. Porches where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed” to
“Unenclosed Porches. Covered porches for nonresidential uses where a minimum of three sides are unenclosed” These are the rules of measurement that dictate how the calculations are done and they were changed after the code was adopted to read as “three sides are unenclosed” and for “nonresidential uses”
This is being used as a fundamental argument for why the other sections were changed without acknowledging that this section was changed erroneously.
This doesn’t make any sense.
Now council is being directed to have a large ambiguous conversation around perception of building mass and then give permission for multiple sections of the code to be re-written with no guardrails. Was a broad policy discussion around this requested? This is a lot of money to spend on attorneys fees and staff time taken going through another lengthy process that isn’t necessary.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Joshua Parke
Design Principal | Zwischen Studio
206.218.5615
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Kendra Craven
To: Public Comment
Subject: Why?
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 9:15:51 AM
Let’s not forget that the city workers are supposed to be doing their jobs in service to the community.
We must have open discussions and fact based changes regarding building codes.
Kendra Craven
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Public comment for City Council Agenda - July 22nd - re: zoning - porch item Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:25:07 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Just Why?
Michelle Liu Covell, Architect, neighbor, concerned resident As I’ve met with friends, neighbors, and even a few council members recently, I’ve been asked one question more than any other: Just why?
Why is the City suddenly redefining what counts as maximum building floor area to include covered porches—without transparent public discussion? Why did the word “uncovered” quietly slip into an exemption that once clearly exempted certain covered spaces, with no clear process or explanation? We were told this was a simple “clerical edit.” But anyone paying attention knows this is no minor technical fix—it’s a fundamental policy shift. One that significantly impacts homeowners’ rights and could have lasting social and economic consequences for the city.
A local resident and applicant asked a basic question about this change and waited nine months for a clear answer. And in the end? He was right all along. A memorandum from the City Attorney to the Director of Community Development dated June 13, 2025, confirmed that “covered balconies, porches and decks should not be counted toward maximum gross floor area in residential zones.” Instead of receiving a straightforward reply, the resident faced stonewalling, confusion, and—most troubling—an incident where the police were called. Not by the person he met with, but by someone else entirely. No official police report was filed. No accountability followed. Just silence.
Then came a letter from the city manager “documenting” the incident—without firsthand knowledge or factual backing. Why? Why escalate a situation rather than address the real issue: the lack of transparency in how our zoning code is being altered? Why go as far as to call for barriers at City Hall to keep this applicant from simply getting an answer to the question: why? Why was such a significant policy change buried in a convoluted staff presentation at the April 15th Planning Commission hearing? A presentation that conflated key terms like “lot coverage” and “maximum building floor area,” confusing both the public and the commissioners. Why do some commissioners speak vaguely about “massing” and “bird’s eye views,” while skimming past the numbers and mechanics of what’s actually being changed? And perhaps most importantly: why didn’t the Planning Director step in to correct the misuse of terms during the hearing? Why didn’t the City Attorney clarify—much earlier—that this wasn’t a clerical edit at all?
By adding the word “uncovered, or changing the rule from “one open side” to “three open sides” for a porch to be excluded from floor area calculations, the City isn’t just tweaking definitions. It’s Agenda Item #6.1.
fundamentally rewriting how homes are valued, built, and regulated—without proper community input, public education, or any serious evaluation of the long-term ripple effects.
Why are we here? Why are residents forced to piece together major zoning shifts through delayed emails, vague agendas, and opaque procedures? Why were background slides on this issue curated to include only selected public comments—while others were conveniently left out? These questions aren’t rhetorical. They demand real answers from City staff and the Planning Department. Residents deserve transparency and truth. We deserve a public process that values participation—not one that hides behind legalese and administrative sleight-of-hand.
The issue at hand may be porches. But the real concern is process. And that’s something every homeowner, neighbor, and citizen should care about.
This town is a special place. Our community is full of amazing, engaged people. I get it—no one’s racing to read the zoning code. But as an architect, I can’t tell you how often I hear, “Why can’t I do this with my house?” It’s then my job to painfully explain what a zoning section means, and believe me—it’s not fun for me either.
That’s why I’m raising awareness now—before the rules are cemented without your input—so that you don’t have to ask me later, “Why does my porch count against my conditioned living space?” So I ask again—on behalf of many in this community—just… why? And if we can finally get a truthful answer to that question, the next one becomes just as urgent:
How are we going to fix this? And who will lead the way? If you are curious as well, please send in a simple question – Why? – to [email protected]
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Michelle Covell
To: Erika Opp
Subject: Public comment number 2 - for City council July 22 re: porch zoning item Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 4:33:47 PM
Attachments: image009.png
Hi Erika,
I made a YouTube video. I’d like to submit this as a public comment for the porch item. https://youtu.be/q82k3nJbkh8?feature=shared
Title: To Residents of St. Helena – An important issue will be coming to City Council soon. _______________
I would like to include a comment that was brought to my attention after I had finished the video A-20 zoned parcels would also be held to this updated exemption if it moves forward.
HR, MR, LR, LR-1A, as well as A20 – under 2 acres.
Michelle Liu Covell
Architect, Partner, Director of Operations, LEED AP
707.968.9280
Agenda Item #6.1.
1407 Main St. Suite 102 Saint Helena, CA 94574
www.covellarchitects.com
Agenda Item #6.1.
Concerns Regarding Proposed Zoning Text Amendments – “Uncovered” Porch Michelle Liu Covell
Re: Item 12.2 – City Council Meeng 7/22/25
To add to Mr Walsh’s Staff report, under the “Discussion” por&on:
I support excluding covered paos, porches, and decks from the calculaons of gross floor area, and here’s why.
Impacts on Homeowners and Property Rights
• Exisng homes with larger outdoor covered areas may be rendered legally non-conforming, or lose significant development potenal under the proposed changes. • These changes limit homeowners’ flexibility, making it difficult or even impossible to add exterior covered spaces unless they meet the strict definion of a trellis. • Property values may decline, parcularly if future buyers are restricted from adding interior square footage or covered outdoor space—both of which are o1en crical for family growth and livability. • If allowable addions shrink from, for example, 800 square feet to just 200 square feet, home improvement may no longer be financially viable, discouraging investment in exisng homes. • Historic homes with large wrap-around porches—built before current codes—could become legally nonconforming. This may deter potenal buyers from preserving these homes if they are prevented from expanding either indoors or outdoors.
• For young families or mulgeneraonal households (e.g., those bringing in aging parents), such limitaons significantly reduce the ability to adapt homes for evolving needs—potenally forcing families to relocate to more flexible communies.
• Homeowners may enclose exisng porches, since those spaces already count toward square footage.
Without the ability to expand elsewhere, these formerly outdoor areas may be converted into interior living space out of necessity.
Erosion of Public Trust
• Residents are concerned about losing property rights without meaningful engagement or consent. There is growing frustraon and distrust when significant decisions are made by individuals who may not reside in or understand the town's character.
• The process undermines community trust, especially when policy shi1s appear to come from external influences rather than local consensus.
Design, Livability, and Environmental Consequences
• Porches serve an essenal role in breaking up massing, providing passive cooling through shading, and supporng energy-efficient design.
• By discouraging porches, we risk the following negave outcomes:
o Flat, monotonous facades with diminished architectural interest o Increased solar heat gain, leading to higher reliance on air condioning systems o Reduced opportunies for casual social interacon—porches create semi-public spaces where neighbors can connect informally
o Less inving, less walkable streetscapes
o A shi1 in priority toward private backyards, further weakening neighborhood connecvity o Diminished character and identy of historic homes and neighborhoods, many of which rely on porch architecture to maintain human scale and aesthec interest • In The Death and Life of Great American Cies, Jane Jacobs famously described porches as fostering “eyes on the street”—a concept central to neighborhood safety, community-building, and social cohesion.
These in-between spaces connect private and public life, making streets feel alive and secure.
Local Climate and Cultural Relevance
• In our warm valley climate, outdoor living is essenal. Covered exterior areas offer protecon from intense sun and allow residents to enjoy the outdoors year-round. • These spaces are not just architectural features—they are cultural gathering spaces where people host neighbors and connect socially. Curtailing these spaces limits the community’s ability to live in ways that reflect our regional lifestyle.
Concerns About the Policy Process
• The staff report suggests the change was prompted by community input regarding large, out-of-character new homes.
Agenda Item #6.1.
o However, if the concern stemmed from a single project on Firhill (zoned A-20, over 2 acres), that site is unaffected by this exempon change. Applying this broadly based on a few specific examples seems unwarranted.
• It is unclear whether public stakeholders explicitly called for covered exterior spaces to be counted toward square footage. There is no direct evidence that such a recommendaon was made or supported widely.
• The General Plan does not indicate a goal of reducing massing by counng exterior covered areas. On the contrary, it encourages the preservaon of character and community, which porches help to facilitate. • Porches are vital in shaping the “intersal space” between public and private realms—spaces that contribute directly to our town’s livability and charm.
Procedural Concerns
• This zoning amendment should have gone through a formal process, including Planning Commission review, public hearings, and City Council consideraon. • Instead, the change was presented as a clerical correcon rather than a significant policy change, liming public transparency and engagement.
• The staff report is misleading in both tone and substance. • The revised term “uncovered porch” contradicts its definion in the building code.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Administration/Planning
DATE: July 22, 2025
FROM: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction from City Council regarding treatment of covered balconies, porches, decks and other structures for purposes of calculating gross floor area under the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Receive direction from City Council on how they would like to treat covered balconies, porches, decks and similar
structures under the Zoning Ordinance. City staff
anticipates that after receiving direction, they will prepare an ordinance amending to the Zoning Code to carry out
proposed direction of the Council, which will go to the Planning Commission for recommendation, and then
return to Council for adoption.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
October 23, 2023 – Council adopted comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance update.
STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:
To provide City staff with policy guidance on how to treat covered balconies, porches, decks and similar structures for purposes of calculating gross floor area under the City Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
BACKGROUND:
In 2020, the City of St. Helena initiated a General Plan implementation action and began a three-year process of completing a comprehensive update to the City’s zoning code. The process involved the formation of a zoning code subcommittee, numerous public meetings and discussions, culminating in the adoption of the comprehensive zoning code update on October 23, 2023.
During the process of developing the code update, the City’s planning consultant, Lisa Wise Consulting (“LWC”), conducted stakeholder interviews to gather insight and perspective. In its summary of those interviews, LWC indicated that stakeholders discussed, among other things, “observations about new residential builds that are out of context with neighborhood scale and mass; [and] the need for reduction in allowable floor area ratio (FAR). (City of St. Helena Zoning Code Update Recommendations Memo and Annotated Outline (June 26, 2020), p. 4.) In partial response to these observations, LWC recommended deleting the floor area ratio standards in the code for residential districts, and instead establishing a maximum building gross floor area for Agenda Item #6.1.
single family residences on a range of lot sizes, which resulted in a slightly reduced allowable floor area for single family homes in residential districts.
The Zoning Code, as amended, establishes the “maximum gross floor area” that may be developed on lots within the LR-1A, LR and MR residential districts (these are the City’s single family residential districts). The maximum gross floor area, based on lot size, is set forth in End Note 4 to Section 17.16.030 of the Zoning Code (for the MR District) and Table 17.16.030(C), also in Section 17.16.030 (for the LR-1A and LR Districts). End Note 5 to Section 17.16.030 includes “additional standards” that apply within the residential zoning districts, and as part of those “additional standards”, End Note 5 declares that certain buildings and structures are “exempt from max. building gross floor area,” including “[a] balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.” (Zoning Code sec. 17.16.030, End Note 5(b)(iv).) Section 17.16.030, including End Note 5, is attached to this staff report as Attachment No. 1.
The manner in which “maximum gross floor area” is measured is set forth in Zoning Code Chapter 17.34, “Rules of Measurement”. Section 17.34.050 declares that “[t]he floor area is measured as the sum of the gross horizontal floor areas of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings.” Section 17.34.050 goes on to list certain areas that are included and excluded from the calculation of floor area. Amongst the areas that are included in the gross floor area are: “In cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of a standard roof projection.” (Zoning Ordinance Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b) [emphasis added].) Section 17.34.050 is attached to this staff report as Attachment No. 2. Therefore, on the one hand, all areas covered by a roof (excluding a standard roof projection) are included within the calculation of gross floor area, but on the other hand under Section 17.16.030, End Note 5, balconies, porches, decks or other structure that are unenclosed on at least three sides are excluded from the calculation of gross floor area.
A few weeks following adoption of the Zoning Code update by City Council, while staff was preparing the final code changes to the code publisher, City staff raised questions regarding whether covered balconies, porches, decks would be counted toward gross floor area, given the language in the Rules of Measurement stating that all covered areas are counted toward gross floor area. The representative from LWC believed the intent of the City, based on the language in the Rules of Measurement, was to include all areas covered by a roof within the calculation of gross floor area, and the City should make a clarifying change to End Note 5 to add the word “uncovered” to End Note 5, to declare that areas that are excluded from the calculation of gross floor area include “an uncovered balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.” The LWC representative viewed this as a change to correct a clerical error that would have no substantive impact on the Code. As a result, the word “uncovered” was added to End Note 5. Staff also included an edit to Section 17.34.050(A)(2)(f) to state that uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks were to be excluded from the calculation of floor area, in an effort to be consistent with the change to End Note 5.
Agenda Item #6.1.
These changes were made after the adoption of the code, and not part of a formal Council adoption, based on the logic that they were clerical, clarifying edits.
In the fall of 2024, while working with the City to process a Design Review application for a proposed project, Dan Hale noted the change to End Note 5 between the Code adopted in October 2023 and version available online and at City Hall. The City received a letter from an attorney representing Mr. Hale questioning the inclusion of these changes in the code and asking that they be removed from the code if they were inadvertently included. The City Attorney responded to Mr. Hale’s attorney, acknowledging that the changes to End Note 5 and Section 17.34.050(A)(2)(f) should not have been made without a corresponding ordinance approved by Council, and stated that the referenced changes would be removed from the Zoning Code. However, the City Attorney also indicated that these two changes were intended to be clarifying, and were consistent with the Zoning Code’s treatment of covered patios as it was adopted in October 2023. This position that the changes were intended to be clarifying was based on City staff (and the City Attorney’s) position that the language in the Rules of Measurement requiring that all areas covered by a roof are part of the “gross floor area” was intended to be controlling, and the exemption in End Note 5 was intended to be limited to uncovered balconies, porches, decks and similar structures, and would not change the overarching rule set forth in the rules of measurement. The City Attorney indicated that an ordinance formally amending End Note 5 and Section
17.34.050(A)(2)(f) would come forward at a later date.
City staff did move forward with an ordinance that would add “uncovered” to End Note 5, and make an edit to Section 17.34.050(A)(2)(f) to state that uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks were to be excluded from the calculation of floor area. The Planning Commission recommended by a 4-0 vote on April 15, 2025 to approve the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance was scheduled to be heard by the Council on May 13, 2025, but following extensive written public comment City staff decided to pull the item to engage in more discussions with interested stakeholders before bringing an item forward.
The City Attorney engaged in discussions with interested members of the community, including Michelle and Charles Covell, Dan Hale and Joshua Parke. Following these discussions and further review of the Zoning Code language, the City Attorney changed his opinion, determining that the most logical interpretation of the current code language is that the exemption for patios, porches and decks in End Note 5 is intended to apply specifically to covered patios, porches, decks and similar structures that are unenclosed on three sides. The City’s Attorney’s updated position is laid out in more detail in the memo included as Attachment No. 3. The basic reasoning for this new position is as follows: The Rules of Measurement include within gross floor area all areas covered by a roof and/or enclosed by exterior walls, but do not include exterior improvements that are not covered by a roof. In other words, uncovered patios, decks and porches are not included within the base definition of gross floor area. As a result, there would be no need to exempt uncovered patios, decks, etc. from gross floor area, since they are not included as part of gross floor area in the first place. Therefore, under the current code Agenda Item #6.1.
the most reasonable interpretation is that the exemption included in End Note 5 is intended to apply to covered patios, porches, decks and similar structures that are unenclosed on three sides, and those areas currently are not included as part of the calculation of gross floor area.
Given the level of confusion this language has caused, staff does think that the City should make clarifying amendments to the Zoning Code, so it is clear whether or not covered patios, porches, decks and similar structures should be included in the calculation of gross floor area. This is ultimately a policy decision for City Council, and staff is seeking direction on whether the Council wants to include covered patios, porches and decks in the calculation of gross floor area or exclude those areas from the calculation.
DISCUSSION:
The limits in the Zoning Code on gross floor area within residential districts are intended to set limits on the volume, or size, of the buildings that may be constructed on residential lots within the City. A graphic depicting the manner in which gross floor area is determined is attached to this staff report as Attachment No. 4. The limits on gross floor area are intended to work in conjunction with other limitations such as lot coverage limits, height limits and setbacks to ensure that homes constructed in residential areas are not so large that they are out of character with the surrounding area.
The policy perspectives that support including covered patios, porches and decks as part of the gross floor area are as follows[1]:
Members of the public have raised concerns about residential neighborhoods being developed with new homes that replace existing, more modest homes, with those new homes maximizing the buildable envelope allowable on those residential lots. That results in larger homes that are more expensive and, in some cases, out of character with the neighborhood.
Roofed areas, even if they are unenclosed by walls, contribute to the overall massing of a structure, and add to the perceived size of the building when looking at it from the sidewalk or street. If those covered areas contribute to the perceived massing of the building, they should be included in the calculation of gross floor area.
Including covered patios, porches and decks in the calculation of gross floor area would serve as an additional limitation on the overall size of homes and associated structures within the residential neighborhoods. This could result in homes that are not as large, and as a result are less expensive on resale and more in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy perspectives that would support excluding covered patios, porches and decks from the calculations of gross floor area include the following [2]:
Agenda Item #6.1.
Covered patios and porches are consistent with the character of St. Helena, and including them as part of gross floor area discourages their use, because homeowners are forced to choose between covered outdoor area and interior living space.
Covered patios, etc. should be encouraged because they help with natural cooling of the interior of homes, and provide for shaded outdoor areas, which are particularly beneficial in light of increasing temperatures due to climate change. This is a change from the City’s historic treatment of covered patios, etc., and as a result some existing homes will become legal nonconforming uses if the home, inclusive of the covered outdoor areas, now exceed the maximum gross floor area. As a result, those homes will not be able to expand unless the owners comply with the new gross floor area limits.
This will further restrict existing homeowners’ ability to add on to their homes to address a change in life circumstance (e.g., having additional children, taking in an elderly parent) if they have covered outdoor areas.
At the Council meeting, staff will seek direction from Council on whether Council believes that covered patios, etc. should be included or excluded from the calculation of gross floor area. Following Council direction, City staff will prepare an ordinance to carry out Council’s direction, take that proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for recommendation, and return to Council for consideration of the ordinance. [1] City staff wants to make clear that these policy perspectives are arguments in favor of inclusion of covered patios, etc., not statements of fact, they are offered so the Council has an understanding of both sides of this issue. [2] The reasons offered for or against inclusion of covered patios in this staff report are not all-inclusive lists of reasons to support either position. Members of the public may offer other or more detailed reasons to support either side of this issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:
St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.16.030-c1
St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.34.050-c1
Memo re Covered Balconies and Similar Structures-c1
Attachment 8 -Measuring Floor Area Graphic-c1
Agenda Item #6.1.
17.16.030 Development standards.
Table 17.16.030(B): Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts, establishes the development standards for the residential zoning districts. The numbers in the figure below refer to corresponding regulations in the table.
Table 17.16.030(B). Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Density 1 du/ac 1, 2 1 to 5 du/ac 2 5.1 to 16 du/ac 16.1—28 du/ac Lot Size
Min. Lot Area 1.0 ac 3 7,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft 7,000 sq ft 3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
Min. Lot Width 70 ft 70 ft 45 ft 45 ft
32 ft for small ❶
lot development
32 ft for small
lot development
Max. Lot Coverage
(Includes Accessory
Structures)
35% 35%
Lot widths <45
ft: Max. 35%
55%
Lot widths >45
ft: Max. 40%
Ch. 17.16 Residential Zoning Districts | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 1 of 6 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Table 17.16.030(B). Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
55% for new
small lot
development
Max. Primary
Building Footprint
(Excludes Accessory
Structures)
None Refer to Table
17.16.030(C)
None None
❷
1,400 sq ft for
detached small
lot detached
Max. Building Gross
Floor Area (All Floors)
5 Refer to Table
17.16.030(C) for
lots <1 acre Refer to Table
17.16.030(C)
Refer to End
Note 4 None
Max. 6,069 sq ft
for lots >1 ac in
area
Max. Building Height
Principal Structure 30 ft 30 ft/2 stories 30 ft/2 stories 42 ft/3 stories Ground floor
max. ceiling
height 15 ft
30 ft/2 stories
for small lot
development
Accessory
Structure 6
16 ft 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft
Setbacks
Min. Front Setback
20 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
20 ft 15 ft; 25 ft for
3rd floor and
above
❸
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
12 feet for small
lot development
10 ft for small
lot development
Min. Garage or
Carport Setback
From Building
Facade
None None 5 ft None
❹
Min. Street Side
Setback
20 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
15 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
15 ft ❺
Ch. 17.16 Residential Zoning Districts | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 2 of 6 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Table 17.16.030(B). Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
Min. Interior Side
Setback, Ground
Floor
10 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
10 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
5 ft setback
applied with the
combined
setback below
10 ft ❻
15 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
15 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
Combined
interior side
setbacks: 15 ft
for structures
<25 ft in height
Combined
interior side
setbacks: 20 ft
for structures
>25 ft in height
Min. Interior Side
Setback, Upper
Floors
5 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
5 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height 9 ft when
adjacent to an
LR or MR district
None ❻
9 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
9 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
Min. Rear Setback
20 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures <25 ft
in height
10 ft ❼
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
Min. Setback From
Abutting
Waterway
Min. 50 ft from top of bank of Napa River
❽ Min. 20 ft from top of bank of all other waterways
Landscaping and Open Space
Private Ground
Floor Open Space
n/a n/a Min. 80 sq ft/
unit
Min. 60 sq ft/
unit
Ch. 17.16 Residential Zoning Districts | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 3 of 6 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Table 17.16.030(B). Development Standards—Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
for Multifamily
Development
Min. Dimension
for Private Open
Space for
Multifamily
Development
n/a n/a 6 ft 6 ft
Common Usable
Open Space for
Multifamily
Development
n/a n/a Lot widths <45
ft: Min. 150 sq
ft/lot Min. 150 sq
ft/lot
❾
Lot widths >45
ft: Min. 200 sq
ft/lot
Min. Dimension
for Common
Usable Open
Space
n/a n/a
15 ft 15 ft
20 ft for small ❿
lot development
20 ft for small
lot development
Max.
Paved/Hardscaped
Area
25% of a front
setback area
25% of a front
setback area
30% of a front
setback area
30% of a front
setback area
Min. Landscaped
Area 7
35% of lot area 35% of lot area
Min. 25% of lot
area
Min. 25% of lot
area 25% for small lot
development
25% for small lot
development
Required Buffer
Abutting
Agricultural Use
n/a A landscaped buffer min. 15 ft width with street trees at 30 ft on center
End Notes:
1 Greater residential densities are allowed under state law if a site meets the standards for two-unit development as described in Chapter 17.31, Two-Unit Projects. 2 Densities existing as of January 1, 2023, are permitted to remain. 3 Parcels created by lot line adjustments may be less than one acre provided the number of parcels does not increase and that no lots are less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet. 4 Max. building gross floor area (all floors) for single-family residences including accessory structures is as follows:
Ch. 17.16 Residential Zoning Districts | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 4 of 6 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Lots < 6,000 sf: 1,995 sf
Lots 6,000—9,999 sf: 2,945 sf
Lots 10,000—14,999 sf: 3,705 sf
Lots 15,000—19,999 sf: 3,971 sf
Lots > 20,000 sf: 4,000 sf
5 The following additional standards apply for existing development and new construction in the LR-1A, LR, MR, and HR zoning districts:
a. The max. building gross floor area may be increased by four hundred (400) sf for construction of an ADU. b. The following buildings and areas are exempt from max. building gross floor area:
i. One covered parking space with a max. floor area of two hundred (200) sf; ii. Nonhabitable accessory buildings with a max. floor area of one hundred twenty (120) sf; iii. A nonhabitable basement or attic; and
iv. A balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides. 6 Additional standards for accessory buildings are described in Section 17.22.020, Accessory uses. 7 Landscaped setback and buffer areas count toward this requirement.
Table 17.16.030(C): Primary Building Gross Floor Area Standards in the LR-1A and LR Zoning Districts, establishes the maximum building footprint for primary buildings, excluding accessory structures.
Table 17.16.030(C). Primary Building Gross Floor Area Standards in the LR-1A and LR Zoning Districts
LR-1A Zoning District LR Zoning District
Lot Size
Max. Gross Floor
Area (excludes
accessory
structures)
Lot Size
Max. Gross Floor
Area (excludes
accessory
structures)
> 7,000—14,999 sq ft 3,900 sq ft < 7,000 sq ft 2,400 sq ft > 15,000—21,999 sq ft 4,425 sq ft > 7,000—7,999 sq ft 2,400 sq ft > 22,000—28,999 sq ft 4,950 sq ft > 8,000—8,999 sq ft 2,700 sq ft > 29,000—35,999 sq ft 5,475 sq ft > 9,000—9,999 sq ft 2,950 sq ft > 36,000—43,559 sq ft 6,000 sq ft > 10,000—10,999 sq ft 3,300 sq ft > 11,000—11,999 sq ft 3,480 sq ft
> 12,000—12,999 sq ft 3,640 sq ft
> 13,000—13,999 sq ft 3,780 sq ft
Ch. 17.16 Residential Zoning Districts | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 5 of 6 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the St. Helena Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.cityofsthelena.gov
Hosted by General Code.
Table 17.16.030(C). Primary Building Gross Floor Area Standards in the LR-1A and LR Zoning Districts
LR-1A Zoning District LR Zoning District
Lot Size
Max. Gross Floor
Area (excludes
accessory
structures)
Lot Size
Max. Gross Floor
Area (excludes
accessory
structures)
> 14,000—14,999 sq ft 3,900 sq ft
> 15,000 sq ft 3,900 sq ft
(Ord. 23-4 § 5 (Exh. A))
Ch. 17.16 Residential Zoning Districts | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 6 of 6 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
17.34.050 Measuring floor area and floor area ratio.
A. Areas Included in Floor Area Measurement. The floor area is measured as the sum of the gross horizontal floor areas of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings. Areas included and excluded from floor area are listed below.
1. Included in Floor Area Calculation.
a. All habitable space (as defined in the building code) that is below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of party walls separating such buildings or portions thereof.
b. In cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection.
c. Interior walkways or corridors, interior courtyards, walkways, paseos, or corridors covered by a roof or skylight.
d. All floors of enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts.
2. Excluded From Floor Area.
a. Mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed two percent of the building’s gross floor area.
b. Bay windows or other architectural projections where the vertical distance between the lowest surface of the projection and the finished floor is thirty (30) inches or greater. c. Any areas that satisfy the landscape and open space base zone requirements. d. In the case of a multistory building that has covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts, the horizontal area of such features shall be counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent.
e. In nonresidential buildings, areas used for off-street parking spaces or loading spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles that are located below the finished grade of the property. f. Arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas that are located at or near street level and are accessible to the general public but are not designed or used as sales, display, storage, service, or production areas. g. Outside areas used for sales and/or display (e.g., plant nurseries, building materials, auto sales, wine production, etc.).
h. A building or structure consisting of nonusable floor space such as a garage, carport, or storage shed.
Ch. 17.34 Rules of Measurement | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 1 of 3 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
i. Unfinished attics, crawlspaces, and basements shall not be included unless converted and finished as usable floor space.
Figure 17.34.050. Measuring Floor Area
B. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the floor area, excluding the areas described below, of all primary and accessory buildings on a site to the site area. To calculate the FAR, floor area is divided by site area, and typically expressed as a decimal. For example, if the floor area of all buildings on a site totals twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, and the site area is ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the FAR is expressed as 2.0.
The following are excluded from floor area in calculating FAR.
1. Underground Areas. Floor area located below finished grade.
2. Parking. Parking areas located below finished grade or finished floor of habitable space where the vertical distance between finished grade and finished floor is less than six feet.
3. Small Accessory Structures. Accessory structures up to one hundred twenty (120) gross square feet.
4. Unenclosed Porches. Covered porches for nonresidential uses where a minimum of three sides are unenclosed. (Ord. 23-4 § 5 (Exh. A))
Ch. 17.34 Rules of Measurement | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 2 of 3 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the St. Helena Municipal Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.cityofsthelena.gov
Hosted by General Code.
Ch. 17.34 Rules of Measurement | St. Helena Municipal Code Page 3 of 3 The St. Helena Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 25-1, passed January 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Ethan J. Walsh
(916) 551-2825
[email protected]
83578.00101\43881105.1
500 Capitol Mall. Suite 2500.Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 325-4000 | Fax: (916) 325-4010
bbklaw.com
Memorandum
VIA E-MAIL
To: Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena
File No.: 83578.00101
From: Ethan Walsh
City Attorney
City of St. Helena
Date: June 13, 2025
Re: Treatment of Covered Balconies, Porches and Decks in Residential Zoning Districts for Purposes of Calculating Gross Floor Area Under the St. Helena Zoning Code
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
You have requested a memo outlining my interpretation of whether covered balconies, porches and decks should be included in the calculation of maximum gross floor area in residential zones under the St. Helena Zoning Code (the “Zoning Code”).
BRIEF ANSWER
While there is some ambiguity in the Zoning Code, the most reasonable interpretation of the Zoning Code, in my opinion, is that covered balconies, porches and decks should not be included in the calculation of maximum gross floor area in residential zones.
This is a change from what I had discussed with you orally in the past. However, after spending more time reviewing the Zoning Code in light of some of the concerns raised by community members, I have changed my opinion and believe that the most reasonable interpretation is that covered balconies, porches and decks should not be counted toward maximum gross floor area in residential zones. I have included the basis for my interpretation below.
ANALYSIS
Agenda Item #6.1.
83578.00101\43881105.1
- 2 -
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Under the current Zoning Code, the City establishes limits for “maximum building gross floor area” within the LR-1A, LR and MR residential zoning districts. The maximum building gross floor area for the MR district is established on a sliding scale dependent on lot size, and is set forth in Zoning Code Sec. 17.16.030, endnote 4. The maximum building gross floor area for the LR-1A and LR districts is similarly established on a sliding scale and is set forth in the Zoning Code at Table 17.16.030(C).
In order to determine how to calculate maximum gross floor area, we must first determine what areas are included as part of the gross floor area. Section 17.34.050(A) of the Zoning Code provides the approach that the City uses for measuring floor area. Section
17.34.050(A) first states that “[t]he floor area is measured as the sum of the gross floor areas of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings.” The Zoning Code continues in Section 17.34.050(A)(1) and (2) to further describe areas that are included and excluded from floor area. The Zoning Code lists the following areas as being included in the calculation of floor area:
“a. All habitable space (as defined in the building code) that is below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of party walls separating such buildings or portions thereof.
b. In cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection. c. Interior walkways or corridors, interior courtyards, walkways, paseos, or corridors covered by a roof or skylight.
d. All floors of enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts.” Zoning Code Section 17.34.050(A)(1) [emphasis added].
While Section 17.34.050(A) provides a baseline method for determining what areas to include in the calculation of gross floor area, Zoning Code Section 17.16.030, endnote 5, adds that “additional standards that apply for existing development and new construction in the LR-1A, LR, MR and HR zoning districts.” As part of those “additional standards”, subparagraph (b) of endnote 5 declares that:
“The following buildings and areas are exempt from max. building gross floor area:
i. One covered parking space with a max. floor area of two hundred (200) sf;
ii. Nonhabitable accessory buildings with a max. floor area of one hundred twenty (120) sf;
iii. A nonhabitable basement or attic; and
Agenda Item #6.1.
83578.00101\43881105.1
- 3 -
Best Best & Krieger LLP
iv. A balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.”
Zoning Code Section 17.16.030 endnote 5(b) [emphasis added].
Based on the method described in Section 17.34.050, and specifically the language in Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b) (quoted on pg. 2 of this memo in italics), all areas that are covered by a roof, excluding two feet on each side, should be included as part of the floor area for purposes of determining maximum gross floor area, even if that area is not enclosed by walls. Based on this language alone, any covered balconies, porches or decks would be covered by a roof, and therefore would be included in the determination of gross floor area.
However, endnote 5 includes “additional” standards that apply in the residential zoning districts, including the statement that certain areas are “exempt” from the maximum gross floor area calculation, including “[a] balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides.” (Zoning Code Section 17.16.030 endnote 5(b)(iv).) The question we have been asking is whether the exemption for balconies, porches, decks or other structures that are unenclosed on three sides is intended only to apply to uncovered balconies, porches, decks or other structures, or if it is also intended to apply to covered balconies, porches, decks or other structures.
Based on the language in the Zoning Code discussed in this memo, I believe that the exemption in endnote 5(b)(iv) is intended to specifically exempt covered balconies, porches, decks or other similar structures that are unenclosed on at least three sides. The reason for this conclusion is that uncovered balconies, porches or decks would not be included in the calculation of floor area in the first place, so there would be no need to exempt them from the calculation.
Uncovered balconies, porches and decks are not enclosed by walls, they are, by definition, not covered by a roof, they do not constitute interior walkways, and are not enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts. Therefore, uncovered balconies, porches or decks are not included as part of the floor area as described in Section 17.34.050(A), and there is no need to specifically exempt them from that calculation. If the exemption were interpreted to only apply to uncovered balconies, porches or decks the language in endnote 5(b)(iv) would be surplusage (i.e., unnecessary or excess), since those uncovered structures are not part of the base calculation.
General rules of statutory construction hold that statutory or codified language should be interpreted in a way that does not render portions of the text to be surplusage if it is possible to do so.
In light of this general rule of statutory construction and the overall context of the sections described above, I think the most reasonable interpretation of endnote 5(b)(iv) is that it is intended to exempt covered balconies, porches, decks and similar structures that are not enclosed on three sides from the calculation of gross floor area within the listed residential districts.
CONCLUSION
As we have discussed, I do still plan to bring an item to the City Council to discuss the policy issues raised by these provisions of the Zoning Code. Based on the direction Agenda Item #6.1.
83578.00101\43881105.1
- 4 -
Best Best & Krieger LLP
received from Council, we plan to work to draft clarifying language to avoid future confusion related to this issue.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Figure 17.34. Figure 17.34.050: Measuring Floor Area
Attachment 8 Agenda Item #6.1.
City of St. Helena
City Council
Discussion and direction regarding treatment of uncovered balconies, porches and decks in determining gross floor area under the Zoning CodeStaff: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney July 22, 2025
Agenda Item #6.1.
Background
• In 2020, the City of St. Helena initiated a General Plan implementation action and began a three year processof completing a comprehensive update to the zoningcode. • In response to feedback from residents and
subcommittee members, City removed floor area ratiostandards for residential districts, instead establishing amaximum building gross floor area standard.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Background
• Utilizing a maximum building gross floor area for single family based on a range of lot sizes which slightlyreduced allowable floor area. • The maximum gross floor area for the MR District is set forth in 17.16.030, endnote 4.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Background
• The “Rules of Measurement” set forth at Section 17.34.050(A)(1) provide "in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by theroof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for astandard roof projection [shall be included in the floor areacalculation].” • In contrast, subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) of Section 17.16.030 (which includes development standards in residential districts)notes that a balcony, porch, deck or other structure that isunenclosed on at least three sides is exempt from gross floorarea. • This creates a potential inconsistency when applied to covered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that are unenclosedon at least 3 sides
Agenda Item #6.1.
Background
• There has been a significant amount of public dialogue on this topic.
• After significant public dialogue on this topic and additional review of the code language, the City’s position is that theexceptions set forth in End Note 5 apply to covered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that are unenclosed on at least3 sides. • However, given the extent of public discussion and potential inconsistencies within the Zoning Code, staff is seeking directionfrom Council on whether to include or exclude covered porchesfrom gross floor area.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Analysis
Reasons for Inclusion of Covered Balconies, etc. in Determination of Gross Floor Area• Concerns about residential neighborhoods being developed with new homes that replace existing, more modest homes, with those new homes maximizing the buildable envelope allowable on those residential lots. • Roofed areas can contribute to the overall massing of a structure, and add to the perceived size of the building. If those areas contribute to the perceived massing of the building, they should be included in the calculation of gross floor area. • Would serve as an additional limitation on the overall size of homes and associated structures within the residential neighborhoods.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Analysis
Reasons for Excluding Covered Balconies, etc. in Determination of Gross Floor Area• Covered balconies are consistent with the character of St. Helena, and including them as part of gross floor area discourages their use, because home owners are forced to choose between covered outdoor area and interior living space. • Covered outdoor areas should be encouraged because they help with natural cooling of the interior of homes, and provide for shaded outdoor areas. • Will result in some existing homes becoming legal nonconforming uses, which could prevent future expansion.
• Will restrict some existing homeowners’ ability to add on to their homes to address a change in life circumstance.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Questions?
Agenda Item #6.1.
Questions?
Agenda Item #6.1.
RE 15 April 2025 Planning Commission meeting item 5.2
I would like to correct the record and narrative that M DeRosa continues to put forward. Most simply put On 17 Oct 2024 in meetings with Planner Galbraith on a client project it was discovered that Code had been altered outside of the required legal process. I asked M DeRosa on that date for an explanation as to how that occurred. She chose to not answer that question. Having received no response to that question I hired an attorney and on 6 December 2024 they asked M DeRosa, the City attorney and Mayor the same question. It was not until 3 February 2025 that City Attorney confirmed that in fact code was altered outside of the legal process. I believe the process of code creation and amendment and alteration is a critically important process.
I have also requested an understanding of other areas of code that were similarly altered outside of legal process and have yet to receive a response to that question.
I do not believe the rationale presented by Director DeRosa is relevant to the change she is seeking to make into binding code. It appears to be an attempt to escape responsibility for taking an action that was outside of legal process. I believe it is an assault on porches and property rights.
It places existing homes out of compliance, as the existing covered porches would now be included in your allowed square footage. It severely curtails allowed square footage. It sets adrift the second guiding section of code (Lot Coverage) that exists to mitigate covered porches. I believe this is an opportunity have a sincere discussion on the value of porches and the effect that altering code in this way will have upon the built environment. I do not believe there is only option 1 or 2 presented here. I believe you should consider the best configuration of language that defines how porches will be counted toward which category of square footage. I believe the language should apply universally to porches in the natural variety of configurations that are bound to exist (now and in the future) and that section of code should be crafted so that it can be applied legally and equally.
There are ample benefits to the existence of porches. I believe that is something that most St Helena citizens can understand. Code language affects both the continued existence and creation of porches.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #6.1.
SCALE
1”=60’-0”
SAVE OUR PORCHES/PORCHES MATTER
PORCH ILLUSTRATIONS:
Each of the configurations below is the same size house and same size (covered) porch. 900 SF house (shown in red)
300 SF porch (shown in yellow)
The porches in all these examples have a mitigating effect on massing and all aid in the encouragement of healthy outdoor living. They illustrate some of the common configurations and ways that porches engage with a house. These examples illustrate a typical and reasonable ratio of porch square footage in relation to house square footage.
The suggested code alteration would throw multitudes of existing houses into non-conformance with code.
People’s understanding of code prescribed square footage capacities of future allowed additions would change severely which has a substantial effect on both property values and quality of life.
It makes simple and good sense that equal application of law/code should treat these conditions in the same manner if open on one, two, or three sides as (covered) porches do.
Code historically has and I believe should allow and encourage porches.
Porches are social architecture and provide healthy and enjoyable spaces.
Porches encourage shade and protection from the sun.
Porches facilitate indoor/outdoor living which we cherish.
The size and scope of porches are already controlled and mitigated by the lot coverage section of code which works in unison with the allowed square footage section of code.
Porches provide natural shade and energy free cooling to buildings and affect Title 24 considerations of code.
Porches are the most cost effective to construct and some of the most pleasant living space Porches provide protection and better longevity to doors and windows.
Agenda Item #6.1.
From: Christine Hale
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] April 15 PC mtg Item 5.2
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 1:23:23 PM
I understand that covered porches being included as interior square footage is being considered as a code update. I would like to voice my opposition to this change. I personally think that covered porches are essential here in this part of the country with the intense sun exposure we have in the summer months. We are lucky to live in a place that allows for us to spend a lot of time outdoors. Porches (and large overhangs, which will now count as a porch if over 2ft) help to keep the house cool without the need for AC - and covered porches keep my skin cancer at bay. They are good social architecture. A friendly covered front porch, so essential in the rainy months, will also be included.
The change is also important in understanding what can be done with an existing house. If someone wants to add a porch to an existing house they may not be allowed to do so. In addition, if a house happens to have a large porch as many older homes do, they may not be able to add on to the home. Most people may not realize the effects of this change until they go to do something to their property. We already updated the code to limit the size of homes in 2023. There was extensive discussion at this time and it was NOT presented then that this porch change would apply. I contend that this was not an accidental omission but is something that is being proposed now. I am not sure what this in reaction to, but I think it is a mistake. There are already limits in code to lot coverage that apply to porches, so not sure why we need to add this to the mix. If there is an intention to further limit home sizes, then have that discussion openly.
On another note, I would like to clarify that Dan Hale only contacted an attorney due to the lack of response from the City Planning Director, the Mayor or the City Attorney for several months. This change was discovered after receiving a green light on his project from the previous Assoc Planner Hecock. After submission, it came back to a new planner who pointed out this change, as it had just been published. (After a year waiting for draft code to be published.) That Planner pointed out that indeed the draft code and the published code were in fact different. There is a legal process for this and it was clear that this was going to cause him grief in dealing with anyone that had started a project in the last year, prior to the publication of the code. For posing the question as to how and when this occurred, and asking if they could just point out the meeting where it was approved, the City Planning Director and the City Manager decided to go after Dan with a slew of false and slanderous claims. The question I have is how much money was spent on attorneys fees to the City Attorney trying to figure out how to dodge this question.
And to be clear it still took months to get an answer back to Kay Philippakis, the attorney that was hired to get an answer to this question in order to proceed with his clients home in SH. It was not until February that they finally came back with a response that the code had, in fact, been altered.
Please do NOT include covered porches as interior square footage.
Thank you,
Christine Hale
1851 Madrona Ave.
Agenda Item #6.1.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of April 15, 2025
FILE NUMBER: ZOA 2025-002
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 2025-002) to amend Table
17.16.030B and Chapter 17.34.050 A.2 (f) of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding exempting uncovered balconies, porches, decks and other structures from gross floor area.
PREPARED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
In 2020, the City of St. Helena initiated a General Plan implementation action and began a three year process of completing a comprehensive update to the zoning code.
The process included the formation of a zoning code subcommittee, numerous public meetings and discussions prior to the code adoption by the City Council on October 23, 2023. During the drafting of the updated development standards, there was direction received from residents and subcommittee members that the residential development standards were too generous and allowing for homes to develop to maximum floor area ratio which in many cases was out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the zoning code consultant recommended deleting the floor area ratio standards in the code and instead utilizing a maximum building gross floor area for single family based on a range of lot sizes which slightly reduced allowable floor area.
A few weeks following the formal code adoption and while staff was preparing to send the final code changes to the code publisher, staff and the code consultant noticed that there was an inconsistency between how the code directs how to measure gross floor area (SHMC Section 17.34.050(A)(1)(b) ) and subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) of Section 17.16.030 which notes that a balcony, porch, deck or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides is exempt from gross floor area. The consultant advised that adding the word "uncovered" would help clarify that this gross floor area Agenda Item #6.1.
exemption applies only to uncovered balconies, porches, decks or other structures that is unenclosed on at least 3 sides. The change to subsection (iv) of End Note 5(b) was viewed as a clerical level edit that would provide additional clarity for users of the code and internal consistency to the document. This was based on Section
17.34.050(A)(1)(b) which explains in determining floor area calculation "in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection [shall be included in the floor area calculation]. " To ensure the interpretation was consistent throughout 17.34.050, staff also included an edit to 17.34.050 (2)(f), that noted uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks were included in the provisions of "Excluded from Floor Area". It is important to also clarify that semi open patio coverings such as pergolas are considered "uncovered" and do not count towards gross floor area.
This is also consistent with how the Zoning Code provides direction on measuring lot coverage (SHMC 17,34,060(A) ) which makes it clear that "unroofed" and "uncovered" decks, patios, porches and landings and balconies are excluded from the calculation of lot coverage. (Attachment 3)
As additional background, the pre-2023 code included a definition of "floor area" in SHMC 17.04.160 (Attachment 4) which is very similar to the current code 17.34.050 (1) (b). Notably both state that where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection. Further it is important to clarify that the pre-2023 code had a provision in 17.40.070 (C) (4) (Attachment 5) that exempted a balcony, porch, deck or other structure where at least one of the longest dimensions is unenclosed [are exempt from the F.A.R. provisions].
When the new code was published online in 2024, it included the staff edits noted above post the adoption hearing which can also be viewed in the attached redline ordinance which is the subject of this zoning ordinance amendment (Attachment 2).
In the fall of 2024, an applicant processing a Design Review application, Mr. Hale, noticed this change from the October 2023 adopted code and subsequently hired an attorney to request the City remove those changes from the ordinance (Attachment 6).
In response, the City Attorney sent a letter to Mr. Hale's attorney (Attachment 7) on February 3, 2025, explaining that staff viewed these changes as a clerical level edit for clarification purposes but that the City would in turn bring an item for formal consideration.
On March 3, 2025, the City Attorney confirmed the staff edits made to the code and directed the code publisher to reverse the changes that week which is now reflected in the republished code.
Agenda Item #6.1.
ANALYSIS
Staff finds that the proposed amendments help bring internal consistency to the code and assist the user in understanding the intent of 17.34.050 A (1), Areas included in Floor Area Calculation.
However, if the Commission desires to not recommend the City Council approve the changes to the code, staff suggests that direction is provided to instead delete SHMC
17.34.050 (1)(b) which currently provides guidance that where no walls exist, areas covered by the roof are included in floor area calculation. This will eliminate the inconsistency with the current code.
ISSUES
While the pre-2023 code had allowed prior projects to build additional outdoor building elements such as porches and patios with roofs that did not count towards floor area, ultimately this can result in more overall massing than what would have been built if these areas were counted towards the floor area.
CORRESPONDENCE
Public comment has been received previously from Mr. Hale which is included in Attachment 8.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council:
1) Find that pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) the project is Exempt; and 2) Adopt and ordinance amending Table 17.16.030B and Chapter 17.34.050 A.2 (f) of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1-Resolution for Zoning Ordinance Amendment-covered porches and floor area
Attachment 2-Ordinance - Covered porches and floor area_Combined Attachment 3-SHMC Measuring Lot Coverage
Attachment 4-Original zoning code definition of floor area Attachment 5-Original zoning code exemptions from FAR
Attachment 6-K. Philippakis Letter to CDD re 17.16.030 (12-06-2024) Attachment 7-City Attorney Letter to K Philippakis re Zoning Code Attachment 8. Public Comment_Hale 2-18-2025
Agenda Item #6.1.
83578.00101\41538015.2
CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC2025-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE
ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE (ZOA 2025-002),
REGARDING EXEMPTING UNCOVERED BALCONIES,
PORCHES AND DECKS FROM GROSS FLOOR AREA
Recitals
WHEREAS, the City of St. Helena, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its Zoning Code (ZOA 2025-002), codified as Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code (“SHMC”); and WHEREAS, the City now proposes to amend a provision of its Zoning Code, Title 17 of the SHMC; and
WHEREAS, staff and the City Attorney prepared the proposed ordinance, including any additional information and documents deemed necessary for the Planning Commission to take action; and
WHEREAS, the City gave public notice of the public hearing for the proposed ordinance by publishing in the Napa Valley Register; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning the proposed ordinance.
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.
Resolution
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ST.
HELENA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
Agenda Item #6.1.
83578.00101\41538015.2
Section 2. Compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).
Section 3. General Plan Consistency. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission, and all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan. The proposed ordinance does not otherwise conflict with any of the General Plan’s goals or policies.
Section 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2025-002. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached proposed ordinance (Exhibit A) entitled:
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of St. Helena, California, Amending Table 17.16.030B of Chapter 17.16 (Development Standards-Residential Districts) and Amending Chapter 17.34.050 A.2(f) of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding exempting uncovered balconies, porches and decks from gross floor area Section 7. The proposed ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of St. Helena, California, Amending Table 17.16.030B of Chapter 17.16 (Development Standards-Residential Districts) and Amending Chapter 17.34.050 A.2(f) of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding exempting uncovered balconies, porches and decks from gross floor area” is on file and has been available for public review for at least ten days prior to the date of this Resolution, in the Community Development Department, at St. Helena City Hall, 1088 College Avenue.
Section 8. Severable. If any part of this Resolution is held by a court to be invalid, that part is severable from the rest and every other part remains unaffected and in effect. (Signatures on following page)
Agenda Item #6.1.
83578.00101\41538015.2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing recommendation to the City Council was duly and regularly approved by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on April 15, 2025 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
John Ponte Maya DeRosa, AICP
Chair, Planning Commission Community Development
Director
Agenda Item #6.1.
Exhibit “A”
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AMENDING TABLE 17.16.030B OF CHAPTER 17.16 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) AND AMENDING CHAPTER 17.34.050 A.2 (f) OF TITLE 17 OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING EXEMPTING
UNCOVERED BALCONIES, PORCHES AND DECKS FROM GROSS FLOOR AREA WHEREAS, Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) includes development standards and also rules of measurement for calculating gross floor area; and
WHEREAS, SHMC section 17.34.050 (A)(1)(b) establishes that in cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof shall be included in the floor area calculation; and
WHEREAS, End Note 5(b)(iv) of SHMC Table 17.16.030B (Residential Development Standards) currently states balconies, porches and decks are exempt from gross floor area; and
WHEREAS, Adding “uncovered” to End Note 5(b)(iv) is necessary to clarify an “uncovered” balcony, porch, deck or other structure unenclosed on at least 3 sides is exempt from gross floor area; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend SHMC Table 17.16.030 B, End Note 5(b)(iv) and section 17.34.050A.2 (f) to ensure internal code consistency with what building elements are exempted from including the calculation of residential gross floor area as authorized by SHMC section 17.34.050 (A)(1)(b); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at a Regular Meeting on April 15, 2025, on the proposed Ordinance during which public hearing the Planning Commission received comments from City staff and members of the general public and recommended approval to the City Council through Resolution No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on , 2025 on the proposed Ordinance, during which public hearing the City Council received comments from City staff and members of the general public; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the requested amendments to Table 17.16.030B End Note 5(b)(iv) of Chapter 17.16 (Development StandardsResidential Districts) and amending Chapter 17.34.050 A.2 (f) of the St. Helena Municipal Code through approval of this Ordinance.
83578.00012\42255084.1
Agenda Item #6.1.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated as though set forth in this section.
Section 2. Amendment. Please see Exhibit A1 attached to this ordinance which includes Table 17.16030B, End Note 5(b)(iv) and SHMC Chapter 17.34.050 A.2 (f) of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout).
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. CEQA. This ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance is exempt from review under CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced within thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption by the City Council at a second reading and shall be posted and published in accordance with the California Government Code.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the St.
Helena City Council on the day of , 2025, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the day of , 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst Paul Dohring, Mayor
83578.00012\42255084.1
Agenda Item #6.1.
Attachment A1
17.16.030 Development Standards
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts establishes the development standards for the Residential Zoning Districts. The numbers in the figure below to corresponding regulations in the table.
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Density 1 du/ac 1 2 1 to 5 du/ac 2 5.1 to 16 du/ac 16.1-28 du/ac Lot Size
Min. Lot Area 1.0 ac 7,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft 7,000 sq ft 3 3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
3,000 sq ft for
new small lot
development
Min. Lot Width 70 ft 70 ft 45 ft 45 ft
32 ft for small lot
development
32 ft for small
lot development
❶
Lot widths ≤45 ft:
Max. 35%
Lot widths >45 ft:
Max. 40%
Max. Lot Coverage
(includes accessory
structures)
35% 35%
55% for new
small lot
development
55%
None
Max. Primary Building
Footprint (excludes
accessory structures)
None Refer to Table
17.16.030.C
None
1,400 sq ft for
detached small
lot detached
❷
Agenda Item #6.1.
Residential Zoning Districts 17.16.030
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Refer to Table
17.16.030.C for
lots <1 acre Max. Building Gross
Floor Area (all floors)
5 Max. 6,069 sq ft
for lots ≥1 ac in
area
Refer to Table
17.16.030.C
Refer to End
Note 4 None
Max. Building Height
Principal Structure 30 ft 30 ft/2 stories 30 ft/2 stories 42 ft/3 stories Ground floor
max. ceiling
height 15 ft
30 ft/2 stories
for small lot
development
Accessory Structure 6 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft
Setbacks
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft
15 ft; 25 ft for
3rd floor and
above
Min. Front Setback
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
12 feet for small
lot development
10 ft for small
lot development
❸
Min. Garage or
Carport Setback
from Building
Façade
None None 5 ft None ❹
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
15 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
Min. Street Side
Setback 30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
15 ft ❺
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 11
Agenda Item #6.1.
17.16.030 Residential Zoning Districts
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
10 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
10 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
5 ft setback
applied with the
combined
setback below
Combined
interior side
setbacks: 15 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
Min. Interior Side
Setback, ground
floor 15 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
15 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height Combined
interior side
setbacks: 20 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
10 ft ❻
5 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
5 ft for structures
Min. ≤25 ft in heightInterior Side
Setback, upper
floors
9 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
9 ft for structures
>25 ft in height
9 ft when
adjacent to an LR
or MR district
None ❻
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
20 ft for
structures ≤25 ft
in height
Min. Rear Setback
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
30 ft for
structures >25 ft
in height
10 ft ❼
Min. Setback from Min. 50 ft from top of bank of Napa River Abutting Waterway Min. 20 ft from top of bank of all other waterways ❽
Landscaping and Open Space
Private Ground
Floor Open Space
for Multi-Family
Development
n/a n/a Min. 80 sq ft/unit Min. 60 sq
ft/unit
Min. Dimension for
Private Open Space
for Multi-Family
Development
n/a n/a 6 ft 6 ft
Lot widths ≤45 ft:
Min. 150 sq ft/lot
Common Usable
Open Space for
Multi-Family
Development
n/a n/a
Lot widths >45 ft:
Min. 200 sq ft/lot
Min. 150 sq
ft/lot ❾
Part III, Page 12 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Agenda Item #6.1.
Residential Zoning Districts 17.16.030
Table 17.16.030.B: Development Standards – Residential Zoning Districts Standard LR-1A LR MR HR Key
Min. 15 ft 15 ft Dimension for
Common Usable
Open Space
n/a n/a 20 ft for small lot
development
20 ft for small
lot development
❿
Max. Paved/
Hardscaped Area
25% of a front
setback area
25% of a front
setback area
30% of a front
setback area
30% of a front
setback area
35% of lot area 35% of lot area
Min. Landscaped
Area 7 25% for small lot
development
25% for small lot
development
Min. 25% of lot
area
Min. 25% of lot
area
Required Buffer
Abutting
Agricultural Use
n/a
A landscaped buffer min. 15 ft width with street trees at 30 ft on center
End Notes:
1 Greater residential densities are allowed under state law if a site meets the standards for two-unit development as described in Chapter 17.31, Two-Unit Projects. 2 Densities existing as of January 1, 2023, are permitted to remain. 3 Parcels created by lot line adjustments may be less than 1 acre provided the number of parcels does not increase and that no lots are less than 7,000 square feet. 4 Max. building gross floor area (all floors) for single-family residences including accessory structures is as follows:
Lots < 6,000 sf: 1,995 sf
Lots 6,000 – 9,999 sf: 2,945 sf
Lots 10,000 – 14,999 sf: 3,705 sf
Lots 15,000 – 19,999 sf: 3,971 sf
Lots ≥ 20,000 sf: 4,000 sf
5 The following additional standards apply for existing development and new construction in the LR-1A, LR, MR, and HR zoning districts:
a. The max. building gross floor area may be increased by 400 sf for construction of an ADU. b. The following buildings and areas are exempt from max. building gross floor area:
i. One covered parking space with a max. floor area of 200 sf; ii. Non-habitable accessory buildings with a max. floor area of 120 sf; iii. A non-habitable basement or attic; and
iv. An uncovered balcony, porch, deck, or other structure that is unenclosed on at least three sides. 6 Additional standards for accessory buildings are described in Section 17.22.020, Accessory Uses. 7 Landscaped setback and buffer areas count toward this requirement.
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 13
Agenda Item #6.1.
Rules of Measurement 17.34.040
17.34.050 Measuring Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio
Areas included in floor area measurement. The floor area is measured as the sum of the gross horizontal floor areas of a building measured from the exterior face of exterior walls, or from the centerline of a wall separating two buildings. Areas included and excluded from floor area are listed below.
1. Included in Floor Area Calculation.
a. All habitable space (as defined in the Building Code) that is below the roof and within the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines of party walls separating such buildings or portions thereof. b. In cases where no walls exist, the area covered by the roof excluding two feet on each side of the structure for a standard roof projection. c. Interior walkways or corridors, interior courtyards, walkways, paseos, or corridors covered by a roof or skylight.
d. All floors of enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts.
2. Excluded from Floor Area.
a. Mechanical, electrical, and communication equipment rooms that do not exceed two percent of the building's gross floor area.
b. Bay windows or other architectural projections where the vertical distance between the lowest surface of the projection and the finished floor is 30 inches or greater.
c. Any areas that satisfy the landscape and open space base zone requirements. d. In the case of a multi-story building that has covered or enclosed stairways, stairwells or elevator shafts, the horizontal area of such features shall be counted only once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent.
e. In non-residential buildings, areas used for off-street parking spaces or loading spaces, driveways, and maneuvering aisles that are located below the finish grade of the property.
f. Arcades, porticoes, and similar open areas that are located at or near street level and are accessible to the general public but are not designed or used as sales, display, storage, service, or production areas, as well as uncovered balconies, porches, patios and decks.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Part V, Page 14 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Agenda Item #6.1.
g. Outside areas used for sales and/or display (e.g., plant nurseries, building materials, auto sales, wine production, etc.).
h. A building or structure consisting of nonusable floor space such as a garage, carport, or storage shed.
i. Unfinished attics, crawlspaces, and basements shall not be included unless converted and finished as usable floor space.
Agenda Item #6.1.
Part III, Page 66 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Agenda Item #6.1.
”34.060 Rules of Measurement
1734.060 Measuring Lot Coverage
The footprints of all principal and accessory structures, including, but not limited to, garages, carports, covered patios, and roofed porches, shall be summed in order to calculate lot coverage. The following structures shall be excluded from the calculation:
A, Unenclosed and unroofed decks, uncovered patio slabs, unroofed porches, landings, balconies and Stairways with an elevation of less than 18 inches above finished grade; Eaves and roof overhangs projecting up to three feet from a wall; C. Trellises, pergolas, and similar structures that have roofs that are at least 50 percent open to the sky with uniformly distributed openings;
D. Swimming pools and hot tubs that are not enclosed in roofed structures or decks; and One small, non-habitable accessory structure under 120 square feet, More than one small non-habitable accessory structure shall be included in lot coverage.
Figure 17.34.0601Determining Lot Coverage
Include footprints oi principal and
accessory structures, including
garages and carports
Exclude unrocred porches.
landings, and Stairways
less than is inches above
?nished grade
Exclude Unenclosed and unroofed
decks, uncovered patios, and
balconies less than 13 inches
above hnlshea grade
Exclude eaves and
root overhangs
projecting up (0 3
ft from walls
Exclude swimming pools and
hot tubs not enclosed in
roofed structures or decks
Exclude one non-habitable
accessory structures of less than
120 square feet in floor area
Exclude trellises LOT LINE
17.34.070 Determining Lot Frontage
A. Corner Lot. The front of a lot is either of the two lines adjacent to the streets as platted, subdivided, or laid out, except that the front lot line shall be that line which is obviously the front by reason of the prevailing custom of the other buildings on the block. if such front is not evident, then as determined by the Community Development Director, either may be considered the front of the lot, but not both
B. Through Lot. The front of a through lot abuts the street that neighboring lots use to provide primary access,
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part V, Page 47
Agenda Item #6.1.
d1 0w
Code Section 350m and California Health and Safety
Code Section lSOl.)
“Farm laborhousing“ means an area or place containingliving quarters including dwellings.tents. bunkhouses, trailercoaches or other housing accommodationsand any
accessory dining. sanitary or recreationalfacilities, main tained by a laborcontractor for the housingoffarm labOrers, forhirefor work off the site. “Farmer's market" means an outdoor, seasonal, one- day per week market at Whichfarmers55"their own produce. "Fault hazardzone.earthquakeorseismic“meansarm
of land along and adjacent to a breakor fracturein rock Strata that may be subjectto dislocation0r damage.
“Feasible"means capableof beingaccomplished in a
successfulmanner withina reasonableperiod oftime.tak
ing into account economic.environmental.social and
technicalfactors.
"Fence" meansa barrier enclosingorde?ningan area,
FillingStation.“See: “Servicestation
" “Final inspection”meansan inspectionperformedby the building divisionof the city planning department to verify completionofthe project per approved plans: a pre- condition to occupancy. "Flag lot” (also known as a "panhandlelot") means a lot which has lessthan theminimumrequired frontageon a public or private street. is connected to a public or pri- vate meet by a narrow strip of land and has the largest portion of the lot situated behindadjoining locswhich front on the samepublic or private Street. “Flea market" means an occasionalor periodicselling of goods held in an open area or structure where groups of tndivrdualsellersoffer new and used goods forsale to the public. “Floor area“ means the sum of the gross horizontal ‘oor areas of a building measured fromthe exterior face ofexteri r ails.or from the center line ofa all separat ing two buildings.in cases where no wallsexist, the gross horizontal?oor area shallbe that or covered 3 the roof excluding two feet on each side ofthe structure for a stan- dard roof projection. “Floor area ratio (F.A R.)" meansthe ratioof building grossfloor area divided by net parcel area For example, one building (or a group of buildings) with a total of twenty thousand (20.000) square feet of ?oor area on a forty thousand 010.000} square foot lotwouldtranslateto a 0.50 F.A.R. “Fosterfamily home"means a residentialfacilityWhiCh isthe family residence of the personsoperatingthe facil- ity. ll'l WhICh twenty-four (24) hour care and supervrsion or designedto be used for combinedliving. timing and
sleepingpurposes.
"Easement"means a limitedrightofone person 0r class
of persons to use real property owned or occupiedby an- other.which right is describedSpeci?cally as to location and entitlementto use. "Eave" means the projecting lower edges of a roof overhangingthe wallol'a building.
“Educationaluse“ means any usedevoted to education
and learning. whether it be public, private. commercialor noncommercial. “Enlargement“ means an increaseto the size clan existing buildingor structure or an increasein the physical areaoccupied by a use of land.
“Erect“ Means to erect. construct. place. relocate.
enlarge.substantially alter. attach.suspend.paint, post. or display. Normal maintenance. includingre?nishing.is not includedin this de?nition.
Erosion.Soil.“Soilerosion"meansthedetachtnentand
“Extendedcare facility"meansa longotermcare facility or a distinctpart of a facilityapprovedas a nursinghome, infumary unit of a home for the aged. or a governmental medicalinstitution. “Factory built housing" means a residentialbuilding. dwelling unit or habitableroom thereof which is either whollymanufacturedor isin substantialpart manufactured at an off-site locationto be wholly or partially assembled on site, in accordance with regulations adopted by tbe Comission of Housing and CommunityDevelopmentof the state ofCalifomiapursuant to Section19990et. Seq. of the Healthand SafetyCode of the state of California. “Family" means any of the allowing groups living together In the same dwelling unit as a single housekeep- ing1unit: . Any number of personsrelated by blood.running or legal adoption; 2. A and a: family i enti?e by extended cohabita- tion'. 3 A group not exceeding?ve persons whose inter- personal relationships relating to shared household ex penses. duties and private lives are indistinguishable from groups listedin subsectionsl and 2 above. “Familyday carehome"means a communitywe facil- ity which is the family residence of the personoperating the facility. in which the Operator r gularlyprovidescare. protectionand supervision to a child or children.other than the operator‘s own child: n. for periods of lessthan twenty-four {24) hours per day. while the parean or guardiansare away. (See 22 California Administrative [7
.0
4. 3 Agenda Item #6.1.