Agenda packet — St. Helena City Council, August 11, 2026 (part 8 of 9)

E-3
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
1073 Allyn Ave Spring St Madrona Ave 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $48,900 8 12,233 $227,900 0 0 0 1 1 2 1075 White Sulfur Springs Rd to Sulfur Springs Ave Connector Bridge Spring St Sulphur Springs Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $427,500 3 4,222 $105,500 0 1 0 1 0 2 1076 Sulphur Springs Ave St Helena city limit Spring St 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $12,200 3 4,215 $70,200 0 1 1 1 0 3 1077 Sylvaner Ave Riesling Way Spring St 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $56,300 4 5,419 $153,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 1078 Elmhurst Ave Spring Mountain Rd Main St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $450,400 7 10,005 $166,300 1 0 0 1 0 2 1079 York Creek Path Spring Mountain Rd Vine Trail 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,592,800 6 8,189 $199,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 1128 Mariposa Ln McCorkle Ave Pope St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $270,300 6 8,980 $149,400 0 1 1 0 0 2 1129 Crinella Drive Connector Existing City Park future Vine Trail 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $119,000 5 7,958 $193,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 1172 Spring Mountain Rd W St Helena city limit Spring Mtn Court 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $21,000 2 3,036 $50,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1173 Sulphur Creek Path Sulphur Springs Ave Napa River Trail 1.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $5,334,500 11 16,412 $390,300 1 1 1 1 0 4 1181 Napa Valley Vine Trail Pratt Ave Chaix Ln 2.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $8,696,000 12 17,854 $424,500 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 1219 Crinella Dr Park St Existing city park 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $523,600 6 8,274 $201,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 1224 Napa River Trail St Helena city limit near wastewater treatment plant SE edge Wappo Park 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,335,100 2 3,627 $92,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 1225 Napa River Trail Pope St (Napa River Trail-Wappo Park) St Helena city limit (Deer Park Rd / Lower Reservoir Trail) 1.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,209,700 6 8,607 $212,300 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 1246 Howell Mountain Rd Silverado Trail Conn Valley Rd 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $101,700 3 5,153 $139,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1251 Mills Ln SR 29 Proposed Path 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $71,600 6 9,461 $213,500 0 1 1 1 0 3 1252 College Ave McCorkle Ave Pope St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $346,600 4 6,165 $102,600 0 1 1 0 0 2 1253 Church St Pope St Hunt Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $257,600 8 12,170 $202,400 1 1 0 1 0 3 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. The benefits were developed using the NCHRP 552 methodology, with the total economic benefits shown in the table reflecting high estimated benefit values.

Page 1084 of 1318 ends

E-4
Table E.3: Bicycle Network Recommendations – Town of Yountville ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
733 Webber Avenue Vine Trail Yount Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $197,000 7 10,350 $171,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 734 Washington Street Oak Circle Weber Avenue 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,556,100 9 13,717 $227,300 1 0 1 0 0 2 737 Jefferson Street Washington Street / Humboldt Street Monroe Street 0.4 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 0 1 2 738 Yount Street Washington Street Yountville Cross Road 0.5 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 0 2 1019 Monroe St Lincoln Ave Jefferson St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $126,500 5 8,147 $135,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 1020 Jefferson St path entrance Monroe St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $114,700 6 8,584 $142,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1021 Lincoln Ave Monroe Grant 0.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $7,100 5 7,977 $132,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 1022 Yount Mill Rd Yountville Cross Rd NE city limit 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $24,800 6 9,340 $154,800 0 1 0 1 0 2 1169 Webber Avenue Vine Trail Yount Street 0.1 Unclassified Bicycle Route $4,700 7 9,765 $161,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1234 Hopper Creek Path – South Extension to Washington St Hopper Creek Washington St. 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $305,700 6 8,356 $195,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. The benefits were developed using the NCHRP 552 methodology, with the total economic benefits shown in the table reflecting high estimated benefit values.

Page 1085 of 1318 ends

E-5
Table E.4: Bicycle Network Recommendations – City of Napa ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
8 Napa River Trail (Copia) Oxbow North Lot Trail Closure at Copia 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,017,500 22 33,242 $847,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Coombsville Rd Silverado Trail Silverado Middle School 0.8 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $175,600 24 35,969 $858,800 0 1 0 0 0 1 131 Dry Creek Rd Redwood Rd NW city limit 1.0 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $227,600 35 51,546 $1,131,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 Orchard Avenue Western city limits Solano Ave 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,000 5 6,815 $189,800 0 1 1 1 0 3 740 Salvador Avenue Hwy 29 Hahnemann Ave 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $33,000 16 23,154 $444,100 0 1 1 0 0 2 741 Wine Country Avenue Hwy 29 Linda Vista Avenue 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $73,300 28 41,977 $755,600 0 1 1 1 0 3 742 Redwood Road Solano Avenue Dry Creek Road 1.0 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 743 West Lincoln Avenue Solano Ave Lone Oake Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $947,500 38 56,057 $934,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 744 Linda Vista Ave City Boundary Trower Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,216,900 33 49,695 $826,800 0 1 0 1 1 3 745 Linda Vista Ave Trower Ave Redwood Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,172,500 47 69,607 $1,158,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 746 Linda Vista Avenue Redwood Avenue W. Pueblo Avenue. 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $75,000 45 66,771 $1,174,200 1 1 1 1 0 4 747 Linda Vista Avenue W. Pueblo Avenue. Lone Oak Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $54,900 32 47,531 $839,200 0 1 1 1 0 3 748 Redwood Creek Bridge Lone Oak Kingston Avenue 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $369,900 28 41,752 $1,038,900 0 0 1 1 1 3 749 Robinson Ln - Linda Vista Ave Kingston Avenue Browns Valley Road. 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $443,000 15 22,868 $381,500 1 0 0 1 0 2 751 Browns Valley Road Patrick Road Buhman Avenue 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $22,200 11 16,881 $822,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 752 Trower Avenue Solano Avenue Linda Vista Avenue 0.5 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $293,300 41 61,263 $1,489,700 0 0 1 0 0 1 753 Trower Avenue SR 29 Jefferson Street 0.5 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $115,800 40 59,068 $1,398,800 0 0 1 0 0 1 755 Kilburn Avenue Laurel Street Freeway Drive 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,579,600 32 48,145 $803,900 0 1 0 1 0 2 756 Laurel Street Foothill Drive Freeway Drive 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $804,700 28 40,998 $684,800 0 1 0 1 0 2 757 Foothill Boulevard Laurel Street Old Sonoma Drive 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,600 26 39,331 $951,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 758 Foster Road Old Sonoma Road West Imola Avenue 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $59,600 25 36,726 $879,400 1 1 0 1 0 3 759 California Boulevard Clay St Trancas Street 1.6 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 0 2 761 Imola Avenue Hunt Street SR-29 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $355,600 18 26,581 $662,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 762 Imola Avenue South Freeway Drive Foster Road 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $367,300 15 22,883 $382,100 1 0 0 1 0 2 Y 763 Imola Avenue Eastern end of bridge SR 121 1.3 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $860,800 40 59,040 $1,444,900 1 1 1 0 1 4 764 James Diemer Drive From Magnolia Drive Administration Library Parking entrance 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $44,400 10 14,886 $533,400 0 1 0 0 1 2 765 James Diemer Drive From Administration Library Parking entrance Streblow Dr. 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $46,800 5 7,353 $355,700 0 1 0 0 0 1 766 Shurtleff Avenue Imola Avenue Terrace Drive 0.9 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,852,300 23 34,957 $582,600 1 1 0 1 1 4 Y 767 Terrace Drive Imola Avenue Coombsville Rd 1.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $2,312,600 31 45,925 $764,900 1 1 1 1 0 4 768 Elm Street / S Seminary St Ash St Riverside Dr 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,180,300 33 49,799 $830,000 0 0 1 0 0 1

Page 1086 of 1318 ends

E-6
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
769 Seminary St Oak St Pine St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $466,300 34 50,519 $841,800 0 1 1 0 0 2 770 Birkdale Drive Wyatt Ave Tamarisk Dr 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $541,100 17 25,853 $430,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 771 Trail between Forest Drive, Camilla Drive, and Westminster Ct Forest Dr south Camilla Dr and then south 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $389,800 14 21,210 $530,200
0 0 0 0 0 0
772 River Park Blvd Jefferson St Newport Dr 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,078,700 13 19,645 $327,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 773 Silverado Trail Hagen and Lincoln 0.8 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $504,000 18 27,360 $701,300 1 0 1 1 1 4 774 Montecito Blvd East Avenue Lakeview Dr 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $820,300 17 24,819 $412,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 775 East Avenue Silverado Trail 1st Street 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $849,200 23 34,477 $573,500 1 0 1 0 0 2 776 Beckworth Drive Tallac Street Palomar Wy 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,145,200 46 68,807 $1,145,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 777 El Capitan Way Willis Dr Baxter Avenue 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $789,800 42 62,612 $1,042,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 779 Yount Street Seminary Street Yajome Street 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $424,100 35 52,380 $872,800 1 0 0 0 0 1 780 Yajome Street Pearl Street Jackson St 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $886,400 41 61,743 $1,028,300 0 0 1 0 0 1 781 Vallejo Street Yajome Street Soscol Avenue 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $263,600 33 48,825 $813,200 0 0 1 0 0 1 782 Jackson Street Yajome Street Soscol Avenue 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $526,700 35 52,733 $878,500 0 0 1 0 0 1 783 Myrtle Avenue California Blvd Marin Street 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $203,300 25 37,565 $626,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 784 Marin Street Lincoln Street Myrtle Avenue 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $864,700 43 63,536 $1,058,900 1 0 0 0 0 1 785 3rd Street California Boulevard Jefferson Street 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $53,600 39 58,397 $1,396,900 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 814 Hagen Road Silverado Trail City Border 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $63,000 5 7,786 $146,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 831 Imola Avenue Hunt Street South Freeway Drive 0.2 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $49,100 24 35,407 $778,200 1 0 1 0 0 2 Y 834 Hahnemann Ln Salvador Ave Wine Country Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $536,400 20 29,785 $495,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 835 Lone Oak Ave W Lincoln Ave Linda Vista Ave 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $66,800 21 31,537 $525,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 841 Redwood Rd Browns Valley Rd Western City Limits 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $14,900 9 13,920 $231,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 842 Old Sonoma Rd Old Sonoma Rd (near Playground Fantastico) Jefferson St 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $39,500 35 52,286 $1,098,700 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 843 Old Sonoma Rd Western City Limits Foster Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $70,900 25 37,797 $823,600 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 844 Tulocay Creek Trail Soscol Ave Vine Trail 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $605,700 21 30,570 $755,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 846 Terrace Dr Imola Ave Coombsville Rd 1.2 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 1 0 4 848 Laurel St California Blvd Franklin St 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,408,000 43 64,073 $1,068,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 850 Vine Trail - S Kennedy Park to Napa Pipe Napa city limit (Adjacent to Kaiser Road) to Existing Bay Trail Kaiser Road 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,267,100 0 556 $13,300 0 1 0 1 0 2 861 Thompson Rd Napa City Limits Browns Valley Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $71,400 13 20,067 $715,600 1 0 1 1 1 4 867 SR 221 Imola Ave Kaiser Rd 1.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,823,600 17 25,447 $635,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 Y 874 Bay Trail (Stanly Crossroad) Cuttings Wharf Rd Stanly Ln 0.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,542,200 1 1,545 $37,000 0 0 0 1 0 1

Page 1087 of 1318 ends

E-7
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
878 Railroad Bridge 3rd St 1st St 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $739,300 30 44,059 $1,105,700 1 0 0 1 1 3 883 Solano Ave Coffield Ave W Lincoln Ave 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $338,500 31 46,178 $1,155,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 886 SR 221 Kaiser Rd Magnolia Dr 1.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $208,400 13 18,790 $569,900 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 887 River Trail Bridge River Trail West Oxbow Preserve 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $256,700 2 2,250 $55,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 888 River Trail West Lincoln Ave existing River Trail terminus (near River Terrace) 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,521,500 3 4,530 $106,800 1 0 0 1 1 3 892 Coombs St First St Division St 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $39,500 33 49,537 $979,200 1 1 0 1 0 3 896 Vine Trail (undercrossing) Existing Vine Trail (near Redwood Park & Ride) Existing Vine Trail (near Vine Trail SR 29 overcrossing) 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,166,300 43 64,105 $1,575,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 919 Bordeaux Way Napa Valley Corporate Wy Napa Valley Corporate Dr 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $840,300 0 563 $9,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 922 Cabot Wy S Jefferson St W Imola Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $606,400 22 32,004 $533,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 923 S Hartson St Lernhart St Old Sonoma Rd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $684,200 32 46,929 $782,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 924 Lernhart St W Imola Ave S Hartson St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $145,200 20 29,980 $499,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 925 Ash St Jefferson St Franklin St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $519,100 32 48,043 $801,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 927 Clark St Silverado Trail East Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $232,700 16 23,584 $392,500 1 0 1 1 0 3 929 Sousa Ln Soscol Ave Silverado Trail 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $20,500 20 30,226 $505,200 1 1 0 1 0 3 930 Fairview Dr Silverado Trail Fairview Park 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $398,500 18 26,251 $436,700 1 1 0 1 0 3 931 Burnell St - 8th St 3rd St Soscol Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $602,000 30 43,988 $732,000 1 1 1 1 0 4 932 Juarez St 1st St 3rd St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $466,300 25 36,620 $609,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 933 1st St East Ave Silverado Trail 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $427,400 19 27,975 $465,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 934 Silverado Trail Hagen Rd Silverado Trail (Northern City Limits) 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $12,800 6 8,554 $328,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 937 River Trail East Oxbow Preserve 1st St 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $812,000 21 31,144 $792,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 938 McKinstry St Water St Soscol Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $637,300 36 53,397 $889,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 939 River Trail West existing trail terminus (near 1st Street) Railroad Bridge 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,079,900 29 42,547 $1,070,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 940 River Trail Bridge River Trail West 3rd St 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $270,200 25 37,239 $936,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 941 1st St Soscol Ave Vernon St 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $23,200 29 43,559 $965,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 942 3rd St Soscol Ave Lawrence St 0.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $6,400 26 39,176 $841,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 943 River Promenade (1st Street underpass) Riverfront Promenade Opera House Plaza 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $128,700 27 40,739 $1,013,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 944 Napa Creek Connector Trail Oxbow Commons Path 9/11 Memorial Garden 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $140,200 28 42,139 $1,050,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 945 Brown St Corridor Coombs St/Pearl St 3rd St 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,156,400 36 53,587 $1,322,400 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 946 River Trail West Division St Imola Ave 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,007,900 30 45,081 $1,125,000 0 1 1 1 0 3

Page 1088 of 1318 ends

E-8
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
947 Division St - Franklin St Brown St Oak St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $429,200 28 41,677 $694,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 948 Walnut St Laurel St Old Sonoma Rd 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $837,900 40 59,011 $984,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 949 California Blvd 3rd St Laurel St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $441,400 35 52,623 $877,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 950 California Blvd 3rd St 1st St 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $17,400 34 50,242 $1,093,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 951 Laurel St Foothill Blvd 1st St 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $16,900 19 28,823 $742,000 0 1 0 1 0 2 Y 952 W Pueblo Ave Solano Ave Redwood Rd 1.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $2,756,200 50 73,911 $1,230,800 0 1 1 1 0 3 Y 953 Westview Dr Redwood Rd Browns Valley Rd 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,296,700 23 34,189 $569,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 954 Austin Way Scenic Dr Browns Valley Rd 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $358,700 16 23,449 $390,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 955 Scenic Dr Larkin Wy Browns Valley Rd 1.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,910,800 24 35,680 $594,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 956 Larkin Wy Browns Valley Rd Scenic Dr 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $206,200 13 20,041 $333,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 957 Partrick Rd Browns Valley Rd City Limits 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,549,700 12 17,881 $297,500 0 0 0 1 1 2 958 Clinton St Brown St Soscol Ave 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $399,700 33 49,023 $816,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 959 Clay St - Pearl St Coombs St California Blvd 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,536,300 50 74,244 $1,237,400 1 1 1 1 0 4 960 Lincoln Ave California Blvd Solano Ave 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $31,000 41 60,481 $1,465,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 961 Georgia St Lincoln Ave E St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $519,700 40 58,847 $980,700 1 0 1 1 1 4 962 Brown St Lincoln Ave Clinton St 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,251,000 49 73,270 $1,220,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 964 Park Ave Jefferson St California Blvd 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $728,800 42 63,009 $1,049,900 1 0 0 1 0 2 966 Central Ave Soscol Ave Jefferson St 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,269,300 50 75,093 $1,251,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 967 Main St Pueblo Ave Lincoln Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $996,000 54 79,624 $1,326,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 968 Yajome St Pueblo Ave Vine Trail 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $799,300 48 71,322 $1,188,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 969 Pueblo Ave California Ave Soscol Ave 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $156,500 58 86,613 $1,901,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 970 Beard Rd Pearl Tree Ln Pueblo Ave 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $612,300 45 67,455 $1,123,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 971 Pear Tree Ln Soscol Ave Beard Rd 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,091,400 43 64,106 $1,067,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 973 Sierra Ave Willis Dr Diablo St 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $905,000 39 57,384 $955,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 974 Connector Path Industrial Way Sheridan Dr 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $232,800 34 50,561 $1,283,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 975 Redwood Rd Browns Valley Rd SR 29 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $132,900 32 47,781 $822,500 0 0 1 1 1 3 977 Villa Ln Firefly Ln Pear Tree Ln 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $65,800 41 60,712 $1,460,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 978 Salvador Creek Trail existing trail (near Ranch Lane) existing trail (near Serendipity Way) 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $145,900 1 997 $21,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 979 Garfield Ln Austin Miller Memorial Bike Path Culbertson Ct 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $44,900 3 4,173 $69,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 980 Big Ranch Rd Trancas St Northern City Limits 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $125,400 32 48,079 $1,316,500 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 981 Vine Hill Dr Dry Creek Rd Linda Vista Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,001,700 24 35,506 $590,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 982 Wine Country Ave Dry Creek Rd Linda Vista Ave 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $985,200 21 30,947 $514,800 0 1 1 1 0 3

Page 1089 of 1318 ends

E-9
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
983 Valle Verde Dr Salvador Creek Trail Trancas St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $522,900 34 50,420 $840,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 984 Firefly Ln Wild Rye Way Valle Verde Dr 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $511,300 33 49,366 $822,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 985 Wild Rye Way Rubicon St Firefly Ln 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $46,400 30 44,507 $741,300 0 0 0 1 0 1 986 Rubicon St Baxter Ave Wild Rye Way 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $881,700 48 70,922 $1,181,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 987 Baxter Ave Diablo St Rubicon St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $600,800 47 70,232 $1,169,600 1 0 0 1 0 2 988 Diablo St Yellowstone St Baxter Ave 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $801,900 42 62,031 $1,032,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 989 Yellowstone St Lassen St Diablo St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $329,700 30 45,373 $755,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 990 Lassen St Salvador Creek Trail Yellowstone St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $629,800 31 46,492 $773,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 991 El Centro Ave Byway East Jefferson St 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,087,700 28 41,152 $684,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 992 El Centro Ave Jefferson St Eastern City Limits 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $496,800 21 31,083 $517,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 993 Carol Dr Oxford St W Pueblo Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,183,700 48 71,776 $1,195,100 1 1 1 1 0 4 994 Oxford St Trower Ave Carol Dr 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,217,600 49 72,191 $1,201,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 995 Fairfax Dr Cesar St Trower Ave 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $411,600 32 47,265 $786,300 0 0 0 1 0 1 996 Cesar St Maher St Fairfax Dr 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $114,500 24 36,042 $599,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 997 Maher St Wine Country Ave Cesar St 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $651,100 28 41,094 $683,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 999 Capitola Dr Saratoga Dr Saratoga Dr/Erin Wy 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $12,100 16 23,662 $649,800 0 1 0 1 0 2 1000 Saratoga Dr Capitola Dr/Erin Wy Terrace Dr 0.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $18,400 16 24,422 $611,900 0 1 0 1 0 2 1001 Shelter Ave Sommer St Soscol Ave 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,467,000 20 29,875 $498,100 1 1 0 1 0 3 1002 Sommer St Muir St Shelter Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $170,600 12 17,410 $290,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 1003 Muir St Granada St Sommer St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $246,500 11 16,479 $274,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 1004 Granada St Imola Ave Muir St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $224,300 10 14,550 $242,700 1 0 0 1 0 2 1005 Napa Valley College Path :Roy Patrick Dr College Wy, Magnolia Dr Imola Ave 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $620,600 15 22,800 $572,400 0 1 0 1 0 2 1006 Kansas Ave Shurtleff Ave Soscol Ave 0.6 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,177,900 24 34,968 $582,800 1 1 0 1 0 3 1007 Tamarisk Dr Terrace Dr Coombsville Rd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $676,200 16 23,776 $395,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 1008 Pascale Pl Connector Pascale Pl Montecito Blvd 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $137,700 8 11,410 $282,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 1044 Bay Trail Connector Stanly Crossroad Napa River 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,754,700 1 1,687 $40,100 0 0 0 1 0 1 1046 Foster Rd W Imola Ave Hilton Dr 0.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $113,400 14 20,936 $507,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 1048 Fairview Dr Pathway Connector Aguire Wy Terrace Dr 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $582,000 18 26,721 $672,500 0 1 0 1 0 2 1049 Arroyo Dr Brown St Seminary St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $218,700 31 45,415 $756,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1051 Salvador Creek Trail Byway East Jefferson St 0.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,574,300 33 48,790 $1,202,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 1052 Jefferson St Salvador Ave S Jefferson St at City Limits 5.0 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 1 0 3

Page 1090 of 1318 ends

E-10
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic BenefitProject Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
1131 Imola Ave Class I Path Vine Trail at Imola Bridge SR 221 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $836,300 15 22,486 $564,900 0 1 1 0 1 3 Y 1132 Wyatt Ave Birkdale Dr Peppergrass St 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $216,200 16 23,681 $394,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1133 Peppergrass St Wyatt Ave Shurtleff Ave 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $214,100 16 23,753 $395,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 1134 East Ave 1st Street Clark St 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $946,700 20 29,821 $496,100 0 0 1 0 0 1 1142 Silverado Trail Soscol Ave Lincoln Ave 1.6 Shared Use Path (Class I) $5,982,900 43 63,524 $1,571,300 1 1 0 1 1 4 Y 1194 Vine Trail - Napa Pipe to Soscol Ferry Riversound Way Soscol Ferry Rd 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,763,900 1 1,382 $33,600 0 0 1 0 0 1 1197 Pinewood Dr W Pueblo Ave Scenic Dr 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $969,300 26 39,371 $655,600 0 0 1 0 1 2 1198 Trower Ave Dry Creek Rd East end of Trower at Vintage High 0.9 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $204,900 45 67,606 $1,408,300 0 0 1 0 1 2 1203 Coombs Street Imola Avenue Division Street 1.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,874,800 40 58,946 $981,800 0 1 1 0 0 2 1204 Oak Street Franklin St Seminary St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $449,300 32 47,696 $794,600 0 1 0 0 0 1 1205 Seminary Street Oak St Hayes St 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,288,700 48 71,677 $1,194,300 1 1 1 0 0 3 1206 Hayes Street Yount St Jefferson St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $467,800 35 52,729 $878,700 1 0 1 0 0 2 1207 E Street Jefferson St California Blvd 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $753,200 42 62,111 $1,035,100 1 0 1 0 1 3 1208 D Street Alley York St California Blvd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $526,200 37 54,523 $908,900 0 0 1 0 0 1 1209 Franklin Street Coombs St Division St 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,648,000 41 61,069 $1,017,400 0 1 1 0 0 2 1210 Trancas St City Limits Solano Ave 1.5 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 0 1 4 Y 1212 South Sosocl Imola Ave 3rd Street 1.3 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 0 0 3 1213 Lincoln Ave Silverado Trail West Lincoln 1.4 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $314,400 66 97,577 $2,062,100 1 0 1 0 1 3 1218 Beard Rd Trancas St Pear Tree Ln 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $374,900 41 61,536 $1,024,900 0 0 0 0 1 1 1233 Byway E Salvador Ave El Centro Ave 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $835,900 23 34,760 $578,200 1 1 1 0 1 4 1235 Napa River Trail Napa River Trail Oxbow Preserve 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $269,200 13 18,976 $497,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. The benefits were developed using the NCHRP 552 methodology, with the total economic benefits shown in the table reflecting high estimated benefit values.

Page 1091 of 1318 ends

E-11
Table E.5: Bicycle Network Recommendations – American Canyon ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction (Miles)
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
219 Kimberly Dr SR 29 (Broadway) Elliot Dr 0.3 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $76,000 23 34,604 $671,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 Devlin Road South Kelly Road Boone Road Roundabout 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,797,000 0 269 $6,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 788 Class I Off-Street Multi Use path Hess Road Commerce Boulevard 0.6 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,320,500 4 5,237 $138,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 789 Napa Junction Broadway Theresa Avenue 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $420,300 8 11,582 $291,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 790 Theresa Avenue Napa Junction Eucalyptus Drive 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $587,900 14 20,209 $337,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 793 Rio Del Mar Broadway Wetlands Edge Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $66,200 21 30,652 $544,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 795 Donaldson Way West Just past Andrew Road Broadway 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $648,200 32 48,029 $801,300 0 0 1 1 0 2796 Kimberley Drive Elliot Drive Meadow Bay Drive 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $459,300 19 27,846 $463,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y 797 Elliott Drive Past Knightsbridge Way City Line 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $61,500 23 34,848 $987,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 798 Danrose Drive American Canyon City Line 0.7 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,392,100 34 51,197 $853,400 0 0 1 1 1 3 800 Napa Junction Eastern end Broadway 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $300,200 16 24,356 $406,700 0 0 1 0 0 1 833 Flosden Road American Canyon City Line 0.6 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 1 0 0 2 839 American Canyon Rd Wetlands Edge Rd SR 29 0.7 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $462,200 36 53,620 $1,280,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 851 James Rd Wilson Wy American Canyon Rd 0.5 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,000,500 38 56,528 $942,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 855 Vine Trail (along Devlin Rd) Middleton Way Watson Ln 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,039,800 4 6,435 $170,900 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 862 Vine Trail (along Watson Ln - American Canyon) Paoli Loop Rd Newell Rd Extension 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,582,200 3 3,861 $98,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y 863 Vine Trail (Newell Rd Extension) Donaldson Way (Southern Intersection of proposed Vine and Ridge Trails) Paoli Rd 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,010,400 14 21,575 $544,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 870 Melvin Rd James Rd Rio Del Mar 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $88,800 23 34,174 $570,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 873 Broadway Veterans Park American Canyon Rd 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $900,300 31 45,724 $1,093,300 0 1 1 1 0 3 880 Napa Ruins Loop Main St Vine Trail (Newell Dr extension) 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $793,300 11 16,049 $405,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 897 Los Altos Dr Thersea Ave Rio del Mar 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $205,400 15 21,628 $361,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 909 Hanna St Commerce Blvd terminus 0.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $27,800 0 591 $9,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 910 Commerce Blvd Clarke Ranch Park Green Island Rd 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $107,200 4 5,744 $178,800 0 0 0 1 0 1 911 Green Island Rd Vine Trail Commerce Blvd 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,267,400 0 650 $18,100 0 0 1 1 1 3 912 Mezzetta Ct Green Island Rd end of street 0.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $14,800 0 239 $4,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 913 Green Island Rd Northern intersection of Green Island Rd and Mezzetta Ct Vine Trail (Class I facility intersecting at Green Island Rd 300' W of RR tracks) 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $36,800 0 481 $79,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 914 Green Island Rd Mezetta Ct City Border 0.5 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $34,400 0 203 $3,400 0 0 0 1 0 1 1009 Theresa Ave Eucayptus Dr Los Altos Dr 0.0 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $65,200 13 19,114 $319,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 1014 Melvin Rd James Rd Cassayre Dr 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $684,600 24 36,381 $607,100 0 0 1 1 0 2

Page 1092 of 1318 ends

E-12
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction (Miles)
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
1028 Cassayre Dr Melvin Rd Rio Del Mar 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $299,700 16 24,486 $408,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1033 Bay Trail (Kimberly Area Segment - south of American Canyon) Catalina Wy, Vallejo Class I facility adjacent 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,964,100 12 18,160 $445,700
0 0 0 1 0 1
1034 Bay Trail (Kimberly Area Segment) Kimberly Dr Kensington Wy 0.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,233,400 19 27,809 $666,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1035 Cartegena-Via Bellagio Connector Path 150' E of Entrada Circle Flosden Rd 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,529,600 1 2,008 $44,000 0 1 1 1 0 3 1037 American Canyon Rd Newell Dr City Limit 0.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $60,600 20 29,610 $497,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 1038 Bay Area Ridge Trail - Eucalyptus Dr Greenwing Street Main St 0.8 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,475,500 15 21,605 $540,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 1039 Lombard Rd Napa Junction Rd Hess Rd 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $31,700 7 10,926 $185,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 1040 Hess Rd Commerce Blvd Lombard Rd 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $841,900 4 6,583 $170,700 0 0 0 1 0 1 1144 Napa Ruins Loop South Napa Ruins Loop Rolling Hills Ln 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $526,300 12 18,482 $467,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1146 SR 29 SB American Canyon Rd Napa Junction Rd 1.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,381,100 45 67,618 $1,608,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 1147 SR 29 NB American Canyon Rd Napa Junction Rd 1.8 Shared Use Path (Class I) $6,837,100 44 66,046 $1,574,900 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1160 S Kelly Rd American Canyon Path Devlin Rd 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,565,000 0 390 $10,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 1200 Crawford Way James Rd Broadway St 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $296,600 29 43,182 $720,200 0 0 1 0 0 1 1201 Cartegena Way Broadway Road End 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $739,700 18 27,129 $452,300 0 1 1 0 0 2 1215 Rolling Hills Rd Donaldson Way Frontier St 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $22,400 17 25,291 $865,100 0 0 0 0 1 1 1216 Knightsbridge Wy Hartford Ct SR 29 0.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $310,600 26 38,864 $938,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1222 Hummingbird Way Benton Way W American Canyon Rd 0.3 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $521,900 23 34,357 $572,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 1241 Donaldson Way Rio del Mar Amarillo Dr 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $28,500 22 33,236 $1,696,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1242 Via Bellagio Connector Via Bellagio Via Bellagio Trail 0.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $4,000 10 14,529 $242,400 0 1 0 0 0 1 1245 American Canyon Rd James Rd Silver Oak Trail 0.3 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. The benefits were developed using the NCHRP 552 methodology, with the total economic benefits shown in the table reflecting high estimated benefit values.

Page 1093 of 1318 ends

E-13
Table E.6: Bicycle Network Recommendations – County of Napa ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
191 Coombsville Road City Limits 2nd Avenue 0.9 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $198,500 8 11,642 $558,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 802 Larkmead Ln 1.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $187,300 0 173 $42,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 803 Bale Lane 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $99,400 0 203 $79,100 1 0 1 1 0 3 804 Berryessa Knoxville Road North Smittle Creek Trail Head SR 128 8.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $625,200 0 48 $800 0 0 1 1 0 2 805 Hardman Avenue Silverado Trail Atlas Peak Road 0.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $68,800 1 1,221 $20,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 806 Orchard Avenue Napa City boundary S-bend 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $65,400 2 2,604 $198,300 0 1 1 1 0 3 807 Atlas Peak Road Monticello Road to Hillcrest Drive 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $75,100 2 2,642 $241,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 808 Monticello Road (SR 121)* SR 128 Atlas Peak Road 11.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $834,600 2 3,107 $51,600 1 0 1 1 0 3 809 Hagen Road 1st Avenue 3rd Avenue 1.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $151,100 1 1,889 $186,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 810 3rd Avenue Hagen Road North/3rd Avenue 1.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $135,900 1 1,323 $22,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 811 3rd Avenue North/3rd Coombsville Road 0.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $53,300 1 1,525 $25,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 812 2nd North Coombsville Road 0.6 Bike Lanes (Class II) $90,200 1 1,890 $31,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 813 North 1st 3rd 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $130,300 1 1,676 $35,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 815 Salvador Avenue City boundary Big Ranch Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $77,000 7 11,092 $199,600 1 1 1 1 1 5 816 El Centro Avenue City boundary Big Ranch Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $74,400 14 21,153 $370,400 1 0 1 1 0 3 817 Buhman Avenue City boundary Congress Valley Road 0.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $46,600 4 5,548 $92,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 818 Buhman Avenue Congress Valley Road Henry Road 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $96,800 1 1,809 $30,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 819 Thomson Avenue Congress Valley Road City boundary 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $132,900 6 9,114 $161,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 820 Old Sonoma Road City boundary SR 12 2.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $411,700 12 17,338 $302,500 1 0 1 1 0 3 821 SR 12* City boundary Ramal 4.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $646,000 2 2,369 $49,800 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 822 Duhig Road Las Amigas SR 12 2.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $314,900 0 162 $64,100 1 0 0 1 0 2 823 Milton Road end Las Amigas 2.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $219,000 0 159 $2,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 826 SR 29* SR 221 American Canyon boundary 2.5 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) $1,648,600 1 883 $22,300 1 0 1 1 0 3 828 Trower Avenue City boundary Big Ranch Road 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $71,900 15 22,475 $413,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 838 Vine Trail Vista Carneros (Napa San Fields) Airport Blvd Soscol Ferry Rd 2.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,721,700 0 681 $16,800 0 0 0 1 1 2 Y 840 Bay Trail (Along Napa River - N American Canyon Area) Existing Bay Trail (Just S of Green Island Rd) Soscol Ferry Rd 5.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $19,978,000 1 1,428 $34,900 0 0 0 1 1 2 852 Coombsville Rd-Wild Horse Valley Rd Shady Brook Lane SR 128 6.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $458,500 0 446 $7,400 0 0 1 1 0 2 858 Coombsville Rd-Wild Horse Valley Rd 2nd Ave 4th Ave 0.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $33,300 1 1,657 $218,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 859 Las Amigas Buchli Station Rd Milton Rd 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $95,000 0 138 $272,600 0 0 0 1 0 1 866 SR 221* Kaiser Rd Vista Point Rd 1.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $4,104,500 0 695 $17,400 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y

Page 1094 of 1318 ends

E-14
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
868 Skellenger Rd Conn Creek Rd Silverado Trail 0.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $131,900 0 141 $63,100 0 0 0 1 0 1 871 Dry Creek Rd Oakville Grade Rd Orchard Ave 6.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $511,000 2 2,403 $40,000 0 1 1 1 1 4 Y 872 Coombsville Rd-Wild Horse Valley Rd 4th Ave Shady Brook Ln 1.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $85,500 1 1,158 $19,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 884 Linda Vista Ave Napa City Limits Dry Creek Rd 0.8 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $1,569,700 16 24,159 $401,900 0 1 1 1 0 3 885 SR 29/221* American Canyon city limit Kaiser Rd 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $166,500 1 763 $20,800 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 889 Yount Mill Rd - Yount Street Yountville town limit SR 29 2.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $157,600 4 6,614 $109,600 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 894 SR 128 /Conn Creek Rd* Rutherford Rd Silverado Trail 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $98,900 0 140 $2,300 1 0 1 1 0 3 906 Sanitarium Rd Deer Park Rd Deer Park Rd 1.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $133,100 1 1,212 $20,100 1 0 1 1 0 3 907 Glass Mountain Rd Silverado Trail Sanitarium Rd 0.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $65,700 1 853 $14,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 908 McGary Rd (Extension of the Solano Bikeway) Solano Bike (Class I multi-use path) Hiddenbrook Pkwy 0.7 Unclassified Bicycle Route $55,500 0 15 $300 0 0 0 1 0 1 916 American Canyon Path (along Newell Rd - S Kelly Rd)
Watson Ln SR 12 (Jameson Canyon Rd) 2.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $8,628,500 3 4,031 $102,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 917 Kelly Rd SR 12 Jameson Road 1.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $142,600 0 337 $5,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 918 Airport Blvd Devlin Rd SR 29 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $37,500 0 401 $12,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 935 Silverado Trail* Napa City Limit Monticello Rd 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $50,700 9 13,703 $507,200 1 0 1 1 0 3 998 4th Ave Imola Ave Coombsville Rd 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $101,000 5 7,437 $124,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1010 1st Ave Coombsville Rd Hagen Rd 2.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $287,500 4 5,244 $179,600 0 0 1 1 0 2 1011 Vichy Ave Hagen Rd Monticello Rd 1.2 Bike Lanes (Class II) $173,300 2 3,289 $144,100 1 0 1 1 0 3 1013 Wooden Valley Cross Rd Wooden Valley Rd Gordon Vallley Rd 1.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $96,700 0 28 $500 0 0 0 1 0 11015 Wooden Valley Rd County Border Monticello Rd 6.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $495,400 0 128 $2,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1016 Soda Canyon Rd Silverado Trail county line 5.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $379,300 0 126 $2,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1017 SR 29* Tubbs Ln Lake/Napa County Line 8.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $667,500 0 582 $9,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 1018 Finnel Rd Town Limit Yountville Cross Rd 0.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $58,400 6 9,407 $155,900 0 1 1 1 0 3 1023 Dealy Ln Old Sonoma Rd Henry Rd 1.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $86,800 0 167 $2,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1024 Henry Rd End of Henry Rd Buhman Ave 3.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $254,100 0 283 $4,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 1025 Middle Ave Los Carneros Ave Cuttings Wharf Rd 0.2 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $486,200 0 131 $2,200 0 0 1 1 0 2 1026 Redwood Rd - Mt Veeder Rd Napa City Limits Dry Creek Rd 10.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $811,500 7 10,899 $181,300 0 0 0 1 0 1 1027 Dry Creek Rd Trinity Rd Mt Veeder Rd 2.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $176,100 0 140 $2,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1029 Oakville Grade Rd Dry Creek Rd SR 29 3.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $276,300 0 551 $9,200 0 1 1 1 0 3 1030 Zinfandel Ln SR 29/128 Silverado Trail 1.4 Bike Lanes (Class II) $206,000 0 415 $47,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 1031 Oakville Cross Rd SR 29 Silverado Trail 2.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $363,900 0 286 $54,500 0 0 1 1 0 2

Page 1095 of 1318 ends

E-15
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
1032 SR 128 – Rutherford* SR 29 Conn Creek Rd 1.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $220,200 0 183 $4,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 1036 American Canyon Rd American Canyon City Limit I-80 1.9 Bike Lanes (Class II) $280,900 10 14,400 $389,500 0 0 0 1 0 1 1045 Stanly Ln W Imola Ave SR 12 1.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $241,300 2 3,659 $172,200 1 0 0 1 0 2 1047 Skyline Path (along Imola Ave to Skyline Park) Soscol Ave & 221 4th Avenue 2.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $7,757,100 20 29,643 $725,000 1 1 1 1 1 5 Y 1054 Big Ranch Rd Napa City Limits Oak Knoll Ave 2.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $303,000 10 15,290 $301,400 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1055 Oak Knoll Ave SR 29 Silverado Trail 2.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $303,200 2 2,723 $54,600 1 1 1 1 1 5 1056 Orchard Ave Dry Creek Rd City/County Line 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $79,400 3 4,067 $87,700 0 1 1 1 1 4 1057 Conn Creek Path Oakville Cross Rd Skellenger Ln 0.9 Shared Use Path (Class I) $3,507,900 0 165 $4,000 0 0 0 1 0 1 1058 SR 29* Madison St Rutherford Rd 2.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $284,100 2 3,450 $236,600 1 1 1 1 0 4 1081 Los Posadas Rd Howell Mountain Rd State Park 1.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $143,100 1 1,629 $27,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 1082 Conn Valley Rd Howell Mountain Rd Moore Creek Park 3.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $224,000 0 662 $11,100 0 0 0 1 0 1 Y 1083 Howell Mountain Rd Deer Park Rd Ink Grade Rd 3.5 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $265,500 3 4,076 $67,700 1 0 1 1 0 3 1084 Monticello Rd* Silverado Trail Atlas Peak Rd 1.1 Bike Lanes (Class II) $2,161,000 12 18,557 $371,700 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 1085 Howell Mountain Rd Silverado Trail Conn Valley Rd 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $70,300 1 1,303 $66,100 0 1 1 1 0 3 1086 White Cottage Rd Deer Park Rd Ink Grade Rd 3.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $281,200 3 3,921 $65,100 0 0 1 1 0 2 1087 Deer Park Rd Silverado Trail White Cottage Rd 4.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $303,700 1 1,962 $32,600 1 0 1 1 1 4 Y 1088 White Sulphur Springs Rd St. Helena city limit End of Road 3.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $232,400 2 2,971 $49,500 0 1 0 1 0 2 1089 SR 128/Capell Valley Rd* Steele Canyon Rd Napa/Solano County Line 10.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $775,100 0 111 $1,800 1 0 1 1 0 3 1090 SR 128/Capell Valley Rd* Steele Canyon Rd Berryessa Knoxville Rd 4.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $357,500 0 100 $1,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 1091 Berryessa Knoxville Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon Road Pope Canyon Rd 4.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $346,700 0 16 $300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1092 SR 128/Sage Canyon Rd* Berryessa Knoxville Rd Silverado Trail 11.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $838,600 0 174 $2,900 1 0 1 1 0 3 Y 1093 Lower Chiles Valley Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon Rd Chiles Pope Valley Rd 3.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $252,100 0 45 $700 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 1094 Franz Valley School Rd County Border Petrified Forest Rd 1.9 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $141,200 1 2,142 $35,600 1 0 0 1 0 2 1095 Chiles Pope Valley Rd SR 128/Sage Canyon Rd Lower Chiles Valley Rd 3.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $274,800 0 62 $1,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 Y 1096 SR 29/128/Foothill Blvd* Deer Park Rd Calistoga - southern city limit 6.1 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $1,352,900 3 5,053 $84,400 1 1 1 1 0 4 1098 Pickett Rd Silverado Trail Rosedale Rd 0.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $37,900 1 1,420 $24,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1099 Chiles Pope Valley Rd Lower Chiles Valley Rd Howell Mountain Rd 8.6 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $647,000 0 93 $1,500 0 0 1 1 0 2 1103 Howell Mountain Rd Ink Grade Rd Pope Valley Rd 2.5 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $185,800 1 946 $15,700 0 0 1 1 0 2 1104 Pope Valley Rd Howell Mountain Rd Aetna Springs Rd 1.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $125,200 0 59 $1,000 0 0 1 1 0 2 1110 Ink Grade Rd N White Cottage Rd Pope Valley Rd 4.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $314,500 1 970 $16,100 0 0 0 1 0 1 1115 Butts Canyon Rd Aetna Springs Rd Lake/Napa County Line 7.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $523,500 0 99 $1,600 0 0 1 1 0 21116 Silverado Trail Larkmead Dunaweal 2.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $363,300 0 615 $67,800 0 0 1 1 0 2 1117 Dunaweal Ln Washington Street Path/Vine Trail Silverado Tr 0.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $117,500 1 1,006 $78,600 1 1 1 1 0 4

Page 1096 of 1318 ends

E-16
ID Segment Name Begin End Length (Mi) Facility Type Estimated Cost of Project Estimated Annual New
Commuters
VMT Reduction Value
Total Economic Benefit Project Prioritization Evaluation Near-Term Project List
Safety
Equity
Connectivity
Plan Consistency
Community Support
Total
1120 Petrified Forest Rd City Border Foothill Blvd 0.3 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $21,600 5 7,367 $122,500 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1126 Cedar St Willow St Berry St 0.4 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $793,600 9 13,498 $224,600 0 1 0 0 0 1 1127 Adams Street Extension 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,743,000 6 9,286 $226,200 1 0 1 0 1 3 1135 Tulocay Creek RR Bridge Over Wine Train RR ROW 0.0 Shared Use Path (Class I) $108,500 2 2,254 $50,200 0 1 0 0 0 1 1136 Westgate Dr Atlas Peak Hillcrest 0.1 Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) $103,400 1 1,723 $28,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1139 Foster Rd Hilton Ave Golden Gate Dr 0.7 Bike Lanes (Class II) $105,300 4 5,347 $141,900 0 0 1 1 0 2 1156 Pope Canyon Rd Berryessa Knoxville Rd Chiles Pope Valley Rd 9.2 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $690,500 0 37 $600 0 0 1 0 0 1 1157 Howell Mountain Rd Conn Valley Rd Deer Park Rd 3.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $12,055,200 1 1,066 $26,200 1 1 0 0 0 2 1158 Old Sonoma Road City boundary SR 12 2.8 Bike Lanes (Class II) $411,700 12 17,338 $299,900 1 0 1 1 1 4 1162 Congress Valley Rd Old Sonoma Rd Buhman Ave 1.0 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $71,900 5 7,700 $128,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1171 Spring Mountain Rd Sonoma/Napa County Line St Helena city limit 4.1 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $307,300 1 1,559 $25,900 0 0 0 1 0 1 1174 Sulphur Creek Path - South Extent Sulphur Springs Ave Crane Ave 0.8 Shared Use Path (Class I) $2,897,000 6 9,364 $228,200 0 1 1 0 0 2 1180 Vine Trail St Helena to Yountville* Chaix Ln Madison St 7.7 Shared Use Path (Class I) $29,307,900 9 13,580 $330,100 1 1 1 0 0 3 Y 1186 Napa Valley Vine Trail Airport Blvd Northern American Canyon City Limits 1.3 Shared Use Path (Class I) $5,008,800 0 563 $13,200 0 0 1 0 1 2 1188 Soscol Ferry Rd Devlin / roundabout Class I connection Vine Trail 0.4 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,459,900 0 402 $10,400 0 0 1 0 1 2 1202 Tubbs Ln Hwy 29 Silverado Trail 1.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) $191,400 2 3,641 $63,500 1 0 1 0 0 2 1220 Sonoma Hwy from Old Sonoma to Duhig Rd* Old Sonoma Rd Duhig Rd 0.2 Shared Use Path (Class I) $883,400 0 107 $2,600 1 0 1 0 1 3 Y 1221 SR 29 Shared Use* Broadway St Solano County Limits 3.1 Shared Use Path (Class I) $11,801,900 0 395 $9,600 1 0 1 0 0 2 1223 Napa Valley Vine Trail - Napa Pipe to Soscol Ferry Riversound Way Soscol Ferry Rd 0.5 Shared Use Path (Class I) $1,989,700 1 1,292 $31,500 1 0 1 0 0 2 1227 Kortum Canyon Rd Calistoga City Limits County Limits 1.7 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $126,700 4 6,296 $104,800 0 0 0 0 1 1 1228 Petrified Forest Rd County border Calistoga City Border 1.8 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $135,300 3 4,501 $74,800 1 1 1 1 0 4 Y 1229 Foothill Boulevard / SR 128* County Border Eastern City Limit 3.0 Bike Lanes (Class II) $440,700 3 3,755 $63,000 1 0 1 1 0 3 1230 Hagen Road City of Napa Border 1st 0.5 Bike Lanes (Class II) $76,900 2 2,944 $51,300 0 0 1 1 0 2 1232 Green Island Rd Good Luck Point City of American Canyon Border 0.4 Rural Bicycle Route (Class III) $28,300 0 128 $2,100 0 0 0 1 0 1 1236 Eucalyptus Dr Wetlands Edge Rd Landfill Loop 0.4 Study Corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1244 Silverado Trail Trancas St Deer Park Rd 18.6 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) $4,089,700 18 26,457 $542,600 1 1 1 0 1 4 Note: For additional details and methodology for the project cost estimates above, please refer to Table 6.4 on page 127. For more information about estimated project benefits, refer to Appendix F. Project cost estimates and benefits are for rough estimation purposes only. The benefits were developed using the NCHRP 552 methodology, with the total economic benefits shown in the table reflecting high estimated benefit values. * These projects are anticipated to be constructed along/within Caltrans ROW; this was only done for County of Napa and may exclude projects within the jurisdictions

Page 1097 of 1318 ends

Appendix F
Potential Induced Demand,
Benefits, and Emissions
Reduction

Page 1098 of 1318 ends

F-1
Induced Bicycling Demand and Subsequent Benefits
The following analysis utilizes the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities1 to calculate potential induced bicycling demand among existing and new bicyclists generated by the proposed bicycle facilities. The methodology describes an approach for estimating the induced demand associated with a given bicycle facility improvement and translates the projected increase in demand to monetized benefits related to mobility, health, recreation, and decreased auto use. This section describes the application of the NCHRP 552 methodology for this project, and the anticipated benefits in terms of induced bicycling demand and monetized benefits associated with proposed bicycle facilities.

The induced bicycling demand benefits analyzed herein are calculated for each project separately and should be used for project-to project comparison only. Some benefits categories analyze the estimated benefits separately for “separated” versus “on-street” facilities2
.

Methodology
To estimate the induced demand benefits associated with bicycle improvements proposed in the Plan, the project team utilized the sketch planned method described in Appendix A and B of NCHRP Report 552, as well as Census population and commute pattern data, and average bicycling trip length estimates from 2023 Replica data3 . The
NCHRP 552 methodology is centered on several assumptions.

1. Existing bicyclists near a new facility will shift from the existing nearby facility to the new facility.

2. The new facility will result in induced number of bicyclists as a function of the number of existing bicyclists, relative to the attractiveness of the proposed facility (i.e., Class I shared-use path vs. Class II bicycle lanes).

3. People are more likely to ride a bicycle if they live within 1.5 miles of a facility than if they live outside that distance.

The methodology suggests that existing bicycle commute mode share can be utilized to estimate the number of existing and future bicycle ridership based on low, moderate, and high likelihood multipliers and the population within 1.5-mile, 1-mile, and 0.5-mile buffers that surround a facility. According to the NCHRP 522 research, the total rate of adult bicycling ranges from a low estimate, based on the Census bicycling commute mode share, to a 1 Methodology utilized here in based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552, Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2006), as well as the supplemental White Paper titled “Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines,” available here, which was adapted from the demands and benefits outlined in the original NCHRP 552 report. The methodology described in the White Paper was used in the development of an online tool (no longer supported) created by the NCHRP 552 research authors. 2 The NCHRP 552 methodology does not include Class III bike routes, so those facility types were not included in the induced demand benefits assessment. While the methodology did not originally include Class IV bikeways or Class II buffered bike lanes, as those facility types had not yet been consistently implemented at the time of report publication, Class IV facilities were analyzed using the same calculations as separated paths and Class II buffered facilities were analyzed the same as onstreet bike lanes. 3 Replica is an online platform providing data on the built environment and how people interact with it, most notably trip patterns. Replica models their data, representing movement by aggregating data from three primary sources: census demographic data, proprietary location data from telecommunications and other digital infrastructure within a region, and field observations. Replica’s simulated datasets are cleaned of identifying information and calibrated against observed “ground-truth.” The data is tested with field observations to ensure it is consistent with actual human behavior.

Page 1099 of 1318 ends

F-2
high estimate, based on 0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute share. Moreover, the highest likelihood of a member of the population to use the facility exists if they live within a 0.5-mile buffer around the facility.

Thus, demand is reported at low, medium, and high estimates for the populations at each buffer distance. Each buffer area—at 0.5-, 1- and 1.5-mile distances from a proposed bicycle improvement are created using a networkbased analysis in a GIS environment.

Existing Population Estimates
To project future bicycling demand, the existing population, and more specifically existing bicycling population near the proposed improvements, a key input to the NCHRP 552 methodology, must first be estimated. Existing population by block group for Napa County was estimated using 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates. Using a GIS-based python script, the network analysis buffers at 0.5-mile, 1-mile and 1.5-mile distances from each proposed bicycle facility are intersected with the block groups to establish the proportion of the entire block group within a given buffer distance area. The total population within each buffer distance near the proposed improvements was estimated by multiplying the proportion of area of each buffer to the area of the whole block by the estimated block population.

Existing Bicycle Demand Estimates
Daily existing bicycling population is estimated for several categories: adult commuter bicyclists, adultnoncommuter bicyclists and child bicyclists. The calculations used to estimate existing and new bicyclists within each category are described in the following sections. The estimates of existing population and bicyclists by category for each of the bicycle facilities considered is provided at the end of this document.

Existing Bicycle Commuters
The estimated number of daily existing bicycle commuters are based on the existing bicycle commute mode share, the percent of adult population, and the percent of adult commuters for each block group, which is estimated based on U.S. Census data4
. To identify the existing bicyclist commuter population who could shift to the new facility, the equation below is used, where (R) is the total population within each buffer distance, (A) is the percentage of adult population, (C) is the Census bicycle commute mode share, and it is assumed that 50% of adults are commuters.

Daily existing bicycle commuters = R * A * C *0.5
Existing Adult Bicyclists
Adult bicycling rates are calculated at high, moderate, and low estimates. The NCHRP 552 research found that total adult bicycling rates range from the Census commute mode share at the low end to 0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute mode share at the high end5
.

Thigh = 0.06% + 3C
Tmoderate = 0.4% + 1.2C
Tlow = C
4 2019-2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates for Total Population, Age, Means of Transportation to Work 5 NCHRP 552, Chapter 4; Appendix A.

Page 1100 of 1318 ends

F-3
To estimate existing adult bicyclists the equation below is used, where (R) is the total population within each buffer distance, (A) is the percentage of adult population, and (T) is the adult bicycling rate at high, moderate, and low estimates.

Total existing adult bicyclists = R * A * Ti
Existing Child Bicyclists
To estimate existing child bicyclists, the below equation is used. The population within each buffer area (R) is multiplied by the percent of population who are children (PC), then by 0.02 based on the 2017 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) estimate of children who ride a bicycle on a given day.

Daily existing child bicyclists = R * PC * 0.02
Future Estimates – Induced Bicyclists Demand
The NCHRP 552 research cites that people who live closest to a bicycle facility are more likely to bike than those who live further from the facility. Likelihood multipliers were developed to represent this probability6 .Using the
estimated bicycling rates for each group (bicycle commuters, total adults, and children) along with the likelihood multipliers cited by the NCHRP 552 research (L), the estimates of induced bicyclists anticipated to be associated with a given facility is calculated for each group, as shown in the equations below.

New bicyclist commuters = existing bicyclist commuters * L New adult bicyclists = existing adult bicyclists * L
New child bicyclists = existing child bicyclists * L
Where:

L800m = 0.51
L1600m = 0.44
L2400m = 0.15
Estimates of induced bicycling demand for each of the bicyclist groups is provided for the full list of evaluated bicycle projects at the end of this document.

Monetized Bicycle Mode Shift Benefits
The NCHRP 552 methodology presents guidance on translating their demand and benefits research to a benefit cost analysis approach for bicycle facility investments. This methodology results in total annual monetized benefits associated with mobility, health, recreation, and decreased auto use expected to result from new bicycle facilities.

Each of the benefit types associated with the induced bicycling demand that is anticipated for the bicycle facilities proposed in the Plan are described in the following sections. The following benefits are summed up to provide a total monetary benefit for each bicycle project, provided in Appendix E.

Mobility Benefits
6 NCHRP 552, Appendix B; Supplemental White Paper Translating Demand and Benefits Research into Guidelines

Page 1101 of 1318 ends

F-4
Mobility benefits represent the time cost associated with shift to given bicycle facility type for the total number of commute trips over a commute year for new and existing bicyclist commuters7 . This approach is based on stated
preference analysis findings that establish the number of minutes, on average, bicycle commuters are willing to spend to access various facility types, as well as an hourly value of time assumption. The resulting calculation represents a per-trip benefit by facility type. The annualized mobility benefits consider the estimated existing and induced demand to reflect the time in dollars that a new or existing bicyclist commuter is willing to spend to access the new facility.

Health Benefits
Health benefits represent the cost savings from physical activity benefits associated with induced demand anticipated to result from the proposed bicycle facilities. An annual per capita cost savings of $128, representing health benefit cost savings8
. The annual health benefit is calculated by multiplying the annual per capita cost savings by the total number of new bicyclists anticipated with the proposed bicycle facilities. See Table 2 for the estimated health benefits associated with the proposed bicycle projects.

Recreation Benefits
Recreation benefits represent the cost savings related to recreational activity for new bicyclists induced by the new bicycle facilities. The cost of a typical day of recreation, valued at $10 for 1 hour of recreation activity, is based on a variety of outdoor recreational activities. The average adult cycling day, for example, includes roughly 40 minutes of cycling, in addition to some preparation and clean up time. To calculate annualized health benefits, the number of new commuters is subtracted from the number of new bicyclists, then multiplied by the typical recreation day cost. The number of new commuters is subtracted from the number of new bicyclists, because the value of the facility to new commuters is already accounted for in the mobility benefit.

Decrease Auto Use Benefits
Decreased auto use benefits include the benefits associated with user cost savings, reduced congestion, and reduced air pollution. This benefit is calculated based on the benefit per mile associated with vehicle to bicycle mode shift as a function of location and time of day, with congestion savings ranging from 0 to 5 cents per mile and pollution savings ranging from 1 to 5 cents per mile depending on conditions. The middle range of congestion and pollution savings is used for suburban areas, which is the value used for the analysis in this study. The overall savings per mile is estimated at 8 cents per mile for suburban geographies.

To calculate the annual decreased auto use benefit, the number of new commuters is multiplied by the average round trip length, savings per mile, 48 weeks per year, 5 days per week, and 2 trips per day. In addition to the monetized benefits associated with decreased auto use, these benefits can also be described in terms of VMT reduction. The estimated VMT reduction can be utilized as an input to calculate air quality benefits using other methods, as well as provides another metric to use as a lens to view decreased auto use benefits associated with bicycle mode shift.

Emissions Reduction
The NCHRP guidelines do not discuss how to calculate monetized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions benefits associated with a reduction in VMT. Instead, the Senate Bill (SB) 1 California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost 7 NCHRP Report 552, Chapter 4; NCHRP Report 552 Appendix D. 8 NCHRP Report 552, Chapter 4; Appendix E, reflects the median value of 10 studies on health-related annual per capita cost savings for physical activity associated with induced bicycle use

Page 1102 of 1318 ends

F-5
Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Grant Program Emissions Reduction Calculator is used. The model estimates emissions from changes in vehicle miles. The calculator requires the project location, length of construction period, average Daily VMT, percent of VMT that is truck and bus travel, and average trip length to calculate the value of tons of emissions saved per year. Benefits associated with emissions reductions are not included in the total monetized benefits for each project.

Page 1103 of 1318 ends

F-6
Pedestrian Network Improvement Emissions Reduction
The NCHRP Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities do not extend to pedestrian improvements.

The guidelines state that the relationship between bicycle facility improvements and induced riders/commuters should not be assumed to hold true for walking. The analysis the following analysis utilizes the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities and Advancing Health and Equity. The Pedestrian Network Improvement methodology describes an approach for estimating the percent reduction in emissions from induced pedestrian trips based on the percent increase in sidewalk coverage.

Methodology
To estimate the GHG emissions reduction benefits associated with the pedestrian improvements proposed in the Plan, the projects team used the method described in CalEEMod Handbook: Pedestrian Network Improvements, sidewalk mileage collected during the analysis of existing pedestrian facilities, and the proposed pedestrian network. The CalEEMod methodology is centered on the assumption that:

Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the ratio of sidewalks-to-streets remains constant. A study found that a 0.05 percent decrease in household vehicle travel occurs for every 1 percent increase in the sidewalk-to-street ratio (Frank et el. 2011; Handy et al. 2014).

The estimated percentage of GHG emissions reductions is based on dividing the total sidewalk coverage (existing and proposed) in miles by the existing coverage, subtracting one, and multiplying by an elasticity factor. The percent reduction in GHG emissions from household vehicle travel in the study area (A) is calculated using the formula below, where C is the total sidewalk length in miles in the study area (existing and proposed), B is the total existing sidewalk mileage in the study area, and D is the Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the ratio of sidewalks-to-streets (-0.05).

A = (C/B -1) * D
The methodology suggests the study area be within 0.6 miles of the proposed pedestrian improvement, which represents a 6- to 10-minute walking time. Due to the number of pedestrian facilities proposed throughout the county, Census Block Groups were used to define each study area.

Results
Of the 101 block groups, 68 are expected to reduce GHG emissions, ranging from 0.01 – 3.11% reductions.

Twenty-nine block groups did not have any proposed sidewalk improvements. Four block groups had no recorded existing sidewalks but had proposed improvements; in these cases, the calculation could not be performed. It should be noted that although sidewalks did not exist previously, it cannot be assumed that pedestrians did not use the unpaved areas. Therefore, the proposed sidewalks may have some GHG emission reductions.

The top 20 block groups that are expected to result in the most GHG emission reductions from sidewalk improvements are listed in Table F.1. Block Groups that are not wholly in one jurisdiction are shown with the second jurisdiction listed.

Page 1104 of 1318 ends

F-7
Table F.1: Top 20 Proposed Sidewalk Emissions Reductions by Block Group Block Group Jurisdiction
Existing
Sidewalk
Mileage
Total Sidewalk
Mileage (Existing
and Proposed)
GHG Emissions
Reduction
060552017002 Unincorporated Napa County
(Angwin)

0.55 0.89 -3.11%
060552015002 Unincorporated Napa County 0.36 0.56 -2.83% 060552020004 City of Calistoga 4.63 5.84 -1.31%
060552020002 City of Calistoga 3.35 4.19 -1.24%
060552020003 City of Calistoga 6.32 7.63 -1.04%
060552007043 Unincorporated Napa County /
City of Napa

1.35 1.63 -1.02%
060552007042 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

2.23 2.61 -0.85%
060552008044 City of Napa 3.35 3.82 -0.71%
060552007051 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

6.74 7.61 -0.65%
060552006012 City of Napa 4.66 5.24 -0.62%
060552016021 City of St. Helena 5.97 6.70 -0.62%
060552017005 Unincorporated Napa County
(Deer Park)

0.07 0.08 -0.60%
060552003012 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

4.85 5.42 -0.59%
060552011012 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

1.74 1.93 -0.54%
060552010062 City of Napa 7.97 8.84 -0.54%
060552003013 City of Napa / Unincorporated
Napa County

5.04 5.58 -0.54%
060552020001 City of Calistoga 3.01 3.32 -0.52%
060552013001 Town of Yountville 5.23 5.78 -0.52%
060552004002 City of Napa 2.27 2.50 -0.49%
060552008031 Unincorporated Napa County /
City of Napa

3.36 3.68 -0.48%

Page 1105 of 1318 ends

P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org August 11, 2026
Re: Agenda Item 10.8.) Adopt the Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan Dear Mayor Dohring and Councilmembers,
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) represents over 2,000 members and supporters throughout Napa County in advocating to make riding a bicycle in our communities safe, convenient, and accessible for riders of all ages and abilities. For over 15 years, NCBC has worked with local organizations, businesses, elected officials, and the public to align our transportation infrastructure with the needs of cyclists and other active transportation users.

Thank you for adopting the updated Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan. As the current countywide Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan are 7 years old and 10 years old respectively, this comprehensive update will bring our countywide active transportation roadmap up to date with current data, standards, and progress. This updated plan will provide the City of St. Helena with a wealth of policy, infrastructure, and programming tools to making walking, biking, and rolling safer and more accessible for all residents.

We recommend that City Council adopt the Napa Countywide Active Transportation Plan with the amendment that Pope Street be classified as a study corridor. We have heard feedback from St. Helena residents that Pope Street feels unsafe to bike on, especially from parents of students attending St. Helena Montessori School, and presents a barrier to biking for transportation. As a key east-west corridor that connects residents to several neighborhoods - including specialized living areas like Vineyard Valley Senior Living Mobile Home Park, Silverado Orchards Retirement Community, and Stonebridge Apartments - two public parks, St. Helena Montessori School, Napa Valley College/City Hall, and downtown, it is crucial that bicycle facilities be safe and comfortable for all ages and abilities. Despite this, the updated Active Transportation Plan does not list Pope Street for any bicycle facility improvements.

While we understand that the Pope Street corridor has varying widths and requires more detailed analysis for bicycle facility design selection than the countywide plan update could provide, this should not mean that Pope Street be overlooked for improvements. The study corridor designation is intended for streets in exactly this scenario, that can and should be improved but require additional analysis. The answer may not be readily apparent, which is another reason why Pope Street warrants further study, rather than simply leaving it as is.

Designating Pope Street as a study corridor will act as a necessary placeholder until this additional design work can be done.

Should councilmembers or city staff have any questions about our request, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at the phone number below or at [email protected] and [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Page 1106 of 1318 ends

P.O. Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org Sincerely,
Carlotta Sainato
Program Manager, Napa County Bicycle Coalition

Page 1107 of 1318 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: August 11, 2026
FROM: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: SMART Meter Project Acceptance — Authorize project acceptance, file Notice of Completion and Release Contingency

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council awarded the project to Professional Meters, Inc on February 11, 2025, per Resolution 2025-012.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To accept the work and direct the filing of the Notice of Completion for CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See summary in section below
CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

The City of St. Helena’s approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Program includes CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment. The project updates customer water meters to SMART meter technology, so the City can improve meter operation and customers can monitor usage in real time.

The City’s existing water meter infrastructure had exceeded its useful life in many locations and produced sporadic and unreliable data. Prior staff reports noted that inaccurate readings occurred up to 30 percent of the time, requiring City staff to conduct duplicate and triplicate readings. The project was developed to improve billing accuracy, reduce staff time spent on manual readings and re-readings, reduce non-revenue water, and improve water resource management.

On May 14, 2024, the City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Haley & Aldrich, Inc. for engineering, owner’s representative, and construction management services for CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment in a not-to-exceed amount of $406,000.

On June 25, 2024, the City Council authorized the purchase of SMART Advanced Meter Infrastructure from Badger Meter, Inc. for a not-to-exceed cost of $1,056,966.44. On the same date, the City Council authorized staff to advertise the project for bids.

Page 1108 of 1318 ends

On October 22, 2024, the City Council approved contractor prequalification procedures because the project required specialized experience with Advanced Metering Infrastructure, software integration, billing system transfer files, data migration, verification, and integration with the City’s Springbrook utility billing system.

On February 11, 2025, the City Council awarded the construction contract to Professional Meters, Inc. in the amount of $565,063.11, authorized the City Manager to execute the construction contract, authorized the Director of Public Works to approve change orders not to exceed 15 percent of the contract amount, and authorized a project budget amendment of $333,105.11.

DISCUSSION:

Following Council authorization, formal bid invitations were issued to the prequalified contractors on November 25, 2024. Bids were received and evaluated by Haley & Aldrich and City staff on January 17, 2025. Professional Meters, Inc. was identified as the lowest responsive and responsible prequalified bidder, with a base bid of $491,359.23.

On February 11, 2025, City Council awarded CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment to Professional Meters, Inc. The total construction contract authorization was $565,063.11, which included the base bid amount of $491,359.23 and a 15 percent construction contingency of $73,703.88.

Professional Meters, Inc. began construction activities on April 23, 2025. The work included replacement and retrofit of existing City water meters with SMART meter technology, installation of related Advanced Metering Infrastructure components, and work needed to transmit meter data to the City’s utility billing system. The project replaced older disc technology meters with ultrasonic meters and cellular endpoints. Advanced Metering Infrastructure technology captures water use data at regular intervals and supports remote reporting through cellular communication.

Professional Meters, Inc. completed construction activities on October 13, 2025. Over the course of the last nine months, City staff and Haley & Aldrich reviewed the completed work, validated connectivity to the billing system, validated the number of meters purchased from Pace, and determined that Professional Meters, Inc. completed the work in accordance with the contract documents for the project.

The completed project provides a modernized water metering system that improves meter accuracy, supports billing accuracy, reduces manual meter reading and re-reading, supports real-time leak detection, and allows customers to monitor consumption through the EyeOnWater portal.

Project Expenditure Summary:

Construction Contract ExpenditureAward Actual
Construction Contract $491,359.23 $457,413.59
Contingency $73,703.88 None used

Page 1109 of 1318 ends

Change orders None
Total PMI Contract: $565,063.11 $457,413.59
In addition to this construction contract the city purchased replacement water meters, meter conversion equipment, and meter box lids directly from the manufacturer’s distributor, Pace Supply. The city also contracted with Haley & Aldrich, Inc. to provide project design and management services for the project. These expenditures are not part of the construction contract but are included in the overall project costs. The following table includes material and consultant costs paid to Pace Supply, and Haley & Aldrich to provide an accurate and transparent accounting of the overall project cost.

Pace Supply Expenditure Award Actual
Meters, Conversion Equip, and
Lids
$1,228,618.44 $1,091,557.80
Haley & Aldrich Expenditure Award Actual
Project Design and Management $355,685.00 $245,000.00
CIP Project W24-04 is funded through Water Capital Improvement Fund bond proceeds. The Council approved the total project budget, following the February 11, 2025, budget amendment, at $2,303,105.11. Total project costs projected through final acceptance and complete project close-out is $1,793,971.39. No additional appropriation is requested with this action.

Upon approval of the resolution accepting completion of the project, staff will file the appropriate Notice of Completion with the Napa County Recorder and close out the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project qualifies for an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act as a Categorical Exemption, Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction. This action accepts completed work and directs filing of the Notice of Completion. No further environmental review is required.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution - SMART Meter Notice of Completion

2. W24-04 CIP

Page 1110 of 1318 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WORK AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CIP PROJECT W24-04 SMART METER DEPLOYMENT.

RECITALS
A. Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 3.04, Article 3, Public Works Projects, the City solicited bids for CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment; and B. On January 17, 2025, two bids were received and evaluated by Haley & Aldrich and City staff in accordance with the bid documents; and
C. The lowest responsive and responsible prequalified bidder for the Project was Professional Meters, Inc. in the amount of $491,359.23; and D. On February 11, 2025, City Council awarded CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment to Professional Meters, Inc. in the amount of $565,063.11, authorized the City Manager to execute the construction contract, authorized the Director of Public Works to approve change orders not to exceed 15 percent of the contract amount, and authorized a project budget amendment of $333,105.11; and E. Professional Meters, Inc. began construction activities on April 23, 2025 and completed construction activities on October 13, 2025; and F. No change orders were issued for the Project; and
G. The final construction contract amount is $457,413.59; and H. The project has been reviewed by City staff and Haley & Aldrich, and Professional Meters, Inc. has completed the work in accordance with the contract documents for the project.

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

1. The contract entitled CIP Project W24-04 SMART Meter Deployment, with final project construction costs of $457,413.59, is accepted as complete.

Page 1111 of 1318 ends

2. The Public Works Director/City Engineer is authorized to release retention and prepare of Notice of Completion, and the City Clerk is direct to file a Notice of Completion with the Napa County Record.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on August 11, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Council Member Diaz:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 1112 of 1318 ends

!"#!

$%
&'
%

$(
')(*

+%
(,

-./,.(01
201(
3.

4/%5
6,

787
49:;-7
<$$=;
:>

?@ABCDADB
>:<:;>

EFGHIJKLIMFG

-9=-9:N

OMPQ

-=R7$:
;-=>7
S
47>$-9:9=

TQU
VUIJFWMIXYUZ[F\
]^_VT
`aIUJ
^UIUJH
bJFcULI
MH
a
LMI\dMeU
MGMIMaIMfU
IF
KZPJaeU
a[[
LKHIFgUJ
daIUJ
gUIUJH

dMIQ
gFeUJG
]^_VT
gUIUJHh
TQUHU
GUd
gUIUJH
UGai[U
JUa[BIMgU
KZHIaPU
gFGMIFJMGPj
MgZJFfU
FZUJaIMFGa[

UkMLMUGL\j
JUeKLU
daIUJ
[FHHj
aGe
UgZFdUJ
LKHIFgUJH
IF
gaGaPU
IQUMJ
LFGHKgZIMFG
ZJFaLIMfU[\h
lU\
ZJFcULI

PFa[H
MGL[KeUm
BVUZ[aLUgUGI
FW
UnMHIMGP
gUIUJH
dMIQ
]^_VT
gUIUJ
IULQGF[FP\o
BpGai[MGP
JUgFIU
gUIUJ
JUaeMGP

aGe
[Uaq
eUIULIMFG
a[UJIHh
BVUeKLMGP
gaGKa[
gUIUJ
JUBJUaeH
aGe
daIUJ
[FHHh
B]KZZFJIMGP
LKHIFgUJ
IJaGHZaJUGL\

IQJFKPQ
KHUJBaLLUHHMi[U
LFGHKgZIMFG
eaIah

-=R7$:

=:7>

rstuv
BbJFcULI
MGL[KeUe
MG
IQU
`aIUJ
VaIU
]IKe\h
_KIQFJMwUe
aLIMFGHx
BVUHF[KIMFG
uDuvBDC@
y^a\
zvj
uDuv{
B_ZZJFfUe
]^_VT
gUIUJ
eUHMPGh
BVUHF[KIMFG
uDuvBzDD
y|KGU
uCj
uDuv{B_KIQFJMwUe
gUIUJ
ZKJLQaHUh
BVUHF[KIMFG
uDuvBzDz
y|KGU
uCj
uDuv{B_KIQFJMwUe
MHHKaGLU
FW
Vs}
W~J
MGHIa[[aIMFGh
rstuC
BEFGIJaLI
adaJeUe
IF
bJFWUHHMFGa[
^UIUJHj
GLh
ZUJ
VUHF[KIMFG
uDuCBDzu
ysUiJKaJ\
zzj
uDuC{h
B}KePUI
KZeaIUe
IF
JUW[ULI
UHLa[aIMFG
MG
KGMI
LFHIH
aGe
aLLU[UJaIUe
IMgU[MGUh
EFGHIJKLIMFGXMGHIa[[aIMFG
LFggUGLUe
stuC
Ah
bJFULI
aLLU[UJaIMFG
eJMfUG
i\
QMPQ
daIUJ
[FHH
aGe
QMPQ
GKgiUJ
FW
JUBJUaeHh
yuv
aGe
zjDDD
MG
|K[\
uDuv{
rstu@

BEFGHIJKLIMFG
aGe
eUZ[F\gUGIH
UnZULIUe
IF
iU
LFgZ[UIUe
i\
stu@
zh

¡¢
£¤¥
¡¢¦§
¡§¦¨
¡¨¦
¡ ¦©
¡©¦ª¡
£«

¬®
¯°±²³´µ
¶·¸¹º¬
·¹®®®
¶¸¹º¬

¬·®
¯»¼µ²½¾¿À½Á¼µ
ÂÃµÃ´±Ä±µ½
·¶¹Å¶Æ
·¶¹Å¶Æ

¬¸®
¯»¼µ²½¾¿À½Á¼µ
»¼µ½¾ÃÀ½
¹¸Å¬Ç¬·
®¬¹º¬
¹ÅÅ¸ÇÆ¸¸

¬Å®
¯»¼µ½³µ´±µÀÈ
Å¬ÇÅ®É
Å¬ÇÅ®É

£«
¶¹·¸Ç¬ÆÆ
®¬¹º¬
·¹®®®
¶¹¶¸·¹¶¬®

ÊË

Å¸¬¯ÌÃ½±¾
»ÃÍ³½ÃÎ
ÏÄÍ¾¼Ð±Ä±µ½
¯Ñ¼µÒ ¶¹·¸Ç¬ÆÆ
®¬¹º¬
·¹®®®
¶¹¶¸·¹¶¬®

ÊË
£«
¶¹·¸¹¬ÆÆ
®¬¹º¬
·¹®®®
¶¹¶¸·¹¶¬®

ÓÔ

Page 1113 of 1318 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Department: Community Development Department - Planning Division DATE: August 11, 2026
FROM: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 17.33.010 (Definitions of Uses), Table 17.17.020(A) (Use Regulations—Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts), and Table 17.18.020(A) (Use Regulations—Business and Industrial Zoning Districts) of the St. Helena Municipal Code to clarify the regulation of on-site storage associated with permitted primary uses (ZOA 26-002).

RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Find that the proposed ordinance is exempt from
environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending Section 17.33.010 (Definitions of Uses), Table

17.17.020(A) (Use Regulations—Commercial and MixedUse Zoning Districts), and Table 17.18.020(A) (Use Regulations—Business and Industrial Zoning Districts) of the St. Helena Municipal Code to clarify the regulation of on-site storage and distinguish storage that is incidental and subordinate to a lawfully established primary use from storage regulated as a separate use.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

The purpose of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is to clarify and refine the regulation of "On-Site Storage" within the City’s commercial, mixed-use, business, and industrial zoning districts. The amendment would distinguish storage that is incidental and subordinate to a permitted primary use from storage that functions as a primary or dominant use of a site. The

Page 1114 of 1318 ends

proposed changes would also update terminology, add clarifying footnotes, improve consistency in Code interpretation and administration, and clarify when storage is regulated as a distinct land use.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to result in a material fiscal impact to the City. The amendment may reduce staff time associated with interpreting whether routine storage supporting a permitted primary use requires separate land-use authorization.

Any accessory structure, building permit, design review, or other application required for a future project would remain subject to the City’s adopted permit and processing fees.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Common Sense Exemption (§15061(b)(3)) BACKGROUND:

Section 17.33 of the St. Helena Municipal Code broadly defines “On-Site Storage Facilities” as the indoor or outdoor storage of materials, products, or equipment. The definition does not clearly distinguish routine storage associated with a permitted business from storage that functions as a separate land use. This created uncertainty for businesses seeking to maintain inventory, supplies, equipment, or small accessory storage structures.

On April 21, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2026-009 recommending revisions to the definition of On-Site Storage and expanded Conditional Use Permit requirements for On-Site Storage in the Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts.

During subsequent preparation of the City Council materials, staff identified that On-Site Storage is listed as an accessory use in the applicable use tables, while personal storage, warehousing, and similar primary storage uses are separately classified and regulated. Staff therefore returned the matter to the Planning Commission for reconsideration and further clarificant of the proposed amendments.

Planning Commission Review and Recommendation
Zoning Ordinance Amendments are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing before being forwarded to the City Council. In this role, the Planning Commission evaluates the proposed amendment for consistency with the General Plan, the Municipal Code, and applicable land use policies, and then provides a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council retains final authority to adopt, modify, or decline the proposed amendment.

On June 16, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments and adopted Resolution No. PC2026-013 recommending that the City Council approve the ordinance with revisions. Consistent with the Commission’s direction, the revised ordinance retains the existing permit requirements while clarifying that storage that is incidental and subordinate to a permitted primary use is not separately regulated as On-Site Storage.

Page 1115 of 1318 ends

Consistent with the Commission’s direction, the ordinance also eliminates the word "Facilities" from the name of the use type, from “On-Site Storage Facilities” to “On-Site Storage” and adds corresponding footnotes in the applicable commercial, mixed-use, business, and industrial use tables to ensure that the clarification is applied consistently throughout the Zoning Code. The removal of the word "facilities" provides further clarification to the Ordinance user.

DISCUSSION:

Clarification of Routine Business Storage
Inventory, supplies, materials, and equipment are normal components of many commercial and industrial uses. The existing definition does not clearly distinguish this routine storage from storage regulated as a separate land use. The proposed amendment clarifies that storage associated with a permitted primary use is not separately classified as On-Site Storage when it is incidental and subordinate to that use. Examples include restaurant supplies, retail inventory, and equipment used by an established business. This clarification would reduce uncertainty for applicants and staff without exempting storage structures or outdoor storage areas from applicable development standards.

Relationship to Other Storage Uses
The Municipal Code separately defines and regulates “Storage, Personal” as a land-use classification applicable to self-storage, mini-storage, inventory storage, and similar warehouse-type facilities. The proposed ordinance would not amend that classification or its existing permit requirements.

The amendment therefore clarifies the treatment of storage accessory to a permitted primary use and does not establish or expand a primary storage use.

Existing Development and Operational Standards
Accessory storage structures and storage areas would remain subject to all applicable requirements, including zoning district setbacks and height limits, screening requirements under Section 17.24.090, On-Site storage Standards under Section 17.24.100, building and fire codes, and design review where required. No changes to these development or operational standards are proposed.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the Common Sense Exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

The ordinance would clarify the classification of storage incidental and subordinate to a permitted primary use. It would not authorize a specific development project, expand the geographic area in which primary storage uses are permitted, or modify applicable development, screening, setback, or operational standards. It can therefore be seen with certainty that the ordinance would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.

Page 1116 of 1318 ends

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Presentation - Zoning Code On-Site Storage

2. Proposed Ordinance ZOA 26-002

3. Redlined Ordinance Sections for reference only

4. June 16, 2026 Planning Commission Resolution PC 2026-013

Page 1117 of 1318 ends

City Council
August 11, 2026
On-Site Storage (ZOA 26-002)
Staff: Jackie Oneal, Senior Planner

Page 1118 of 1318 ends

Why is an Amendment Needed?
Current Definition (Existing Code)
• The existing definition of On-site storage is broad enough to include routine business storage:
• “On-site storage facilities” means the indoor or outdoor storage of any materials, products, or equipment on the premises.

Current Code
• On-Site Storage is regulated only as an accessory use. • Storage, Personal is separately regulated as a principal land use. • The current definition may unintentionally encompass routine business storage.
3 | Community Development Department

Page 1119 of 1318 ends

Proposed Ordinance Amendment
The Revised Ordinance:
• Revises the definition of On-site storage
• Renames the use classification from On-site storage facilities to On-site storage • Clarifies that incidental storage associated with a permitted primary use is not regulated as On-site storage
• Updates the Commercial/Mixed-Use and Business Professional/Industrial use tables for consistent terminology
Key Code Amendment:

On-site storage facilities. The indoor or outdoor storage of materials, products, or equipment on the premises. This definition does not include the storage of goods, inventory, materials, or equipment that are sold, utilized, produced, or maintained as part of a permitted primary use when such storage is incidental and subordinate to that use. 4 | Community Development Department

Page 1120 of 1318 ends

Examples of Storage Uses
5 | Community Development Department
Permitted Storage Storage, Personal (CUP in Industrial District) Restaurant supplies Mini-storage facility
Store inventory Self-storage business
Equipment shed serving a business Records storage facility

Page 1121 of 1318 ends

Benefits of the Amendment
Benefits
• Clarifies Municipal Code intent
• Provides certainty for businesses and property owners • Maintains existing development standards
• Avoids unnecessary regulation of routine business storage No Changes Proposed To
• Permit Requirements
• General On-Site Storage Standards (SHMC 17.24.100)
• Screening Requirements (SHMC 17.24.090)
• Accessory Structure Regulations (SHMC 17.24.020)
6 | Community Development Department

Page 1122 of 1318 ends

Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission: Recommended approval of the ordinance, with a recommendation that the City Council consider renaming "On-Site Storage Facilities" to "On-Site Storage.”
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and

2. Introduce, waive the first reading, and read by title only an ordinance amending Section 17.33, Table 17.17.020(A), and Table 17.18.020(A) of the St. Helena Municipal Code to clarify the regulation of On-Site Storage. 7 | Community Development Department

Page 1123 of 1318 ends

Questions?
8 | Community Development Department
Available Staff:

Jackie Oneal – Senior Planner

Page 1124 of 1318 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AMENDING SECTION 17.33.010 (DEFINITIONS OF USES), TABLE 17.17.020(A) (USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS), AND TABLE 17.18.020(A) (USE REGULATIONS—BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) OF THE ST. HELENA MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE REGULATION OF ON-SITE STORAGE (ZOA 26-002)
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 Section 17.33.010, Table 17.17.020(A), and Table

17.18.020(A) of the St. Helena Municipal Code (“SHMC”) to clarify the regulation of onsite storage; and WHEREAS, staff prepared the proposed ordinance, including the proposed language, and any additional information and documents deemed necessary for the City Council to take action; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning the proposed ordinance and municipal code amendments, and adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-009 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance and finding that no environmental review is required under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City gave public notice of the public hearing before the City Council for the proposed ordinance in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-13 revising its prior recommendation concerning ZOA 26-002; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendation by the Planning Commission, recommendation by staff, and public testimony concerning the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, during its June 16, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to revise the term “On-Site Storage Facilities” to “On-Site Storage” and review related provisions of the Zoning Code to make corresponding terminology revisions; and WHEREAS, consistent with that direction, the proposed ordinance revises the applicable use tables and adds footnotes clarifying that the On-Site Storage classification does not include storage that is incidental and subordinate to a permitted primary use; and

Page 1125 of 1318 ends

WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred.

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

Section 1: Recitals
The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance.

Section 2: Amendment to SHMC 17.33 (Definitions)
Section 17.33.010 of the St. Helena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined, deletions are in strikeout):

17.33.010 Definitions of Uses.

Section 3: Amendment to Table 17.17.020(A)
Table 17.17.020(A) (Use Regulations—Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts) is hereby amended to replace the term "On-Site Storage Facilities" with "OnSite Storage" and add Footnote 14 to read as follows:

14. This classification does not include the storage of goods, inventory, materials, or equipment associated with a permitted primary use when such storage is incidental and subordinate to that use.

Section 4: Amendment to Table 17.18.020(A)
Table 17.18.020(A) (Use Regulations—Business Professional and Industrial Zoning Districts) is hereby amended to replace the term "On-Site Storage Facilities" with "On-Site Storage” and add Footnote 10 to read as follows:

10. This classification does not include the storage of goods, inventory, materials, or equipment associated with a permitted primary use when such storage is incidental and subordinate to that use.

Page 1126 of 1318 ends

Section 5: 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 6: 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 7: Notice and Effective Date.

This Ordinance was duly noticed to the public. 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 11th day of August, 2026, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the St. Helena City Council on the ___ day of __________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED ATTEST
________________________________ ________________________________

Page 1127 of 1318 ends

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 1128 of 1318 ends

17.33 Definitions of Uses
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part V, Page 35
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals. A facility engaging in the extracting, producing, handling, milling, or other processing of nonmetallic minerals.

Mobile home. As defined in § 18008 of the California Health and Safety Code or manufactured home as defined in § 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code, a movable dwelling constructed on a chassis, designed for use without a permanent foundation, and designed to be connected to utilities.

Excludes manufactured modular housing designed to be placed on a permanent foundation and recreational vehicles, recreational vehicles as defined in § 799.24 of the California Civil Code and § 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, commercial coaches, and or factory-built housing, as defined in § 19971 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Model home sales office. A dwelling temporarily used as a sales office for on-site sales for a residential development under construction.

Multi-family dwelling. Two or more attached dwelling units on a single lot. Types of multi-family dwellings include duplexes, single room occupancy units, townhouses, and apartment buildings.

Office.

Business, professional, and technology. An office of a firm, organization, or agency providing professional, executive, management, or administrative services, such as accounting, architectural, computer software design, engineering, graphic design, interior design, legal, and tax preparation.

Medical and dental. An office providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive, or corrective personal-treatment services by doctors or dentists; medical and dental laboratories that see patients; licensed acupuncturists; and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans licensed by the State of California. Incidental medical and/or dental research within the office is considered part of the office use if it supports the on-site patient services.

Walk-in clientele. An office providing direct services to patrons or clients without prior appointments. This use classification includes employment agencies, insurance agent offices, real estate offices, travel agencies, utility company offices, and offices for elected officials. It does not include banks or check-cashing facilities, which are separately classified and regulated (see Bank or Financial Institution).

Wholesale office. An office of a wholesale firm excluding storage or on-site shipping and receiving of products.

Winery office (off-site). An office performing off-site administrative functions for a winery.

On-site storage facilities. The indoor or outdoor storage of any materials, products, or equipment on the premises. This definition does not include the storage of goods, inventory, materials, or equipment that are sold, utilized, produced, or maintained as part of a permitted primary use when such storage is incidental and subordinate to that use.

Outdoor dining. An area set up outside the confines of a commercial structure with tables, chairs, and other furnishings for the purpose of offering seating to patrons while selling, offering for sale, and serving food and beverages by an adjoining restaurant in which the same food and beverages are offered for sale, sold, and served.

Outdoor display and sales. The display or sale of any materials, products, or equipment outside of a building.

Page 1129 of 1318 ends

17.17.010 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 28 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Chapter 17.17 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Sections:

17.17.010 Purpose and Applicability

17.17.020 Use Regulations

17.17.030 Development Standards

17.17.040 Design Standards

17.17.010 Purpose and Applicability
This Chapter enables commercial and mixed-use development that is suitable to the character of St.

Helena and that supports the daily needs of residents. The commercial and mixed-use districts, which are located generally along the SR29 corridor, serve tourists, City residents, and residents of the unincorporated agricultural areas who have traditionally traveled to St. Helena to shop for goods and services. In the downtown, the zoning districts support higher-density, mixed-use development that expand housing options while supporting retail and commercial services. Included in this Chapter are use regulations, development standards, and design standards for the following commercial and mixed-use districts:

Central Business (CB). The CB Zone is intended to provide for retail, personal service uses, offices, restaurants, hotels/motels, service stations, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses that serve local residents’ day-to-day needs, as well as the needs of the surrounding area and tourists. Emphasis is on pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses on the ground floor level, with office and residential uses on the upper levels. This Zone implements the Central Business General Plan Land Use Designation.

Service Commercial (SC). The SC Zone is intended to provide for service and retail uses, restaurants, service stations, hotels, motels, public and quasi-public uses and similar and compatible uses. The designation is intended primarily for service and retail uses that are automobile-oriented or whose operational characteristics and space needs are not considered appropriate for the Central Business District. The intent is for the SC Zone to be primarily local resident-serving in character. Strictly touristserving retail uses are prohibited within this designation. This Zone implements the Service Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation.

Mixed-Use (MU). The MU Zone is intended to provide areas for a mix of medium- and high-density residential unit types and commercial retail, office, restaurant, and open space uses. The Zone supports both vertical and horizontal residential mixed-use development. Residential densities are from 12 to 20 dwelling units per acre. This Zone implements the Mixed-Use General Plan Land Use Designation.

17.17.020 Use Regulations
Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, lists the uses permitted (“P”), permitted with a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) granted by staff-level review, and permitted with a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) granted at a public hearing. The right-hand column provides references to additional regulations beyond those of the base zoning district development

Page 1130 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.020
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 29
and design standards. Any projects that qualify for ministerial approval under state law will be processed ministerially as required by that state law.

Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Use Classification CB SC MU Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Residential Uses
Live/work CUP ― MUP Sec. 17.22.140, Live/Work Units
Multi-family dwelling CUP 1 ― CUP 2 3
Single room occupancy CUP 1 ― P 2 Sec. 17.22.210, Single-Room Occupancy Units
Commercial Uses
Adult entertainment ― CUP ― Sec. 17.22.040, Adult-Oriented Businesses
Agricultural supply sales ― P ―
Animal boarding facility/kennel ― CUP ―
Automobile/Vehicle sales and services
Auto rental ― CUP CUP
Auto sales ― CUP ―
Auto service and repair ― CUP ―
Car wash ― CUP ―
Service station CUP CUP ― Sec. 17.22.190, Service Stations Banks and financial institution P 4 P P
Business services
Cleaning and janitorial
services ― P P
Equipment rental and leasing ― CUP CUP
General business service P P P
Printing and copy service P P P
Security service ― P P
Cinema/Theater CUP CUP CUP
Eating and drinking establishments
Bar 5 6 CUP CUP CUP Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Brewpub P P P Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales

Page 1131 of 1318 ends

17.17.020 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 30 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Use Classification CB SC MU Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Micro-brewery CUP CUP CUP Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Micro-distillery CUP CUP CUP Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Mobile food vendor CUP CUP P Sec. 17.22.150, Mobile Food Vendor
Restaurant, full service 5 6 7 MUP MUP MUP Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic Beverage Sales
Restaurant, limited counter
service P P P
Food and beverage sales
Farmers’ market MUP MUP MUP
Fruit and vegetable market P P P
Grocery store MUP 8 MUP 9 MUP 9
Liquor store CUP CUP CUP
Public market CUP CUP CUP
Winery tasting room 6 CUP CUP CUP Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic Beverage Sales
Wine shop MUP MUP MUP
Food preparation ― P CUP
Formula business CUP 10 P 10 CUP 10 Sec. 17.22.120, Formula Businesses
Funeral home and mortuary ― MUP MUP
Health club and fitness center ― MUP MUP
Indoor recreation CUP CUP CUP
Lodging
Bed and breakfast MUP ― MUP Sec. 17.22.080, Bed and
Breakfast Inns
Boarding house ― ― CUP 4
Hotel CUP 11 CUP CUP
Short-term rental ― ― P Sec. 17.22.200, Short-Term
Rentals
Time share CUP CUP ―

Page 1132 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.020
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 31
Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Use Classification CB SC MU Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Maker’s space
Candle-making P P P
Ceramics/pottery MUP MUP MUP
Glass blowing MUP MUP MUP
Jewelry P P P
Multi-media P P P
Model Home Sales Office ― ― MUP
Offices
Business, professional, and
technology P 2 P P
Medical and dental P 2 P P
Walk-in clientele P 4 P P
Winery offices (off-site) ― P/CUP 12 P/CUP 12
Personal services
Hair salon/nail salon/spa P 4 P P
Dry cleaners, drop-off and
pick-up P 4 P P
Laundromat, self-service ― P P
Massage establishment MUP 2 MUP MUP
Tanning salon ― P 2 P 2
Tattoo and piercing CUP ― P
Retail
Art gallery CUP CUP CUP
Building materials and supply ― P ―
Firearm sales ― MUP ―
Furniture store P P P
General retail and
merchandise P P P
Health care equipment ― P P
Nursery, lawn, and garden
supply store ― CUP CUP
Saddle and equestrian store
and repair ― P P

Page 1133 of 1318 ends

17.17.020 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 32 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Use Classification CB SC MU Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Tobacco/smoke shop CUP CUP CUP
Used merchandise store P P ―
Reupholstery and furniture
repair ― P P
Veterinary clinic ― P ―
Industrial Uses
Contractor’s yard ― CUP ―
Contractor’s shop ― P ―
Custom and artisan
manufacturing ― MUP MUP
Food and beverage
manufacturing/brewery CUP CUP CUP
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
Communication facilities
Audio/video recording studio ― P P
Telecommunication facility Sec. 17.22.270, Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Emergency services ― CUP ―
Public services, major CUP CUP
Public services, minor ― MUP MUP
Solar energy system Sec. 17.22.240, Solar Energy Systems Transit station and terminal CUP CUP CUP
Agricultural and Extractive Uses
Community garden ― MUP MUP Sec. 17.22.100, Community
Gardens
Winery, large ― CUP ―
Public/Institutional Uses
Amphitheater CUP CUP CUP
Colleges and trade schools ― MUP MUP
Community assembly MUP MUP MUP
Church ― P ―
Cultural institution and museum CUP MUP MUP

Page 1134 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.020
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 33
Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Use Classification CB SC MU Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Day care facility
Seven or more persons ― P MUP
Six or fewer persons ― P P
Government office P P P
Instructional services CUP P P
Low barrier navigation center P ― P
Parking facilities CUP 4 CUP CUP
Senior center P 4 P ―
Accessory Uses – See also Sec. 17.22.020, Accessory Uses Accessory dwelling unit Sec. 17.22.030, Accessory Dwelling Units Catering P P P
Cottage food operations P P P Sec. 17.22.110, Cottage Food Operations
Family day care, large ― ― MUP
Family day care, small ― ― P
Music/entertainment, live or
amplified 6 P/CUP 13 P P/CUP 13
On-site storage facilities14 ― CUP ―
Outdoor dining 6 MUP MUP MUP Sec. 17.22.170, Outdoor Dining and Seating
Outdoor display and sales Sec. 17.22.180, Outdoor Display and Sales Small recycling facility ― MUP MUP Sec. 17.22.220, Small Recycling Facilities

Page 1135 of 1318 ends

17.17.030 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 34 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Table 17.17.020.A: Use Regulations – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Use Classification CB SC MU Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed End Notes:
1 Permitted on upper floors only.
2 Permitted on upper floors only for properties fronting onto Main Street. 3 Must be part of a mixed-use development.
4 Not permitted on Main Street.
5 The following are not permitted:
• Establishments serving customers within their vehicles on the premises or preparing beverages or food intended for consumption within their vehicles on the premises. • Music or entertainment which is not accessory to the approved use and/or audible beyond the confines of the building in which such music or entertainment is being performed. • Drive-in for take-out service.
6 Roof top uses are only allowed in the CB and MU zoning districts. 7 Formula and drive-through restaurant establishments are not permitted. 8 Seating is not permitted.
9 Limited to 10,000 gross square feet.
10 A maximum of four formula retail businesses are permitted in any one zoning district. 11 Rental of rooms limited to upper floors only for properties fronting onto Main Street. 12 A CUP is required for non-public wine tasting, offered to wine distributors and wine merchants only. 13 A CUP is required for live or amplified music/entertainment outdoors. 14 This classification does not include the storage of goods, inventory, materials, or equipment associated with a permitted primary use when such storage is incidental and subordinate to that use.

17.17.030 Development Standards
Table 17.17.030.B: Development Standards – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, establishes the development standards for the Commercial Business, Service Commercial, and MixedUse Zoning Districts. The numbers in each illustration refer to corresponding regulations in the table.

Page 1136 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.030
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 35
Table 17.17.030.B: Development Standards – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Standard CB SC MU Key
Density/Intensity
Density n/a n/a Up to 20 du/ac
FAR Max. 2.0 (inclusive of
residential uses) Max. 0.50 Max. 1.0 (inclusive of residential uses) Lot Size
Min. Lot Area 5,000 sq ft 10,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft
Min. Lot Width None None 45 ft ❶
Floor Area for Individual
Buildings Max. 10,000 sq ft 1 Max. 15,000 sq ft Max. 15,000 sq ft Floor Area per Use Max. 10,000 sq ft 1 None None
Building Frontage
Main Street: 100%
between Spring Street
and Adams Street
alignment; 85%
elsewhere on Main
Street
Min. 60% of lot width Min. 50% of lot width ❷
All other streets: 60%
Max. Height

Page 1137 of 1318 ends

17.17.030 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 36 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Table 17.17.030.B: Development Standards – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Standard CB SC MU Key
Principal Structure 35 ft 35 ft Pitched roof: 45 ft/3
stories; 30 ft/2 stories
within 20 ft of a
residential district 30 ft within 25 feet of
a residential district
and facing Oak Street
46 ft for parcels not on
Main Street
Flat roof: 40 ft/3
stories; 26 ft/2 stories
within 20 ft of a
residential district
Accessory Structure 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft
Ground Floor Finished
Floor Elevation
Max. 2 ft above
adjacent right-of-way
Max. 2 ft above
adjacent right-of-way
Nonresidential: Max.
2 ft above adjacent
right-of-way
Residential: Min. 2.5 ft
above adjacent rightof-way
Ground Floor Ceiling
Height
Min. 12 ft Min. 12 ft Nonresidential: Min.
12 ft
Residential: Min. 10 ft
Setbacks
Front Setback Main Street: Max. 5 ft;
Max 8 ft where active
frontage is provided
Min. 25 ft
Nonresidential: Max.
10 ft
❸
Adams Street and Oak
Street: Max. 8 ft
Residential: No
setback allowed north
of Mitchell Dr.; 5-15 ft
everywhere else
Min. Street Side
Setback 0 ft 25 ft 2 0 ft ❹
Min. Interior Side
Setback
0 ft
10 ft per floor 2
0 ft
❺ 10 ft abutting a
residential district
10 ft. abutting a
residential district
Min. Rear Setback
0 ft 15 ft 0 ft
10 ft. abutting a ❻
residential district
yards abutting a
residential property
must have a minimum
of 20 ft 2
10 ft. abutting a
residential district

Page 1138 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.040
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 37
Table 17.17.030.B: Development Standards – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Standard CB SC MU Key
Min. Setback from
Abutting Waterway
Min. 50 ft from top of bank of Napa River
❼ Min. 20 ft from top of bank of all other waterways
Landscaping and Open Space
Private Open Space for
Multi-Family
Development 3
Min. 80 sq ft per unit n/a Min. 120 sq ft per unit
Min. Dimension for
Private Open Space 6 ft n/a 6 ft ❽
Common Usable Open
Space for Multi-Family
Development 3
Min. 150 sq ft per lot n/a Min. 150 sq ft per lot
Min. Dimension for
Common Usable Open
Space
8 ft n/a 15 ft ❾
Paved/Hardscaped
Area n/a n/a Max. 30% of front setback area
Landscaped Area 4 Min 5% of lot area Min. 15% of lot area Min. 10% of lot area Required Buffer
Abutting Agricultural
Use
A landscaped buffer min. 15 ft width with min. 15-gallon street trees at 30 ft on center
End Notes:
1 Only applies to the Main Street Corridor, south of Adams Street. 2 Properties within the Highway 29 Specific Plan must comply with any additional required interior side and rear setbacks established in the Highway 29 Specific Plan EIR. 3 May not include pedestrian access, required landscaped areas, on-site parking or driveway areas, and may not have a slope greater than 10 percent.
4 Landscaped setbacks areas count toward this requirement.

17.17.040 Design Standards
The design standards in this Section apply to all development within the commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. These design standards supplement the development standards of Table

17.17.030.B: Development Standards – Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts.

A. General Standards. All development is subject to the provisions of Part IV, Citywide Standards.

B. Highway 29 Specific Plan Applicability. Properties within the Highway 29 Specific Plan area shall meet the requirements of the Highway 29 Specific Plan as well as the design standards of this Section 17.17.040, Design Standards.

Page 1139 of 1318 ends

17.17.040 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 38 | St. Helena Zoning Code
C. Residential Development in the Mixed-Use Zoning District. Buildings where a minimum of two-thirds of the floor area of the building is residential must meet the requirements of Section 17.16.040, Design Standards, as well as those of this Section 17.17.040, Design Standards.

D. Building Orientation.

1. Building entrances must be oriented toward public rights-of-way or internal walkways.

2. Building design must prevent direct visual access into adjacent residential properties.

Where a new or existing primary interior residential space has an uninterrupted line of sight to windows of a primary interior space at the same floor level within 20 horizontal feet, the glazing of the new windows shall be offset horizontally from the existing glazing by a minimum of 24 inches.

E. Building Articulation. Any building over 125 feet in width shall be broken down to read as a series of buildings no wider than 75 feet each.

Figure 17.17.040.A: Building Articulation
F. Building Facades Visible from a Public Street.

1. Horizontal articulation must include a differentiated base, a roof cornice line or parapet, and an eave, awning, overhang, transom feature, belt course, or other architectural element that frames the middle section of the building.

2. Buildings or portions of buildings over two stories must include articulation for the top story of the building. This may be accomplished through a change in color, change in material, a cornice/belt course at the bottom of the uppermost floor, change in roof pitch (such as a gable), or an upper-story step-back.

Page 1140 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.040
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 39
Figure 17.17.040.B: Building Façade Visible from Public Street

3. Awnings must be of a durable, commercial grade fabric, canvas, or similar material with a matte finish.

4. Canopies must be constructed of wood or other natural materials in keeping with materials used historically in the City.

G. Upper-Story Window Design.

1. Upper-story windows must have a height equal to or greater than their width.

2. Trim at least one-half inch in depth must be provided around all windows, or windows must be recessed at least three-quarter inches from the plane of the surrounding exterior wall. Foam is not a permitted trim material.

Figure 17.17.040.C: Upper-Story Window Design

Page 1141 of 1318 ends

17.17.040 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 40 | St. Helena Zoning Code
H. Exterior Building Materials and Colors.

1. Building materials that support and enhance the architectural vernacular of the City must be used in all new developments. There are many materials that may be used to achieve this goal, including plaster or stucco, brick, native or artificial stone finishes, form board concrete finishes, board and batten siding, and horizontal siding (except as provided in subsection 1.c.

2. In addition, corrugated metal may be used as a roof or siding material in all commercial and mixed-use zoning districts.

3. Specifically prohibited materials include unplastered, unpainted, or painted concrete block, and vinyl or aluminum siding.

4. The palette of materials and colors on a building must be applied to all sides of the building.

5. A palette of contrasting colors is required along Main Street within the CB and MU Districts.

I. Front and Street Side Setback Improvements. Where front or street side setbacks are required, these areas must be improved with planters, paving, low walls, climbing vines, outdoor dining/seating areas, or other features that:

1. Visually distinguish parking areas from pedestrian areas;

2. Emphasize the building entrance and any on-site open space; and

3. Frame required building transparency.

J. Refuse and Recycling Area Enclosures.

1. Container Materials. Containers used for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall be constructed of a durable waterproof and rustproof material, covered when the site is not attended, secured from unauthorized entry or removal of material and shall be of a capacity sufficient to accommodate materials collected between collection schedules.

2. Enclosure Materials. Unless specifically waived by the design review processes described in Chapter 17.05, Planning Permits and Approvals, all development projects shall have a refuse enclosure constructed of such materials as to be opaque and of sufficient size to permit the storage, removal, and replacement of standard commercial size refuse containers. No collection, storage or stacking of refuse is permitted outside the refuse enclosure.

3. Drainage. The floor of the enclosure shall have a drain that connects to the sanitary sewer system.

K. Design Standards in the CB and MU Districts Only.

1. Building Transparency/Required Openings on Main Street in the CB and MU Districts.

Exterior walls facing and within 40 feet of a street facing lot line or pedestrian walkway must include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 70 percent of the building wall area and located between two and seven feet above the level of the sidewalk or

Page 1142 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.040
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 41
walkway. These walls may run in a continuous plane for no more than 10 feet without transparency or an opening.

Figure 17.17.040.D: Façade Transparency on Main Street in the CB and MU District a. Design of Openings. Openings fulfilling this requirement must have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least three feet deep.
b. Exceptions for Parking Garages. Multi-level garages are not required to meet the ground-floor transparency requirement.
c. Reductions. The building transparency requirement may be reduced or waived upon finding that:
i. The proposed use has unique operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible; and ii. Street-facing building walls will exhibit architectural relief and detail and will be enhanced with landscaping in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level.

2. Buildings with Main Street Frontage in the CB and MU Districts. a. Buildings must be oriented to face Main Street with the primary entrance on Main Street.
b. Building entrances must be either covered or recessed a minimum of four feet from the building façade.
c. Buildings on corner parcels must be placed at the intersection of the front and side setback lines for a minimum of 30 feet along both setback lines.

Page 1143 of 1318 ends

17.17.040 Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 42 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Figure 17.17.040.E: Buildings with Main Street Frontage

3. Off-Street Parking in the MU District.
a. Off-street parking spaces may not be accessed from the front of the lot. b. Off-street parking spaces may not be located within 40 feet of a street-facing property line. Exceptions may be granted through Design Review upon finding that:
i. The design incorporates habitable space built close to the street frontage to the maximum extent feasible;
ii. The site is small and constrained such that underground parking or surface parking located more than 40 feet from the street frontage is not feasible; and
iii. A screen wall designed to match the building materials of the primary building or a row of landscaping screens any off-street parking located within 40 feet of the street frontage.

L. Design Standards in the SC District Only.

1. Frontages.
a. Building design must emphasize active frontages and establish a connection to the right-of-way street.
b. Frontages must feature at least one entry.
c. Buildings more than 50 feet in length along a right-of-way must incorporate at least one recessed entry with a minimum depth of six feet from the front façade.
d. The width of the recessed entry must be appropriate relative to the size of the building, with the maximum ratio of building height to entry recess 2.5:1 (height less than 2.5 x width).

Page 1144 of 1318 ends

Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 17.17.040
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 43

2. Building Transparency/Required Openings. Exterior walls facing and within 40 feet of a street facing lot line or pedestrian walkway must include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 40 percent of the building wall area and located between two and seven feet above the level of the sidewalk or walkway. These walls may run in a continuous plane for no more than 15 feet without transparency or an opening.

Figure 17.17.040.F: Building Transparency for SC District a. Design of Openings. Openings fulfilling this requirement must have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces.
b. Reductions. The building transparency requirement may be reduced or waived upon finding that:
i. The proposed use has unique operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible; and ii. Street-facing building walls will exhibit architectural relief and detail and will be enhanced with landscaping in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level.

3. Off-Street Parking Areas in the SC District.
a. Off-street parking spaces may not be located within 10 feet of a street-facing property line. For properties within the Highway 29 Specific Plan area, refer to that Plan for the location and design of proposed parking areas. b. Curb cuts are limited to one per 80 linear feet of any one street-facing frontage.

Page 1145 of 1318 ends

17.18.010 Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 44 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Chapter 17.18 Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
Sections:

17.18.010 Purpose and Applicability

17.18.020 Use Regulations

17.18.030 Development Standards

17.18.040 Design Standards

17.18.010 Purpose and Applicability
This Chapter encourages business and industrial uses by providing areas exclusively for development subject to regulations necessary to ensure the protection of adjoining uses. This Chapter establishes use regulations, development standards, and design standards for the Business and Professional Office and Industrial Zoning Districts as follows:

Business and Professional Office (BPO). The BPO Zone is intended to provide for professional and administrative offices, medical and dental offices, research and development uses, financial institutions, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Residential uses in this designation can be considered for a building’s upper floors. This Zone implements the Office General Plan Land Use Designation.

Industrial (I). The I Zone is intended to provide for industrial parks, warehouses, light manufacturing, auto and farm-related equipment sales and repairs, viticulture, and winery support services and similar and compatible uses. This Zone implements the Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation.

17.18.020 Use Regulations
Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts lists the uses permitted (“P”), permitted with a Minor Use Permit (“MUP”) granted by staff-level review, and permitted with a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) granted at a public hearing. The right-hand column provides references to additional regulations beyond those of the base zoning district development and design standards. Any projects that qualify for ministerial approval under state law will be processed ministerially as required by that state law.

Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Use Classification BPO I Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Residential Uses
Emergency shelters P ―
Live/Work MUP CUP Sec. 17.22.140, Live/Work Units
Multi-family dwellings CUP 1 ―
Single room occupancy (SRO) CUP 1 ― Sec. 17.22.210, Single Room Occupancy Units

Page 1146 of 1318 ends

Business and Industrial Zoning Districts 17.18.020
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 45
Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Use Classification BPO I Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Commercial Uses
Agricultural supply sales ― P
Animal care and service
Animal boarding facility/kennel ― CUP
Veterinary clinic ― P
Automobile/Vehicle sales and services
Farm/Agricultural equipment sales,
service, and rental ― P
Towing and impound yard ― CUP
Banks and financial institutions P ―
Business services
Equipment rental and leasing ― P
General business services P P
Printing and copy services P P
Security services ― P
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Brewpub ― CUP See Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Maker’s space
Candle-making MUP P
Ceramics/pottery MUP P
Glass blowing MUP P
Jewelry P P
Multi-media MUP P
Mobile food vendor CUP CUP Sec. 17.22.150, Mobile Food
Vendors
Food preparation ― P
Funeral homes and mortuaries ― P
Health clubs and fitness centers MUP P
Heavy equipment repair ― P
Indoor recreation ― CUP

Page 1147 of 1318 ends

17.18.020 Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 46 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Use Classification BPO I Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Offices
Business, professional, and
technology P ―
Medical and dental P ―
Walk-in clientele P ―
Wholesale offices P 2 ―
Winery offices (off-site) P/CUP 3 ―
Personal services
Massage establishment P ―
Retail
Building materials and supply P
Firearm sales ― MUP
Health care equipment P ―
Saddle and equestrian store and
repair ― P
Reupholstery and furniture repair ― P
Industrial Uses
Commercial laundry ― P
Construction and material yard ― P4
Contractor shop ― P
Contractors' office and showroom,
excluding storage yard P ―
Contractors’ yard ― P
Crop service ― P
Custom and artisan manufacturing MUP MUP
Dry cleaning facility ― P
Fuel storage ― CUP
Industrial, general ― MUP 4
Manufacturing, packaging, and
processing ― CUP
Micro-brewery ― CUP See Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales

Page 1148 of 1318 ends

Business and Industrial Zoning Districts 17.18.020
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 47
Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Use Classification BPO I Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Micro-distillery ― CUP Sec. 17.22.050, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Research and development CUP P/CUP 5
Storage, personal ― CUP
Tanks for storage ― CUP
Warehousing, wholesale, and
distribution ― P 4
Wine warehousing ― CUP
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
Communication facilities
Audio/video recording studio ― P
Telecommunications Sec. 17.22.270, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Emergency services ― CUP 6
Public services, major (City facilities
only) P P
Public services, major CUP CUP
Public services, minor (City facilities
only) P P
Public services, minor MUP MUP
Solar energy systems Sec. 17.22.250, Solar Energy Systems Transit stations and terminals ― CUP
Agriculture and Extractive Uses
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic
minerals ― CUP7
Wineries, large ― CUP8
Public/Institutional Uses
Colleges and trade schools CUP ―
Community assembly CUP ―
Day care facility
Seven or more persons CUP ―
Six or fewer persons MUP ―
Government offices CUP CUP
Hospitals and clinics P ―

Page 1149 of 1318 ends

17.18.020 Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 48 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Table 17.18.020.A: Use Regulations – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Use Classification BPO I Additional Regulations
“P” = Permitted; “MUP” = Minor Use Permit; “CUP” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Instructional Services ― P
Low barrier navigation center P ―
Parking facilities CUP ―
Schools CUP ―
Accessory Uses – See also Sec. 17.22.020, Accessory Uses Accessory dwelling unit Sec. 17.22.040, Accessory Dwelling Units Beekeeping P Sec. 17.22.070, Beekeeping
Caretaker residence 9 ― MUP
Cottage food operations P ― Sec. 17.22.110, Cottage Food Operations
Family day care, large CUP ―
Family day care, small P ―
On-site storage 10 facilities CUP CUP
Small recycling facility MUP MUP Sec. 17.22.220, Small Recycling Facilities
End Notes:
1 Permitted on upper floors only.
2 Storage or on-site shipping and receiving of products not permitted. 3 CUP required for nonpublic wine tasting, offered to wine distributors and wine merchants only. No public sales or tasting allowed.
4 CUP required where adjacent to property zoned residential or an existing residential use. 5 A CUP is required when uses involve the use of hazardous substances. 6 May include cooking and sleeping facilities for employees on duty only. 7 Subject to the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (§§ 2710 et seq. of the Public Resources Code).
8 Retail sales and tasting not permitted.
9 Residence must be occupied by employees and their immediate families, employed for the purpose of onsite management, maintenance, or upkeep. Temporary business guests and employees on temporary assignment are also allowed to reside in the unit.
1This classification does not include the storage of goods, inventory, materials, or equipment associated with a permitted primary use when such storage is incidental and subordinate to that use.

Page 1150 of 1318 ends

Business and Industrial Zoning Districts 17.18.030
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 49

17.18.030 Development Standards
Table 17.18.030.B: Development Standards – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts establishes the development standards for the Business and Professional Office and the Industrial Zoning Districts. The numbers in each illustration refer to corresponding regulations in the table.

Table 17.18.030.B: Development Standards – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Standard BPO I Key
Density/Intensity
Density Max. 20 du/ac n/a
FAR Max. 0.50
Max. 0.50 for uses
including < 90%
warehousing
Max. 0.60 for uses
including ≥90%
warehousing
Lot Size
Min. Lot Area 7,000 sq ft 20,000 sq ft
Min. Lot Width none 100 ft ❶
Height
Principal Structure
30 ft 45 ft
No roof pitch must be
less than 4:12
35 ft within 100 feet of a
residential, A-20, or W
district

Page 1151 of 1318 ends

17.18.040 Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 50 | St. Helena Zoning Code
Table 17.18.030.B: Development Standards – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts Standard BPO I Key
Setbacks
Min. Front Setback 20 ft 25 ft from
any street
or public
right-ofway
(whichever
is closer)
35 ft from a
residential,
A-20, or W
district
❷
Min. Street Side Setback 10 ft ❸
Min. Interior Side Setback 10 ft ❹
Min. Rear Setback 15 ft ❺
Min. Setback from Abutting Waterway
Min. 50 ft from top of bank of Napa River ❻ Min. 20 ft from top of bank of all other waterways Landscaping and Open Space
Private Open Space for Multi-Family
Development Min. 80 sq ft per unit n/a
Min. Dimension for Private Open Space 6 ft n/a ❼
Landscaped Area 1 Min. 15% of lot area. Min. 10% of lot area.

Required Buffer Abutting Agricultural Use
and Residential Uses
A landscaped buffer min. 15 ft width with street trees
at 30 ft on center
End Note:
1 Landscaped setback areas count toward this requirement.

17.18.040 Design Standards
A. General Standards. All development is subject to the provisions of Part IV, Citywide Standards).

B. Residential-Mixed-Use Buildings. Buildings where a minimum of two-thirds of the floor area of the building is residential must meet the requirements of Section 17.16.040, Design Standards, as well as those in this Section 17.18.040, Design Standards. In the event of a conflict between the standards of these two Sections, the most restrictive shall apply.

C. Design Standards in the BPO District.

1. Building Design. Building design must emphasize active frontages and establish a connection to the right-of-way street.
a. Frontages must feature at least one entry.
b. Buildings more than 50 feet in length along a right-of-way must incorporate at least one recessed entry with a minimum depth of six feet from the front façade.

2. Building Facades Visible from a Public Street. Horizontal articulation must include an eave, awning, overhang, a differentiated building base, or other architectural element that articulated the building facade.

Page 1152 of 1318 ends

Business and Industrial Zoning Districts 17.18.040
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 51

3. Front and Street Side Setback Improvements. Where front or street side setbacks are provided, these areas must be improved with planters, paving, low walls, climbing vines, outdoor dining/seating areas, or other features that:
a. Visually distinguish parking areas from pedestrian areas; b. Emphasize the building entrance and any on-site open space; and c. Frame the buildings ground-level windows.

4. Fencing. No fence in the front setback may exceed three feet in height. All other fencing outside the front setback may not exceed six feet in height.

5. Trash Enclosures. Unless specifically waived by the design review processes described in Chapter 17.05, Planning Permits and Approvals, all development projects shall have a refuse enclosure constructed of such materials as to be opaque and of sufficient size to permit the storage, removal, and replacement of standard commercial size refuse containers. No collection, storage or stacking of refuse is permitted outside the refuse enclosure. Trash enclosures must be illuminated for nighttime security and use.

6. Parking. Parking spaces may be paved with all-weather pervious materials, but travelways must be of concrete or asphalt.

D. Design Standards in the I District.

1. Building Design. Buildings more than 50 feet in length along a right-of-way must incorporate at least one recessed entry with a minimum depth of six feet from the front façade.

3. Front and Street Side Setback Improvements. Where front or street side setbacks are provided, these areas must:
a. Visually distinguish parking areas from pedestrian areas; b. Emphasize the building entrance and any on-site open space; and c. Frame the building’s ground-level windows.

4. Required Screening abutting a Non-Industrial District. a. Abutting all Residential Districts. Where abutting a residential district, an eight-foot opaque, landscaped, soundproofed wall is required. b. Abutting all Non-Industrial and Non-Residential Districts. Where abutting a non-industrial or non-residential district, an eight-foot opaque landscaped fence or wall is required. The eight-foot screening element need not be located on the property line.

5. Landscaped Buffer. In addition to the requirements of Table 17.18.030.B:

Development Standards – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, landscape requirements for buffer areas are as follows:

Page 1153 of 1318 ends

17.18.040 Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
Part III, Page 52 | St. Helena Zoning Code
a. A landscaped buffer at least 25 feet in width with street trees at 30 ft on center is required along all street frontages;
b. Trees shall be at least 15-gallon size at time of planting; and c. Ground cover must be installed under trees and maintained in accordance with approved plans.

Figure 17.18.040.A, Landscape Buffer

6. Fencing. No fence in the front setback may exceed three feet in height. All other fencing outside front setback may not exceed eight feet in height. a. An eight-foot opaque landscaped fence or wall (side/rear setback) is required where abutting a non-industrial zone. If a residential zone abuts the property, subsection 6.b applies;
b. An eight-foot opaque, landscaped, and soundproofed wall is required where abutting a residential zone.

7. Parking and Loading.
a. Off-street parking is not permitted in the required front setback. If a property is located in the Highway 29 Specific Plan area, the parking site design must comply with the standards of the Specific Plan if more restrictive. b. Parking spaces may be paved with all-weather dust-free pervious materials; however, travelways must be of concrete or asphalt.
c. No loading/unloading may be conducted in a public right-of-way.

Page 1154 of 1318 ends

Business and Industrial Zoning Districts 17.18.040
St. Helena Zoning Code | Part III, Page 53
d. There must be at least one off-street loading space per use. Additional loading dock and truck standing requirements must be based on proposed uses and must ensure that trucks will not block traffic or obstruct on-street parking spaces. Additional requirements may be specified as a condition of a Conditional Use Permit.

8. Other Standards.
a. An interior fire sprinkler system approved by the Chief Building Official must be installed in all buildings.
b. One-hour minimum fire-resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10 feet of all property lines must be installed. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy and approved by the Chief Building Official.
c. Low flow (water restricting) plumbing devices shall be installed.

Page 1155 of 1318 ends

Page 1156 of 1318 ends

Page 1157 of 1318 ends

Page 1158 of 1318 ends

Page 1159 of 1318 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: City Clerk
DATE: August 11, 2026
FROM: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager (City Clerk)
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Allowing a Current Member of the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) to Continue Serving After Moving Outside City Limits

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve Resolution to allow Emma Leggat to continue serving on the committee after relocating outside St. Helena city limits.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION: • April 22, 2025: Appointed Emma Leggat as an alternate member of the Active Transportation and Sustainability
Committee (ATSC).
• June 23, 2026: Appointed Emma Leggat as a full member of the ATSC for a term ending June 30, 2028.
• July 28, 2026: Appointed Antoinette Freeman as a full member of the ATSC to fill a vacancy for a term ending
June 30, 2027.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Consider whether to grant an exception to the City's residency requirement to allow a current ATSC member to complete her term after recently moving just outside St. Helena city limits.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

The St. Helena Active Transportation and Sustainability Advisory Committee (ATSC) consists of five members and two alternates appointed by the Mayor with consent of the City Council.

The members shall reside within the City Limits; however, the Council may approve an exception to this rule on a case-by-case basis. Member terms are two years.

DISCUSSION:

The City has actively recruited applicants to fill committee vacancies through announcements at City Council meetings, social media, and the City's email newsletter.

Page 1160 of 1318 ends

Over the past several months, the City Council has reappointed an existing member, appointed two alternate members to full-member positions with terms ending in June 2028, and appointed a new member to fill a vacancy with a term ending in June 2027. Two alternate positions remain vacant with no current applications, those terms expiring June 2028.

Emma Leggat has served on the ATSC since April 2025, when she was appointed as an alternate member. In June 2026, the City Council appointed her as a full member for a term ending June 30, 2028.

In July 2026, Ms. Leggat notified the committee staff liaison that she had moved to a residence just outside the St. Helena city limits after her home in St. Helena sold sooner than expected.

Her new home was rebuilt following the 2017 Nuns Fire.

Although she no longer resides within the city limits, Ms. Leggat and her family maintain strong ties to the St. Helena community. The St. Helena Unified School District has approved her children to continue attending St. Helena schools, and her husband continues to work in St.

Helena. Ms. Leggat has expressed a strong interest in continuing to serve on the committee for the remainder of her term.

As noted in the Background section, the City Council may approve exceptions to the residency requirement on a case-by-case basis. The Council may therefore determine whether Ms.

Leggat should be allowed to remain on the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee through the expiration of her current term on June 30, 2028.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

None.

GOAL:

Miscellaneous/Other
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution - Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee Residence Change

Page 1161 of 1318 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

APPOINTING AN APPLICANT TO A VACANT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE (ATSC) POSITION

RECITALS
A. The Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) has two alternate terms expiring on June 30, 2026; and
B. Current ATSC member, Emma Leggat, started serving as an alternate in April 2025 and was appointed as a full member in June 2026; and
C. In July 2026, Emma Leggat relocated out of the City of St. Helena, but still has close ties to the community including children attending schools in the St. Helena Unified School District and a husband who works within City limits.

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

1. The City Council grants the residency exception to Emma Leggat to continue serving on the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ATSC) position with term of office expiring June 30, 2028.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on August 11, 2026, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: __________
Vice Mayor Deasy: __________
Council Member Barak: __________
Council Member Spadarotto: __________
Council Member Diaz: __________
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Andrew Bradley, City Clerk

Page 1162 of 1318 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Community Services Department - Parks and Recreation Division DATE: August 11, 2026
FROM: Ashley Sylvester, Director of Community Services Department SUBJECT: Review the proposed plan of a private/public partnership to restore and revitalize Lewis Station Park and accept donations for a portion of renovation costs.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Authorize acceptance of donations and pursuit of the renovations proposal.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

There has been no previous Council action on this item.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Staff is seeking City Council to accept a donation for a portion of the restoration cost for Lewis Station Park. In addition to acknowledgment of the resident-led volunteer efforts to continue work on the revitalization of a community asset.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of this project ranges from $50,000- $140,000 depending on the final scope and fundraising success.

City costs are projected to be $8000.00.

The volunteer resident group is proposing to raise the balance of the funds to allow the renovations to proceed in phases.

The city will follow the City’s Donation Policy and work with the Napa Valley Community Foundation to accept donations to the City. The City’s Donation Policy is stated in P-FI-0020.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

Lewis Station Park, commonly referred to as a “pocket park,” is located at the corner of Hunt Avenue and Church Street in downtown St. Helena. The park was generously donated to the City by Rosa Lee Lewis in 1975 and was subsequently developed through a partnership between the City and community volunteers. Over the years, the park has served as a valued gathering space for residents and visitors. It now needs substantial renovations.

In 2025, local resident volunteers approached the City with a vision to restore and enhance Lewis Station Park, recognizing the need for improvements to return the park to a vibrant and

Page 1163 of 1318 ends

welcoming public space. Areas identified for restoration and enhancement include the replacement of trees that have declined over time, the addition of shade elements, revitalized landscaping, new fencing, expanded seating, gathering areas and furniture to better support community use, dining, and informal gatherings.

Beginning in August 2025, City staff and community volunteers engaged in a collaborative planning process to identify needs, review concepts, and develop a proposal for park improvements. The process included four meetings between City staff and resident volunteers to discuss ideas and priorities, approximately ten additional resident-led meetings to develop recommendations, a meeting with a Parks and Recreation Commissioner, and a consultation with arborist Bill Pramuk regarding tree and landscape considerations and a presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

At the same time, the Public Works Department was exploring planned renovations within the park area. These efforts aligned with the interests and priorities identified by community members and the Parks and Recreation Commissioner, creating an opportunity to coordinate improvements and develop a shared vision for the future of Lewis Station Park.

This was brought to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a presentation on June 15, 2026. The resident group below presented with input and clarification from Public Works staff.

The minutes of that meeting are attached to this staff report as well as the presentation.

Resident participants involved in the planning discussions included:

Kathy Carrick, former Parks and Recreation Director
Tracy McBride, Resident
Nancy Morrell, Beautification Foundation representative Becke Oberschulte, landscape designer
Stephanie Smithers, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner The residents above have spent over 50+ volunteer hours meeting and working on this with each other and city staff. Each with their own area of expertise.

DISCUSSION:

The Lewis Station Park Restoration and Revitalization Project is envisioned as a phased improvement effort that balances community priorities, available resources, and long-term park sustainability. The proposed improvements will be implemented in coordination with the ongoing Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan to ensure alignment with the City’s broader goals for maintaining and enhancing public spaces. The current recommended improvements in the master plan are below on the chart. The proposed plan has also been looked through to ensure compliance with ADA accessibility and park standards.

Add vegetation, including trees, plants, and
greenery
Included in both plans
Improve visual presence of this park at
intersection entry point. Wayfinding
enhancements to provide as a designated
landmark for passerby’s.

Included in both plans

Page 1164 of 1318 ends

Add drinking fountain with water bottle refills
and bicycle parking.

Included in both plans
Add shade and additional seating options Included in both plans Renovate restrooms long term Outdoor restoration included in plan Implement the Streets Master Plan crossing
and sidewalk improvements to improve
connections from this park to downtown.

Continue efforts made in Master Plans to
coordinate
Through discussions between community volunteers and City staff, the project has been refined to focus on several key priorities that will improve the functionality, aesthetics, and overall user experience of Lewis Station Park. These priorities include increasing shade opportunities, enhancing the park’s landscape with resilient and predominantly native plantings, and creating additional seating and gathering spaces that support community connection, dining, and informal use.

Phase 1: Landscape Enhancements and Primary Gathering Area Improvements The first phase focuses on establishing a strong landscape foundation and enhancing the park’s primary gathering areas. Plant selections will prioritize drought-tolerant, resilient species, with an emphasis on California native plants that support pollinators and provide yearround visual interest.

Key improvements include:
• Installation of a Coast Live Oak within the open space area, surrounded by boulders to provide natural seating opportunities. At maturity, the tree is expected to provide approximately 50 feet or more of shade coverage.
• Implementation of sheet mulching to suppress weeds, improve soil health, and prepare planting areas.
• Strategic planting of native and climate-appropriate species, including:
o Arbutus (recommended by the project arborist as a similar alternative to Madrone)
o Ceanothus (California native)
o Redbud (California native)
With proper establishment, the recommended plant palette may require minimal supplemental irrigation within four to five years. The Coast Live Oak was selected not only to replace a significant nearby oak tree previously removed (Signorelli), but also as a long-term keystone species that will provide habitat benefits, support local wildlife, and create future shade for park users.

Phase 2: Site Amenities and Infrastructure Improvements

Page 1165 of 1318 ends

The second phase will address site improvements that enhance safety, comfort, and longterm maintenance of the park. Improvements include:
• Installation or replacement of fencing along the rear portion of the park adjacent to the railroad tracks.
• Exterior restoration of the restroom building, including painting and repair of exterior wood elements and posts.
• Updates to irrigation controls and piping to improve efficiency and support long-term landscape sustainability.
• Installation of three new benches with backs, similar in style to the eco-benches located at the St. Helena Public Library, along with additional boulder seating elements to complement the natural landscape design.
• Installation of updated garbage and recycling receptacles.

Phase 3: Additional Community Amenities and Visitor Enhancements The final phase focuses on amenities that support broader community use, pedestrian connectivity, and visitor experience. Improvements include:
• Installation of a drinking fountain, water bottle refill station, and dog water bowl. • Addition of a bicycle rack to support residents and visitors traveling through downtown and utilizing the Vine Trail.
• Installation of an interpretive sign highlighting St. Helena history, nearby walking paths, and other community parks.
• Installation of a dog waste station.
• Installation of a shade structure over the existing picnic seating area to improve comfort and encourage increased park use.

Shade sails are recommended as the preferred option over the picnic area to enhance usability, modernize the space, and activate one of the park’s primary gathering locations. If community fundraising efforts are unable to support the cost of shade sails, staff will evaluate alternative options, such as a more economical wooden gazebo structure.

Proposed Implementation Timeline
The anticipated implementation timeline is as follows:

Summer 2026- Current- September
• Installation of project identification/signage.
• Community fundraising efforts begin following completion of the restoration plan by City

Page 1166 of 1318 ends

staff and the community volunteer group.
• Site preparation, including removal of Tree of Heaven, selective paver and decomposed granite removal, transplanting of two Catalpa trees, and vine pruning near the restroom facility.

Fall 2026- October-December
• Installation of new plantings by City staff.
• Irrigation improvements.
• Community volunteer sheet mulching event.
• Installation of benches and boulder seating elements.

Winter 2026/Spring 2027 December 2026-May 2027
• Restroom exterior restoration.
• Shade structure installation.
• Fence repair or replacement.
• Potential installation of public art elements.
• Updates to the City website and Google Maps information to reflect park improvements.

The Lewis Station Park Restoration and Revitalization Project represents a collaborative effort between the City and community members to preserve a historic downtown gathering space while adapting it to meet current community needs. Through phased implementation, the project allows improvements to be completed strategically while maintaining flexibility to incorporate community support, funding opportunities, and future planning efforts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff will coordinate with the City's Environmental Service technician and ensure eventactivities and associated amenities are implemented in accordance with all applicable environmental management practices.

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Presentation - Lewis Station Park Renovation & Donation Proposal

2. Lewis Station Map Plan

3. Lewis Station Park St Helena CA Restoration and Improvements Agreement 7.21.26

Page 1167 of 1318 ends

(003)

4. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes- June 15, 2026

5. Public Comment - Kathleen Whitehurst

6. Public Comment - Sue Furdek

7. Public Comment - Flor Madrigal

8. Public Comment - Kathleen McCarthy

9. Public Comment - Steve Ericson, St. Helena Historical Society

10. Public Comment - Tracy McBride

11. Public Comment - Suzan Rada

12. Public Comment - Connie Wilson

13. Public Comment - Elaine de Man

14. Public Comment - Rachel Williams

15. Public Comment - Erin Arnsteen, Western Monarch Society of Napa County

16. Public Comment - Gail Pavlosky

17. Public Comment - Kelly Wheaton

18. Public Comment - Elaine de Man 4

19. Public Comment - John Pedersen

Page 1168 of 1318 ends

Lewis Station Park Renovation &
Donation Proposal
Presented by Ashley Sylvester, Director of Community Services City Council
August 11, 2026

Page 1169 of 1318 ends

Parks in
St. Helena
2 • Park Maintenance is managed by Public
Works
• 10 City Parks in St. Helena
• Crane, Jacob Meily, Lewis Station, Lyman,
Mary Fryer, McCullagh, Mennen, Starr
Baldwin, Stonebridge, Wappo
• Parks also have Parks and Recreation
Commissioners assigned to each park to
help staff monitor and address concerns

Page 1170 of 1318 ends

Lewis Station
Park
• “Pocket Park” located at the corner of Hunt Avenue and Church Street. • The park was generously donated to the City by Rosa Lee Lewis in 1975 and was subsequently developed through a partnership between the City and community volunteers.
• This has been used as a gathering space by residents and visitors through the years.
• The Park has 3 picnic tables and 1 restroom for amenities currently. 3

Page 1171 of 1318 ends

• 2022- Large clearing of dead trees and plants.
• 2023- Inside of Restroom painted.
• 2024- Uneven Pavers fixed and replaced.
• 2025- New Park Sign Ordered and Made, ready to be installed. 4 Updates to Lewis Station

Page 1172 of 1318 ends

Where do we
go from here?
Timeline of Renovations
Budget and Donations
Requests
Volunteer and Staff
Meetings

Page 1173 of 1318 ends

Timeline of
Renovations
6 Phase 1 • Summer
2026
Phase 2 • Fall
2026
Phase 3 • Winter
2026-
Spring
2027

Page 1174 of 1318 ends

7 • Installation of project identification/signage.
• Community fundraising efforts begin following
completion of the restoration plan by City staff and the community volunteer group.
• Site preparation, including removal of Tree of Heaven, selective paver and decomposed granite removal,
transplanting of two Catalpa trees, and vine pruning near the restroom facility.

Phase 1: Landscape Enhancements and
Primary Gathering Area Improvements

Page 1175 of 1318 ends

8 • Installation of new plantings by City staff.
• Updates to irrigation controls and piping to improve
efficiency and support long-term landscape
sustainability.
• Community volunteer sheet mulching event.
• Installation of new benches with backs, along with
additional boulder seating elements to complement the
natural landscape design.

Phase 2: Site Amenities and Infrastructure
Improvements

Page 1176 of 1318 ends

9 • Restroom exterior restoration including painting and repair of exterior wood elements and posts.
• Installation of a shade structure over the existing picnic seating area to improve comfort and encourage increased park use.
• Installation or replacement of fencing along the rear portion of the park adjacent to the railroad tracks
• Potential installation of public art elements.
• Installation of a drinking fountain, water bottle refill station, and dog water bowl.

Phase 3: Additional Community Amenities and
Visitor Enhancements

Page 1177 of 1318 ends

10 Concept and Planting Plan Map

Page 1178 of 1318 ends

Budget and
Donations
• City Contributions to project
• Money raised for Renovation costs
• Project is scheduled in phases not just for workload but, also for time to reach donation goal.
• If donation goal is not reached, the city will continue with the phased approach of the plan and look at the budget each cycle to determine if money can be appropriately allocated.

Page 1179 of 1318 ends

Proposed Renovations
from City to Contribute
Hardscape Modifications $2,000.00
Outside of Restroom
Renovations- Awning and Wood
Siding
$4,500.00
Irrigation Repairs $850.00
Upgraded Signs $500.00
12 City costs are expected to be $8,000. This will come from the approved FY2026-2027 Park Maintenance
budget.

Page 1180 of 1318 ends

Proposed Renovations from
Donations and Volunteers
Additional seating areas including
benches and large boulders
$10,000.00
Add Vegetation; Trees, greenery
and plants
$3,000.00
Add Drinking Fountain with Water
Refill Station
$6,500.00
Add Bike Parking $1,000.00
Replace fencing along railroad
tracks
$3,500.00
Updated Trash Receptacles and
Dog Waste Station
$2,000.00
Add Shade Structure (Shade Sails
or Gazebo)
$3,000/each- Gazebo
$25,000/each- Shade Sails
13 Looking for donations to raise $40,000. This goal would need to be raised significantly if Shade Sails are requested from Council to pursue. Page 1181 of 1318 Volunteer Led
Committee
• Kathy Carrick, former Parks and
Recreation Director
• Tracy McBride, Resident
• Nancy Morrell, Beautification
Foundation representative
• Becke Oberschulte, landscape
designer
• Stephanie Smithers, former Parks
and Recreation Commissioner
Volunteers have put in over 50+
hours of time meeting, planning and
preparing plan for Staff and City
Council.

Page 1182 of 1318 ends

Staff
Recommendation
Staff is asking City Council to authorize the acceptance of donations in pursuit of the renovation proposal.

Page 1183 of 1318 ends

Thank you. Questions?

Page 1184 of 1318 ends

Page 1185 of 1318 ends

Lewis Station Park, St Helena, CA, Restoration and Improvements Agreement July 15, 2026
Agreement between Donors (Tracy McBride, Becke Oberschulte, Nancy Morrell, Kathy Carrick, and others) and the City of St Helena. The objective of this project is to provide sustainable planting, more seating and shade at Lewis Station Park.

The donors agree to:
● Raise funds via the Napa County Community Foundation (NVCF) for improvements noted here (punchlist) to Lewis Station. NVCF will process donations and send funds directly to the City for improvements.
● Donors will solicit funds in various ways (letters, presentations, online, posters, etc) from the community but no fundraising events will be held.
● It is unknown how much money will be raised, but the target is $40,000. ● The fundraising ends by 12/31/2027.
● Assist with understanding watering requirements for the selected planting (planting plan). ● Host a community day to sheet mulch the weed areas. Cardboard is supplied by donors, mulch and compost supplied by the City.
● Assist with ordering the selected plants at a local nursery such as Urban Tree Farm, Santa Rosa. Have those plants delivered to the City.
● Assist, if needed, ordering boulders.
● Advocate for a community volunteer group to replace the fence along the residence to the south.
● Monitor funds raised and spent to ensure they are only spent at Lewis Station, and be able to provide an accounting.
● Work with the City Parks and Recreation Department to monitor the status of the park for the near future to see that it is maintained.

The City agrees to:
● Prepare the site for planting as specified on the planting plan attached here and punchlist.
● Install irrigation and check it is working, in preparation for the planting. ● The City agrees to maintain the irrigation.
● Water potted plants in the City yard work area until the weather is good for planting. ● Plant the trees and shrubs as specified on the planting plan. Community assistance may be available.
● Place boulders as shown on plan, and make adjustments as needed ● Install 3 benches as shown on plan.
● Paint and repair damaged wood at the bathroom exterior and interior. ● Replace signage with new. Make signage consistent with other parks. ● Replace fencing along railroad tracks in compliance with needed regulations. ● Allow donors & community volunteers to have a “clean up” day occasionally to: pick up garbage, re-mulch, check-irrigation, check planting health.

Page 1186 of 1318 ends

Shade structure: Both parties agree there is shade needed over the two adjacent picnic tables.

The ideal solution is shade sails, and bid(s) need to be obtained & reviewed. A secondary solution for shade is a wood structure with either roof or arbor. The donors and City will review options and choose the best solution for sustainability, attractiveness and cost effectiveness.

The City will be provided a copy of the NVCF agreement for fundraising.

Other donors may contribute to this project outside of the NVCF fundraising, and donate to the City directly, such as the Beautification Foundation or the Vine Trail, for example. These donations will go to items identified or agreed to by the donors and the City.

Timeline:
● City Council Review
● Prep work at Lewis Station
● Planting Fall 2026.
● Community sheet mulching day.
● Install benches and boulders
● Exterior bathroom repairs/painting by 12/31/26
● Shade structure determination by 12/31/26
● Shade structure install 2027
● Interior bathroom painting
● Signage update
● City website and google maps update
City of St Helena:

Donor representative:

Page 1187 of 1318 ends

City of St. Helena
Parks & Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 15,2026 @ 5:30pm
Carnegie Building-Second Floor
1360 Oak Avenue

Present: Chair Doug Boeschen, Vice Chair John Thompson, Commissioner Julie Jenayan, Commissioner Stephanie Smithers, Commissioner Denise Nelson

Absent: None

1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:31pm

2. ROLL CALL
Chair: Doug Boeschen
Vice Chair: John Thompson
Members: Stephanie Smithers, Julie Jenanyan, Denise Nelson Staff Liaison: Mara Strickler, Deputy Director of Community Services - Library

3. PUBLIC FORUM
• Public Comment from Elaine de Man
• Public Comment from Jeff Farmer

4. REPORTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSION

4.1 Park Maintenance Update
• Operations Manager Carlos Uribe gave update on park maintenance and clean up underway in St. Helena Parks:
• Parks crews have been assisting Streets crews raising the tree canopy to address sign clearance and increase visibility; Commissioner Smithers inquired regarding Parks staff being assigned duties not related to parks • Maintenance at Lyman Park including in advance of summer events • Repairing irrigation systems, particularly at McCullogh Park • Staff have completed stump grinding to approximately 15 • Weed abatement is ongoing at all parks and City maintained sites • Staff will be performing mowing and weed abatement at Crane Park • The pump and motor of the irrigation well at Meilly Park failed last week Potable water and sprinklers are being used in the interim.

Repairs should be completed within two weeks.

Page 1188 of 1318 ends

4.2 Community Services Update
• The Deputy Director of Community Services gave an update on the following subjects:
• Summer Concert Update
• Master Plan Update
• Staffing Update
• Community Soccer Night
Chair Boeschen encouraged Commissioners to attend this annual program that brings diverse members of the community together • Community Services Award
• Youth Commissioner

4.3 Ad-Hoc Subcommitte Updates
• None

5. CONSENT ITEMS

5.1 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2026 • Motion: Commissioner Jenanyan; Second: Commissioner Nelson o Unanimously Approved

6. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

6.1 Lewis Station Park
• Local resident Tracy McBride gave a presentation on behalf of ad-hoc committee of community members and staff who have been working on plans for a restoration of Lewis Station Park
• Commissioners asked clarifying questions regarding the presentation • Operations Manager Carlos Uribe expressed appreciation for the work of the ad-hoc committee
• Commissioners expressed support for moving forward with the project, while encouraging patience with the governance processes, securing funding, and implementation of plans, and ongoing maintenance

6.2 Public Art Discussion
• Commissioners Nelson and Smithers shared a draft Call for Art document. • The Commissioners expressed appreciation for their work and support to bring the revised document to the Commission for review • It was suggested that a special meeting may be necessary in order to have sufficient time to evaluate the subject

6.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Priorities
• Postponed until July meeting

Page 1189 of 1318 ends

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Parks and Recreation Commission Priorities
• Grapevine Ticket Report
• Valley Oak Seedlings at Pope Street and Chiles Avenue (Submitted by community members, supported by Commissioners)
• Valley View Street Multi-Purpose Path (Submitted by community members, supported by Commissioners)

8. ADJOURNMENT
• Meeting adjourned at 7:33pm

Page 1190 of 1318 ends

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

Page 1191 of 1318 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT: Council Meeting August 11, 2026 8.7.26
New Business 13.2: Lewis Station Park Restoration
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers –
I want to applaud the public/private collaboration on this park restoration plan. We could use more of that for the benefit of this town.

One feature I hope you will make more actionable in this plan is to request a “call to artists” for a public art feature in the park. Although a “potential installation of public art elements” is noted as part of the Winter 2026/Spring 2027 December 2026-May 2027 timeline, I fear that there has been no thought to how that might happen and therefore will get lost.

Perhaps some thinking about where in the park would be appropriate for public art (added to the plan drawings), and some potential themes that might be appropriate would be a good start from which a “Call to Artists” could be initiated in an earlier stage of the plan as these types of things take time.

If no money is initially available to provide a stipend to the artist, the “call to artists” could go out as a donation. It would test the viability of our “Public Art Donation and Installation Pilot Program” currently in place. However, a small stipend would be ideal. Also, spreading the word through our local (and loved) Nimbus Arts nonprofit organization and/or Arts Council Napa Valley might bear some fruit.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sue Furdek
St. Helena, California

Page 1192 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Lewis station
From Flor Madrigal <[email protected]>
Date Sun 8/9/2026 6:42 PM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
support planting an oak tree and mostly native hardy plants at Lewis Station.

Cheers
Flor M.

Page 1193 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Lewis Station beautician
From Kathleen McCarthy <[email protected]>
Date Mon 8/10/2026 10:55 AM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Hello,
I am a local master gardener and I support planting an oak tree and mostly native hardy plants at Lewis Station. I also support adding boulders, an attractive shade shelter, bathroom refreshing, new fencing and the soil enhancement qualities of sheet mulching. I would be happy to assist in the tending of the part, once the city has made the necessary commitments to its success.

Thank you,
Kathleen McCarthy
Sent from my iPhone

Page 1194 of 1318 ends

Page 1195 of 1318 ends

8/10/26
Subject: City Council Agenda item 13.2, Lewis Station Improvements Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
I’d like to start by thanking staff, Ashley Sylvester, Carlos Uribe, and the Park and Recreation Commission—especially Stephanie Smithers, as well as John Thompson and all the commissioners. This has been a very positive process, in part because we have been truly collaborative, having back-and-forth conversations to arrive at this proposal. I’d also like to thank Becke Obershulte, Kathy Carrick, and Nancy Morrell for partnering along the way, and especially Becke, who prepared the planting plan.

Mayor and City Council Members, this is a win-win for the City. When residents and the City are aligned, we can accomplish great things, and extra help from the community can make Lewis Station Park a centrally located gem for public use for years to come. This proposal fits the recommendations of the Parks Master Plan to serve residents with greenspace, contribute towards livability, be easy to maintain and create natural playspaces.

We are targeting $80,000 for the restoration project, of which, we are working towards raising $40,000+ from the community.

Sustainability & Location
Staff wrote a good summary report, but I’d like to emphasize key objectives are to create a sustainable public park with multiple levels of interest. The keystone oak will provide long-term shade, while the recommended plantings will attract pollinators and serve as an example of firewise landscaping. These are hardy, resilient plants chosen to thrive in our changing climate.

The shade sails will provide interest and a focal point to attract visitors.

The park is in a location where a wide range of people can use it—kids walking home from school, young adults looking for a comfortable place to hang out, adults having lunch, and visitors and residents alike taking a break or making a restroom stop. Its location is prime for active use, and it is visible to many visitors on the Wine Train as they pass by.

While all public parks are important, this park has the unique attribute of being the most centrally located park to the business district. It is the closest park to places to buy a sandwich, offers a quiet place to have a conversation, and, importantly, has a public restroom east of Main Street.

I would note that restoring this park is also a matter of equity. It can support open space for denser housing, such as the recently built housing on Pope Street, while providing an inexpensive option for visitors who want to have a picnic or for seniors walking back to housing east of Main Street.

Page 1196 of 1318 ends

Matching Community Funds
While the community will take on significant fundraising efforts, I propose that the City make an equal financial contribution toward the improvements. I ask you to review Park Impact Fund 734, which is specifically designated for park acquisition and improvements. Since roughly 2019, this fund appears to have been used for seven projects, six of which were funded entirely by the City (the Crane Park playground was funded at 32% by the City). Lewis Station has not had significant work done since its inception over 50 years ago.

Lewis Station can be an example of a successful public-private partnership, where the City and community work together to commit to a quality restoration that will last. It will be much easier to generate community donations when the City matches those contributions. Conversely, it will be challenging to explain why community members should donate when there are designated City funds available for park improvements. Please commit to $40,000 funding from the City.

We expect to involve other community and youth organizations, so there may be additional donated labor. However, there will always be expenses that require funding.

Again, this has been a very positive experience, and I want to end by saying cheers to Rosa Lee Lewis, who donated this land in the first place, and to all the volunteers who have worked on this project both recently and over the years.

Respectfully,
Tracy McBride via email [email protected]
Appendix, budget estimate with notes:

Item Cost Estimate Notes
Plants $2,500 Per planting plan
Irrigation
supplies
$4,000 Materials only
Compost 0 No cost to City, does not include delivery
Sheet Mulching 0 Community sheet mulching day for weed
prevention, using recycled cardboard
3 Benches $7,500 $2,500 per bench, delivered to site not installed

Page 1197 of 1318 ends

Boulders $2,000 Delivered to site, not installed
Mulch $2,500 Delivered to site (clean mulch)
Fencing $3,400 Materials only, $1,200 for wire fencing along railroad materials, $2,000 for redwood 6’ fence
along residence with 2’ privacy screen
Paint $1,000 Materials only, for better quality paint, interior and exterior for bathroom, 10’x15’ rough
estimate.

Shade Sails $50,000 Shade sail over northern picnic table, AI generated estimate for public park quality to
cover 15’ x 30’ area $30K-50K installed. Note,
wood structure with standing seam metal roof,
engineering, potentially costs $45K-$75K.

Total $72,900 Does not include city labor costs and
installation costs other than the shade sails

Page 1198 of 1318 ends

Conceptual plan
objects are approximately to
scale
Railroad Tracks
Hunt Ave
Church Street
Restroom
t
t
t
Existing
Valley Oak
Existing
mature trees
Lewis Station Park
St Helena
Live Oak
Arbutus Unedo
Redbud
Ceonothus
New benches (3)
New boulders
New waste/recycling
Proposed Planting,
Seating, Shade
Shade sails

Page 1199 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Lewis Station Park
From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Mon 8/10/2026 4:51 PM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc [email protected] <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
I certainly support upgrading the condition of the Lewis Station (unknown) park on Hunt and Church.

Over the years it has been minimized due to loitering caused by having a bathroom on that location, and its now time for beautification. The plant choices are appropriate and making it a meeting spot, shaded area, and desirable corner opposite Safeway is a perfect solution on that prominent corner.

Please approve.

Suzan Rada
527 Sanitarium Rd.

St. Helena

Page 1200 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Lewis Station
From Connie Wilson <[email protected]>
Date Mon 8/10/2026 7:22 PM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Council Members,
I wish to give my support for the beautification of Lewis Park with an oak tree and other California native plants. These plantings will enhance this often neglected part of our city.

Thank you.

Connie Wilson
UC Master Gardener of Napa County

Page 1201 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Agenda Item 13.2 & Tree of Heaven!
From Elaine de Man <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/11/2026 8:09 AM
To Public Comment <[email protected]>
Lewis Station Park Restoration and Revitalization Project Dear Mayor Dohring and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a private citizen and resident of St. Helena. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent those of the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Having said that, I want to thank and congratulate Tracy McBride and her team for bringing much-needed attention to Lewis Station Park and developing a vision that the City can be proud of. This is exactly the kind of citizen-led initiative I hope we see more of.

However, I have some serious concerns about the somewhat nonchalant way in which the City is proposing to deal with the Tree of Heaven that is already well-established at this site. I have spoken about this at the Parks & Recreation Commission and recently wrote an article for The Star, so I won’t go into all the gory details about how problematic this invasive plant is. But suffice it to say that it is a serious problem, and I don’t think it has been addressed properly in the proposal as presented in the staff report. Unless it is dealt with adequately and methodically, the restoration of Lewis Park could be destined for failure.

I also have to add that I do not think that “experimenting” with salt, which is currently being tried, is an adequate treatment protocol.

Fortunately, there is hope. Napa RCD has identified an herbicide called imazapyr, which can be injected into the tree, as a promising

Page 1202 of 1318 ends

treatment for Tree of Heaven. It is currently being used by Solano County, which uses an EZ-Ject lance to inject imazapyr cartridges into the trees. Solano County has reported success using this technique at multiple restoration sites involving thousands of trees. Their experience also indicates that it may take multiple years to completely control a clonal grove.

Two people who may be particularly helpful to the City as it plans its approach to Tree of Heaven are Ed King, Solano County Agricultural Commissioner, and Katherine Holmes of the Solano Resource Conservation District. Both made presentations on Tree of Heaven control at the 2024 California Invasive Plant Council Statewide Weed Management Area Meeting. Some outreach to them would seem to be in order before proceeding.

The cost is also relatively modest. The EZ-Ject lance is currently available for approximately $700, and a box of 1,200 imazapyr (Copperhead) shells currently costs approximately $353, or about 29 cents per shell. Depending on the size of the tree, shells are applied at approximately four-inch intervals around the trunk, so a single box of 1,200 shells would treat a substantial number of good-sized trees.

There does seem to be one important caveat, however: imazapyr can impact other nearby trees if the herbicide is transferred through root connections or other means. There is one lovely Valley Oak growing there that is about 12 inches in diameter at chest height, a relatively young tree that is now large enough to be developing a significant canopy and one that I would be concerned about. The rendering of the park plan is so faint that it is difficult to see how the status of that tree has been identified. Fortunately, it is somewhat isolated from the existing Tree of Heaven. For the most part, however, the many Tree of Heaven stands at Lewis Station Park are also somewhat isolated, so the risk may be manageable.

This is such a great project, particularly since it was initiated by an informal group of residents for the benefit of the entire community.

Personally, I hope we see more of this. At the same time, I want to see it succeed.

Page 1203 of 1318 ends

So, I would like to propose the following be added to the scope of the project before approval:
• The City reaches out to Ed King and Katherine Holmes to see what we might learn from their experience;
• The City adds the cost of treating Tree of Heaven at Lewis Station Park to the budget for this project; and
• Any new plantings be delayed until we know that the Tree of Heaven has been adequately treated and that any mitigation required from the application of salt has been addressed.

What’s especially beneficial about this approach is that the Lewis Station Park Restoration Project could serve as a proving ground and jumping-off point for the treatment of Tree of Heaven at other Cityowned properties, such as Meily Park, where it is growing prolifically.

If we do this right, we’ll have first-hand experience of what works, what does not, the costs involved, and what precautions are necessary before undertaking similar efforts elsewhere.

I think we all want this project to succeed. But it won’t if we rush into it without dealing with the underlying problem first. So I urge you to please slow down just a little bit and think this through before proceeding. Let’s make sure we have dealt with the Tree of Heaven first, and any mitigation that may be required from the application of salt, and then proceed with the new landscaping to create a park that will be a source of pride for years to come.

Elaine de Man
St. Helena Resident
References
Ed King, Solano County Agricultural Commissioner, Planning an Effective Approach for Controlling Invasive Tree-of-Heaven, 2024 Statewide Weed Management Area Meeting. Presentation

Page 1204 of 1318 ends

Katherine Holmes, Solano Resource Conservation District, Tree-ofHeaven Control in Restoration Settings, 2024 Cal-IPC Symposium.

Presentation

Page 1205 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Lewis Station Park...

From Rachel Williams <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/11/2026 8:20 AM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello City Council Members,
I am sending this email in support or the Lewis Station Park proposal. As a homeowner, full time resident, and Main Street Business Owner in St. Helena, it thrills me that our local community is taking initiative to create vitality and restoration in small but impactful ways for our beautiful little town. The team that has identified Lewis Station as a place for improvement, I'm sure has done so with much care and research. I can imagine immediate benefit.

Despite the breezeway to the Money Way public restrooms being located directly across the street from my front door (Ray Ray’s Tacos), I get a substantial amount of people coming through my door looking for a bathroom. While I don’t mind offering hospitality to those in need of facilities, whether they purchase anything or not, I also realize it is due to that fact that we have limited public restrooms available. A clean, well appointed restroom, in a cheerful park that already exists on the east side of downtown seems like a win for everyone — tourists enjoying our shops and wineries, and locals out and about with family and friends. I hope we can find a way forward to approve the Lewis Station Park proposal as we seek to make small but mighty improvements to everyday life here in St. Helena.

Thank you for your consideration and service to all of us,

Rachel✌️☀️🌮
Chef / Owner
Ray Ray’s Tacos
@RayRays

Page 1206 of 1318 ends

Sincerely,
Erin Arnsteen - Founder, Western Monarch Society of Napa County [email protected]
Dear St. Helena City Council,
I am writing in strong support of the proposed pollinator garden at Lewis Station Park and of expanding biodiversity habitat throughout St. Helena.

As a professional invertebrate conservationist and founder of the Western Monarch Society of Napa County, I have worked on pollinator habitat projects throughout California and the Napa Valley, including along the Vine Trail and in numerous community spaces. I have seen firsthand how even small native plant gardens can provide meaningful habitat while helping people connect with nature.

I understand that the current Lewis Station plant palette—including coast live oak, strawberry tree, western redbud, and ceanothus—was selected for resiliency and ease of maintenance. I support moving forward with this planting.

Something beneficial is better than nothing, and Lewis Station is an excellent place to begin.

Over time, I encourage the City to expand the diversity of native plants and flowering seasons. The current palette is weighted toward winter and spring bloom; adding plants that flower through summer and fall would provide more consistent resources for pollinators and wildlife. California is home to approximately 1,600 species of native bees, hundreds of butterfly species, and a remarkable diversity of resident and migratory birds. These species are interconnected—plants support insects, insects support birds and wildlife, and healthy vegetation supports functioning soil, water, and human communities. Diverse gardens can also create natural pest balance. By providing habitat for beneficial insects, spiders, birds, and other predators, a healthy balanced garden can naturally help regulate pest populations rather than simply “attracting pests.”
Lewis Station can therefore be more than a garden—it can be a small, visible demonstration of biodiversity and an accessible place for residents and visitors to experience conservation firsthand. Educational signage and thoughtful plant selection can help people understand the ecological relationships happening around them.

I would be happy to share my expertise with City staff on increasing seasonal and species diversity through relatively low-cost, low-maintenance approaches. Over time, St. Helena could also pursue initiatives such as Bee City USA certification and the Mayors' Monarch Pledge, supported by urban greening grants for biodiversity, climate resilience, public health, and green space.

I encourage the Council to keep the momentum going at Lewis Station while viewing this project as a starting point rather than an endpoint. St. Helena has an opportunity to create beautiful, resilient green spaces that benefit pollinators, birds, wildlife, and people—and become a model for biodiversity-focused urban stewardship in Napa Valley. I would be happy to provide an educational presentation to the Council or Parks staff if helpful.

Thank you for investing in a more beautiful, connected, and biodiverse St. Helena.

WESTERN MONARCH SOCIETY OF NAPA COUNTY
August 11, 2026

Page 1207 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Support for the Restoration of Lewis Station Park
From Gail Pavlosky <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/11/2026 11:02 AM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Members of the St. Helena City Council,
My name is Gail Pavlosky and I am writing as a Napa Valley resident to express my support for the project to restore Lewis Station Park at Hunt Avenue and Church Street.

Although I do not live in St. Helena, I am a frequent visitor. I visit St. Helena for the farmers market, the Napa Valley Olive Oil Co. store and deli, local restaurants, and the pleasure of spending time in a community that is an important part of the larger Napa Valley. From that perspective, I believe thoughtfully cared-for public spaces matter not only to the people who live immediately around them, but also to those of us who regularly visit, shop, dine, and participate in community life in St. Helena.

The project by residents of St Helena to restore Lewis Station Park strikes me as an especially worthwhile investment because it goes beyond conventional beautification. Planting a Coast Live Oak along with Ceanothus, Redbud, Arbutus, and predominantly native pollinator and habitat plants would begin transforming an underutilized parcel into a greener, more welcoming place while supporting the local landscape and the insects, birds, and other wildlife that depend upon it.

I also support the use of sheet mulching to improve the soil, as well as the addition of boulders, benches, an attractive shade structure, refreshed restroom facilities, and appropriate fencing. Together, these improvements could turn a small and easily overlooked piece of public land into a place where residents and visitors might choose to stop, sit beneath a tree, share a meal, or simply enjoy being outdoors.

Small parks have value because they are woven into the everyday fabric of a community. They do not need to be large or elaborate to provide shade, habitat, beauty, respite, and a sense that a place is cared for. In a valley where our communities are so closely connected, projects such as this also contribute to the experience and character of Napa Valley as a whole.

I appreciate the work of the residents who have taken the initiative to envision a better future for Lewis Station Park, and I respectfully encourage the City Council to support their efforts and the proposed restoration.

Thank you for your consideration and for your stewardship of St. Helena's public spaces.

Warmly,
Gail Pavlosky
Napa Valley Resident

Page 1208 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Lewis Station 13.4
From Kelly Wheaton <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/11/2026 2:11 PM
To Public Comment <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Dohring & City Councilmembers and Jim McCann, This is a bit of a difficult letter for me to write. I absolutely applaud the initiative and work Tracy McBride has put into the Lewis Park refresh plan. I wholeheartedly support bringing this space back to life and providing a place to rest and relax. I applaud this kind of community / city partnership.

My reason for writing comes from my knowledge of the plant materials suggested and the high cost ($50,000) of the shade structure.

The Arbutus unedo or Strawberry Tree is a beautiful tree but a very poor choice for an area with seating and paving as the strawberries are messy. If they are planted it should be away from the paved areas. The selection of Ceanothus is laudable as it is a native but they are very persnickety and require perfect drainage and not much if any water. Their general lifespan is about 10-20 years. Given the cost and time to establish these are again a poor choice.

The live oak is a great choice if it is placed close to the middle (in between railroad and street) as the crown of a live oak is 40-70 feet wide. The redbuds are another good choice. But Western Red bud's (native Cercis occidentalis) are more of a shrub and those sold as trees are usually Eastern redbud (cercis canadensis) which are a lovely accent tree but not really a shade tree.

I applaud the initiative but think we need to be more intentional about our decision making. A large boxed Coast Live oak from Urban Tree farm is $ 2,215.00. This would produce shade almost immediately and be a far better investment than the proposed sails. (My credentials include being a grower for the California Native Plant Society, managing 68 acres of woodland for 20 years on Dry Creek Rd, Volunteer with Gilbert Muth of PUC's Rare Plant Inventory, My mother illustrated some of the book Trees of Napa Valley. She was a Master Gardener. I worked for Landscape architect, Jack Chandler for 5 years and did the plant ordering. ) I would be happy to help consult on this project---but do not want to step in where I am not wanted. I just want the city's money to be well spent.

Sincerely
Kelly Wheaton
Inglewood St Helena.

Page 1209 of 1318 ends

Outlook
Agenda Item 13.2 - Lewis Station Park—Proposed Use of Park Impact Fund 734 From Elaine de Man <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/11/2026 2:33 PM
To Public Comment <[email protected]>
Cc James McCann <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

I am writing as a resident of St. Helena and not in my capacity as a member of the Parks & Recreation Commission. As a newly appointed commissioner, I am also trying to better understand the City’s various restricted funds and the rules governing their use.

While I wholeheartedly support the community’s effort to restore and improve Lewis Station Park and appreciate the considerable volunteer work that has gone into developing the proposal, I am concerned about the proposed $40,000 contribution from Park Impact Fund 734, proposed in the public comment submitted by Tracy McBride.

The staff report currently before Council identifies approximately $8,000 in City costs and recommends accepting donations and pursuing the renovation proposal. Ms. McBride’s comment proposes that the City instead contribute $40,000 from Fund 734 to match community fundraising.

That is a significant increase in the City’s proposed financial participation, and I think it should be carefully considered before any commitment is made. I am also unclear about what the City’s financial commitment would actually be if sufficient funds are not raised by the community.

The July 31, 2026 legal memorandum prepared for the City by Best Best & Krieger identifies Fund 734 as a development impact fee account governed by the California Mitigation Fee Act, the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, and the City’s adopted Development Impact Fee Study.

The memorandum states that, under St. Helena Municipal Code section 3.32.030, impact-fee revenues may be used to finance future public improvements identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Projects List that are at least partially attributable to new development, among other specifically identified purposes.

It also makes clear that these funds should not be viewed as surplus money simply because a balance remains in the account. The City’s attorneys specifically state that available impact-fee revenues already have identified public purposes and should not be viewed as surplus funds available for unrelated expenditures.

That distinction seems particularly important when considering the Lewis Station proposal. The proposed improvements include restoration and rehabilitation of an existing park, as well as new amenities. Some of these improvements may appropriately serve increased demand resulting from new development; others may represent restoration or correction of existing deficiencies.

Before committing any money from Fund 734, I believe we should verify that it is being used for improvements that are authorized under the City’s impact-fee program. Consequently, before making a financial commitment to a project that now appears to require substantially more money from the City than the original proposal, I think the City should be able to demonstrate which proposed improvements meet the City’s own requirements for the use of development-impact fees.

Page 1210 of 1318 ends

Specifically, before the City considers what could become a $40,000 contribution (or more) from Fund 734, I think staff should clarify:

1. Is Lewis Station Park, or any specific component of this proposal, identified on the City’s Capital Improvement Projects List as a project at least partially attributable to new development, as required by Municipal Code section 3.32.030?

2. Which specific components of the proposed Lewis Station improvements are attributable to increased demand from new development?

3. Which components constitute restoration, replacement, maintenance, or correction of existing deficiencies?

4. What portion, if any, of the proposed $40,000 is appropriately attributable to new-development demand under the City’s 2023 Development Impact Fee Update Study?

5. What is the justification for increasing the City’s currently identified cost of approximately $8,000 to a proposed $40,000 contribution from this restricted fund? I also believe the proposed funding arrangement itself needs to be clarified before the City makes a commitment.

Specifically:

What is the total amount the City would be committing to the project, and is that amount capped? Is any City contribution contingent upon the community first raising a specified amount? If the community does not raise the anticipated $40,000, what happens to the project and to the City’s financial commitment?
Will there be a formal agreement establishing the financial obligations of the City and the project proponents before either party undertakes expenditures? Given the City’s own recently issued legal guidance regarding the restricted nature of Fund 734, I don’t think these are unreasonable questions. The legal memorandum specifically states that impact-fee revenues should be used only for the public facilities identified in the applicable fee program and Capital Improvement Plan and should not be used as a source of general governmental financing.

I want to reiterate that I would like to see the Lewis Station restoration succeed. I support the community partnership and appreciate the work residents have contributed. But supporting a community project and exercising appropriate stewardship over restricted public funds are not competing objectives. We should be able to do both.

What is not clear to me now is what the path to completion will be if the anticipated community fundraising is not attained. It may be prudent to establish the fundraising goal and the actual project costs first, and then determine what, if any, financial contribution from the City is appropriate and authorized.

If the City believes that the proposed Lewis Station improvements qualify for Fund 734, I believe it should be able to clearly identify the applicable project, the development-related need, and the portion of the expenditure supported by that nexus before making a commitment that could amount to $40,000 or more.

Again, I hope the community, City Council, and staff will view these questions in the spirit in which they are offered: a request for transparency, clarification, and fiscal responsibility. I believe there is time to make sure the project is financially sound, that the respective responsibilities of the City and the community are clear, and that any City funds committed to it are being used for their intended purpose.

Thank you,
Elaine de Man
Resident, City of St. Helena

Page 1211 of 1318 ends

Public Comment: Lewis Station Park Restoration and Revitalization Project To: Mayor and Members of the St. Helena City Council
Re: Lewis Station Park Restoration and Revitalization Project — August 11, 2026 Dear Mayor Dohring and Members of the City Council:

As a father of two small children in St. Helena, I have a vested interest in our community parks and want to see them succeed for all to enjoy. I’m concerned about the proposed tree species at Lewis Station Park and the failure to create a strategic plan for eradicating the ‘Tree of Heaven’ species prior to any proposed redevelopment of this park.

I know the time and effort that goes into these projects, and I applaud the community members who took Lewis Station Park upon themselves and contributed their time, knowledge, energy, and resources to the community. Yet, I feel the proposed plans will be implemented without strategic planning or without consulting experts and tree specialists.

I also feel that the proposed budget for shade sails is more than necessary. $50,000 is too much for a park where there is no playground for children to play . A portion of this money would be better spent covering the playground at Crane Park or enhancing the playground facilities at Lyman Park for the benefit of children.

In regard to the ‘Tree of Heaven’ I feel that the city is not performing its due diligence in developing a robust plan for eradication. I happened to attend the recent Parks and Recreation Commission meeting at which the City’s parks and recreation superintendent described his experiment using salt to kill some of these plants. This is not an effective approach to eradicating these trees and there is no evidence this will be effective.

I have prior experience working with arborists, including spending a year working alongside Santa Monica’s urban forester on an extensive program to replant 2,000 street trees. I have learned the value of listening to community members in regard to tree species selection. I feel that our staff and community can do a better job at selecting ideal tree species and developing a plan to eradicate the invasive species.

If the Lewis Station Park Restoration and Revitalization project is going to succeed, the Tree of Heaven issue needs to be resolved first. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Council to require that, before permanent landscape installation begins:
• The City establish a specific and scientifically supported Tree of Heaven eradication protocol that addresses the root system and potential resprouting.

Page 1212 of 1318 ends

• If salt is being used experimentally, the City document the purpose, methodology and criteria for determining whether the experiment has succeeded. • The site be monitored for resprouting before the City declares the Tree of Heaven problem resolved.
• If salt has been applied, the City conduct appropriate soil testing before installing the new trees and landscape.

Members of the community have brought their time, energy, expertise and a wonderful vision for Lewis Station Park. And to honor and respect that commitment, the city needs to apply the science and provide the long-term stewardship necessary to make that vision succeed.

At the same time I think that staff and city council have an obligation to make sure that the foundation upon which this project is built is sound and realistic so we are not back in a few years’ time being asked to spend more time and money to fix something that could—and should—have addressed at the outset.

Thank you,
John Pedersen

Page 1213 of 1318 ends

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Public Works Department
DATE: August 11, 2026
FROM: Joseph Leach, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Receive Draft Response to the 2025–2026 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report regarding the City's Water System and Provide Direction to Staff.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Review the attached draft response to the 2025–2026 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report dated June 24, 2026, provide comments and direction to staff, and direct staff to return with a final proposed response for City Council consideration and adoption on August 25, 2026.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

To present the draft response to the 2025–2026 Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report, receive City Council comments and direction, and return on August 25, 2026, with a final response for Council consideration and adoption.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Preparation of the draft response has been completed using existing staff resources.

Implementation of future City Council policy direction resulting from the Grand Jury Report may require additional engineering studies, consultant services, capital improvements, operational changes, or future budget considerations. Any such actions will be presented through separate future agenda items.

CEQA DETERMINATION: Not a CEQA Project (CEQA Guidelines §15378) BACKGROUND:

On June 24, 2026, the Napa County Civil Grand Jury issued a report (Attachment 2) evaluating various aspects of the City's water utility operations, infrastructure planning, governance, customer communication, and water rate structure.

The report contains seven Findings and five Recommendations directed to the City Council, City Manager, and Public Works Director. Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and

Page 1214 of 1318 ends

933.05, the City Council is required to indicate whether it agrees or disagrees with each Finding and identify the City’s intended action regarding each Recommendation. By statute, the City Council’s response must be submitted within 90 days after issuance of the Grand Jury Report. The adopted response must be transmitted to the Presiding Judge of the Napa County Superior Court by September 22, 2026, with copies filed and distributed as required by law.

Because the report addresses historical policy decisions, engineering issues, financial matters, utility operations, and governance practices spanning multiple years, staff conducted a comprehensive review of the Grand Jury Report together with available historical administrative records, consultant studies, capital improvement planning documents, utility financial information, operational records, and other available supporting documentation in preparing the attached draft response.

DISCUSSION:

The attached draft response (Attachment 1) is intended to satisfy the City’s statutory obligations while accurately reflecting the City’s understanding of the historical administrative record and current water utility operations. It is also intended to reflect the City’s institutional position based upon the administrative record reviewed to date while preserving the City Council’s discretion regarding future policy decisions.

Rather than presenting the response for immediate adoption, staff is requesting Council review and provide direction at this meeting so the final response accurately reflects the Council’s perspectives before returning for formal consideration.

In preparing the draft response, staff sought to:
• acknowledge findings where additional work or continued improvement is appropriate; • provide additional context where the City believes the Grand Jury's Findings do not fully reflect the historical administrative record;
• distinguish between technical observations, policy decisions, and legislative actions of prior City Councils;
• preserve future City Council discretion regarding policy matters that may require additional engineering evaluation, legal analysis, financial review, or public discussion.

Several recommendations contained within the Grand Jury Report—including comprehensive distribution system assessment, long-term asset management planning, utility rate structure evaluation, and governance training—may ultimately result in future City Council policy discussions independent of the City's statutory response. Accordingly, the draft response is intended to satisfy the City's legal obligation to respond to the Grand Jury Report and should not be interpreted as final City Council policy regarding future implementation of any individual recommendation.

Staff requests Council feedback regarding the draft responses before they are finalized.

Specifically:

Page 1215 of 1318 ends

• the overall tone and approach of the draft response;
• the proposed responses to each Finding and Recommendation; • any policy issues the Council believes warrant additional emphasis or clarification; and • any revisions Council wishes staff to incorporate prior to returning with a final response for formal Council consideration.

Following Council direction, staff will revise the draft response as appropriate and return on August 25, 2026, with a final proposed response for City Council consideration and adoption. Upon adoption, the Mayor will execute the response and the City will transmit it to the Presiding Judge of the Napa County Superior Court by September 22, 2026, in accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 (Attachment 3).

Council Direction Requested:

Staff requests Council feedback on the proposed draft responses prior to finalization. No formal action adopting the City's response is requested at this meeting other than providing direction to staff regarding revisions to be incorporated into the final draft.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

GOAL:

Goal 3: Pursue Water Security & Sustainable Management of Water Resources Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other ATTACHMENTS:

1. 01 - CC GJ Response DRAFT_080126d

2. 02 - Napa County Civil Grand Jury 2025-2026 Final Report June 24, 2026 Lapsed Leadership: St Helena's Problematic Pipes and Murkey Waters

3. 03 - Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 excerpts

4. Public Comment - Alan Galbraith 1

5. Public Comment - Alan Galbraith 2

6. Public Comment - Alan Galbraith 3

7. Public Comment - Michelle Covell

8. Public Comment - Tamara Sorensen

Page 1216 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
City of St. Helena DRAFT Responses to Napa County Civil Grand Jury Report dated June 24, 2026

REQUIRED RESPONSES (Report Date June 24, 2026 + 90d = September 22, 2026) The following responses are required, pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05:
• St. Helena City Council – all Findings and Recommendations within 90 days

INVITED RESPONSES
The following responses are invited from the following responsible parties:
• St. Helena City Manager – All Findings and Recommendations within 90 days • St. Helena Public Works Director – Findings: F1, F2, F3; Recommendations R1, R2, R3 within 90 days

FINDINGS
F1: Despite the water rate increases of approximately 183% between 2011-2025, earmarked to address water quality and infrastructure issues, St. Helena’s water is still being delivered to customers with taste, odor, and color quality issues. After recent improvements and upgrades to the Bell Canyon Water Treatment Plant, water currently leaves it clear, clean, and healthy; therefore, city staff and consultants now blame decades of silt, debris, and sediment build-up in the water distribution system for the continued water quality troubles.

Response: The City disagrees with Finding F1.

The City agrees that customers have experienced recurring taste, odor, and color concerns over an extended period of time and acknowledges that continued investigation, operational improvements, and capital investment remain necessary. The City also agrees that significant improvements have recently been completed at the Bell Canyon Water Treatment Plant, resulting in improved treatment performance and reducing iron and manganese breakthrough into the distribution system. Additional improvements and programs include the installation of a Carbon Filtration System in December 2017 that resulted in the reduction of taste and odor complaints by 75%; the City’s tap sampling water quality program; Division of Drinking Water-coordinated coagulant change from

Page 1217 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 2 of 18 ends

aluminum sulfate to ferric chloride to assist with mitigating organics; pilot program for zero discharge pipeline flushing; and endeavors to update the City’s system-wide hydraulic model. All reflect the City’s ongoing investment and operational changes to address taste, color and odor.

The City disagrees with the characterization of the relationship between historical water rate increases and the continued occurrence of customer water quality complaints.

First, the Finding states that water rate increases of approximately 183 percent between 2011 and 2025 were "earmarked" to address water quality and infrastructure issues. The historical administrative record reviewed to date indicates that adopted water rates were established to support the full financial requirements of the Water Enterprise, including purchased water costs, operations and maintenance, regulatory compliance, debt service, reserve requirements, staffing, rehabilitation of existing facilities, and capital improvements. Under Proposition 218 (California Constitution, Article XIII D, § 6), water and wastewater revenues are legally restricted to the costs of providing those services and must be applied in order of legal priority: debt service covenant compliance first, then operations and maintenance, then mandated reserve targets, and then capital projects.

Rate revenues are accordingly not discretionary infrastructure dollars, and a 183 percent increase in rates does not equate to an 183 percent increase in discretionary infrastructure spending; it reflects, in substantial part, compounded increases from a rate base that was itself below full cost-recovery levels. While infrastructure rehabilitation and water quality improvements were important components of the various rate studies, they were not the sole purposes for which revenues were established. The available record therefore supports a broader characterization of the purposes served by the adopted water rates than is reflected in the Finding.

Second, the City disagrees with the Finding’s characterization of an approximately 183 percent cumulative increase. Based upon the City’s review of consultant recommendations, City Council actions, and implemented rate schedules from the applicable rate cycles, the cumulative percentage cited in the Finding does not accurately reflect the rates ultimately adopted and implemented by the City.

Finally, the City agrees that recent operational experience indicates that the water distribution system is an important contributor to continuing aesthetic water quality complaints. However, the City's understanding of these issues has evolved over time through ongoing operational experience, engineering evaluation, treatment plant improvements, hydraulic investigations, flushing activities, water quality monitoring, and

Page 1218 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 3 of 18 ends

customer complaint analysis. The City does not characterize the historical causes of taste, odor, and color concerns as attributable to a single factor. Rather, the available evidence indicates that source-water conditions, treatment processes, distribution-system conditions, system hydraulics, and, in some cases, private plumbing have all contributed to varying degrees over time. Current investigations increasingly indicate that accumulated material within portions of the distribution system represents an important contributor requiring additional evaluation and long-term capital investment, but the City does not view this as inconsistent with its prior efforts to improve treatment performance or address other contributing factors.

Accordingly, while the City agrees that aesthetic water quality issues have persisted and that additional work remains necessary to improve the performance of the water distribution system, the City disagrees with Finding F1 because it oversimplifies both the historical purposes and legal constraints of the adopted water rates and the technical evolution of the City's understanding of the factors contributing to customer water quality complaints.

F2: The current Capital Improvement Plan approved and implemented by St. Helena’s City Council contains no projects dedicated specifically to the long-term rehabilitation of the aged water distribution system. To date, there is no plan in place to address the water distribution system problems. No formal assessment has been done to determine the scope and the severity of the issues in total. Without it, the repair costs and the timeline for repairs remain unknown.

Response: The City disagrees with Finding F2.

The City agrees that additional work is necessary to fully characterize the condition of the water distribution system and to develop a comprehensive long-term rehabilitation strategy supported by refined cost estimates, implementation priorities, and funding strategies. The City also agrees that continued engineering evaluation of the distribution system will improve future capital planning and investment decisions.

The City disagrees, however, with the Finding's characterization that the current Capital Improvement Plan contains no projects dedicated to the water distribution system and that no plan exists to address distribution system concerns.

Page 1219 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 4 of 18 ends

The adopted Capital Improvement Program includes projects directly involving distribution and transmission infrastructure representing over $17 million in committed investment, including:
- Napa Intertie Pipeline Replacement (W25-01), $6.1M budgeted over the next year, replacing the intertie pipeline connecting to the City of Napa water supply; - Water Treatment Plant Transmission Main Replacement (W25-02), $9.0 million budgeted over the next two years, replacing the primary transmission main carrying water from the treatment plant into the distribution system; - Replacement of mains smaller than six inches (W18-118) replacement of mains smaller than six inches in diameter (W18-118), $1.3 million budgeted over the next three years, targeting undersized distribution mains that are among the most likely sources of sediment accumulation and discoloration;
- Water Distribution Fire Flow Improvements (W24-01), $0.2 million budgeted over the next two years;
- Water Main Annual Replacement Program (W29-02), $0.5 million budgeted over two years beginning in FY 2028, providing for ongoing systematic replacement of aging mains.

The CIP also includes related investments in SCADA, storage, supply and treatment facilities that support overall system reliability. An additional significant investment scheduled for development and delivery includes a $1.8 million immediate improvement phase for SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system-wide modernization, which will enable more precise and automated process control, faster detection of and response to system anomalies, and better management of organic material that contributes to Haloacetic Acid (HAA) formation. Overall, the Water CIP projects represent substantial investments in the City's water infrastructure and directly support distribution system reliability and operation.

The City further notes that the understanding of distribution system conditions has evolved significantly over the past several years as treatment plant improvements have been completed, operational data have expanded, and additional field investigations have been performed. As evidence increasingly indicated that portions of the distribution system may be contributing to recurring aesthetic water quality concerns, the City initiated additional operational investigations, hydraulic evaluations, flushing programs, and engineering analysis to better understand system conditions. Those efforts continue today, and as noted above, include the tap water quality pilot program launched in early 2026, the use of

Page 1220 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 5 of 18 ends

ferric coagulant, systematic pipe flushing, hydraulic model update, and a high-velocity water main flushing pilot program. This flushing program was performed during the week of June 8 through June 12, 2026 in the Crinella and surrounding neighborhoods, which cleaned nearly seven miles of water main — approximately one-sixth of the City's 45-mile distribution system — without loss of water service or significant water (i.e. extracted, filtered, pumped water back into system), while removing significant accumulated sediment and debris.

An additional project that represents a substantial investment in water infrastructure is the development is the Bell Canyon Intake Tower and Valve House Project, a $10+ million project which includes intake tower replacement, valve house modification, new valves and piping, and stream channel work. While in active procurement for large valves, the design is nearly complete and currently under review by the State's Division of Safety of Dams. The City Council is poised to authorize the execution of an agreement with a construction management firm, with construction expected to commence in Fall 2027/Winter 2028.

The City agrees that completion of a comprehensive condition assessment will further improve long-term planning by better defining system deficiencies, project prioritization, anticipated costs, and implementation timelines. The City intends to continue refining its capital planning as additional engineering information becomes available.

Accordingly, while the City agrees that additional assessment and long-range planning remain appropriate, it disagrees with Finding F2 because the adopted Capital Improvement Program contains numerous projects addressing water system infrastructure, and the Finding does not fully reflect the City's ongoing planning and engineering efforts related to the water distribution system.

F3: St. Helena lacks a thorough and effective system for analyzing citizen water complaints. The Grapevine app implemented in 2023 provides only a basic level of data gathering and analysis. Therefore, City Council and city management staff do not have sufficient information to make informed decisions about how money and resources should be prioritized or allocated to resolve water issues.

Response: The City disagrees with Finding F3.

Page 1221 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 6 of 18 ends

The City agrees that accurate, consistent, and comprehensive collection of customer water quality information is essential to effective system management, operational decision-making, and long-term capital planning. The City also agrees that its historical methods of documenting customer complaints were inconsistent and did not provide the level of analytical information desirable for identifying long-term trends or prioritizing system improvements.

The City disagrees, however, with the Finding's conclusion that City Council and City management staff do not possess sufficient information to make informed decisions regarding the allocation of resources and any implication that no complaint management process existed prior to 2023. As documented in the City's August 28, 2019 response to a prior Grand Jury water quality report, a complaint log and Public Works follow-up protocol were operational well before adoption of the Grapevine app: staff followed up on individual complaints, conducted investigations, and communicated results to affected customers, and the City maintained regular public communication on water quality matters through Consumer Confidence Reports, monthly and weekly water reports, NIXLE emergency notifications, and the SHINE Newsletter.

In 2023, the City implemented the Grapevine customer service platform to improve the collection, tracking, and management of customer service requests, including water quality complaints. The implementation of Grapevine represented a significant improvement over prior practices by providing a centralized system for documenting customer concerns, identifying geographic patterns, tracking response activities, and improving communication with customers. The City has supplemented this information through operational monitoring, field investigations, water quality sampling, hydraulic analysis, maintenance activities, and ongoing coordination with the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee. These combined sources of information have informed both operational responses and capital planning efforts. The Grand Jury inaccurately oversimplifies that Grapevine provides a basic level of data gathering and analysis, representing an improvement over prior practice.

The City recognizes, however, that opportunities exist to further enhance the use of customer complaint data. Continued refinement of reporting capabilities, trend analysis, geographic mapping, integration with asset management information, and periodic reporting to decision-makers will strengthen future planning efforts and improve the City's ability to evaluate the effectiveness of operational and capital improvements over time.

Page 1222 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 7 of 18 ends

Accordingly, the City agrees that continued enhancement of its customer complaint management system is appropriate but disagrees with Finding F3 because the City has implemented meaningful improvements to complaint collection and analysis, and management decisions are informed by multiple sources of operational, engineering, and customer information rather than customer complaints alone.

F4: The water rate studies between 2011-2025 each cited the same core justifications for the need to raise water rates: declining infrastructure, deferred maintenance, depleted reserves, and debt covenant non-compliance. Even though additional revenues were raised, they were not utilized effectively by St. Helena’s City Council. Therefore, most of the justifications for water rate increases have not been met.

Response: The City disagrees with Finding F4.

The City agrees that portions of the water distribution system have exceeded their intended service life and that continued investment in rehabilitation and replacement is necessary to ensure long-term system reliability and performance. The City also agrees that infrastructure replacement needs have historically exceeded available financial resources and that additional investment will be required over many years to address the City's aging water infrastructure.

The City disagrees, however, with the Finding's conclusion that water rate revenues were not effectively utilized or that the continued condition of the water distribution system is attributable solely to a failure to invest available resources. According to City staff records, between 2011 and 2021 the City expended 73% of estimated CIP funding under the 2011, 2016, and 2023 rate studies — $16 million of $22 million — completing 62 of 100 total projects, and the Water Enterprise ending fund balance as of June 30, 2021 was $4.158 million higher than projected. Unexpended CIP funds were retained in fund balances for future use; they were not lost or diverted. The subsequent FY 2022 fund balance decrease was attributable to two documented exogenous causes: a drought emergency that reduced water revenues by $1.7 million below projections, and an extended contract with outside treatment plant operators necessitated by a statewide shortage of certified water system personnel. In addition, the resident-led Water and Wastewater Rate Study Advisory Committee itself voted for and recommended a reduction in the proposed 2023 CIP budget of approximately $10 million, illustrating a community-driven decision to reduce funding of the capital program and should not be attributed to City Council inaction.

Page 1223 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 8 of 18 ends

Water Enterprise revenues have been used to support the full range of services necessary to own, operate, maintain, and improve a municipal water utility. These expenditures have included the purchase and treatment of potable water, operations and maintenance, regulatory compliance, staffing, emergency repairs, debt service, reserve funding, replacement of aging facilities, and capital improvements throughout the water system.

The City's outside legal counsel (Best Best & Krieger LLP, memorandum dated June 21, 2025) confirmed that the City's allocation of revenues to operations, enterprise-related litigation defense, and staff salaries is legally appropriate under Proposition 218. The City's annual capital planning process has required balancing numerous competing infrastructure priorities while maintaining reliable water service and complying with evolving regulatory requirements. Accordingly, Water Enterprise revenues have been expended in accordance with annual budgets adopted by the City Council to support operation, maintenance, regulatory compliance, debt obligations, capital improvements, and other lawful enterprise purposes.

The City further notes that capital investment decisions have evolved over time as additional engineering information became available and as the City's understanding of the underlying causes of recurring water quality concerns continued to develop. Significant investments were made in source water reliability, treatment facilities (e.g. the 2017 Carbon Filtration System which reduced taste and odor complaints by 75%), storage infrastructure, transmission facilities, control systems, and other water system improvements that were reasonably believed, at the time, to improve system performance and reliability. As more recent operational experience and engineering evaluation have identified distribution system conditions as an increasingly significant contributor to aesthetic water quality concerns, the City's capital planning efforts have correspondingly evolved to place greater emphasis on distribution system assessment and rehabilitation.

The City acknowledges that specific high-priority projects — most notably the Bell Canyon Intake Tower — were not completed on originally estimated timelines due to documented project management and staffing constraints, and that additional investment in distribution system rehabilitation remains necessary.

Accordingly, the City disagrees with Finding F4 because it does not fully recognize the broad range of legitimate Water Enterprise expenditures, the documented exogenous causes of reduced fund balances, the competing infrastructure priorities addressed over the past decade, or the evolution of the City's understanding of the most effective investments necessary to improve overall water system performance.

Page 1224 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 9 of 18 ends

F5: The St. Helena City Council changed the St. Helena Water Enterprise’s fee structure in 2016 to implement a single water rate regardless of the location or type of customer. Prior to 2016, water rates included surcharges to offset the cost of pumping water to customers in elevated areas or customers outside the city limits. Therefore, the St. Helena Water Enterprise currently passes the additional costs on to all water ratepayers rather than those benefiting outside the city limits.

Response: The City disagrees with Finding F5.

The City agrees that the City Council modified the water rate structure in 2016 and that the current rate structure differs from the rate structure previously in effect. The City also agrees that utility rate design should fairly allocate costs among customer classes while complying with applicable legal requirements and sound utility rate-setting principles.

The City disagrees, however, with the Finding's characterization that the City currently charges "a single water rate regardless of the type of user," and with any implication that the current rate structure necessarily results in an inequitable allocation of costs.

Following the 2023 rate study process — conducted by Raftelis and including an extensive, publicly debated process before the resident-led Water and Wastewater Rate Study Advisory Committee — the City adopted a consumption-based tiered rate structure.

Rather than separate customer classes based on property type, the structure assigns all customers to three tiers based on gallons per capita per day of water consumption, an approach the advisory committee developed specifically to strongly incentivize conservation. The tiered structure does effectively differentiate costs by customer type in practice, because commercial and industrial high-volume users advance through the tiers faster and into higher-priced usage bands than typical residential customers, shifting a greater share of the cost burden to high-volume users.

Water rate structures are established through legislative action of the City Council following technical cost-of-service evaluations, public review, and the requirements of Proposition 218 and other applicable laws. The City's current rate structure reflects policy decisions made by the City Council based upon the information, engineering analysis, financial conditions, legal considerations, and recommendations available at the time of adoption. While previous rate structures included certain location-based surcharges, subsequent rate studies and Council actions evaluated alternative approaches to allocating utility costs among customer classes.

Page 1225 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 10 of 18 ends

The City periodically evaluates utility rate structures to promote equitable cost allocation, financial sustainability, compliance with applicable legal requirements, and consistency with evolving system conditions. As part of future water rate studies, the City will continue evaluating whether the existing rate structure appropriately allocates costs among customer classes and service areas based upon updated engineering, operational, financial, and legal analyses.

Accordingly, the City disagrees with Finding F5 because the Finding mischaracterizes the current tiered rate structure as a flat, undifferentiated rate, and because it characterizes a legislative rate design decision compelled by Proposition 218 legal constraints – confirmed by two independent consultants and outside legal counsel - as inherently inequitable.

F6: St. Helena has more than 30 Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAAs), representing approximately 24% of St. Helena’s total annual water consumption. The OSAA customers benefit from the Measure H funded infrastructure improvements but bear no responsibility for the repayment of the bonds because they are not located within the city limits.

Response: The City disagrees with Finding F6.

The City agrees that customers served under Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAAs) receive water service pursuant to agreements approved by the City Council and that such customers are not subject to Measure H because the measure applies to taxable property located within the City of St. Helena. Measure H was a general obligation bond measure approved by voters within the city limits of St. Helena on June 7, 2022; under Proposition 218 and established California constitutional law, parcels outside the city limits cannot be assessed for repayment of a bond approved solely by in-city voters. This is a constitutional constraint on the City, not a discretionary policy choice.

The City disagrees, however, with the implication that OSAA customers receive Measure H-funded infrastructure benefits without contributing to the costs of the water system.

Outside Service Area Agreement customers pay for water service under contractual agreements approved by the City Council and are subject to the water rates, fees, charges, and contractual obligations applicable to their respective agreements. Measure H and water enterprise revenues serve different legal and financial purposes, and direct comparisons between Measure H obligations and contractual water service charges do not fully reflect the legal and financial framework governing these separate funding sources.

Page 1226 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 11 of 18 ends

The City recognizes the equity concern this creates and acknowledges that allocation of infrastructure costs among customers is an appropriate subject for periodic review through future cost-of-service analyses and water rate studies. The City will pursue this both through OSAA contract renegotiations as individual agreements come up for renewal and through the rate study process described in the response to Recommendation R4, within the limits of what Proposition 218 and existing contract terms permit. Any modifications to Outside Service Area Agreements or customer rate structures should be evaluated through the City's established public process and consistent with applicable contractual obligations, Proposition 218 requirements, and other governing laws.

Accordingly, the City agrees with the factual basis of Finding F6 regarding Measure H's inapplicability to OSAA customers but disagrees that direct comparison of Measure H obligations and contractual water service charges does not fully reflect the distinct legal and financial purposes of these two funding mechanisms.

F7: St. Helena suffers from a lack of governance, poor oversight, ineffective management by the City Council and City Manager, and a lack of professional project management expertise. As a result, St. Helena’s Water Enterprise remains in a similar state of physical decline and financial distress today as it was in 2011.

Response: The City disagrees with Finding F7.

The City agrees that the persistence of recurring aesthetic water quality concerns over an extended period demonstrates the complexity of the issues affecting the municipal water system and reinforces the importance of continued long-term planning, organizational accountability, and transparent communication with the public. The City also agrees that ongoing evaluation of its planning processes, operational practices, and capital investment strategies is appropriate and beneficial to continuous organizational improvement. The City does not dispute that over a 15-year period encompassing eight election cycles, governance quality varied and that there were documented periods of insufficient project management oversight.

The City disagrees, however, with the Finding's conclusion that the City's water quality challenges are indicative of ineffective governance or inadequate organizational oversight,

Page 1227 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 12 of 18 ends

and disputes applying that conclusion uniformly to Council Members currently serving and to professional staff who have produced measurable infrastructure results in this period.

Municipal water systems are long-lived public infrastructure assets that require continual investment, operational adjustment, and adaptation to changing regulatory requirements, engineering knowledge, infrastructure conditions, and financial constraints. Over the past decade (with focused and intensified efforts in the last three years), the City has undertaken significant efforts to improve the reliability and performance of its water system through capital improvements (e.g. the 2017 Carbon Filtration System installation and corresponding 75% reduction in taste/odor complaints; the $2M SMART Water Meter Replacement Project that installed 2,700 “high tech” meters; the system-wide SCADA and modernization project now underway), operational modifications, engineering evaluations, enhanced customer communication, expanded water quality monitoring, and increased public engagement. The City has also substantially completed an $18.8 million wastewater treatment facility upgrades project — a separate utility system from the Water Enterprise — which positions the City to produce recycled water that can reduce demand on the potable water system by supplying irrigation water for non-potable uses, a further indicator of sustained, results-oriented capital investment across the City's utility systems.

As additional information has become available, the City's understanding of the contributing factors affecting aesthetic water quality has likewise evolved, resulting in corresponding changes to operational practices and capital planning priorities.

The City also identifies high staff turnover — eight city managers and five Public Works directors in 15 years — as the report's most consequential structural finding, and one that reflects regional workforce conditions rather than governance failure. This turnover reflects Napa Valley's high cost of living, competition for qualified municipal staff from larger and better-resourced jurisdictions, and a statewide shortage of certified water system operators that required the City's extended outside operator contract in FY 2022 — structural regional forces that no single Council could easily reverse through governance decisions alone. The City believes the more durable long-term improvement lies in competitive compensation and stable, experienced professional management carrying institutional knowledge across election cycles, and is committed to investing in both.

The City acknowledges that the duration of these challenges has understandably affected public confidence and that opportunities exist to further strengthen long-term planning, asset management, communication, and implementation of distribution system improvements. The City views these opportunities as part of the normal process of

Page 1228 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 13 of 18 ends

continuous improvement expected of a municipal utility and has already initiated efforts to expand engineering evaluation and incorporate additional information into future capital planning.

Accordingly, the City disagrees with Finding F7 because the Finding characterizes complex infrastructure and operational challenges — many attributable to structural regional workforce conditions and to decades of accumulated deferred maintenance that predates every current Council member's election — as evidence of ineffective governance without fully recognizing the substantial planning, investment, operational, and policy actions undertaken by successive City Councils, City Managers, Public Works staff, and utility professionals over many years to improve the City's water system. While the City recognizes that additional work remains, it does not agree that the historical record supports the broad conclusions regarding governance and organizational oversight reflected in the Finding.

Page 1229 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 14 of 18 ends

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Manager should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the water distribution system’s condition that includes the mains, the pipes, and the related infrastructure, and that the findings be reported to the St. Helena City Council by September 30, 2026.

Statutory Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

The City agrees that a comprehensive engineering assessment of the water distribution system would provide valuable information to support long-term capital planning, project prioritization, and future investment decisions.

The scope, methodology, level of engineering effort, procurement requirements, budget, and schedule necessary to complete such an assessment require additional evaluation before the City can commit to a specific implementation schedule. The City Manager will evaluate the appropriate scope of work, available staffing resources, consultant needs, funding sources, and implementation schedule for consideration by the City Council. The City’s ongoing programs and projects (e.g. tap water quality testing, ferric coagulant usage, systematic pipe flushing, hydraulic model development, etc.) will continue to inform the scope and prioritization of the assessment.

The City anticipates completing this evaluation and presenting recommendations regarding the scope, budget, procurement approach, and implementation schedule to the City Council no later than December 22, 2026. A comprehensive system assessment cannot reasonably be completed within the September 30, 2026 timeframe recommended by the Grand Jury, given the complexity of the issue and the City's purchasing policy requirements for consultant procurement.

R2: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Manager should develop a plan to address the failing water distribution system that includes the Capital Improvement Projects needed, the cost of said projects, the funding source(s) for said projects, and the timeline for completion of said projects; and that the plan be presented to the St. Helena City Council by December 31, 2026.

Statutory Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

Page 1230 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 15 of 18 ends

The City agrees that development of a comprehensive, long-term implementation strategy for rehabilitation of the water distribution system is appropriate and consistent with sound asset management practices.

However, preparation of the recommended implementation plan is dependent upon completion of additional engineering evaluation described in the response to R1, which is necessary to better define system condition, project priorities, probable construction costs, funding alternatives, and implementation sequencing. Because these efforts are interrelated, the City believes that additional analysis should precede preparation of a comprehensive implementation plan. The City notes that the adopted CIP already includes over $17 million in pipeline replacement projects that directly address distribution system quality — the Napa Intertie Pipeline Replacement, the Water Treatment Plant Transmission Main Replacement, replacement of mains under six inches in diameter, Water Distribution Fire Flow Improvements, and the Water Main Annual Replacement Program — which will be incorporated into, rather than substituted for, the comprehensive plan developed under this recommendation.

Following further analysis, the City Manager will present the City Council with a proposed scope, schedule, and funding strategy for development of a long-term distribution-system rehabilitation plan no later than December 22, 2026. Completion of the comprehensive plan itself will depend upon the engineering assessment, consultant procurement, available funding, and subsequent Council direction.

R3: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Manager should expand the use of the Grapevine app (or equivalent) complaint system to collect more in depth information and provide the St. Helena City Council and the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee with quarterly data reports on water complaints to minimally include complaint type, location, frequency, severity, and resolution status by September 30, 2026.

Statutory Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.

The City agrees that continued enhancement of customer complaint collection, analysis, and reporting will improve operational decision-making and long-term capital planning.

Page 1231 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 16 of 18 ends

The City has already implemented the Grapevine customer service platform and continues to expand its use for documenting and evaluating water quality concerns. The City will direct the Interim City Manager and the Public Works Director to expand upon Grapevine’s reporting capabilities including complaint characteristics, geographic trends, response activities, and resolution status for presentation to the City Council and the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee via a quarterly reporting protocol.

The City anticipates implementation of these enhanced reporting practices for presentation to and review by the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee at its January 2027 meeting, substantially consistent with the recommendation.

R4: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that St. Helena’s City Council should implement a water rate fee structure with differentiated rates based on the customer’s location (inside city limits vs. outside city limits) and the customer’s type (residential vs. commercial), as well as assessing surcharges for customers in elevated locations and surcharges for the Outside Service Area Agreement customers benefiting from Measure H by September 30, 2026.

Statutory Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

The City recognizes that equitable allocation of water system costs is an important component of responsible utility rate design and, as described in the response to F5, the City already operates a consumption-based tiered rate structure — adopted following a full Proposition 218 process in 2023 and recommended by the resident-led Water and Wastewater Rate Study Advisory Committee — that effectively differentiates costs by usage level.

Implementation of further differentiated water rates and customer surcharges involves legal, engineering, financial, and policy considerations. As documented in the response to F5, Proposition 218 permits differentiated charges only where the City can demonstrate with evidence that the cost of serving a specific customer differs from the cost of serviing others; two independent rate consultants (2017 and 2023) and the City’s outside legal counsel have concluded that no such evidentiary basis currently exists within St. Helena’s integrated distribution system, and that a surcharge imposed without basis would violate Proposition 218 and applicable California case law governing outside-service are rate differentials, exposing the City to legal challenge. In addition, existing Outside Service Area Agreements are binding contracts, and the City cannot impose new charges on OSAA

Page 1232 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 17 of 18 ends

customers beyond their contracted amounts without individually renegotiating those agreements as they come up for renewal. Rate design is ultimately a legislative decision of the City Council that must be supported by legally defensible cost-of-service analyses and applicable constitutional and statutory requirements.

Staff will evaluate the applicable legal requirements, existing Outside Service Area Agreements, cost-of-service considerations, operational impacts, and public-process requirements and will present the City Council with the results of that analysis and recommended next steps no later than December 22, 2026. Should that analysis warrant a further rate study, the City anticipates that any resulting Proposition 218 process and rate revisions would not be completed before approximately July 1, 2027, and the City will renegotiate OSAA surcharge provisions as individual agreements come up for renewal.

R5: The Napa County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the St. Helena City Council require its members and St. Helena City Senior Management Staff attend governance training (in addition to Brown Act training) within the first quarter of their tenure after election by December 31, 2026.

Training opportunities such as Mayors and Council Members Academy. can be found at The League of California Cities.

Statutory Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.

The City supports ongoing professional development for elected officials and executive management and recognizes the value of governance training in promoting effective leadership, sound decision-making, and organizational excellence.

The City Council supports governance training and will evaluate adoption of a formal policy to encourage or require newly elected Council Members and designated senior management employees to participate in governance-focused training in addition to legally mandated ethics and Brown Act training, including making training such as the League of California Cities Mayors and Council Members Academy available to, and budgeting for the cost of such training for, all Council members and senior staff. With respect to senior management staff, the City will evaluate requiring participation in governance and project management training as a condition of employment, to be incorporated into future employment agreements including for the City Manager and Public Works Director.

Page 1233 of 1318 ends

Attachment 1
Draft Responses to Napa Co Civil Grand Jury – City of St Helena Water System City Council Meeting dated August 11, 2026

Page 18 of 18 ends

With respect to elected Council Members, the City notes that mandating training as a condition of exercising elected office raises constitutional questions regarding the source of elected officials' authority, which derives from the voters rather than from administrative requirements. The City will therefore evaluate a policy strongly encouraging such training for Council Members while leaving the ultimate decision to individual members consistent with their constitutional status as elected representatives.

The City anticipates consideration and adoption of such a training requirement no later than December 31, 2026, consistent with the recommendation.

Page 1234 of 1318 ends

1 NAPA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
2025-2026

FINAL REPORT
June 24, 2026
Lapsed Leadership:

St. Helena's Problematic Pipes
and Murky Waters

Page 1235 of 1318 ends

2 SUMMARY
The 2025-2026 Napa County Civil Grand Jury investigated complaints of poor water quality in St. Helena and found that the St. Helena Water Enterprise suffers from decades of deferred
maintenance, neglect, poor decision-making, and a lack of long-term operational and financial planning - mostly due to the overall lack of effective governance and the failure of City Council leadership. Between 2011-2025, St. Helena’s water rates and city taxes were raised significantly with promises to address the aging infrastructure and bring the Water Enterprise back into good working order and financial stability. Instead, the water system as a whole has fallen further into decline.

The Grand Jury examined five specific areas impacting the operation of the St. Helena Water Enterprise and found them all deficient.

Water Rate Studies and Capital Improvement Projects: The Civil Grand Jury analyzed the 2011, 2016, and 2023 water rate studies and found that water rates increased approximately 183% during that time. Even though many of the exact same Capital Improvement Projects related specifically to water infrastructure were cited as justification for the increases in all three studies, several of them have not been funded and/or have not been completed. Therefore, the physical and financial condition of the St. Helena Water Enterprise has continued to deteriorate significantly, leaving its customers with water having taste, odor, and color issues.

Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAAs), Measure H, Proposition 218, and Additional Costs: The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the more than

Page 1236 of 1318 ends

3 30 Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAA) for water delivery that exist between St. Helena and a variety of residential and commercial entities located outside the city limits. The St. Helena Water Enterprise incurs significant expenses while delivering water to the OSAA customers without recouping the additional costs. In 2016, St. Helena’s City Council changed the fee structure to eliminate differentiated water rates and specific water surcharges, passing those additional costs on to all water ratepayers. With the passing of the Measure H Bond in 2022, OSAA customers reap the benefits from it without the repayment responsibility.

High Turnover, Retention and Recruitment Issues: Since 2011, St.

Helena has experienced significantly high rates of turnover on the City Council, in the City Manager’s Office, and in the Public Works Department.

The high turnover has resulted in the loss of institutional knowledge and created high levels of dysfunction. Coupled with the absence of adequate project management expertise, St. Helena suffers from the inability to problem solve effectively and the inability to plan, oversee, and complete large infrastructure projects.

City Governance Failures: The Civil Grand Jury found that poor decisionmaking, poor oversight, and poor governance by several terms of the City Council have contributed to the current state of the St. Helena Water Enterprise. While water rates and taxes have increased significantly to fund the necessary repair work on the water system, the City Council has not provided the oversight of city staff and consultants to ensure that the projects promised in the rate studies would and/or could be delivered in a timely manner. Since the revenues were raised, the staff and monies have

Page 1237 of 1318 ends

4 not been allocated or spent effectively for the intended approved purposes by the City Council.

The Current State of St. Helena’s Water System: Within the last few years, significant investments have been made to update and rehabilitate the Bell Canyon Water Treatment Plant. The Civil Grand Jury verified that water is currently leaving the facility clear, clean, and healthy. Even though good strides have been made in addressing the deferred maintenance and neglect at the Bell Canyon Treatment Plant, water is still arriving to the customer with taste, odor, and color quality issues. Despite working with the Water and Wastewater Advisory Committee, the City Council and city staff still have significant work ahead of them to understand the full scope of the infrastructure problems throughout the entire water system, when the needed repair work can be done, and how much that work will cost.

Findings and Recommendations: The Civil Grand Jury made several findings during their investigation including: (1) water is leaving the Bell Canyon Water Treatment Plant clear, clean, and healthy after recent work but not arriving to the customer that way, (2) the current Capital Improvement Plan does not contain projects dedicated to the rehabilitation of the aged water distribution system, (3) St. Helena lacks an effective system for data collection related to water issues, (4) revenues were raised through water rate increases that were not utilized effectively by the City Council, (5) St. Helena lacks a differential water rate fee structure, (6) OSAAs benefit from Measure H without repaying it, and (7) St. Helena suffers from poor governance and a lack of professional project management expertise.

Page 1238 of 1318 ends

5 The Civil Grand Jury’s findings led to the following recommendations: (1) St. Helena’s City Manager should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the water distribution system, (2) St. Helena’s City Manager should develop a plan to address the failing water infrastructure, (3) St. Helena’s City Manager should expand the use of their data collection system to track water issues, (4) St. Helena’s City Council should implement a differential water rate fee structure, and (5) St. Helena’s City Council should require its members and Senior City Management Staff to attend governance training in addition to training on the Brown Act.

Page 1239 of 1318 ends

6 METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury interviewed city governmental leadership, city management and line staff, as well as residents and community members.

Jury members toured the water facilities to better understand the complexity and severity of the water issues firsthand. Jury members analyzed St. Helena’s water rate studies dating 2011 to the present day, as well as reviewed the Capital Improvement Projects cited as justification for the water rate increases. Jury members reviewed the Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAAs) providing water to customers outside the city limits. Lastly, jury members attended community meetings related to St.

Helena’s water troubles and witnessed how the community interacted with the City Council and City Management Staff.

DISCUSSION
St. Helena – the stats
Napa County has 5 incorporated cities (largest to smallest using the US Census population data estimates from July 2024): the City of Napa with 76,921, the City of American Canyon with 21,742, the City of St. Helena with 5,257, the City of Calistoga with 5,022, and the City of Yountville with 3,280-3,350 (depending on the number of Veteran’s Home residents).

Although St. Helena’s population decreased approximately 10% between the 2010 and the 2020 US Census, in 2024, the United States government estimated there to be 2,341 separate households within the city limits, but 2,831 actual housing units.

St. Helena provides drinking water to all households and businesses within the city limits and has Outside Service Area Agreements (OSAAs) to provide

Page 1240 of 1318 ends

7 water services to residential and commercial customers located outside the city limits. In 2023, single and multiple family residences used about 12% more water overall than commercial entities and city-wide landscaping. (Additional information can be found at Water & Wastewater Rate Update (2023) | St Helena, CA)
St. Helena receives drinking water from three sources: the Bell Canyon Reservoir, the Stonebridge wells, and the City of Napa. According to the St. Helena’s city records, 26% comes from the Bell Canyon Reservoir, 27% comes from the Stonebridge wells, and 47% comes from the City of Napa. The overall production of water in fiscal year 2024/25 was 1,159 acre-feet (equating to over 377 million gallons) which was an 18% reduction from fiscal year 2023/24. In total, there are nearly 46 miles of water pipes in St. Helena’s water delivery system.
(Additional information can be found at CITY OF ST. HELENA MONTHLY

WATER REPORT )
The Impetus for this Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury received a complaint filed by a resident of St.

Helena regarding the persistent taste, odor, and color problems with their water. The complaint was supported by photographs, news articles, and social media posts. Overall water issues are multifaceted and significant in nature, but due to the Civil Grand Jury’s time constraints, the investigation was narrowed in scope. This report focuses on the city leadership failures and how they have affected the St. Helena Water Enterprise negatively since at least 2011.

Page 1241 of 1318 ends

8 Additionally, this Civil Grand Jury noted water issues were also investigated by the 2018-2019 Napa County Civil Grand Jury. Refer to https://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/system/files/gj-18-19-st-helena-small-townbig-city-problems-f.pdf for additional information.

Gathering Historical Data was Challenging
For more than a decade, St. Helena’s water customers have experienced sporadic episodes of taste, odor, and color issues with their water. The issues were believed to be seasonal (mainly in the summer) and caused by higher levels of iron, manganese, and organic material in the water sourced from the Bell Canyon Reservoir. A simple change to the treatment and flushing of the distribution system was usually enough to address the problem and resolve the complaints. That system seemed to work until around 2010 (potentially earlier) when complaints about water quality issues became more prevalent, persistent, and widespread. The issues are now common all year long and seem to be spread throughout the water service areas.

The Civil Grand Jury discovered gathering historical information regarding water quality issues problematic. Until recently, there was no formal process for recording complaints, and thus no system for analyzing the number of complaints received, when complaints were received, the frequency of complaints, the nature of the complaints, the locations of the complaints, and how the complaints were resolved. According to interviews with city staff, complaints were simply written on notes that were passed off to be addressed and then thrown away. With no data for the City Council or

Page 1242 of 1318 ends

9 city staff to analyze, it was nearly impossible for them to make informed decisions about how money and resources should be prioritized or allocated. St. Helena began using the Grapevine app in 2023 to capture customer complaints, providing a basic level of data gathering and analysis, however it is still lacking sufficient data to provide a holistic view of the city’s targeted problem areas.

Water Rate Studies & Increases and the Capital Improvement Projects used as Justifications
The Civil Grand Jury analyzed St. Helena’s 2011, 2016, and 2023 water rate studies and found that the financial and physical condition of the water system and its infrastructure remained in a state of distress despite all the water rate increases that were approved. Across all three water rate studies, the same reasons were used to justify significant rate increases:
the same Capital Improvement Projects were cited repeatedly, yet most were never started let alone completed; substantial
investments in infrastructure were needed to address decades of deferred maintenance and modernization; revenues needed to be raised to restore debt coverage ratios as required by debtholders; and additional revenues were required to establish healthy financial reserves. The water distribution system (referring to the mains, pipes, and underground infrastructure) was never mentioned specifically in any of the water rate studies even though the distribution system is now believed to be the main source of taste, odor, and color issues.

Page 1243 of 1318 ends

10 2011 Water Rate Study
Summary: The Water Rate Study found that the St. Helena Water Enterprise was in a precarious financial state. Its approximate $2,900,000 in annual revenues did not cover its approximate $3,800,000 in operating, maintenance, and debt service costs. The insufficient cash in the operating fund necessitated $1,000,000 to be transferred from the Capital Funds to maintain prudent reserves for the fiscal year 2010/11. The St. Helena Water Enterprise failed to meet its debt covenant, which required net revenues to be at least 1.2 times the annual debt service. There was a significant backlog of projects totaling approximately $11,500,000 that could not be funded without issuing new debt. Additional debt would most likely have to be issued to fund any projects beyond the 2011/12 fiscal year, although no specific project plans were included in the water rate study. In fact, the City Council made a conscious decision to defer capital improvements and approved a smaller rate increase than recommended, prioritizing debt covenants over long-term infrastructure and deferring maintenance yet again. A quote from the water rate study:
“because of the City’s desire to keep the required water rate increase to the level needed to meet debt covenants, not all the planned capital improvement programs will be funded during the planning period, even with the planned debt issuance. As a result, approximately $1.1 million of the planned capital improvement program has been deferred beyond the planning period used for this study”.

Rate Increases: Below is a list of the recommended water rate increases and what increases were approved by the City Council.

Page 1244 of 1318 ends

11 Recommended
Rate Increases
Fiscal Year 2011/12 - 58%
Fiscal Year 2012/13 - 3%
Fiscal Year 2013/14 - 3%
Fiscal Year 2014/15 - 3%
Fiscal Year 2015/16 - 3%
Actual
Rate Increases
Fiscal Year 2011/12 - 29%
Fiscal Year 2012/13 - 3.0%
Fiscal Year 2013/14 - 2.5%
Fiscal Year 2014/15 - 2.6%
Fiscal Year 2015/16 - 2.6%
Justifications for increases: The reasons for necessitating water rate increases include several items. Rate hikes were needed to cover the increased costs of treated water purchased from the City of Napa to supplement St. Helena’s local supplies. Increases were needed to cover the debt service coverage requirements and to support the issuance of $7,500,000 in new debt acquired for projects, including the removal of the Upper Reservoir Dam costing $3,100,000. Additional monies were needed to raise the minimum operating reserve target from 15% to 25% to handle revenue volatility. Increases would also provide monies to support hiring new staff including a Water Conservation Specialist and a shared Assistant Engineer.

Capital Improvement Projects: Between the 2011/12 to 2015/16 fiscal years, 29 Capital Improvement Projects were completed (many requiring several years and 2 rate studies). Although minimal progress was made on the “priority” projects listed in the 2011 water rate study, some maintenance and repairs were made to the pumps and to the Bell Canyon Water

Page 1245 of 1318 ends

12 Treatment Plant. No Capital Improvement Projects were dedicated to the water distribution system.

Additional information is listed in the Appendix.
2016 Water Rate Study
Summary: The 2016 Water Rate Study found that once again, the St.

Helena Water Enterprise was in a critical financial position. The operating fund’s unrestricted net position was expected to drop from roughly $5,000,000 in the 2016/17 fiscal year to approximately $525,000 by the end of the 2017/18 fiscal year. Without water rate increases, the water fund was projected to have a negative balance of -$11,100,000 by the end of the 2022/23 fiscal year. St. Helena would fail to meet its bond requirement of a

1.2x minimum debt service coverage ratio, with only 0.72 coverage projected for the 2017/18 fiscal year. The St. Helena Water Enterprise pulled monies from reserves to cover operations and project costs because water rates at the time did not include funding for depreciation or system rehabilitation.

Rate Increases: Below is a list of the recommended water rate increases and what increases were approved by the City Council.

Page 1246 of 1318 ends

13 Recommended Rate
Increases
Fiscal Year 2016/17 - 63%
Fiscal Year 2017/18 - 15%
Fiscal Year 2018/19 - 4%
Fiscal Year 2019/20 - 4%
Fiscal Year 2020/21 - 4%
Actual
Rate Increases
Fiscal Year 2016/17 -25%
Fiscal Year 2017/18 - 3.7%
Fiscal Year 2018/19 - 3.7%
Fiscal Year 2019/20 - 3.7%
Fiscal Year 2020/21 - 3.7%
Justifications for increases: The reasons for water rate increases include several items. Rate hikes were needed to cover operational sufficiency in operating and maintaining water related expenses without relying on St.

Helena’s General Fund or other services. Additional monies were needed to fund Capital Improvement Projects such as the removal of the York Creek Dam, the removal of the Upper Reservoir Dam, and the Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement. Increases were also needed to establish a healthy cash reserve (targeting 6 to 12 months of operating expenses) to fund emergencies and unanticipated capital needs.

Capital Improvement Projects: Between the 2016/17 to 2021/22 fiscal years, 18 Capital Improvement Projects were completed (many requiring several years and 2 rate studies). About 30% progress was made on the “priority” projects listed in the 2016 water rate study, although no Capital Improvement Projects were dedicated to the distribution system.

Additional information is listed in the Appendix.

Page 1247 of 1318 ends

14 2023 Water Rate Study
Summary (additional information at
https://www.cityofsthelena.gov/386/Water-Wastewater-Rate-Update ): In August 2023, The City Manager declared a “State of Emergency” for St.

Helena’s Water System. The St. Helena Water Enterprise required immediate revenue adjustment to remain viable. Without changes, the St.

Helena Water Enterprise faced depleted reserves. With 2023 water rates, fund balances were projected to be in the negatives each year. The St.

Helena Water Enterprise was also projected to fall below the minimum debt coverage requirements as well as the target reserve policies. Existing revenues were insufficient to cover the rising costs of operations, maintenance, and the significant increase in planned capital reinvestments.

Rate Increases: Below is a list of the recommended water rate increases and what increases were approved by the City Council.

Recommended Rate Increases
Fiscal Year 2023/24- 28%
Fiscal Year 2024/25 - 8%
Fiscal Year 2025/26 - 8%
Fiscal Year 2026/27 - 8%
Fiscal Year 2027/28 - 8%
Actual Rate Increases
Fiscal Year 2023/24- 28%
Fiscal Year 2024/25 - 8%
Fiscal Year 2025/26 - 8%
Fiscal Year 2026/27 - 8%
Fiscal Year 2027/28 - 8%
Justifications for increases: The additional revenues are designated to fund several critical areas of the St. Helena Water Enterprise’s operations.

Page 1248 of 1318 ends

15 Funding significantly expands the Capital Improvement Plan, which averages approximately $6,700,000 per year, a huge increase from the historical average of $1,000,000 annually. Several projects account for the bulk of the $35,800,000 in planned spending over the study’s 5-year period (2023-2028) including:
• The Napa Intertie Pipeline & Pump Station project is needed to ensure water reliability. It involves the replacement of the intertie pipeline and the construction of a new pump station. The projected cost for the project is approximately $10,000,000.
• The Water Treatment Plant Transmission Main project involves the replacement of the main line carrying water from the treatment plant.

The projected cost for the project is approximately $9,100,000. • The Bell Canyon Intake Tower Replacement project involves replacing the intake infrastructure at the reservoir for the cost of approximately $3,700,000.
• The Spring Mountain Pressure Zone (the Holmes Tank) project includes a variety of upgrades needed to support the local pressure zone. The projected cost was approximately $3,600,000.
• The system-wide transition to Smart Water Meters, an advanced metering infrastructure to improve billing accuracy and leak detection, is projected to cost approximately $2,200,000. About 5% of the meters will be replaced annually over a 20-year period.

Capital Improvement Projects: It is unclear what if any Capital Improvement Projects have been completed since the implementation of the 2023 water rate study as it covers fiscal years 2023/24 to 2027/28.

Page 1249 of 1318 ends

16 However, once again, no Capital Improvement Projects were dedicated specifically to the distribution system.

Additional information is listed in the Appendix
Based on the Civil Grand Jury’s overall analysis of the water rate studies and the approved Capital Improvement Projects, disturbing trends were revealed. The St. Helena Water Enterprise has been in a constant state of physical decline and financial distress, despite the large water rate increases between 2011-2025. The totality of costs related to the deferred and/or delayed improvement projects continue to rise significantly without any timeline of completion, creating a constant state of financial instability.

The identified and approved infrastructure projects lack professional project plans and project management. The Public Works staff lack sufficient resources and project management expertise to perform all the needed work identified by each water rate study.

As a result, the Civil Grand Jury found that water rates in St. Helena have climbed steadily since 2011 with little to no progress made in addressing any of the water quality issues. In fact, water rates have increased approximately 183% in that time, resulting in St. Helena residents and St.

Helena Water Enterprise customers paying exorbitantly higher rates for water than in neighboring communities.

Outside Water Agreements, Measure H, and Additional Costs While investigating the water problems in St. Helena, the Civil Grand Jury also investigated where water is dispersed and how that might affect the overall financial picture for the St. Helena Water Enterprise.

Page 1250 of 1318 ends

St. Helena City CouncilAugust 11, 2026

St. Helena City Council
August 11, 2026