SOI City of St. Helena 2008

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF NAPA COUNTY CITY OF ST. HELENA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW Final Report August 2008 Prepared by: LAFCO of Napa County 1700 Second Street, Suite 268 Napa, California 94559 Committed to serving the citizens and government agencies of its jurisdiction by encouraging the preservation of agricultural lands and open-space and coordinating the efficient delivery of municipal services. Brad Wagenknecht, Chair, County Member Brian J. Kelly, Vice-Chair, Public Member Bill Dodd, Commissioner, County Member J J a u c li k a n G a i n In g m le a s, n , C C om om m m is i s s i s o i n o e n r e , r , C C it i y ty M M em em be b r e r g e ncyFormation C o m Cindy Coffey, Alternate Commissioner, City Member A m Mark Luce, Alternate Commissioner, County Member c al is s o io Gregory Rodeno, Alternate Commissioner, Public Member L n Keene Simonds, Executive Officer J B a r c e q n u d e o l n in F e r G ee o m ng an , , C A om na m ly i s s t s i on Counsel NapaCounty Kathy Mabry, Commission Secretary City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County This page has been left intentionally blank 1 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Introduction………………………………………………………… 4 A. Local Agency Formation Commissions……………………..... 4 B. Sphere of Influences……...…………………………………..... 4 C. City of St. Helena……………………………………...……….. 4 II. Overview…………………………….………………………………. 5 A. Background…………………………………………………….. 5 B. Sphere of Influence……………………………………………... 5 C. Land Use Policies……………………………………………….. 6 III. Discussion……………………. …………………………………..... 6 A. Objective…...…………………………………………………… 6 B. Timeframe…………………………………………………........ 7 IV. Study Areas…………………………………………………………. 7 A. Criteria and Selection …………………………………………. 7 V. Analysis……………………………………………………………… 8 A. Evaluation Factors……………………………………………... 8 B. Study Areas…………………………………………………….. 8 VI. Recommendation…………………………………………………... 12 VII. Attachments……………………………………………………...... Map of St. Helena’s Sphere and Incorporated Boundary………. One Aerial Map of Land Uses in St. Helena………………………....... Two Map of St. Helena’s Land Use Designations……............................ Three Map of County of Napa’s Land Use Designations……………….. Four Map of Study Areas A and B……………………………………… Five Letter from the County of Napa, Dated December 12, 2007…….. Six Letter from the City of St. Helena, Dated April 23, 2008………... Seven 2 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County This page has been left intentionally blank 3 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County I. INTRODUCTION A. Local Agency Formation Commissions Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) were established in 1963 and are responsible for administering a section of California Government Code now known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. LAFCOs are delegated regulatory and planning responsibilities to coordinate the logical formation and development of local governmental agencies and services, preserve agricultural and open- space resources, and discourage urban sprawl. LAFCOs are located in all 58 counties in California and are generally governed by a five-member commission that includes two county supervisors, two city councilmembers, and one representative of the general public.1 B. Sphere of Influence A central planning responsibility for LAFCO is the determination of a sphere of influence (“sphere”) for each local agency under its jurisdiction.2 LAFCO establishes, amends, and updates spheres to designate the territory it believes represents the appropriate and probable future service area and jurisdictional boundary of the affected agency. All jurisdictional changes, such as annexations and detachments, must be consistent with the spheres of the affected local agencies with limited exceptions. LAFCO is required to review each local agency’s sphere by January 1, 2008 and every five years thereafter as needed. In making a sphere determination, LAFCO is required to prepare written statements addressing four specific planning factors listed under California Government Code §56425. These factors range from present and planned land uses to the existence of any social or economic communities of interest. The intent in preparing the written statements is to capture the legislative intent of the sphere determination with regard to coordinating the sensible and timely development of each local agency. Beginning in 2001, to help inform the sphere review process, LAFCO is responsible for preparing municipal service reviews to determine the level and range of governmental services provided in the region. The municipal service review can focus on a particular agency or type of service and culminates with LAFCO making determinations on a number of governance-related factors and may lead it to take other actions under its authority. C. City of St. Helena This report represents LAFCO of Napa County’s (“Commission”) scheduled sphere review of the City of St. Helena. The report represents the first comprehensive review of St. Helena’s sphere in 20 years and draws on information collected as part of the Commission’s recent municipal service review on the City. The focus of the report is to consider whether changes to the sphere are warranted to facilitate the orderly development of St. Helena consistent with the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Commission’s adopted policies. 1 Several LAFCOs also have two members from independent special districts within their county. Each category represented on LAFCO has one alternate member. 2 LAFCOs have been required to determine spheres for cities and special districts within its jurisdiction since 1972. 4 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County II. OVERVIEW A. Background The City of St. Helena was incorporated in 1876 and operates under a council-manager system of government. St. Helena is approximately 5.1 square miles in size and provides a full range of municipal services directly or through contracts with other public or private entities. Municipal services provided directly by St. Helena include fire, police, sewer, and water. St. Helena has experienced a slight annual growth rate of 0.8% over the last 10 years and has a current estimated resident population of 5,993, making it the third largest municipality in Napa County.3 St. Helena has experienced steady growth in property, sale, and transient-occupancy tax revenues over the last several years reflecting a relatively strong local economy. On a regional level, St. Helena collects almost more than double the amount of sale tax revenue than any other jurisdiction in Napa County as measured on a per capita basis. St. Helena also enjoys significant cost-savings associated with having an all-volunteer fire department, which permits the City to fund several community-oriented programs that are not available in neighboring communities, such as operating its own public library. B. Sphere of Influence St. Helena’s sphere was established by the Commission in 1974. The Commission designated the sphere to be coterminous with St. Helena’s incorporated boundary with the notable exception of excluding an approximate 245 acre hillside area located along Howell Mountain Road east of its intersection with Silverado Trail. The Commission’s decision to exclude the incorporated hillside area from the sphere was consistent with its determination one year earlier to approve St. Helena’s request to detach the affected lands after a planned 148-lot subdivision failed to materialize. Detachment proceedings, however, were subsequently abandoned due to sufficient protest from affected property owners. The Commission also excluded from the sphere an approximate 95 acre detached incorporated area comprising the lower portion of Bell Reservoir, which serves as the City’s primary water supply. The Commission has approved two amendments to St. Helena’s sphere since its establishment in 1974. The first amendment was approved in 1994 and extended the sphere as part of concurrent annexation proposal to add an approximate 8.09 acre area located next to the City’s Lower Reservoir and the site of a water storage tank. The second amendment was approved in 1997 and reduced the sphere as part of a concurrent detachment proposal to exclude an approximate 2.36 acre area located near the intersection of State Highway 29 and Deer Park Road. In terms of proportions, St. Helena’s sphere is approximately 2,891 acres or 4.5 square miles in size. The sphere includes a total of 2,229 assessor parcels with an average size of 1.28 acres. The sphere excludes nearly 10% of St. Helena’s incorporated boundary, which is approximately 3,238 acres or 5.1 square miles in size. The incorporated boundary includes a total of 2,270 assessor parcels with an average size of 1.41 acres. 3 Population estimates calculated by the California Department of Finance. 5 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County City of St. Helena: Adopted Boundaries (Source: County of Napa Geographic Information System) Sphere of Influence Incorporated Boundary Total Acres: 2,891 3,238 Assessor Parcels: 2,229 2,270 C. Land Use Policies St. Helena’s General Plan was comprehensively updated in 1993 and codifies land use policies for the City through 2010. The St. Helena General Plan is predicated on maintaining the City’s existing small-town character through a number of growth control measures. This includes establishing an urban limit line that comprises less than two- thirds of St. Helena’s incorporated boundary and designating the majority of properties within and along the perimeter of the City for agricultural use. The substantive effect of these two growth control measures is a municipal-controlled greenbelt. St. Helena recently initiated work on preparing a comprehensive update to its General Plan. It is anticipated the update will be completed by 2010. Unincorporated lands adjacent to St. Helena are designated under the County of Napa General Plan as Agricultural Resource or Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space. These designations support the preservation of existing agricultural and open-space land uses characterizing most of the area by requiring minimum parcel sizes of 40 and 160 acres, respectively. The majority of these unincorporated lands are also zoned by the County as Agricultural Watershed or Agricultural Preserve and include a number of commercial vineyards and wineries. Exceptions involve the 40-lot Madrone Knoll subdivision and Meadowood Resort, which are immediately east of St. Helena and zoned for residential and planned development by the County. The County has also zoned several properties south of St. Helena along State Highway 29 for commercial use. * An aerial map depicting current land uses within and adjacent to St. Helena is provided in Attachment Two. * A map depicting the land use designations under the St. Helena General Plan is provided in Attachment Three. * A map depicting the land use designations under the County General Plan is provided in Attachment Four. III. DISCUSSION A. Objective The objective of this report is to identify and evaluate areas that warrant consideration for inclusion or removal from St. Helena’s sphere as part of a comprehensive review. Underlying this effort is to designate the sphere to facilitate the sensible and timely development of St. Helena consistent with the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Commission’s adopted policies. 6 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County The Commission’s “General Policy Determinations” provide direction with respect to establishing and amending an agency’s sphere in relationship to local conditions and circumstances. The General Policy Determinations state that a city’s sphere shall exclude lands designated as agricultural or open-space for the purpose of urban development unless it is demonstrated that infill opportunities are limited or non-existent. The General Policy Determinations also state that the Commission will use the County General Plan to determine agricultural and open-space land use designations. B. Timeframe State law requires all LAFCOs review and update each local agency’s sphere by January 1, 2008 and every five years thereafter as needed. Accordingly, it has been the practice of the Commission to review and update each local agency’s sphere in a manner that emphasizes a probable five-year service area. IV. STUDY AREAS A. Criteria and Selection Four factors were used in selecting areas to evaluate adding or removing from St. Helena’s sphere as part of this comprehensive review. These factors include (a) relationship to incorporated boundary, (b) land use designations, (c) infrastructure capacities, and (d) agency comments. Based on these factors, two study areas have been selected to consider the merit of their inclusion into the sphere. Study Area “A” has been chosen because it comprises lands that are already in St. Helena and designated for an urban use under both the County and St. Helena General Plans. This selection is also consistent with a request from St. Helena to add the affected lands to the sphere to correspond with its incorporated boundary. Study Area “B” has been chosen in response to an additional request from St. Helena and comprises lands owned and used by the City to discharge treated wastewater. St. Helena is seeking this inclusion to facilitate an annexation that will allow the City not to pay property taxes on the affected lands. It is important to note consideration was given to establishing a third study area to reflect St. Helena’s outside water service area, which extends along State Highway 29 north to Lodi Lane and south to Niebaum Lane. St. Helena also provides outside water service east to the Meadowood Resort. The merits in establishing this third study area relates to the role of the sphere in designating each agency’s present and probable future service area. It also reflects recent changes in the law that now requires cities and special districts to request and receive written approval from LAFCO before providing new or extended services by contract or agreement outside their jurisdictions but within their spheres.4 However, because the affected lands are designated and primarily used for agricultural purposes, adding the outside water service area to the sphere would conflict with LAFCO’s principal mandate to protect agricultural and open-space resources from 4 City and special district requests to provide new or extended services outside their sphere may only be approved by LAFCO under certain conditions. (California Government Code §56133) 7 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County premature annexation and development. Accordingly, expanding the sphere to include the outside water service area is not further considered as part of this review.5 * A map depicting Study Areas A and B is provided in Attachment Four. V. ANALYSIS A. Evaluation Factors Evaluation of each study area is organized to address the four planning factors the Commission is required to consider anytime it makes a sphere determination. These planning factors are (a) present and planned land uses, (b) present and probable need for public facilities and services, (c) present adequacy and capacity of public services, and (d) existence of any social or economic communities of interest. Conclusions are offered for each study area with respect to whether a sphere modification is appropriate. B. Study Areas Study Area A Study Area A comprises 36 incorporated parcels located along Howell Mountain Road generally east of its intersection with Silverado Trail. It is approximately 245 acres in size and was annexed to St. Helena in 1966 in anticipation of a 148-lot hillside residential subdivision referred to as “Stonebridge.” In 1973, after development plans failed to materialize, St. Helena requested and the Commission approved the detachment of the study area. Detachment proceedings, however, were abandoned after 60% of affected property owners protested. In 1974, the Commission excluded the study area from St. Helena’s sphere at the time of its establishment in support of its earlier determination that the affected lands should be detached. The Commission considered adding the study area to the sphere in 1988 as part of comprehensive review but concluded it was not appropriate due to the lack of adequate water and sewer services as well as its underlying rural character. As part of this scheduled review, St. Helena has requested the Commission add the lands comprising the study area to its sphere to correspond with its incorporated boundary. As provided under LAFCO law, representatives with St. Helena and the County met to discuss the pending sphere review and offer an agreement on possible modifications for consideration by the Commission. Towards this end, the County has submitted a letter to the Commission supporting St. Helena’s request to add the affected lands to its sphere. 5 As discussed in the municipal service review, it is recommended St. Helena and the Commission work on a local policy to ensure new and extended services provided by the City outside its jurisdiction is consistent with State law. 8 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County Present and Planned Land Uses The predominant land use in the study area is rural residential with 21 of the 36 affected parcels comprising single-family residences. Parcels range in size from 1.18 to 20.26 acres. The average parcel size is 6.6 acres. An aerial view also indicates a small number of parcels include vineyards, which may qualify as prime agricultural land under LAFCO law.6 As land use authority, St. Helena designates and zones the study area Woodlands and Watershed. These assignments require a minimum parcel size of five acres, and as a result, could accommodate the creation of an additional 10 lots. The County designates the entire study area as Cities with no zoning assignment. None of the parcels are under a Williamson Act contract. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services St. Helena provides a partial range of municipal services to the study area that includes street maintenance and fire and police protection. St. Helena also provides water service to three parcels that are all located along Howell Mountain Road south of Sarah’s Way. Due to topography, pump stations are needed to extend water service to the remainder of the study area. St. Helena’s sewer services do not extend east of the Napa River and therefore are not available to the study area. It appears this level and range of municipal services is consistent with the present and probable needs within the study area given its current and planned land uses under the St. Helena General Plan. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services The Commission’s recent municipal service review of St. Helena indicates the City has adequate infrastructure capacities, administrative controls, and funding streams to continue providing the current level and range of municipal services to the study area. St. Helena would need to make significant infrastructure improvements to extend water service north of Sarah’s Way as well as to establish sewer services in the study area. It is not expected St. Helena will pursue these improvements to its water and sewer systems in the foreseeable future. Existence of Social or Economic Communities of Interest The study area has established social and economic communities of interests with St. Helena that are distinct from adjacent unincorporated lands. These interests are drawn from social and economic ties associated with the study area having been part of St. Helena for the past 40 years. Residents have participated in local elections while landowners have contributed to St. Helena’s development through taxes and assessments and in return have received an elevated level of municipal services with respect to street maintenance and fire and police protection. 6 Prime agricultural land is broadly defined under G.C. 56064(d) to include “land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production no less than $400 per acre per acre.” 9 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County Conclusion Modifying St. Helena’s sphere to include the study area appears appropriate at this time. Inclusion is consistent with the St. Helena and County General Plans and would support the planned development of the City by modifying the sphere to become congruent with its incorporated boundary. Inclusion would recognize and strengthen the social and economic communities of interest existing between St. Helena and the affected lands and reflect the City’s current service obligations as it relates to street maintenance and fire and police protection. Finally, inclusion appears consistent with the preferences of the affected landowners and residents to remain part of St. Helena rather than seek detachment proceedings. Study Area B Study Area B comprises two unincorporated parcels located approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the intersection of Silverado Trail and Zinfandel Lane along the western side of the Napa River. The two affected parcels are collectively 101 acres in size and are owned and used by St. Helena to discharge treated wastewater.7 The Commission considered adding the study area to the sphere in 1988 as part of comprehensive review at the request of St. Helena.8 The Commission concluded adding the study area to the sphere was inappropriate because it would facilitate the annexation of agricultural zoned land and set a precedent for other cities and special districts to seek similar proposals. St. Helena resubmitted their request to add the study area to the sphere in 1989 as part of a concurrent annexation proposal. The Commission denied the request, and in response, St. Helena filed a lawsuit claiming an abuse of discretionary power.9 The lawsuit was eventually dismissed, and St. Helena resubmitted a modified proposal to the Commission in 1991. The modified proposal sought only the annexation of a portion of the study area under a special section of LAFCO law pertaining to non-contiguous city owned land. The Commission, however, denied the modified proposal in 1992 and restated its concerns of establishing a precedent of annexing agricultural zoned lands. 7 St. Helena purchased the two affected parcels from Mont LaSalle Vineyards in 1987. 8 As part of a planned reclamation project, St. Helena was initially interested in annexing and leasing the affected lands for development of a private golf course which would be irrigated using the City’s treated wastewater. The reclamation project, however, was reduced in scope to involve its present-use of irrigating forage crops. 9 St. Helena asserted LAFCO’s denial was unreasonable, arbitrary and a prejudicial abuse of discretion. LAFCO’s position was that its boundary decisions were quasi-legislative in nature and exclusively within the discretion of LAFCO, and thus the court had no power to compel LAFCO to approve essentially a legislative action. The court agreed that it did not have the power to compel LAFCO to take a specific quasi-legislative action, but further allowed the City to file amended pleadings to seek an alternative form of relief (one other than to compel LAFCO to approve the boundary changes). On this basis, St. Helena amended its court pleadings, seeking to set aside LAFCO’s denial of the request for detached annexation on grounds that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence. LAFCO asserted that the city’s amended action should be dismissed for the following main reasons: 1) the city failed to show any right or beneficial interest affected by the boundary disapproval- e.g. the property tax payments by the City was not a protected beneficial interest; and 2) LAFCO’s concerns formed an adequate basis for its quasi-legislative determinations to neither expand the sphere nor approve the detached annexation. Ultimately, in December 1995, the court issued an order denying St. Helena’s petition. (Summary prepared by J. Gong) 10 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County As part of this scheduled review, St. Helena has again requested the Commission add the lands comprising the study area to its sphere to facilitate an annexation that would allow the City to no longer pay property taxes on the affected lands. As provided under LAFCO law, representatives with St. Helena and the County met to discuss this sphere review and offer an agreement on possible modifications for consideration by the Commission. The County has submitted a letter to the Commission supporting St. Helena’s request to add the affected lands to its sphere provided that there are sufficient assurances that it would remain in use as a spray field or as agriculture. Present and Planned Land Uses The two parcels comprising the study area are undeveloped and used by St. Helena as spray fields to discharge treated wastewater from its adjacent sewer plant. The two parcels are 63.7 and 37.2 acres in size. As land use authority, the County designates the northern portion of the study area as Cities and the southern portion as Agricultural Resource. The County clarifies the intended land use for the study area by zoning both affected parcels as Agricultural Preserve. This zoning assignment requires a minimum parcel size of 40 acres, and as a result, prohibits the creation of additional lots within the study area. No land use designations exist for the study area under the St. Helena General Plan. Similar to the County, St. Helena has prezoned both affected parcels as Agriculture Preserve, which permits one dwelling unit per existing parcel. Both parcels qualify as prime agricultural land and are under the same Williamson Act contract. This contract restricts the land to agricultural or open-space uses for the next 10 years and is automatically renewed each year unless cancelled by St. Helena or the County. In return, the two parcels are assessed below market value to reduce annual property tax charges. In 2007, the two parcels have a combined property tax charge of $1,120. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services St. Helena presently provides first-response fire protection services to the study area as part of a contract with the County. St. Helena provides no other municipal service to the study area. It does not appear that other municipal services provided by St. Helena are needed given the present and planned land uses for the study area under both the County and City General Plans. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services The Commission’s recent municipal service review of St. Helena indicates the City has adequate infrastructure capacities, administrative controls, and funding streams to extend a full range of municipal services to the study area. The extension of additional municipal services, however, would be inconsistent with the present and planned uses for the study area under both the County and St. Helena General Plans. Existence of Social or Economic Communities of Interest There are no discernable social or economic communities of interest existing between the study area and St. Helena. 11 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County Conclusion Modifying St. Helena’s sphere to include the study area does not appear appropriate at this time. Inclusion would be inconsistent with the basic policy of the Commission to use a city sphere to direct the location of urban development given the affected lands are generally designated for agricultural use under the County General Plan. Inclusion also appears inconsistent with LAFCO law that states the Commission shall not approve a modification to a sphere to include lands under a Williamson Act contract unless it makes a special finding that the change will facilitate planned orderly growth. Notwithstanding the aforementioned recommendation, St. Helena’s present and planned uses for the study area to discharge treated wastewater appears compatible with the County and St. Helena’s agricultural zoning assignments for the affected lands. St. Helena’s interest in adding the study area to its sphere to facilitate an annexation in order not to pay property taxes also appears reasonable and would generate savings for the City that could be used for other municipal purposes. With these factors in mind, it seems an appropriate alternative in addressing the interests of both the Commission and St. Helena is provided under California Government Code §56742. This code section allows the Commission to approve the annexation of non-contiguous land if the subject territory is less than 300 acres and owned and used by a city for municipal purposes. The code section also specifies that the subject territory shall be immediately detached from a city upon its sale. Markedly, this type of detached annexation does not require consistency with the affected city’s sphere. This alternative would provide the Commission assurance the affected lands remain under municipal use consistent with its agricultural zoning assignments while providing St. Helena costs-savings by not having to pay property taxes. Although it has previously denied this type of proposal involving the study area, the Commission should revisit its preferences regarding this alternative and provide direction to staff as appropriate as part of this comprehensive review. VI. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Commission modify St. Helena’s sphere to include the lands comprising Study Area A as part of this comprehensive review. In accordance with California Government Code §56425(e), the following statements have been prepared in support of the recommendation: 1. The present and planned land uses in the sphere, including agricultural and open-space lands. The present and planned land uses in the sphere are adequately contemplated under the St. Helena General Plan. The St. Helena General Plan provides for the current and future agricultural and urban land uses within the sphere. Existing agricultural uses will not be affected by their retention in the sphere. 12 City of St. Helena: Sphere of Influence Review LAFCO of Napa County 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the sphere. The City of St. Helena provides a full range of municipal services within the sphere either directly or through contracts with other public or private entities. These public services support the present and planned urban uses within the sphere as contemplated in the St. Helena General Plan. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The City of St. Helena has demonstrated its ability to provide an adequate level and range of public services within the sphere. These public services were comprehensively evaluated by LAFCO as part of a recent municipal service review completed in June 2008. 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the sphere if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. The City of St. Helena has established social and economic interdependencies within the sphere that are distinct from neighboring unincorporated areas. 13 Attachment One City of St. Helena Bell Reservior Angwin Deer Park Legend Lane City of St. Helena Lodi o a d City of St. Helena k R Meadowood Sphere of Influence ar P er e D £¤ 29 e u n e v A att Pr P o pe Street Silverado Trail A v e n u e Mills Lane a n o dr a M ne La nn ma o C ran Th e A v en u e ndel La ne £¤ nfa 29 Zi Not to Scale June 30, 2008 Calistoga Lake Prepared by KS Yolo Angwin Calistoga St. Helena Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Napa Sonoma Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1700 Second Street, Suite 268 American Napa, California 94559 Canyon http://napa.lafco.ca.gov ATTACHMENT THREE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP w- ---.--- ---- -s-,r .-..... - -A.--- - ---- - --.- - .- mua .. - r.- - . - s -OM- UIw -,OIL. ORAPHIC s.!= -- - - u UT - (*Is) 1 M-l4 mn ATTACHMENT FOUR Land Use Map The Land Use Element of The Napa County General Plan The Land Use Map Provades a Generalized Pictun of Ihe Goals and Polrcier Contained in the Land Use Ekmmt Report IncWiwUmM.pm.m.nd.dbyVwNapaCouMy Uring sight Bmad Land Use ~~calioannds U ghl Symbols ~audd s ~by wR-um NO. The Map Pmsenta a Qnphic Ovecviaw of the Genenl Dis$lbufbn 08-88 hn3.m and Loation of Major Land Use Anu and FeciAtns w - O-Md---* IYW m."cl-.-t -D01.dn- .-I -.-.-, I- ll- UdgrCI..-S -Lege nd General Plan URBANIZED OR NON-AGRICULTURAL 7 mJ * A UrnR elidenbal* Rural ResidenCsl lndusfrial ~ l n s t i M i o n a i m OPEN SPACE Agnculblre. W.tmhed (L Open Spsw 1 - Berryessa Estates AgriaHwal Reoowee 2 - Pope Valley L TRANSPORTATION 3-- PopeCreek I:::: 4 - Angwin -M ineral Resource 5 Deer Park - R ailroad 6 7 - - S S o p u a U ni i s S h t F H la e t lena - L irnctedA cwss Highway 8 - - Berryessa Highlands Maw Road 8 ~utherford - - S scondary Road . 1 1I 0 - - O M a o k s v k n o l w e ite Corner Airport 12 - Big Ranch Road - Airport Clearzone 13 - Silverado I Landnll - General Plan - 1 1 5 4 - C So o u o t m h b C s o v u il n le ty Industrial Areas * 16 - Calistoga Viiinily sw Adion tam AOILU-I 14.1 -garding warnuav 17 - Partrick Road wned amas withln these land use desigdons dm- County of Napa ( *mlMRINAO(U. Napa County Land Use Pland Wee or Conservation *ImmM- .uf w - - . Development and Plannlna W ~ ne p m .!s o d r . n + s e "a r ol * n ! T ! t 'e y h 'E k E ~ m o a ~ pM a VI b~ p is r ~ e at p s a ys - r u e m d - a f . o d r in h- lm e a - t r l a o c -n y a- l 2008 2030 5 - ."-s - . 0 .lu- 04j 2 -3 4 d - Attachment Five City of St. Helena Bell Reservior Angwin Deer Park Legend City of St. Helena City of St. Helena Sphere of Influence Lodi Lane o a d Study Area A R Meadowood k Study Area B ar P er e D £¤ 29 e u n e v A att Pr P o pe Street Silverado Trail A v e n u e Mills Lane a n o dr a M ne La nn ma o C ran Th e A v en u e ndel La ne £¤ nfa 29 Zi Not to Scale June 30, 2008 Calistoga Lake Prepared by KS Yolo Angwin Calistoga St. Helena Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Napa Sonoma Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1700 Second Street, Suite 268 American Napa, California 94559 Canyon http://napa.lafco.ca.gov ATTACHMENT SIX NANCY WATT BRlTT FERGUSON County Executive Officer Assistant County Executive Officer December 12,2007 Keene Simonds Executive Officer LAFCO of Napa County 1700 Second Street, Suite 268 Napa, CA 94559 RE: Comprehensive Study of the City of St. Helena Dear Mr. Sirnonds: I'm writing in response to your letter of September 27, 2007 regarding LAFCO's comprehensive study of the City of St. Helena. At your request, staff of the County and the City of St. Helena met on November 1, 2007 and agreed that the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) should logically extend to include the parcels within the City's jurisdiction and east of Silverado Trail. City staff also asked whether the County would support expansion of the SO1 to include a 90 acre City-owned parcel (spray field) immediately adjacent to the City's sewer treatment plant. We see no reason why the County would object to this parcel being included in the SOI, provided there are sufficient assurances that it would remain in use as a spray field or as agriculture. Please don't hesitate to contact me or Hillary Gitelrnan 253-4805 if you have any questions. Sincerely, . L..~' county Execuove Officer cc. Board of Supervisors Bert Johansson, City Manager Carol Poole, Planning Director Hillary Gitelman COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1195 Third Sweet. Suice 310 Naps, CA 94559 (707) 2534421 mvw.m.napa.ca.ur FAX (707) 253-4176 ATTACHMENT SEVEN Phone: (/u7)9 67-2792 "5% will conduct city a$ail-s on behalfofoziv citiaeizs Fax: (707) 963-7746 using an open and creative process." www.sthelenacity.wm April 23, 2008 ICeene Simonds Executive Officer LAFCO of Napa County 1700 Second Street, Suite 268 Napa, CA 94559 RE: Comments on St. Helena Municipal Services Review draft document Dear Mr. Simonds, This letter is offered as the City of St. Helena's comments to the draft City of St. Helena Municipal Services Review. The City Council discussed the report at their April 22, 2008, scheduled Council meeting. The City concurs with the determinations cited in the report. In preparation for the next phase, the City requests that LAFCO expand the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) to include all lands within our City Limits, specifically the inclusion of the Howell Mountain Road acreage. In addition, the City requests that a City owned 100 ac parcel of land, contiguous to the Waste Water Treatment Plant and currently used by the Plant as spray fields, be included in the SO1 (the parcel of land is currently located outside of our City limits). Nancy Watt, Napa County's Executive Officer, has previously submitted a letter of support for including the spray fields within the new SOI. For your wnsideratioq in the context of extended services, the City does provide water service to long time existing customers located outside our City limits. However, the City has a long standing policy prohibiting new connections which is memorialized in the following excerpts of our Municipal Code. Please note that the prohibition against new service is mandatory (shall not) whereas the allowance for fire service is discretionary (may). Section 13.04.050 Water service comections H Service Outside City Limits. No water service connection or water main extension shall be made or given to premises located outside the city limits except (1) to provide private fie service in accordance with Section 13.04.200 and (2) to provide reclaimed water in accordance with city policies and procedures. Mr. ICeene Simonds April 23,2008 Section 13.04.200 Private fire serviceRequirements The department may install a private fire service; provided that the applicant complies with the general requirements governing water services set forth in this chapter or Chapters 13.08 and 13.12, together with the following special requirements: A. The applicant shall enter into a private fire service agreement with the department, the terms of which shall be satisfactory to the department. B. The services shall be satisfactory to the head of the public agency responsible for fire protection on the premises involved and to the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau. Each private fire service shall have installed therein a detector check valve of pattern and design approved by the superintendent. A "detector check valve" is defined as a spring-loaded or weight-loaded swing check valve equippcd with a metered bypass. C. The private fire service shall be used only for fighting fires and testing the fire protection system. The charge for the service shall be on a flat basis as provided below. The charge shall include the cost of water used to fight fires and for authorized testing of the fire protection system. Any other use of water from the private fire service shall constitute a breach of the private fire service agreement. The County of Napa works closely with the City of St. Helena when evaluating any plans proposing a change to the existing water use outside the city limits. The City is willing to have further discussions withLAFC0 for the purposes of developing a guiding policy document. The City appreciates the opportunity to offer comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Planning Director Carol Poole if you have any questions. Sincerely, I A / Bert J ansson City Manager cc: St. Helena City Council Jonathon Goldman, Director of Public Works Carol Poole, Planning Director Nancy Watt, County Executive Officer Hilary Gitelman, County Planning Director