LAFCO
SOI & MSR City of Calistoga 2016
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Final Final Municipal Service Review
& Sphere of Influence Update
City of Calistoga
Napa LAFCO
December 5, 2016
Resolution No. 2016—14
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
[This page intentionally left blank]
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Final Final Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update
City of Calistoga
Prepared for:
Napa LAFCO
1030 Seminary Street, Suite B
Napa, California 94559
www.napa.LAFCO.ca.gov
Prepared by:
December 5, 2016*
*This document was updated in January 2017 to add in the List of Tables and List of Figures.
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LAFCO 1-1
1.1 About Napa LAFCO 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-2
1.3 METHODOLOGY FOR THIS MSR & SOI UPDATE 1-3
1.4 Public Participation 1-5
CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF AGENCY 2-1
2.1 Agency Profile - CITY OF CALISTOGA 2-1
2.2 Services and location 2-2
2.3 Formation and Boundary 2-5
2.4 Government Structure and Accountability 2-7
2.5 Management Efficiencies and Staffing 2-9
CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-ECONOMICS 3-1
3.1 Present and planned land uses 3-1
3.2 Population and Growth 3-5
3.3 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities 3-10
CHAPTER 4: CITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4-1
4.1: City Services 4-1
4.2: Infrastructure and Public Facilities 4-39
CHAPTER 5: FINANCING 5-1
5.1: Financial Overview 5-1
5.2 Financial Metrics 5-11
CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDED MSR DETERMINATIONS 6-1
6.1: MSR Determinations 6-1
CHAPTER 7: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATIONS 7-1
7.1: Sphere Of Influence Update Options 7-1
7.2: Draft SOI Determinations: Option #A 7-21
CHAPTER 8: COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 8-1
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES 9-1
CHAPTER 10: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10-1
Appendices
A. List of City advisory bodies and the names of City representatives
B. Economic forecast within Napa County by Caltrans
C. List of Pending And Approved Development Projects
D. Population Study of Napa County
E. Grants for Disadvantaged Communities
F. Regulatory requirements - Municipal Water
G. Napa Vitners: 40 years of Agricultural Preservation
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
List of Tables
2-1: Non-City Services
2-2: Geographic Summary for City of Calistoga
2-3: Approved Jurisdictional Changes involving the City of Calistoga
2-4: Summary of Awards and Grants – City of Calistoga
3-1: Existing Land Use Distribution in Calistoga
3-2: Regional and Local Transportation Plans
3-3: Historic and Existing Population
3-4: Block Group Population
3-5: ABAG Growth & Population Projections
3-6: Permitted Population Growth
3-7: ABAG Regional Housing Need Allocation
4-1: Directory to Chapter 4
4-2: Number of Customers for City Services
4-3: Average Annual Total Water Supply
4-4: Potential Water Usage and Wastewater Generation
4-5: City of Calistoga Water Demand and Supply Projections
4-6: Summary of Water Supply Findings
4-7: Water Treatment Plant Design Capacity
4-8: Police Service Staffing
4-9: Fire Department Staffing
4-10: Summary of the number and type of incidents responded to in 2014
4-11: Parks and Facilities
4-12: Major City Facilities
4-13: General Capital Assets Used in Governmental Operations
5-1: Three-year Revenue and Expenditure Comparison
5-2: Three-year Comparison of Water Revenues and Expenditures
5-3: Three-year Comparison of Wastewater Revenues and Expenditures
5-4: Data for Assessed Property Value
5-5: Data for Service Obligation Ratio (governmental)
5-6: Data for Liquidity Ratio
5-7: Data for the Ratio Charges for Service to Expenditures (Business/Enterprise)
5-8: Data for Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents (Business Only)
5-9: Data for Debt Service (Governmental) Analysis
5-10: Data for Debt Service (Business)
5-11: Data for OPEB Payments Analysis
7-1: Analysis of Study Area #1
7-2: Analysis of Study Area #2
7-3: Analysis of Study Area #3
7-4: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Tradeoffs Associated with Study Areas in the SOI
Chapter 1: Role & Responsibility of LAFCO Page 1-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
List of Figures
2-1: City Boundary and Sphere of Influence
2-2: Organization Chart
2-3: Total Wages Compared to # of Employees in 2014
2-4: Comparison of # of Residents per City Employee
2-5: Top 7 Highest Paid Calistoga Staff Positions
3-1: General Plan Land-Use Map for Calistoga
3-2: Zoning Map for Calistoga
3-3: 2012 Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3-4: Census Tract Block Groups
3-5: Displacement Typologies
4-1: City Water System Map
4-2: Map of Recycled Water Users
4-3: Parcels Outside Boundary Receiving City Water Service
4-4: Map of City Sanitary Sewer System
4-5: Storm Drain System Map
4-6: Staffing in the Police Dept.
4-7: Police Dept. Calls For Service
4-8: Rates of Violent Crime
4-9: Rates of Property Crime
4-10: 4-10: Map of Fire Service Area per Agreement No. 0092
4-11: Historic Wildfire Parameters, ABAG
5-1: Sources of Revenue for Fiscal Year 2015
5-2: Functional Expenses for Fiscal Year 2015
5-3: Change in Assessed Value
5-4: Property Tax Revenue
5-5: Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
5-6: Sales Tax Revenue
5-7: Revenues and Expenditures (Governmental Funds)
5-8: Service Obligation Ratio (governmental)
5-9: Pension Payments
5-10: Liquidity Ratio
5-11: Ratio Charges for Service to Expenditures
5-12: Change in Cash and Equivalents (Business Only)
5-13: Debt Service (Governmental
5-14: Debt Service (Business)
5-15: Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Ratio
5-16: Total Revenue Per Acre 2015
7-1: Location of Three Study Areas
Chapter 1: Role & Responsibility of LAFCO Page 1-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 1: ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY
OF LAFCO
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are independent agencies that were
established by state legislation in 1963 in each county in California to oversee changes in
local agency boundaries and organizational structures. It is LAFCO’s responsibility to:
oversee the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local cities and
special districts;
provide for the logical progression of agency boundaries and efficient expansion of
municipal services;
assure the efficient provision of municipal services; and
discourage the premature conversion of agricultural and open space
lands (Government Code [GC] §§ 56100, 56301, 56425, 56430, 56378).
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) requires
each LAFCO to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for its cities and special
districts. MSRs are required prior to and in conjunction with the update of a Sphere of
Influence (SOI). This document presents both a MSR and SOI update and is intended to
provide Napa LAFCO with the necessary and relevant information for the City of Calistoga,
specifically regarding the appropriateness of the City’s existing and proposed boundaries and
SOI.
1.1 ABOUT NAPA LAFCO
Although each LAFCO works to implement the CKH Act, there is flexibility in how these state
regulations are implemented so as to allow adaptation to local needs. As a result, Napa
LAFCO has adopted policies, procedures and principles that guide its operations. Municipal
Service Review Policies were adopted on November 3,2008, and amended on August 4, 2014
and October 5, 2015. Sphere of Influence Policies were adopted on August 9, 1972, and
amended on October 3, 2011. These policies and procedures can be found on Napa LAFCO’s
website (http://www.napa.LAFCO.ca.gov/).
This MSR is an information tool that can be used to facilitate cooperation among agency
managers and LAFCO to achieve the efficient delivery of services. Describing existing
efficiencies in service deliveries and suggesting new opportunities to improve efficiencies is a
key objective of this MSR, consistent with LAFCO’s purposes. Since this MSR/SOI will be
published on LAFCO’s website, it also contributes to LAFCO’s principle relating to
transparency of process and information. A public hearing will be conducted by LAFCO on
this MSR and SOI Update, thereby contributing to LAFCO’s aim of encouraging an open and
engaged process.
Chapter 1: Role & Responsibility of LAFCO Page 1-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
This MSR was written under the auspices of the Napa LAFCO. Napa LAFCO has a public
Commission with five regular Commissioners and three alternate Commissioners as follows:
Commissioners
Diane Dillon, Chair, County Member
Gregory Pitts, Vice Chair, City Member
Juliana Inman, Commissioner, City Member
Brian J. Kelly, Commissioner, Public Member
Brad Wagenknecht, Commissioner, County Member
Joan Bennett, Alternate Commissioner, City Member
Keith Caldwell, Alternate Commissioner, County Member
Gregory Rodeno, Alternate Commissioner, Public Member
Staff / Administrative
Brendon Freeman, Executive Officer
Kathy Mabry, Commission Secretary
Jennifer Gore, Commission Counsel
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
MSRs are intended to provide LAFCO with a comprehensive analysis of services provided by
cities and special districts that fall under the legislative authority of LAFCO. This review will
provide Napa LAFCO with the information and analysis necessary to evaluate existing
boundaries and consider SOIs for these service providers. The MSR makes determinations in
each of seven mandated areas of evaluation, providing the basis for LAFCO to review
proposed changes to a service provider’s boundaries or SOI.
An SOI is defined in GC § 56425 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service
area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the Commission.” LAFCO is required
to adopt an SOI for each city and each agency in its jurisdiction. When reviewing and
determining SOI’s for these service providers, LAFCO will consider and make
recommendations based on the following information:
The present and planned land uses in the area;
The present and probable need for public services and facilities in the area;
The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the
agency provides;
The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if LAFCO
determines that they are relevant to the service provider; and
The presence of disadvantaged unincorporated communities for those agencies that
provide water, wastewater, or structural fire protection services.
Chapter 1: Role & Responsibility of LAFCO Page 1-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Ideally, an MSR will support not only LAFCO but will also provide the following benefits to
the subject agencies:
Provide a broad overview of agency operations including type and extent of
services provided;
Serve as a prerequisite for a sphere of influence update (included herein);
Evaluate governance options and financial information;
Demonstrate accountability and transparency to LAFCO and to the public; and
Allow agencies to compare their operations and services with other similar
agencies.
This MSR is designed to provide technical and administrative information on municipal
service provided by the City of Calistoga. This information is presented so that LAFCO can
make informed decisions based on the best available data for each municipal service and
area served. Written determinations, as required by law, are presented in Chapter 6 of this
MSR for LAFCO’s consideration. LAFCO is ultimately the decision maker on approval or
disapproval of any determinations, policies, boundaries, and discretionary items.
1.3 METHODOLOGY FOR THIS MSR & SOI UPDATE
The CKH Act indicates that LAFCO should review and update a sphere of influence every five
years, as necessary, consistent with GC § 56425(g) and 561061. Many LAFCOs aim to update
MSRs on a similar five to ten year schedule. The last MSR for Calistoga was adopted by Napa
LAFCO in 2008. This MSR and SOI Update evaluates the structure and operation of each of
the municipal services and discusses possible areas for streamlining, improvement, and
coordination. Key references and information sources for this study were gathered. The
references utilized in this study include published reports; review of agency files and
databases (agendas, minutes, budgets, contracts, audits, etc.); master plans; capital
improvement plans; engineering reports; EIRs; finance studies; general plans; and state and
regional agency information (permits, reviews, communications, regulatory requirements,
etc.). Additionally, the consulting team, in coordination with the LAFCO Executive Officer,
sent the City a Request for Information (RFI), and the City’s response to this request was a
key information source. LAFCO’s Executive Officer and members of the consultant team also
visited City Hall and personally interviewed City representatives.
1 Section 56106 of CKH states that all timeframes are directive. Any provision governing the time in which
commission is to act, is deemed directory rather than mandatory
Chapter 1: Role & Responsibility of LAFCO Page 1-3
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
This MSR forms
the basis for
specific
judgments, known
as
determinations,
about each
agency that
LAFCO is required
to make (GC §
56430). These
determinations
are described in
the MSR
Guidelines from
the State of California Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act, and
they fall into seven categories, as listed below:
1. Growth and population projections for the affected area;
2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within
or contiguous to the sphere of influence;
3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services
including infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
4. Financial ability of agency to provide services;
5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities;
6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and
operational efficiencies; and
7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
An MSR must include an analysis of the issues and written determination(s) for each of the
above determination categories.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is contained in Public Resources Code
§ 21000, et seq. Under this law public agencies are required to evaluate the potential
environmental effects of their actions. The MSR analysis is exempt from CEQA under a Class
6 categorical exemption. CEQA Guidelines § 15306 state that “Class 6 consists of basic data
collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities that do
not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. It should be noted
that if LAFCO acts to change the SOI for the City, CEQA requirements must be satisfied. The
lead agency for CEQA compliance would most likely be LAFCO.
Chapter 1: Role & Responsibility of LAFCO Page 1-4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
LAFCO hosted a public meeting on the Preliminary Draft MSR on July 18, 2016. Comments
from the public were solicited and six comments from the public were received. The
Commission held a public meeting on the Final MSR on October 3, 2016 and Dec 5, 2016.
After this MSR/SOI Update is finalized, it will be published on the Commission’s website
(http://www.napa.LAFCO.ca.gov/), thereby making the information contained herein
available to anyone with access to an internet connection. A copy of this MSR/SOI Update
and e-copies of many of the planning documents and studies that were utilized in the
development of this MSR may be viewed during posted office hours at LAFCO’s office located
at 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B, Napa, CA 94559. In addition to this MSR/SOI Update,
LAFCO’s office maintains files for each service provider in Napa County. These materials are
also available to the public for review.
Chapter 1: Role & Responsibility of LAFCO Page 1-5
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF AGENCY
2.1 AGENCY PROFILE - CITY OF CALISTOGA
Type of Agency: City
Enabling Legislation: General-Law City, California Constitution, Article 11, Section 2, and
Government Code § 34000 et seq.
Functions/Services: Municipal services provided directly by the City include law
enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical, water, sewer, streets,
planning, and community recreation. Municipal services provided by Calistoga
through contracts or joint-power authorities with other agencies or companies include
garbage collection, specialized engineering services, building inspection and plan
check services, animal control services, and other specialized services as needed.
Main Office: 1232 Washington Street, Calistoga, California 94515
Mailing Address: same as above
Email: dfeik@ci.calistoga.ca.us
Phone No.: (707) 942-2805
Fax No.: (707) 942-0732
Web Site: www.ci.calistoga.ca.us
City Manager: Dylan Feik
City Clerk: Kathy Flamson
Governing Body: City Council Term Expires
Chris Canning, Mayor December, 2018
Michael Dunsford, Vice Mayor December, 2020
Gary Kraus, Councilmember December, 2018
James Barnes, Councilmember December, 2018
Irais Lopez-Ortega, Councilmember December, 2016
Meeting Schedule: 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month at 6:00 pm.
Meeting Location: Calistoga Community Center, 1307 Washington Street, Calistoga,
CA 94515
Date of Incorporation: January 6, 1886
Principal County: Napa County
Other: Registered resident-voter system
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
2.2 SERVICES AND LOCATION
Calistoga was initially settled in 1845 and incorporated as a general-law city in 1886. It
provides a full range of municipal services either directly or by contract with other
governmental agencies or private companies. Calistoga is currently staffed by 70 full-time
equivalent employees (Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget), and has an estimated resident
population of 5,1802.
Type and Extent of Services
Municipal services provided directly by the City include:
law enforcement,
fire protection and emergency medical,
water,
sewer,
storm drainage,
streets,
planning, and
community recreation.
Municipal services provided by Calistoga through contracts or joint-power authorities with
other agencies or companies include garbage collection, specialized engineering services,
building inspection, animal control services, and plan check services, and other specialized
services as needed.
Also, the City is part of Joint Powers Agreements as follows:
Upper Valley Waste Management Agency - garbage collection
Marin Clean Energy - energy provider
Napa Valley Transportation Authority - regional transportation services
Napa County Flood Control - Napa County Stormwater Management Program
Western Riverside Council of Governments - HERO Program
Mutual Aide Agreement with CalWARN for emergency Public Works
Mutual Aid Agreement with Napa County, Cities of Napa and St. Helena for fire
protection services
Joint Use Agreement with the Calistoga Unified School District for shared use
of facilities
(Data Source: Calistoga, 2016)
Calistoga residents also benefit from public services that are provided by other agencies, as
listed in Table 2-1, below.
2 Per the California Department of Finance, January 2016 estimate.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 2-1: Non-City Services
Provider Services
Napa County Public assistance, library, elections, tax
assessment and collection, treasury
management, official records, public and
behavioral health, social programs,
corrections, animal shelter, library, and
information technology systems and GIS.
Also, mutual aid agreements with Napa
County Sheriff and Napa County Fire
Department.
Napa County Mosquito Abatement District Mosquito abatement
Napa County Flood Control and Water Flood control
Conservation District
Napa County Regional Park and Open Parks, trails, and recreation
Space District
Napa County Housing Authority Farmworker housing
Napa County Resource Conservation Resource conservation
district
Calistoga Joint Unified School District Public Education K-12, playgrounds
Regional Agencies: Regional planning & housing allocation
ABAG studies
Metropolitan Transportation Regional transportation planning
Commission
Pacific Gas and Electric Gas, Electricity
Comcast Cable Television
Caltrans Highway Transportation and Maintenance
along Highways 29 and 128
Location and Size
The City of Calistoga is located in Napa County at the north end of the Napa Valley
approximately 27 miles northwest of the City of Napa. Calistoga is bisected by the Napa
River and bounded to the east and west by the Howell Mountain and Mayacamas Mountain
ridges, respectively. In addition to the dramatic visual setting provided by the adjacent
mountain ridges, local geology provides Calistoga with unique geothermal resources, which
underlies its celebrated hot springs. Calistoga is also surrounded by rich volcanic and
alluvial soils providing for the production of premium wine grapes. The City’s boundaries
encompass 2.6 square miles. A map of the City’s jurisdictional boundaries and sphere of
influence is provided as Figure 2-1.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-3
City of Calistoga
£¤ O
29 ld
L
a
w
le
y
T
o
R
ll
o
a
d
BennettLane
£¤
29
n
e
Avenue
T
u
b
bs
L a
Green
wood
n
u
e
e
£¤ A v
128 a
or
M
G rant
Street
Str
e et
ett
R
o a d
Dri v e Fairgrounds L a k e Pi c k
zi
Mit
e
Silverado
Trail
u W
c
ol
n
A
v
e
n ashington
Street
n
e
n a
Li
al
L
e
w
a
n
u
D
Kortum Canyon Road
£¤
Diamond Mountain Road 29
Legend
City of Calistoga
City of Calistoga
Sphere of Influence
Not to Scale
Lake July 14, 2008
Yolo Prepared by KS
Calistoga
Angwin
Calistoga
St. Helena
Sonoma
Yountville
St. Helena
Sonoma Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County
American 1700 Second Street, Suite 268
Canyon Napa, California 94559
http://napa.lafco.ca.gov
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 2-2: Geographic Summary for City of Calistoga
Incorporated Boundary Sphere of influence
Total Acres 1,651 1,657
Square Miles 2.60 2.61
Number of Assessor Parcels 1,659 1,660
2.3 FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Beginning with Dr. Edward Turner Bale, the first wave of settlers began arriving at the
north end of the Napa Valley in the early 1840s. In the 1860s, Samuel Brannan opened the
Calistoga Hot Springs Resort, which served as the community’s initial tourist attraction.
Brannan also began subdividing blocks of land leading to the creation of a business district
along Lincoln Avenue. It was during this time that the first churches and fraternal societies
were established, the first newspaper was founded, and the first school was started in the
community. The community’s gradual development eventually culminated in its
incorporation as the City of Calistoga in 1886.
Boundary History
Calistoga’s incorporated boundary comprises approximately 1,651 acres, or 2.60 square
miles. As listed in Table 2-3, Napa LAFCO has approved a total of nine jurisdictional
changes involving Calistoga since 1963. All nine approved jurisdictional changes involved
annexations. However, only two of the nine approved annexations were actually completed.
The last completed annexation was approved by LAFCO in 1972 and involved the annexation
of nine parcels totaling 17 acres located along Myrtledale Road north of Greenwood Avenue.
Table 2-3: Approved Jurisdictional Changes involving the City of Calistoga
Proposal Name Action Approval Date
Myrtledale Road/Greenwood Avenue Annexation March 8, 1967*
Kimball Dam Annexation March 8, 1967*
Feige Canyon Reservoir Annexation March 8, 1967*
Kortum Canyon Road Annexation March 8, 1967*
Silverado Trail No. 1 Annexation January 12, 1972
Myrtledale Road/Greenwood Avenue Annexation September 11, 1972
Kimball Dam (Resubmittal) Annexation September 11, 1972*
Feige Canyon Reservoir (Resubmittal) Annexation November 8, 1972*
Calistoga Airport Lands Annexation September 11, 1972*
* Proposals were abandoned prior to recordation for unknown reasons.
LAFCO’s 2008 MSR for the City recommended that LAFCO work with Calistoga and the State
Board of Equalization to identify why the seven proposals were not finalized and to take the
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-5
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
necessary actions to complete the proceedings as originally approved. Neither LAFCO nor
the City has made any progress on this recommendation.
Sphere of Influence
Calistoga’s sphere of influence includes is almost coterminous with its boundary line and
encompasses a total of 2.61 square miles. The difference between the SOI and the boundary
is one unincorporated 5.2 acre parcel located along Washington Street immediately south of
the City. This parcel is owned and utilized by Calistoga as part of its municipal sewer
system. The sphere was originally established by the Commission (LAFCO) in 1973 and last
updated by the Commission in 2008. There have been no amendments since then.
The City has indicated that its existing sphere of influence is suitable for its near-term future
needs (Calistoga, 2016).
Extra-territorial
Services
The City provides several
municipal services to
residents located outside
its boundaries through
out-of-agency service
agreements including
structural fire protection
services, police protection
services, and water
service. Additionally, City
parks are utilized by
tourists and other non-residents. The water service connections that extend beyond the city
limits principally serve residential uses located along Tubbs Lane and Petrified Forest Road.
Most of these outside connections were established prior to CKH. Any new or extended
services outside Calistoga would require LAFCO approval pursuant to Government Code §
56133.
The Calistoga Police Department responds to incidents in surrounding unincorporated areas
based on separate mutual aid agreements with the California Highway Patrol and County of
Napa. The Calistoga Fire Department has agreements to be the first responder in nearby
areas of unincorporated Napa County and to provide mutual aid to portions of
unincorporated Sonoma County.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-6
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Assembly Bill (AB) 4023, authored by former Napa LAFCO Commissioner and current Assembly
Member Bill Dodd, was signed by Governor Brown on October 2, 2015 and became effective
January 1, 2016. This legislation creates a five-year pilot program for Napa and San
Bernardino Counties that establishes a mechanism for both Commissions to authorize service
provision outside a local agency’s jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence under
special circumstances, such as responding to a public health or safety threat within the
affected territory4. The Bill has been codified under Government Code § 56133.5, which
expands upon the existing circumstances for which the Commission may authorize services
outside a city’s jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence. LAFCO adopted a process
and policies on April 4, 2016 for implementation of the AB402 provisions.
Areas of Interest
The extra-territorial service areas that receive structural fire protection, police protection,
and water services from the City are areas of interest. There are no disadvantaged
unincorporated communities located adjacent to the City boundaries. No other areas of
interest or concern have been identified by the City of Calistoga.
2.4 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
City Council
Calistoga operates under the council-manager system of government which includes an
elected five-member City Council with a directly elected mayor. Elections are conducted
by general vote; the mayor serves a two-year term while the four council members
serve staggered four-year terms. Council duties include adopting an annual budget
and municipal ordinances along with approving General Plan amendments, zoning changes,
and subdivision maps. The Council also appoints commission and committee members, and
hires the City Manager.
Regularly scheduled Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of every month
at 6:00 P.M. in the Calistoga Community Center, located at 1307 Washington Street. The
current City Council members are as follows:
Name Role Term Expires
Chris Canning Mayor December, 2018
Michael Dunsford Vice Mayor December, 2020
Gary Kraus Councilmember December, 2018
James Barnes Councilmember December, 2018
Irais Lopez-Ortega Councilmember December, 2016
3 Text of AB 402 is available on-line at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB402
4 For additional information regarding service provision outside a local agency’s jurisdictional boundary, please refer to the
Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act available on-line at: http://www.calafco.org/.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
All meetings are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. Additionally, City
Council Meetings are broadcasted live and later re-broadcasted via tape on local television
station, Channel 28. The agenda for each City Council meeting includes a public comment
period. The City adopted Rosenberg’s Rules of Order on Jan. 15, 2013 and utilizes these rules
as its parliamentary procedure. All meetings are publicly posted at least three days prior to
Council meetings at City Hall, 1232 Washington Street, Calistoga, at two other physical
locations in the city limits of Calistoga and on the City’s website at:
http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request. The
City and its representatives have a solid record of adherence to the requirements of the
Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, and similar laws. The City’s website is a communication
vehicle for City Council and Planning Commission meeting agendas, meeting minutes, videos
of meetings, and information on the City’s services and programs.
In addition to its government duties, the Council also oversees the Calistoga Public Facilities
Corporation, a non-profit public benefit corporation for the financing of City facilities and
equipment.
Governing bodies such as a City Council are required to comply with specific state laws
including:
• CA Government Code §53235 requires that if a city provides compensation or
reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive
two hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the city must
establish a written policy on reimbursements.
• The CA Political Reform Act (Government Code §81000, et seq.) requires state and
local government agencies to adopt and
promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair
Political Practices Commission has adopted a
CITY VISION
regulation (California Code of Regulations
§18730), which contains the terms of a STATEMENT
standard conflict of interest code, which can
To create a vibrant,
be incorporated by reference in an agency’s
code. balanced, safe,
• Government Code §87203 requires persons who sustainable, and
hold office to disclose their investments,
healthy community
interests in real property and incomes by filing
that maintains its
appropriate forms with the Fair Political
Practices Commission each year. authentic charm
while ensuring
The City Council does comply with each of the above
Calistoga’s
laws and regulations. Any compensation and/or
benefits offered to City Council and Planning economic vitality.
Commission members are described in MOUs for the
various bargaining units.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-8
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Advisory Boards, Commissions, and Committees
The City’s “planning agency” required by Government Code Section 65100 is the Planning
Commission, which consists of five members appointed by the City Council. The Planning
Commission usually holds twice-monthly public meetings and is responsible for approving
certain environmental documents, design reviews, conditional use permits, parcel maps
and variances. The Commission also makes recommendations to the City Council on
General Plan amendments, zoning changes, and tentative subdivision maps.
The Calistoga City Council has established other local advisory bodies to assist the City in
its decision-making processes. Specific responsibilities for each advisory body are
established by their respective ordinance or resolution. These advisory bodies include the
Active Transportation Committee, Building Standards Advisory & Appeals Board, Calistoga
Community Pool Advisory Committee, Green Committee, and the Calistoga Public Facilities
Corporation.
There are several county-wide committees on which Calistoga has a representative
including City-County Library Commission, County Wide Bicycle Advisory Committee, Napa
County Art & Culture Commission, Napa County Commission On Aging, Napa County Local
Food Advisory Council, Napa County Measure A Financial Oversight Committee, Napa
County Mosquito Abatement Board Of Trustees, and the Park & Open Space District
Advisory Committee. A list of these advisory bodies and the names of City representatives
is available as Appendix A of this MSR.
2.5 MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
The City operates under the direction of the elected City Council. The City Manager is
appointed by and reports to the City Council and is responsible for directing City operations
and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the City Council. The City Manager
serves at-will and oversees Calistoga’s seven municipal departments: 1) Administration, 2)
Fire, 3) Police, 4) Public Works, 5) Planning and Building, 6) Administrative Services, and
7) Community Resources. Within these seven departments, there are 123 full- and part-time
employees as shown in Figure 2-2, Organization Chart. The current City staff totals 70 full-
time equivalents (FTEs).
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-9
Cty Attorney (contract by City Council) City Manager (appointed by City Coundl Commission, Committees and Boards
(appointed by C'lty Council)
Financial Services Recreation Services Public Works &
Engineering Services
I-'
~
City of Calistoga
Staffing Chart
FY 2015-2016
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Cities5 (and incorporated Towns) report data related to the number of employees and
wages to the California State Controller’s office. This data is useful for comparing cities
using a consistent methodology. However, it should be noted that there are differences
between the data a city reports to the SCO and that which it lists on an organization chart.
Specifically, most cities have a number of part-time employees who work only a few hours
or for a limited time period and these are counted as “one” employee in the SCO data.
However, in an organization chart or a budget they may be counted as fraction of a full-
time equivalent employee. With these caveats, the SCO data indicates that the average
wage paid per employee in Calistoga is $32,732 per year. Total wages paid by the City in
2014 were $4,026,059 as shown in Figure 2.3, below. Figures 2-3_ and _2-4 are intended to
be used for illustrative/comparative purposes due to differences in the SCO’s methodology
to calculate the number of employees.
St. Helena
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
Calistoga
$3,000,000
$2,000,000 Yountville
$1,000,000
$0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Per capita measurements are one method to compare efficiencies
between cities. As shown in Figure 2-4, below, Calistoga has 42.1
residents per City employee, which is more efficient than Yountville,
which has one employee per 34.3 residents (CA Controller, 2014).
5 Cities (and incorporated Town’s) report data related to the number of employees and wages to the California State
Controller’s office. This data was retrieved and analyzed by the consultants for two purposes: 1) to compare wages
across cities and 2) to consider the differences between the data provided to LAFCO as compared to that provided to the
State Controller’s office. Usually, each jurisdiction uses its own methodology to calculate the number of employees and
therefore it is helpful to use data reported to the State Controller’s office because it requires use of a standardized
methodology. Please note that here, the cities count the number of employee’s using a methodology defined by the
State Controller’s office and it may include part-time or other individuals who may receive payments, but are not typically
recognized as an “employee”.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-11
ytiC
yb
diaP
segaW
latoT
Figure 2-3: Total Wages Compared to #
of Employees in 2014
# of Employees at City
Data Source: http://www.publicpay.ca.gov/
Data was provided by City to the State Controller's Office
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Yountville St. Helena Calistoga
The City Manager is the highest paid City employee as shown in Figure 2-
5, below.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-12
stnediseR
fo
#
Figure 2-4: Comparison of # of
Residents per City Employee
City
# Employees Data Source:
http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Cities/Cities.aspx
# Residents Data Source: Calif Dept. of Finance
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Fr Ftr Adm Srv Plc Chf Srgnt Fr Chf Srgnt Cty Mng
stifeneB
dna
segaW
launnA
latoT
Figure 2-5: Top 7 Highest Paid
Calistoga Staff Positions
Benefits
Other Pay
Overtime Pay
Base Pay
Staff Position in 2014
Data Source: http://transparentcalifornia.com/
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
An overview of each municipal department is provided below.
Administration
Administration includes the City Manager, City Clerk, Treasurer, Finance (including Utility
Billing), Risk Management Services and Information Systems. Key duties for the City
Manager include implementing policy direction from the City Council and directing staff
resources. The City Manager also serves as the Personnel Director and the Director of
Emergency Services. The City Clerk is responsible for preparing agendas and minutes,
providing public notices, conducting general municipal and special elections, and
maintaining official records. Calistoga contracts with the law firm of Burke, Williams &
Sorensen, LLP for legal services. The City receives approximately 30 to 35 complaints each
year and while those complaints are directed towards the pertinent City department for
resolution, City Administration retains the ultimate responsibility. The Administration
Department currently operates with 4.7 FTE positions.
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department manages all public facilities and infrastructure in Calistoga.
This includes maintaining streets, storm drains, parks, and the water and sewer systems
and treatment facilities. The Department has a staff of 20.8 full-time and part-time
employees and is managed by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Other staff
positions include Maintenance Superintendent and seven maintenance technicians, a
Deputy Director, Administrative Analyst, Administrative Assistant, and a Water and Sewer
Plant Superintendent with five plant operators. Additionally, the City has a mutual aid
agreement with CalWARN for Public Works (Calistoga, 2016).
Planning and Building Department
The Planning and Building Department is responsible for providing land use planning,
building, and code enforcement services in Calistoga. Key duties include implementing the
policies of the General Plan, issuing building permits, conducting inspections, and
reviewing development project applications. Outside consulting building inspection and
plan check services are employed by the Department. The Department is managed by the
Planning and Building Director and includes a Senior Planner, and an Administrative
Assistant. The Planning and Building Department currently operates with 2.5 FTE positions.
Police Department
The Police Department is responsible for providing law enforcement services in Calistoga.
The Department is managed by the Police Chief and includes two Sergeants and eight
sworn officers. Support personnel include a Records Supervisor with three full-time and
three part-time dispatchers. Specialized personnel include the Community Services Officer,
one Juvenile Diversion Specialist (part time) and two parking officers. The Napa County
Sheriff’s Department provides special weapons and tactics by mutual agreement with the
City. The Police Department currently operates with 16.0 FTE positions.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-13
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Fire Department
The Fire Department is responsible for providing fire protection and emergency medical
services in Calistoga as well as within certain surrounding unincorporated areas pursuant to
separate agreements with the Counties of Napa and Sonoma. The total coverage area for
the Department to provide services is 56 square miles. The Department is managed by the
Fire Chief. Additionally, the City has a mutual aid agreement for emergency medical, fire
protection and related services, (Calistoga, 2016). The Fire Department currently operates
with 4 FTE and 12 PTE positions.
Administrative Services Department
Administrative Services is responsible for the budget and financial project activities as well
as account management (payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable). Administrative
Services also provides treasury, tax collection, water and wastewater billing, risk
management, computer network systems, and grant administration services. The
Department is managed by the Administrative Services Director/Treasurer. Administrative
Services Department personnel are included within the Administration Department.
Recreation Services Department
This Department is responsible for developing and managing aquatics, recreational,
community, and leisure service programs in Calistoga. The Department is managed by the
Recreation Services Manager and supported by three recreational coordinators and several
seasonal program aides. The
Recreation Department currently
operates with 7.0 FTE positions.
CITY MISSION STATEMENT
Awards to City
To set policy and direction through a
The City of Calistoga has been
process of trust and transparency that
recognized for its ongoing efforts to
reflects the goals of the community and
provide city services in a financially-
ensures their safety and well-being.
competent and environmentally-
sensitive manner. The City has
The goals of the City of Calistoga are as
received numerous awards and grants
follows:
as listed in Table 2-4, below.
• Maintain and enhance economic
viability;
• Offer excellent professional services
to all customers;
• Establish, improve, and maintain City
infrastructure;
• Create an environmentally
sustainable community;
• Maintain the small-town, rural
character of Calistoga;
• Expand and improve recreational
services and facilities.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-14
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 2-4: Summary of Awards and Grants – City of Calistoga (not a comprehensive list)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Government Government Government
Finance Finance Finance
Officers Officers Officers
Awards/ Association Association Association
Honors: Award Award Award
TDA-3, ADA Active
Improvements, Transportation
Highway and TDA-3, Bike Racks and TFCA, Napa Program, Napa
Bridge Grant, Pedestrian Napa River River Valley Vine
Grants: Berry Bridge safety Pathway Pathway Trail
Cal Recycle Cal Recycle Cal Recycle Cal Recycle Cal Recycle
Hazard
Mitigation
Grant for
Feige Water
Tank
Housing Replacement
Related and
IRWM Drought Parks Reconstruction
Grant, Program, and lining of
TFCA, Bike Recycled Water Monhoff the Riverside
Racks Storage Center Ponds
Data Source: Calistoga, 2016.
Chapter 2: Overview of Agency Page 2-15
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-ECONOMICS
3.1 PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES
Existing land use
Land use decisions are one of the most important legal authorities available to a city.
People living within a city may choose to move when social or economic situations change.
However, a city is tied to its geography and cannot move. A city is directly supported by
the local water supply and other natural resources in its nearby proximity. The land use
decisions a city makes are critical, since land use generates local economic conditions and
associated tax revenues that support city services.
Napa County is located within the Napa Metropolitan Statistical Area, and it is within
relatively feasible commuting distance to San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento.
Additionally, there is easy access to airports and to ports for shipping agricultural and
other products to customers around the world. These factors, along with its Mediterranean
climate and scenic landscape make Napa County an economically robust area and a
desirable place to live and work. There is some pressure on the five incorporated cities
within the County to balance their opportunities for the development of housing and
commercial facilities along with protecting the scenic agricultural and forested landscape.
A general economic forecast for Napa County is provided for background information in
Appendix B.
The City of Calistoga has 2,776 parcels; 302 are vacant homes, 249 are commercial, and 59
are vacation homes (RCAC, 2015). Single-family homes are the predominant land-use,
consuming the largest amount of developed land within the city limits. The City also
contains multi-family units and mobile homes, lending it a variety of housing types at a
range of price points. Twenty-one percent of the land within the city limits is utilized for
agriculture. Parks and public space are important existing uses. Commercial development
is concentrated along Lincoln Avenue, which functions as the “main street” for the
community. Commercial uses include stores, offices, personal services, banks and
restaurants. Most of the retail and service establishments consist of privately-owned small
businesses. Tourism-related commercial uses occupy approximately seven percent of the
land area within the city limits. Light industrial area is very limited. The Napa County
Fairgrounds operates a year-round facility located within the City limits. The Fairgrounds
hosts the annual fair, golf course, RV park, and speedway. Table 3-1, below lists the
acreage associated with each type of existing land use within the City limits (Calistoga,
2015).
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 3-1: Existing Land Use Distribution in Calistoga
Land-Use Type Acres Percentage
Single-Family Residential 515 37%
Agriculture 299 21%
Public 106 8%
Vacant 95 7%
Tourism-Relate 92 7%
Park, Public Recreation 89 6%
Mobile Home Park 75 5%
Multi-Family Residential 62 4%
Commercial 27 2%
Light Industrial 33 2%
Religious Facilities 8 1%
Total 1401 100
Source: Calistoga, 2015
Since the previous MSR was published in 2008, the City has seen the construction of two
major projects: 1) a 48 unit apartment project for farmworker families and 2) the Indian
Springs Resort expansion consisting of 75 new hotel units, restaurant, yoga building and
event barn (Calistoga, 2016). Annexations have not occurred since 1972.
The majority of unincorporated lands adjacent to Calistoga 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 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 presently include a number of commercial
vineyards and wineries. A key exception involves an approximately 92-acre area located
immediately south of Calistoga near the intersection of State Highway 29 and Diamond
Mountain Road. The County designates and zones this area as Rural Residential and
Residential Country, which requires a minimum parcel size of 10 acres. Additionally,
planned development consisting of new residential units is proposed southeast of Highway
29 south of Kortum Canyon Road.
General Plan, Zoning, and Policies
Calistoga’s General Plan was comprehensively updated in 2003 and codifies land use
policies for the City through 2020. The General Plan contains 11 elements, including the
seven mandatory elements required under California Government Code §65302. More
recently, several elements of the General Plan have been updated including: Land Use
Element (2015); Community Identity Element (2012); Circulation Element (2014); Housing
Element (2014); Public Services Element (2014); and Public Safety Element (2014). The
remaining elements (Infrastructure, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, Geothermal, and
Economic Development) were all adopted in 2003.
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
The General Plan is predicated on maintaining Calistoga’s
identity as a small-town and includes several growth control
policies, such as discouraging the annexation of adjacent
Land-Use Vision – City of
unincorporated lands. Significantly, Calistoga’s General Plan
Calistoga designates a planning area that is measurably larger than
Calistoga’s incorporated boundary and sphere of influence.
Calistoga will remain a walkable,
For those parcels located outside the city limits yet within
small town, made up of a the Planning Area, the City has adopted the County’s land use
vibrant, eclectic main street set designations.
within pedestrian-oriented
neighborhoods of modestly-sized Calistoga established an allocation system to better control
homes and surrounded by the annual rate of residential and non-residential growth in
wineries, vineyards and other the City. Notably, this allocation system restricts the number
agricultural lands. The temperate of approved residential projects to ensure no more than a
climate, the Palisades, Napa 1.35% annual increase in population. Allocations are subject
River and its creeks frame our to an application process and awarded by the Planning and
physical identity. Building Director.
Visitors will continue to be
The General Plan Land Use Map is provided as Figure 3-1. The
attracted to Calistoga because of
City Zoning Map is provided as Figure 3-2. No changes are
its unique small-town character,
currently proposed to the City’s General Plan land use map.
shops, restaurants, health spas
Additionally no General Plan amendments are anticipated in
and the surrounding natural
the near future (Calistoga, 2016). The City generated a list of
beauty. Calistogans know that
pending and approved development projects which is provided
the town also provides a strong
as Appendix C.
sense of belonging for its
residents. It contains a broad
The General Plan establishes standards with respect to the
array of 19th and early 20th
timing, delivery, and adequacy of public services in Calistoga.
century buildings that form a
These standards help to define the level of service in the
multi-faceted streetscape and
community and provide the public with a tool to measure the
support an economically-diverse
success of Calistoga in meeting its service objectives. Key
community. land use and infrastructure policies included in the General
Plan are summarized below:
Calistoga will retain its qualities
for future generations by
Annexation of any unincorporated land shall be
providing a vibrant economy
discouraged (P4.1-1 in Land-Use Element).
linked to a viable community
Commercial development in Calistoga shall be focused
social structure, and by
in the downtown area (P1.1-2 in Land-Use Element);
conserving the ecosystem that
The City shall encourage infill development and
supports it. Calistoga is, and will
development on land with necessary public infrastructure in
remain, a community in which its
place (P1.1-5 in Land-Use Element).
residents can take pride
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-3
(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:5)
Figure3-1: GeneralPlanLand-UseMap
(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:22)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:28)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:5)
(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:31)(cid:2)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:6) (cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:8)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10) (cid:13)
(cid:14)
(cid:15)
(cid:10)
(cid:10)
(cid:10)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:23)
!
(cid:23)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:21)(cid:4)
(cid:22)
(cid:2)
(cid:22)
(cid:4)
(cid:22)
(cid:8)
(cid:21)(cid:6)
(cid:3)
(cid:2)
"
(cid:21)
(cid:27)
(cid:6)
(cid:2)
"
(cid:3)
(cid:21)#
(cid:2)
(cid:2)
(cid:21)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)
(cid:23)
#(cid:8)
(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:5)
(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:6)$(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:24)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:6)"(cid:2)(cid:21)#(cid:8)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:11) (cid:0)(cid:2) (cid:0) (cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:5) (cid:6)(cid:6) (cid:5) (cid:7)
(cid:8)(cid:9)
(cid:6)
(cid:10)
(cid:7)
(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:3)
(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:5) (cid:14) (cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:12) (cid:8) (cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:5) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:12) (cid:9)(cid:11) (cid:5) (cid:10) (cid:2)
(cid:5)
(cid:5)(cid:11)
(cid:18)
(cid:6)(cid:16) (cid:17) (cid:15) (cid:9)(cid:2) (cid:0)
(cid:0)
(cid:5)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:0)
(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:4)
(cid:23) (cid:21)(cid:6)(cid:22) (cid:2) (cid:20) (cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:0) (cid:4)(cid:19)
(cid:18)
(cid:9)
(cid:10)
(cid:26)
(cid:10)
(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:21) (cid:24)(cid:25) (cid:17)(cid:10)
(cid:11)
(cid:14)
(cid:10)
(cid:16)
(cid:10)
(cid:10) (cid:8) (cid:0) (cid:3) (cid:15) (cid:2)
(cid:12)
(cid:9) (cid:10) (cid:3)
(cid:10)
(cid:10) (cid:4)(cid:3) (cid:11) (cid:5)
(cid:13)
(cid:12) (cid:0) (cid:2)
(cid:10)
(cid:6) (cid:5)
(cid:17)
(cid:18)
(cid:13) (cid:3)
(cid:10)
(cid:10)
(cid:10) (cid:7)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:7)
(cid:20)
%&
(cid:21)(
(cid:8)
)
(cid:0)
(cid:2)
(cid:6)
(cid:2)
(cid:3)
(cid:28)
(cid:3)
(cid:22)
(cid:24)
(cid:4)
’
(cid:29) (cid:26) (cid:14) (cid:5)(cid:28) (cid:6) (cid:27) (cid:4)
(cid:29)
(cid:6)
(cid:0)
"
(cid:30)(cid:6)
(cid:2)
(cid:2)
"
(cid:21)
(cid:3)
#
(cid:2)(cid:21)
(cid:8)
#
(cid:0)
(cid:8)
(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5) (cid:4)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:0)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:5)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:3)
(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:0) (cid:5) (cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:6) (cid:2)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:0) (cid:5)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:2)(cid:13) (cid:30) (cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:31) (cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:8) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8) (cid:15) (cid:9) (cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:25) (cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:23) ! (cid:2) (cid:5)(cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) "(cid:2) (cid:0)(cid:2) (cid:14) (cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:12) (cid:4) (cid:11) (cid:5) (cid:10) (cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:7) (cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:15) (cid:6) (cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:7) (cid:0) (cid:5)(cid:16) (cid:3) (cid:15) (cid:0) (cid:8) (cid:12) (cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:9) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:7) (cid:4) (cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:11) (cid:15) (cid:6) (cid:5) (cid:10) (cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:7) (cid:10) (cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:11) (cid:8)(cid:7) (cid:12) (cid:8) (cid:15) (cid:2)(cid:16) (cid:7) (cid:20)(cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:12) (cid:0) (cid:13)(cid:4) (cid:2) (cid:12) (cid:3) (cid:5) (cid:9)(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:6) (cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:13) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:7) (cid:11)(cid:0) (cid:5) (cid:8) (cid:6) (cid:9) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:11) (cid:10) (cid:0)(cid:2) (cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:3) (cid:16)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:20) (cid:16) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:19) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:8) (cid:13) (cid:16) (cid:16) (cid:9) (cid:15) (cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:11) (cid:9)(cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:18) (cid:14) (cid:12) (cid:14)(cid:17) (cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:17)
(cid:13)
(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)
(cid:0)
(cid:2)
(cid:9)
(cid:5)(cid:6)
(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:0) (cid:10) (cid:10)
(cid:2)
(cid:2) (cid:11) (cid:14)
(cid:3)
(cid:15) (cid:11) (cid:4)
(cid:3)
(cid:12) (cid:7) (cid:10) (cid:2)
(cid:4)
(cid:5) (cid:5)
(cid:2)
(cid:6) (cid:6) (cid:5)(cid:6)
(cid:5)(cid:6)
(cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:7) (cid:8) (cid:8)
(cid:0)
(cid:7)
(cid:8)
(cid:2)
(cid:8)
(cid:3)(cid:4)
(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)
(cid:0)(cid:6)
(cid:5)
(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:0)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:2)
(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)
(cid:5) (cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:0)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:10) (cid:4)
(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:9)
(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:0)(cid:7)(cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:13) (cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:6)
(cid:10)
(cid:17)
(cid:11)
(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5) (cid:17)(cid:11) (cid:16)
(cid:11)
(cid:5)
(cid:15)
(cid:8)
(cid:18)
(cid:12)
(cid:19)
(cid:2)
(cid:0)
(cid:6)
(cid:2)
(cid:0)
(cid:7)(cid:8)
(cid:3)
(cid:2)
(cid:9)
(cid:4)
(cid:3)
(cid:5)
(cid:4)
(cid:2)
(cid:5)(cid:6)
(cid:6)
(cid:7)
(cid:7)
(cid:8)(cid:7) (cid:8)
(cid:4)
(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:10) (cid:9)
(cid:8)
(cid:6)
(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:2)
(cid:0) (cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5) (cid:21) (cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:3)
(cid:19)(cid:6)
(cid:9)(cid:20)
(cid:8)(cid:7)
(cid:19)
(cid:6)(cid:5)
(cid:18)(cid:7)
(cid:23)(cid:11)(cid:22)
(cid:15)(cid:17)
(cid:2)(cid:16) (cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:14) (cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:13) (cid:25) (cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:2) (cid:20)(cid:10) (cid:24) (cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)
(cid:0)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)
(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)
(cid:4)
(cid:0)(cid:2)
(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)
(cid:0)
(cid:2) (cid:3)
(cid:3)(cid:2)
(cid:0)
(cid:46)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:88)
(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:92)(cid:82)(cid:81)
(cid:108)
(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:7)
0 500 1,000Feet
Rural Residential Medium Density Residential (4 - 10 dwelling units per acre) Airport Commercial (cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:42)(cid:56)(cid:53)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:56)(cid:16)(cid:23)
Rural Residential - Hillside High Density Residential Light Industrial
(10 - 20 dwelling units per acre) and Office (cid:47)(cid:36)(cid:49)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:54)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:54)(cid:44)(cid:42)(cid:49)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:44)(cid:50)(cid:49)(cid:54)(cid:3)(cid:58)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:49)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:43)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:60)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:44)(cid:48)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:54)
Public/Quasi-Public
Downtown Commercial
Low Density Residential (1 - 4 dwelling units per acre)
Community Commercial
(cid:38)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:60)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:41)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:36)(cid:47)(cid:44)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:50)(cid:42)(cid:36)
(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:41)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:56)(cid:16)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:56)(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:86) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:36)(cid:49)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:54)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:48)(cid:40)(cid:49)(cid:55)
(cid:127)(cid:75)(cid:69)(cid:47)(cid:69)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:47)(cid:94)(cid:100)(cid:90)(cid:47)(cid:18)(cid:100)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:4)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:75)(cid:90)(cid:47)(cid:39)(cid:47)(cid:69)(cid:4)(cid:62)(cid:62)(cid:122)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:75)(cid:87)(cid:100)(cid:28)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:90)(cid:104)(cid:4)(cid:90)(cid:122)(cid:3)(cid:1009)(cid:853)(cid:3)(cid:1005)(cid:1013)(cid:1013)(cid:1005)
*MAP AMENDMENTS
Ordinance 596, adopted November 17, 2003 - Saratoga Manor
2650 Ordinance 609, adopted August 17, 2004 - APN 011-050-043 & -044
2620 Ordinance 614, adopted December 21, 2004 - Commercial Land Use Districts and Others
2610 Ordinance 617, adopted February 1, 2005 - APN 011-212-001
1. Oat Hill Court Ordinance 639, adopted May 15, 2007 - Mobile Home Park District
3051 3045 R 30 M 39 R yrt 3 l 0 e 33 d 2 a 99 l 9 2 e 99 5 30 R 27 2 d 99 . 9 3 2 0 9 2 6 1 2 0 99 2 6 945 3 1 2 0 3 9 1 4 7 2 5 0 0 9 2 4 9 2 6 5 9 2 0 5 9 6 5 2 4 3 8 0 8 0 3 1 9 42 1 2 8 4 7 2 R 0 9 8 0 5 2 8 8 2 8 1 1 0 2 5 6 R 8 2 2 1 2 8 9 4 1 8 4 4 8 4 6 1 - 6 2 0 7 H 2 93 1 2 6 7 4 8 0 7 Gr 2 a 77 2 3 n 7 2 7 7 9 t G 7 2 r 9 e 7 e S 2 7 n 7 1 w 6 o t 7 o r d A e ven e ue t 17 2 5 6 0 5 9 R 3 40 650 R 700 93 9 0 2 9 2 0 1 6 0 50 93 1 9 2 9 1 9 9 5 9 0 2 0 1 9 9 1 9 0 7 9 P R 1 e 1 trifie 2 d 2 1 2 9 1 5 R 7 8 7 1 7 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 1 1 5 1 1 0 1 1 11 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 Ct. 1 5 eek r F n C e r tt 1 Ga 7 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 r 3 1 1 M 1 5 2 e 1 it 7 1 z 1 2 s 1 i 9 2 1 D 1 1 t 2 r 1 1 i R v 1 3 2 1 e 5 3 1 1 d 1 7 3 1 3 9 1 2 . 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 5 4 4 1 7 4 2 5 9 1 4 C 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 4 5 1 2 5 1 5 2 9 5 2 9 1 7 5 2 2 1 5 3 5 2 1 5 R 6 1 2 1 79 2 4 2 2 1 5 4 7 1 2 K 3 4 2 2 5 8 5 0 7 2 C 4 2 1 2 J 9 4 5 2 1 2 0 6 0 2 4 2 3 D 8 4 7 0 5 4 2 7 5 2 24 2 2 4 1 D 3 3 0 0 2 4 4 a 2 3 54 8 - a 4 2 1 4 8 2 4 2 5 50 3 8 2 2 2 e 9 1 2 4 0 1 1 t 2 1 4 2 6 4 n e 2 2 1 9 8 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 2 5 9 h 2 5 n 2 5 6 9 4 2 4 0 5 7 4 2 9 b 2 6 4 i 2 2 2 7 2 6 2 4 4 2 9 y 4 4 4 c 2 6 a 0 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 b 2 1 7 4 2 1 5 5 5 4 7 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 4 4 2 4 5 e 2 4 4 5 7 7 2 1 6 8 7 2 5 2 7 7 6 2 3 1 2 3 2 6 0 9 l W a C 6 3 1 2 4 5 9 2 i i 1 5 2 4 i W r 7 9 7 7 6 n c 5 4 3 1 4 n l 5 e 8 2 e 3 2 4 2 6 4 t 2 n 5 2 3 e 5 e R 2 C 7 4 2 4 5 1 2 5 9 2 5 W 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 7 2 2 0 2 2 2 y 1 4 4 1 y 5 4 2 1 2 4 4 4 2 W 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 7 3 5 3 . 0. 1 y R 4 6 2 0 1 4 7 0 2 2 8 2 7 0 2 2 0 2 1 4 4 1 2 3 . 1 1 4 1 2 4 1 0 4 4 1 2 1 1 2 y 5 4 5 1 5 1 5 4 1 5 1 8 5 1 2 5 5 1 0 2 1 1 7 5 7 8 6 1 8 7 C 9 7 7 4 6 7 2 1 4 . 2 5 6 1 2 6 0 8 8 4 2 2 2 6 2 6 8 4 2 e 4 6 2 v 5 i 4 rD 2 4 4 4 e 5 1 2 si 1 9 1 n 2 3 6 1 e e D 4 1 1 1 6 3 7 9 1 0 5 1 6 7 9 2 1 5 0 d 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 4 2 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 5 a 4 4 4 1 2 2 5 5 5 4 0 5 1 1 2 5 1 4 6 8 5 0 4 2 0 5 1 1 2 4 5 1 4 1 5 1 4 4 1 r 1 9 0 3 6 1 4 1 8 1 11 8 8 0 4 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 8 1 4 6 1 1 1 44 1 1 8 5 5 1 4 8 2 4 1 3 3 1 8 8 1 3 1 64 3 1 8 R 3 2 4 R 0 3 8 22 6 2 1 42 1 0864 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 4 8 - 3 - 7 2 5 5 S 32 2 1 0 t 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 8 r 0 0 9 9 0 2 8 2 8 - 4 8 2 6 0 3 0 0 1 2 e 2 1 3 9 9 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 8 e 2 5 7 4 F 3 1 1 5 t n ve ue o A ar M 8 0 o 23 M o 0 2 9 2 t 83 h 2 H 0 i 2 7 1 2 2 0 l 0 7 4 2 8 2 l 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 0 2 2 1 3 9 8 8 8 0 2 2 8 8 7 1 3 1 0 9 P 8 1 9 8 8 7 0 1 1 8 0 0 B 3 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 8 R 0 0 6 2 o 2 2 0 2 4 6 2 u R 1 8 4 0 2 2 2 2 l 8 1 M e 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 7 7 - 1 7 7 4 7 7 7 7 8 2 1 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 P v 0 9 7 0 5 3 9 1 et 9 5 7 S e e rt o gga i M H 0 2 3 6 5 a 1 2 9 7 n 4 R 5 2 r 0 5 8 e d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y 7 7 7 7 7 - 7 7 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 7 7 1 6 4 2 8 0 0 6 4 5 0 1 0 8 8 2 0 L 5 R 2 H a 1 - 2 1 1 P 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 8 3 0 i n 0 1 00 5 1 - 5 7 g 31 7 2 e 1 1 h 1 2 2 0 2 9 2 0 2 0 0 w 0 2 0 9 2 - 8 0 5 0 0 8 - 2 a 8 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 P 2 y 0 2 1 0 2 4 7 2 5 2 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 D 0 8 9 1 2 5 2 9 2 2 4 9 12 3 0 0 0 8 . 12 t 07 S 2 4 2 2 0 w 5 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 o 3 1 1 4 3 l 7 7 7 7 l 7 2 7 7 1 i 7 7 W 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 9 7 5 3 9 1 2 7 3 5 7 21 0 y Wa e l M hc a i 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 P 2 0 0 9 1 8 2 1 2 0 0 6 2 1 3 1 0 2 8 0 2 4 2 0 9 2 4 9 2 2 1 2 D 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 9 1 4 2 1 6 2 8 7 2 2 8 1 60 1 0 9 1 9 3 1 1 2 9 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 7 2 1 7 0 7 7 1 7 8 7 . 7 t 0 S 1 6 5 1 2 1 h 1 1 1 g 8 1 1 0 i 2 0 H 1 8 1 1 R 6 0 9 0 1 4 8 2 1 0 0 9 8 1 6 2 0 9 2 2 9 1 0 9 8 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 8 2 0 1 1 9 0 0 2 1 1 9 2 9 1 . 0 1 0 8 0 0 1 0 4 9 1 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 2 0 1 S 9 1 2 9 1 5 2 0 2 1 2 0 1 7 1 0 8 1 9 2 2 0 21 - 0 0 3 9 9 1 9 3 7 2 1 1 0 1 1 7 3 1 1 7 1 9 1 0 1 1 0 c 2 1 1 0 9 7 1 0 7 7 7 1 0 0 7 3 7 7 7 1 1 3 1 9 - 0 1 0 5 9 7 4 6 adl 3 9 mE er 4 1 2 1 7 2 1 . 0 0 1 6 7 9 9 0 9 9 2 9 0 2 9 9 5 h 9 1 9 2 1 1 4 7 0 3 0 1 4 0 5 1 0 11 1 1 0 0 1 9 9 0 6 1 9 2 0 2 9 6 99 9 1 2 2 1 22 0 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 4 o 1 0 1 00 0 2 2 1 0 1 11 5 1 0 3 1 1 0 7 0 0 3 0 . 2 79 5 0 1 0 t 0 1 2 00 0 S 1 1 7 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 0 e 1 0 1 5 3 1 3 0 68 i 8 8 8 8 l 0 l 7 7 o 1 7 1 1 i 7 L 7 1 6 7 3 1 3 2 4 5 6 1 9 4 0 1 1 1 3 7 5 2 1 1 2 4 4 0 2 0 4 3 2 9 3 . 7 4 2 4 1 4 2 1 l 1 3 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 8 2 1 8 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 9 7 8 1 3 S 8 0 1 9 11 1 1 1 9 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 1 8 0 8 5 9 0 99 1 9 1 9 0 0 1 8 1 1 R 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 00 8 1 1 8 0 1 1 0 1 0 8 1111 11 1 8 8 0 8 8 . . . . 1 7 9 . 7 . . . 4 77 1 86 t 2 0 7 1 1 7 7 7 6 1 77 1 77 77 1 9 0 1 1 2 1 0 5 5 5 2 45 9 5 3 6 4 3 3 1 4 22 9 11 . 0 . 1 8 5 8 9 6 1 8 1 5 5 7 0 71 0 93 1 7 7 71 0 1 95 7 93 0 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 8 A 1 3 8 5 2 E F U 1 8 0 C T 8 C 8 H 2 - 4 1 2 eet 8 2 Ska rt 1 O 2 N . . 0 1 8 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 . 9 1 1 11 8 9 1 2 1 7 6 2 1 2 8 1 0 0 7 a 00 1 a 0 1 3 8 m u 8 0 1 1 0 r i 4 a 2 i 1 4 1 6 A 5 8 1 2 8 8 6 n 8 g 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 b 1 b 0 1 1 l 2 1 0 9 8 8 99 3 9 r r 9 4 1 4 8 2 4 8 1 9 l 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 0 1 2 1 1 5 2 9 2 111 1 e 0 1 1 n 0 1 8 h 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7 1 9 0 7 l o 1 0 1 e a 8 2 7 7 7 7 8 1 l 7 8 7 0 7 7 1 2 0 1 0 11 0 777 7 5 8 4 2 5 0 6 9 6 8 4 66 1 6 6 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 0 1 0 4 5 5 4 5 0 1 3 2 1 4 3 5 1 2 i 5 8 1 55 1 e 111 2 1 5 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 4 00 3 1 0 r e 4 0 5 3 1 8 1 9 4 2 0 8 4 6 4 0 4 2 8 7 0 6 1 9 1 2 8 11 9 620 2 a 2 0 . 1 r t n r 7 8 2 5 8 68 4 1 0 1 S0 5 0 8 0 5 19 0 0 1 . 2 2 79 1 1 k 8 a R D 1 1 a 6 5 6 1 0 3 4 2 5 8 O R 0 9 1 ee rt t i l 8 o S er 2 a m Fil 9 6 1 2 7 . b 1 S R 1 1 1 1 0 R 1 0 4 1 i 1 0 1 e 1 4 1 2 9 7 7 7 7 6 l 2 0 8 4 8 . 1 7 1 6 D 0 o r 0 3 3 3 1 1 11 8 1 1 d 8 1 1 1 a 5 P 3 1 2 11 6 3 7 9 99 D 6 1 e o 10 0 8 8 9 1 i 1 1 1 44 1 1 1 1 1 00 1 8 A 4 1 - 5 0 0 1 2 0 8 1 7 2 c 2 4 v 7 11 7 0 2 8 4 1 7 86 r r 1 4 0 1 8 9 2 1 4 0 4 1 7 3 0 y V 0 6 l 4 3 84 1 3 0 1 6 8 2 c 7 5 1 7 2 1 2 8 1 D 1 1 r 2 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 11 1 1 i 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 9 1 9 11 7 a 4 0 k 1 v 6 2 e 01 4 1 6 5 1 2 55 5 5 4 8 1 3 6 8 6 6 6 6 5 1 4 86 2 1 v C 1 2 n i 2 . 1 7 k 7 2 3 0 12 1 1 2 7 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 7 00 1 7 4 1 2 1 v 4 1 1 r c 2 2 1 1 80 0 1 6 e 4 2 6 4 1 2 8 6 0 A 2 66 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 8 2 6 4 e 4 2 - 0 8 5 11 6 7 5 D a 7 7 8 0 7 01 o i 62 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 44 2 e 1 0 6 2 e 88 . 2 C 81 7 7 2 v 7 1 7 1 7 34 2 7 5 2 P 1 0 1 1 4 1 r 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 9 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 2 60 1 1 u 7 6 r R 0 8 3 4 1 8 4 6 1 6 6 1 0 2 1 6 5 5 5 5 58 0 11 7 7 e 1 d 9 0 0 7 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 0 1 2 o 1 0 1 1 1 4 i 4 1 1 ee r t 0 S ey l t Har 1 2 5 2 4 9 17 7 1 7 3 3 9 7 5 1 7 1 7 7 1 7 r 4 1 4 2 31 1 v 1 0 0 8 1 8 1 1 1 3 1 2 7 4 1 D 7 4 1 1 7 3 u 2 3 7 M 7 8 t 1 1 8 1 1 1 8 1 4 8 1 L 8 0 1 - 3 1 1 8 1 1 e 8 1 1 6 1 7 0 6 0 3 1 6 4 1 7 7 7 7 0 4 7 0 2 1 11 0 r 5 5 7 1 1 3 1 1 9 5 1 1 4 2 n 44 9 y 3 1 1 7 5 4 5 W 5 6 7 t 1 1 54 1 5 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 111 0 R 7 7 17 7 1 0 4 4 1 7 7 7 7 66 7 6 66 1 5 9 555 r . 5 0 1 1 0 1 8 2 4 8 1 . 1t 1 1 0 1 11 0 0 00 7 2 S 2 111 2 1 0 7 8 4 0 1 9 1 0 d7 4 0 9 0 82 t 9 4 86 l 1 1 4 1 3 620 o 4 0 1 4 9 2G 3 a 0 1 4 1 5 4 6 1 5 1 7 1 1 l 5 1 1 0 8 3 4 4 2 1 1 7 4 0 4 4 1 7 - 1 1 1 1 11 e 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 3 9 5 0 0 1 3 s 0 11 11 4 7 8 7 88 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 6 7 11 0 0 1 1 9 3 3 5 66 66 3 0 5 0 33 5 5 8 1 0 5 1 0 5 0 5 2 3 44 1 3 7 4 1 00 00 9 1 6 5 5 57 2 9 1 3 1 6 1 7 3 1 1 0 1 00 0 3 h 1 4 79 31 S 6 5 9 1 et 1 4 3 1 9 9 S e e rt Lak 1 51 3 5 2 2 1 0 3 4 2 1 6 1 i 9 2 1 3 7 6 2 6 6 4 1 t 7 1 1 1 n 1 9 2 5 1 6 0 9 6 1 2 1 . 7 1 3 2 6 1 6 1 1 8 1 3 11 M 2 6 g 1 6 1 6 7 1 1 56 1 2 1 7 1 11 8 1 1 0 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 11 1 1 6 2 00 4 9 1 1 1 8 55 0 5 7 4 0 8 8 4 7 1 88 8 4 8 7 8 6 8 88 8 8 1 1 0 46 A 3 1 4 t 6 6 10 4 1 1 0 1 6 1 4 2 5 4 43 1 5 1 3 5 0 i 1 4 2 12 3 1 5 7 8 8 4 2 1 1 1 1 28 6 2 6 0 6 6 8 2 28 6 4 6 2 0 6 4 6 80 4 0 o 2 0 1 4 r 8 6 5 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 1 0 r C 4 1 1 3 6 5 9 0 8 6 i 1 R 6 4 1 6 6 0 1 1 8 1 1 n 1 6 1 c 0 6 a 1 4 2 6 6 2 1 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 e 3 1 1 5 4 1 1 2 3 0 5 1 1 h 7 1 1 1 4 5 2 m 6 4 1 1 1 2 6 6 1 . 5 2 4 2 1 9 7 t 1 1 4 22 4 d 1 4 6 3 6 S 0 0 9 3 4 0 7 3 - 1 3 S 5 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 5 9 51 1 h 6 1 0 0 3 0 1 5 7 3 5 9 6 1 4 9 t . w Rd 1 6 Vei r 1 2 2 8 5 6 1 u 0 3 1 1 a 6 0 2 o 6 0 0 0 1 6 2 F 5 1 t W 5 0 7 7 6 D 1 0 1 G 8 1 .t 0 6 1 S 1 r 4 . 1 6 r 1 C 2 e 1 8 v 5 P 0 1 l 1 i 6 S 1 3 1 r 1 y 1 1 0 6 r 5 3 S 1 14 1 4 5 1 2 0 . 1 1 6 42 4 . 0 2 1 a 1 1 1 9 4 1 1 28 6 1 3 8 4 5 2 3 1 4 2 1 1 2 5 4 2 t C 4 111 2 8 2 7 1 4 8 4 1 6 1 8 2 2 4 2 2 1 0 8 n 40 1 0 1 1 2 . 4 2 1 1 2 8 0 0 1 5 5 1 P 6 1 6 1 0 1 8 0 5 6 2 5 1 5 1 1 0 1 1 5 6 5 2 2 0 1 0 1 t 4 1 2 4 4 1 6 6 2 5 2 1 6 3 2 1 1 5 4 1 2 4 5 V 0 7 1 3 7 14 0 3 1 5 3 1 1 8 8 4 1 1 S 3 9 7 6 1 2 2 1 5 . 1 1 2 4 5 3 t 1 0 9 7 R 2 S 5 2 1 4 5 9 2 1 1 5 0 d 7 1 0 1 4 1 A 1 1 r 5 9 5 t i 0 5 4 5 h 1 1 5 1 9 9 1 T 71 1 1 4 r L 2 1 5 1 1 5 3 5 1 5 0 7 3 1 5 8 0 i 1 e 4 4 0 7 - 4 1 1 8 9 n 1 4 1 1 4 8 1 5 3 0 P 5 4 5 6 7 c 1 e 3 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 o 8 1 5 5 1 1 5 2 5 4 1 D 1 4 1 3 6 5 1 t 4 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 4 1 l 5 3 5 8 5 . 0 1 1 t n 5 4 5 4 0 1 S 1 3 1 5 2 0 2 0 y 1 1 4 4 1 0 8 2 1 r 6 8 4 r 7 e 6 1 14 1 2 B1 6 3 1 A 1 4 1 12 1 2 4 1 1 1 5 8 4 0 4 1 v 1 4 1 4 0 1 0 1 2 1 5 1 1 5 0 3 4 2 e 3 4 3 F 1 3 0 4 1 1 3 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 4 3 . 4 2 8 1 5 4 4 4 0 4 3 3 4 1 1 2 1 8 14 0 1 a 2 2 1 111 1 5 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 42 2 4 9 1 6 555 5 9 1 7 1 5 1 5 42 1 5 1 1 . 2 111 2 R 1 6 t 4 1 4 1 1 i S 1 4 8 1 3 1 1 642 0 0 3 1 8 2 4 7 d 2 r 4 2 1 4 4 n 3 0 1 - o 3 0 0 4 1 0 c 4 1 e 1 0 1 6 5 1 1 S 1 4 4 W 4 5 7 - 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 1 4 3 3 4 1 7 M 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 14 4 3 0 1 2 1 a 1 5 1 5 1 43 1 0 4 3 3 3 1 0 4 1 4 2 1 0 4 9 0 1 1 1 4 1 6 2 4 6 y 1 1 5 1 1 - 1 8 3 3 0 1 4 7 1 4 3 3 5 1 6 1 S 3 5 H 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 0 1 0 4 1 4 0 7 8 t 1 1 0 5 1 0 2 0 e 5 1 3 1 3 4 6 0 1 2 1 1 6 . 4 1 1 4 0 tS 7 51 v 4 4 1 g 46 2 4 0 0 1 1 n2 0 0 P 0 i 4 r 5 e 5 0 8 p 2 0 1 S . 3 0 4 t 5 7 3 S 3 n 6 5 t 1 1 1 s 4 r 2 2 4 3 s i 2 F 2 1 0 0 2 1 I 1 1 1 20 o 3 7 7 2 3 W 1 3 8 2 03 1 2 P n 2 6 1 1 5 2 3 1 0 5 a 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 A 4 5 1 p 3 1 0 3 3 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 v 1 4 p 3 3 4 2 0 1 7 6 1 4 4 3 7 2 3 1 0 2 2 e 1 1 o 4 9 1 3 6 4 8 1 3 1 3 0 2 1 7 . 1 7 1 2 2 4 1 8 1 1 1 1 8 A 3 0 0 1 5 1 5 1 1 2 5 7 3 3 1 9 7 4 7 5 2 3 1 2 0 1 1 v 1 0 5 2 2 2 0 3 7 D 1 7 1 1 0 5 3 1 9 1 6 e 8 1 1 3 1 4 5 1 R 9 1 4 1 1 0 1 2 3 1 1 16 . 1 3 4 6 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 4 2 62 3 1 1 1 R 1 4 3 9 P 1 4 1 1 31 0 1 4 1 5 1 0 1 3 0 7 5 1 C 8 1 0 3 1 3 7 3 0 7 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 R 1 R 1 D 0 9 3 0 3 1 1 3 6 3 3 1 3 0 8 1 5 5 7 3 3 7 0 7 5 13 - 2 0 3 3 9 6 1 3 1 4 1 41 3 5 3 1 1 3 5 12 1 . 0 1 3 . 3 3e 7 t 1 3 3 2 S 2 9 4 3 v 3 2 5 0m 0 A 3 1 5 2 0 9 6 3 0 3 - l E 2 9 1 1 n 3 - 7 2 7 4 0 2 3 5 6 l 5 o 3 4 3 7 5 6 c C 1 0 0 4 n H 2 8 3 1 i 1 1 2L 3 0 te 9 1 e 4 1 rtS 3 2 5 1 1 n 1 a 3 4 n 1 2 n 0 a 1 5 1 3 5 4 r 2 2 B 1 0 1 1 4 2 1 1 8 2 7 5 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 7 4 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 5 C 6 1 0 6 2 4 1 6 7 1 3 1 6 3 4 1 4 1 0 1 3 5 5 2 1 2 9 3 2 0 4 1 - 1 1 0 5 33 0 8 1 3 0 3 1 1 4 21 1 1 1 0 . D t 7 S 1 2 6 1 4 d 0 0 5 (cid:46) 1 0 r (cid:82) a 7 0 (cid:85) 2 r (cid:87) e (cid:88) 1 2 1 (cid:80) G 5 1 (cid:3) 2 1 (cid:38) 0 1 (cid:68) 2 (cid:81) 3 C 0 1 2 (cid:92) 2 (cid:82) 6 1 8 1 (cid:81) 4 2 1 61 W 1 4 7 1 1 . 1 t 1 S 0 0 l1 2 ez 2 8 1 1 1a 1 H 0 1 a 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 6 1 1 s 1 1 1 1 1 8 0 3 9 1 0 1 3 1 1 . 1 2 1 0 t h 1 0 S 3 0 8 2 1 0 7 n 0 1 0 1 3 i 1 1 6 l 1 1 9 1 k 4 8 n 0 0 i 1 5 7 0 a 1 1 2 r 0 n 0 F 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 4 1 0 1 1 9 1 5 0 0 1 1 g 0 4 1 9 1 1 9 1 1 1 9 3 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 3 3 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 4 8 1 1 0 1 1 t 1 0 2 1 1 6 1 0 0 5 4 1 2 1 7 9 0 3 0 8 o 0 1 1 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 4 1 0 0 . 4 0 n t 0 S 1 0 2 7 1 1 e 2 9 6 n 4 0iP 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 . 0 1 P 5 t 3 S 1 0 1 7 0 1 S a 1 9 0 9 1 n 0 2 1 4 n 0 0 0 A 0 D 3 0 0 3 1 t 1 0 1 8 0 . 1 1 0 4 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 3 1 19 1 0 1 3 1 1 4 01 1 1 4 8 1 3 0 6 0 1 2 9 6 4 0 11 2 1 1 0 6 2 3 1 7 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 0 9 2 3 5 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 5 8 0 0 6 9 R 2 1 0 2 1 1 6 9 9 3 1 .t 5 S 0 8 1 y 9 R d0 6 d - 0E - 1 8 o 0 3 1 s 1 4 e 2 5 1 1 4 d 4 7 7 1 1 1 9 6 a 3 4 00 le 71 1 1 1 4 R 41 7 03 0 o . 9 tS 2 lr a aE 81 d 0 1 1 4 4 1 6 0 1 4 0 2 6 0 7 6 8 H 6 0 0 2 M 3 w 5 y 15 5 H . 1 5 0 5 5 3 0 9 1 1 2 5 9 1 2 1 R 5 2 P 04 9 8 5 0 5 1 1 R 0 2 7 / H R 5 w 3 0 1 1 P 5 y 50 P R . D 5 P 2 D D 1 9 C 2 - 5 4 2 0 6 H 2 P 0 - 1 0 1 0 A 20 0 D 8 - 2 4 3 2 0 - 0 5 P 3 1 2 - 4 5 3 5 D 2011 41 - 4 1 1 1 4 I 333 Silv R er R a 285 do 304 T P ra R il 1 R 00 P 200 PD 2 O O O O O O O O O 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 r r r r r r r r r 0 d d d d d d d d d -1 i i i i i i i i i n n n n n n n n n 100 a a a a a a a a a 10 n n n n n n n n n 8 c c c c c c c c c 2 e e e e e e e e e 4 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 8 8 9 1 3 8 1 6 8 1 1 9 8 4 6 2 2 3 , , , , , , , , , a a a a a a a a a d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o p p p p p p p p p t t t t t t t t t e e e e e e e e e d d d d d d d d d J A M M D N S J J u u u u e e o a a n l n g p c v y y r e e c u e e t e 2 1 h s m m 1 1 m 1 5 t 6 9 5 b b , , 1 b , , , e 2 e 2 8 e 2 2 2 r r 0 0 , r 0 9 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 5 7 1 3 0 0 5 8 2 3 , , 0 - , - - 2 2 - 9 - R 2 S 0 0 R B B 0 - e i 1 0 l e r 1 e v A z 3 5 i z a r 2 e o P r o 4 n - - r n y - N 8 n A C R i A n E C 5 i n P i 0 o r g t n o d g y 1 N s c t A e w 1 e t A h a n P 0 - i a P 0 P d g 1 N W (cid:108) n 5 e e N 1 l (cid:94) a t 0 s - 0 e s i (cid:3) R n 0 2 n - (cid:18) 1 d P 0 n 0 1 e e 1 (cid:3) 4 e l 1 2 z s R (cid:4) a - 3 d 1 o - 0 n e P (cid:3) 0 - n 5 (cid:62) n D s 3 0 l i 0 a (cid:3) o e n 1 e 1 (cid:28) - n d r g 0 v 0 t n - e 2 D ( a e 0 4 l 3 n o d e 0 7 d p v 4 D m P e S & e l r o e p o v - p n a p e 0 m t 9 e l 0 1 P o 10 7 0 r e 5 p l t 0 a i n m e n F t s e n e ) n e et t d Development
city parcels R-1-10-PD: One-Family Residential Planned Development I: Light Industrial (cid:18)(cid:47)(cid:100)(cid:122)(cid:3)(cid:75)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:62)(cid:47)(cid:94)(cid:100)(cid:75)(cid:39)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:882)(cid:3)(cid:127)(cid:75)(cid:69)(cid:47)(cid:69)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:4)(cid:87)
RR: Rural Residential R-2: Two-Family Residential MHP: Mobile Home Park
RR-H: Rural Residential - Hillside R-3: Multi-Family Residential/ Office P: Public/Quasi-Public
Figure3-2
R-1: One-Family Residential R-3-VA: Multi-Family Residential/ Office - Visitor Accommodation PD: Planned Development
R-1-PD: One-Family Residential Planned Development DC: Downtown Commercial C-A: Commercial Airport
R-1-10: One-Family Residential CC: Community Commercial
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Tourism activities shall be regulated to minimize adverse impacts to other segments
of the economy, and the resident population (P1.2-1 in Land Use Element).
The City shall collaborate with Napa County and with Napa County LAFCO to protect
existing land uses from development inappropriate for rural areas (P4.1-4 in Land
Use Element).
The City shall advocate at the State level for expansion of incentives, such as
Williamson Act contracts, that allow agricultural operations to remain economically
viable (P4.1-5 in Land Use Element).
No commercial or industrial uses shall be permitted unless they meet noise, air,
water and wastewater quality standards and have access to City water, wastewater,
fire and police services (P1.3-4 in Land Use Element).
Extension of water service beyond the current service area shall be prohibited
(P1.3-4 in Infrastructure Element); and
If and when 95 percent of the capacity of existing water storage, supply and/or
distribution systems has been reached, further development in Calistoga will be
prohibited until the City has provided sufficient new capacity to accommodate new
development (P1.3-7 in Infrastructure Element).
Future Development Potential
A primary concern of LAFCO is whether a city has sufficient infrastructure and public
services to support anticipated future growth. There is adequate land within Calistoga to
accommodate growth on the 400 acres within the city limits that are currently vacant or
utilized for agriculture (see Table 3-1, above). However, General Plan policies aim to
retain the City’s walkable, small town atmosphere and the Municipal Code limits growth of
residential projects to ensure no more than a 1.35% annual increase in population. Future
growth in Calistoga will likely include new residential, commercial, and visitor service
facilities. By the year 2040, the number of housing units in Calistoga is projected by ABAG
to increase by 90 units above today’s level to a total of 2,130 units (See Table 3-5, below),
indicating a slow rate of growth in this sector.
The City generated a list of pending and approved development projects and this list is
provided as Appendix C. One project which was approved by voters in 2012, but not yet
constructed is called the Silver Rose project. The Silver Rose site will be developed as a
Four Seasons hotel with 85 rooms, a spa, restaurant, 10,000-case winery, 6-acre vineyard
and 20 free-standing homes. Groundbreaking occurred in November 2015 and the project
is expected to be completed in 2018. The City entered into a development agreement with
the developer who agreed to pay nearly $7 million in assorted impact fees related to
affordable housing, traffic, recreation, drainage, public safety and wastewater
connections. A second large project is Calistoga Hills, which has been approved for a
resort hotel with 130 units, ancillary uses and 13 single-family dwellings on 88 acres.
Resort developments with no permanent residential dwellings may not count towards the
1.35% annual limit in population.
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
The City’s land use element of the General Plan includes four overlay designations that
provide special design and development guidance for key sites in Calistoga as follows:
Planned Development Overlay
Silverado Trail Planned Development Overlay
o
Calistoga Hills Planned Development Overlay
o
Entry Corridor Overlay
Visitor Accommodation Overlay
Character Area and Gateway Overlays
Downtown Character Area Overlay
o
Stevenson/Grant Sub-Area
o
Foothill Character Area Overlay
o
Gliderport Character Area Overlay
o
Lower Washington Character Area Overlay
o
Resort Character Area Overlay
o
• Silverado Trail Section
• Lincoln Avenue Section
• State Highway 29 Character Area Overlay
Lincoln Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Gateway
o
Petrified Forest Gateway
o
Silverado Trail Gateway
o
The above overlay districts outline geographic areas of potential growth and/or
redevelopment. The City is pursuing new small scale (but high quality) development to
diversify the local economy.
Regional Transportation Plans & Sustainable
Community Strategies
Government Code Section 56668 requires LAFCOs to consider regional transportation plans
and sustainable community strategies before making boundary decisions.
The City of Calistoga and the four other municipalities of Napa County participate in the
Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA). The NVTA functions as the region's
Congestion Management Agency and provides input to the Bay Area-wide Metropolitan
Transportation Commission's 20-year Regional Transportation Plan for prioritizing projects
and allocating state and federal transportation funds. As a result of this collaboration,
there are several local and regional transportation plans which are applicable to Calistoga,
as listed in Table 3-2, below.
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 3-2: Regional and Local Transportation Plans
Name of Plan Date Plan Sponsor Website Link
Circulation Element of 2014 City of Calistoga http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-
the Calistoga General hall/departments-services/planning-
Plan building-department/plans-programs-
and-land-use-regulations/calistoga-
general-plan/calistoga-general-plan
Active Transportation October City of Calistoga http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/home/
Plan 21, 2014 showdocument?id=18941
Napa Countywide January Napa Valley http://ci.calistoga.ca.us/home
Pedestrian Plan, 2016 Transportation /showdocument?id=21784
Chapter 2, Calistoga -
Authority
DRAFT
Vision 2040 Moving Sept., Napa Valley http://www.nvta.ca.gov/sites/defaul
Napa Forward. A 16, 2015 Transportation t/files/Vision%202040%20Countywide%
Countywide Authority 20Plan.pdf
Transportation Plan
Countywide Bicycle January Napa Valley http://www.nvta.ca.gov/nctpa-
Plan 2012 Transportation countywide-bike-plan-0
Authority
(formerly NCTPA)
SR 29 Gateway October Napa Valley http://www.nvta.ca.gov/sr29-
Corridor 2014 Transportation gateway-corridor-improvement-plan
Implementation Plan Authority
(formerly NCTPA)
Plan Bay Area July 18, MTC and ABAG http://planbayarea.org/the-
2013 plan/adopted-plan-bay-area-
2013.html
The City’s Circulation Element recognizes that the City needs continuing investment in
transit, trails, and parking. The City’s investment in transit and trails may result in
increased property tax and sales tax revenue (ULI, 2016). Additionally, the City has a five
member Active Transportation Advisory Committee that provides ideas and activities to
improve bicycling, walking and other active modes of transportation within the City of
Calistoga. NVTA funds the Calistoga Shuttle6, an on-demand transit service within city
limits for the general public. The Calistoga Shuttle connects with the VINE Transit Service
for service to the City of Napa.
The provision of regional transit and alternative transportation is especially important in
Napa County, because Napa County has the second highest greenhouse gas emissions from
automobiles on a per capita basis of the nine Bay Area counties, as shown in Figure 3-3,
below (MTC, 2016). Napa County’s high GHG emissions from autos of 3.9 metric tons per
capita are significantly higher than the 3.2 metric tons per capita rate that is the average
of the nine Bay Area Counties. Napa County’s GHG emissions are mostly due to the lack of
6 Details on the Calistoga Shuttle are available at: http://www.ridethevine.com/calistoga-shuttle
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-3
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
alternative transit options for both residents and tourists in the region. The very low
population density of the area contributes to the difficulty in developing transportation
alternatives. Also the majority of road miles traveled occur in the unincorporated area
(NCTPA, 2009). Napa County and each of the five cities have actively tried to mitigate this
through the adoption of various sustainable transit and climate plans. Additionally,
construction of several trails in the area serves to increase the use of alternate
transportation, reduce emissions from vehicular sources, reduce road and highway traffic,
and implement adopted plans..
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Vital Signs Website at:
http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed on 21March2016.
The 3.9 metric tons per capita of GHG from autos was calculated based on a survey of
fueling stations. Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated by MTC based on the gallons of
gasoline and diesel sales. Per-capita greenhouse gas emissions were calculated by dividing
emissions attributable to fuel sold in that county by the total number of county residents.
It is acknowledged that there may be a slight bias in the data given that a fraction of fuel
sold in a given county may be purchased by non-residents (i.e. visitors). Since Calistoga’s
and Napa County’s economy is heavily dependent upon tourism and since most of the
visiting tourists drive into Napa County, it affects the per capita calculation.
All regions in California must complete a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of
a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), consistent with the requirements of state law,
Senate Bill 375. SB 375 requires California’s 18 metro areas to integrate transportation,
land-use and housing as part of an SCS to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and
light-duty trucks. In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) work together, along with local
governments, to develop a SCS that meets greenhouse gas reduction targets adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. The RTP and SCS for the Bay Area is called “Plan Bay Area:
Strategy for A Sustainable Region” and was adopted on July 18, 2013, as described in Table
3-2, above. A few of the goals and outcomes of Plan Bay Area include:
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Climate Protection: Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions
from cars and light-duty trucks by 15 percent
(Statutory requirement is for year 2035, per SB 375);
Healthy and Safe Communities: Reduce by 50 percent
the number of injuries and fatalities from all collisions
(including bike and pedestrian);
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation: Direct all
non-agricultural development within the urban
footprint (existing urban development and urban
growth boundaries) (Note: Baseline year is 2010.); and
Economic Vitality: Increase gross regional product
(GRP) by 110 percent — an average annual growth rate
of approximately 2 percent (in current dollars)
3.2 POPULATION AND GROWTH
Existing Population
This section describes the existing population and future growth projections for the City of
Calistoga, since these factors must be considered when planning for the provision of
services and since a MSR determination is required. A population study of Napa County is
presented in Appendix D and an Economic Forecast for Napa County is presented in
Appendix B.
Calistoga has experienced modest growth and development since its incorporation. In
1930, the United States Census estimated Calistoga’s population at 1,000. Calistoga’s
population continued to grow modestly over the next four decades reaching 1,882 by 1970.
It was between 1970 and 1980 when Calistoga experienced its most significant period of
growth as its population more than doubled to 3,879 following the construction of several
mobile home parks. Calistoga’s growth rate, however, slowed in the 1980s and 1990s due
to capacity constraints associated with the water and sewer systems.
In 2005, after completing several infrastructure improvements to the water and sewer
systems, Calistoga adopted an ordinance to control the annual rate of residential and non-
residential growth in the City. The “Growth Management System”7 (Calistoga
Municipal Code Chapter 19.02) restricts population growth to no more than a 1.35%
annual average increase. Non-residential growth is correlated to available water
supplies at 8.0 acre feet per year and to wastewater treatment capacity set by the
Resource Management System (CMC Chapter 13.16). Calistoga administers this system by
7 A July 7, 2015 Staff Report contains details on the GMS at:
http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=20459
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-5
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
annually determining the available number of “allocations” for residential and non-
residential projects.
Calistoga was estimated to have 5,180 full-time residents as of January 2016 (DOF, 2016).
Between census years 2000 to 2010, the City’s population declined by 35 people. Between
census year 2010 and today (2016), the City’s population grew by 25 persons, which
represents an average annual growth rate of 0.08%. The average population concentration
is 1,992 persons per square mile, as shown in Table 3-3, below.
Table 3-3: Historic and Existing Population
Total population Land area (sq. miles) Population per sq.
mile
2000 5,190 2.6 1,996
2010 5,155 2.6 1,983
2015 5,180 2.6 1,992
Data Source: DOF, 2016
Calistoga is in Census Tract 2020 and is divided into four “Block Groups” as listed in Table
3-4 and shown in Figure 3-4, below.
Table 3-4: Block Group Population
Census Tract 2020 Total Population in 2010
Block Group 1 1,090
Block Group 2 929
Block Group 3 1,706
Block Group 4 1,430
Data Source: http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-6
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
The City of Calistoga’s Housing Element provides a very detailed description of socio-
economic factors within the City, including age distribution, racial distribution,
employment, and economic factors. Since the Housing Element is readily available on-line
at the City’s website8, readers are referred to the Housing Element to learn details about
socio-economic factors within the City. Relevant factors are summarized herein. The
median age in Calistoga is 40 years as of 2010 Census. The median age within the City is
similar to Napa County’s, but is 5 years older than the State’s median of 35.2 years
(Calistoga, 2014). Median household income in Calistoga is $52,131 (US Census, 2014) and
this is significantly lower than Napa County as a whole and other cities within Napa County
(Calistoga, 2014).
In 2016 (DOF, 2016), the City contained a total of 2,370 housing units and approximately
half of these units were single-family residential units and 25% were mobile homes. There
are three mobile home parks for seniors located within the City boundary and many of
these residents are on a fixed income. The remaining 25% were a mixture of multi-family
units and townhomes (DOF, 2016). Most of the housing units are in good condition
(Calistoga, 2014). In Calistoga, approximately 60% of the homes are owner occupied and
the remaining 40% are renter occupied (Calistoga, 2014). In 2014, the median sale price of
a single-family home in Calistoga was $505,000 (Calistoga, 2014). Housing affordability is a
concern in the City and the City has adopted very innovative affordable housing policies
and programs to address this concern. The average household size is estimated at 2.57
persons per household (DOF, 2016).
In the past, some Calistoga residents had slightly lower incomes than those in the other
parts of Napa County. In recent years, however, the City has experienced “advanced
gentrification” as shown in Figure 3-5, below (Zuk & Chapple, 2015). Gentrification is the
process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or
affluent people into working-class neighborhoods that often displaces poorer
residents. Although the neighborhoods in Calistoga may be changing slowly, over time,
cumulative effects may result in the area becoming more segregated by income. This may
be partly due to trends at the national level in income inequality. Additionally, the
purchase of homes for use as second homes is a growing trend in Calistoga. The City is
working to mitigate this trend through the construction of workforce housing.
8 Housing Element is available at: http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=12096
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Projected Growth and Development
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) publishes population, household, job,
labor force, and income projections for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region. ABAG’s
Projections 2013 includes a range of growth-related estimates for Calistoga through 2035.
ABAG projections for Calistoga relating to population, households, and jobs are listed
below.
Table 3-5: ABAG Growth & Population Projections, City of Calistoga
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population 5,200 5,300 5,400 5,500 5,500 5,600
Households 2,040 2,070 2,090 2,100 2,110 2,130
Total Jobs 2,340 2,450 2,480 2,520 2,590 2,640
(Source: Projections 2013)
ABAG uses a compound annual growth rate of 0.38% to project future growth for the City
during the next five years. The population is expected to remain flat between the years
2030 to 2035. Overall, ABAG predicts a much lower rate of future growth than the City of
Calistoga predicts for itself as shown in Table 3-6, below.
Per the General Plan policies and Growth Management System, the City’s growth rate may
not exceed 1.35% per year. Therefore, the 1.35% rate may be used to project the
maximum population growth as shown in Table 3-6, below, which is substantially higher
than ABAG’s projections:
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-8
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 3-6: Permitted Population Growth
Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Population 5,050 5,400 5,775 6,175 6,603
Based on completed and anticipated residential construction, the City estimates a related
population growth of 110 persons during the 2015-2019 Growth Management Cycle as of
May 2016. This would allow 71 additional dwelling units to receive building permits during
the cycle in order to comply with the maximum growth rate and a total population of 5,328
(City of Calistoga, personal communication, Goldberg, 2016).
Calistoga has been proactive in adopting polices to control the amount of new growth and
development in the City. These efforts include a policy discouraging annexations of
unincorporated lands. Calistoga’s Growth Management System is an innovative approach in
controlling growth and development in the City by creating a market for residential and
non-residential allocations. This system helps Calistoga preserve its desired rural character
while providing an incentive for applicants to submit quality proposals. 2015 is the first
year of the current five-year program cycle (2015 to 2020). A total of 4 allocations for
single-family dwellings have been granted to date to house a population of approximately
10 persons. For commercial development, no allocations have been approved to date.
Regional Housing Allocation
In compliance with state law, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development identifies the number and affordability level of housing units needed for the
San Francisco Bay Area at-large for an eight-year period (in this cycle, from 2014 to 2022).
ABAG9 distributes these housing needs to local governments in a way that is compatible
with the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Once a local government has received its final
Regional Housing Need Allocation, it was required to update its Housing Element to
describe how its portion of the region's housing need can be accommodated. The housing
numbers provided in Table 3-7, below reflect the final allocations adopted for Napa County
jurisdictions.
Table 3-7: ABAG Regional Housing Need Allocation
A f fordability: Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
American Canyon 116 54 58 164 392
Calistoga 6 2 4 15 27
Napa 185 106 141 403 835
St. Helena 8 5 5 13 31
Yountville 4 2 3 8 17
Unincorporated 51 30 32 67 180
Napa Total 370 199 243 670 1,482
Data Source: ABAG, 2014.
9 ABAG’s Regional Housing Need Allocation is described on its website at:
http://abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-9
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
In Table 3-7, above, “Very Low: is up to 50 Percent of Area Median Income, “Low” is
between 51 and 80 Percent of Area Median Income, “Moderate” is between 81 and 120
Percent of Area Median Income, and “Above Moderate” is Above 120 Percent of Area
Median Income. As shown in Table 3-7 Calistoga is responsible for accommodating a total
of 27 new housing units by 2022. More than 50 housing units have been constructed since
the beginning of the current RHNA cycle.
Local Policies and Plans
To some extent, population growth in Calistoga is dependent upon land use, general plan
designations, and zoning on properties. The last comprehensive Calistoga General Plan was
adopted in October 2003 and is designed to address community needs and growth
patterns10. Although most General Plans are based on a life cycle of 15 to 25 years, the
City periodically reviews and updates specific elements of its general plan to respond to
new circumstances and events. The General Plan contains 11 elements. The most recently
updated chapters are the Land Use Element (updated 2015), Community Identity Element
(updated 2012), Circulation Element (updated 2014), Housing Element (updated 2014),
Public Services Element (updated 2014), and the Public Safety Element (updated 2014).
The General Plan also contains elements related to infrastructure, open space and
conservation, noise, geothermal resources, and economic development.
3.3 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITIES
Senate Bill (SB) 244 (effective in January 2012) requires LAFCO to consider the presence of
any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) when preparing a MSR that
addresses agencies that provide water, wastewater or structural fire protection services. A
DUC is an unincorporated geographic area characterized as having a median household
income of 80 percent or less of the statewide median household income (MHI). DUCs also
must be “inhabited” under LAFCO law, meaning 12 or more registered voters reside within
the area. This state legislation is intended to ensure that the needs of these
unincorporated communities are met when considering service extensions and/or
annexations, in particular, water, wastewater, drainage and structural fire protection
services. Since Calistoga is an incorporated city, it does not have any DUC’s within its
boundaries. It is possible that there are pockets of DUCs located adjacent to, but outside,
the City’s boundaries and SOI. However, these areas have not been studied sufficiently to
classify them as a DUC.
10 The City General Plan is available on the City website at: http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-
hall/departments-services/planning-building-department/plans-programs-and-land-use-
regulations/calistoga-general-plan/calistoga-general-plan
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-10
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
City Disadvantaged Community Requirements
LAFCO is not required to study the status of disadvantaged neighborhoods that are located
within incorporated cities that provide water, wastewater, drainage and structural fire
protection services. However, SB 244 required cities to update their land use and housing
elements to include an analysis of the water, wastewater, storm water, and structural fire
protection services in the area along with financing options to help encourage investment
in disadvantaged areas, should it be needed. As part of this effort, the bill required cities
to identify and address any disadvantaged communities within their sphere of influence
(SOI). Disadvantaged communities are defined as a “fringe communities” or areas within
the cities’ SOI that meets the state defined income for DUCs, which is a MHI of 80 percent
or less than the statewide median. The cities base their analysis on income levels from the
U.S. Census, American Community Survey, or other supplemental sources. A disadvantaged
community is characterized as having a median household income of 80 percent or less of
the statewide median household income. The median household income in California11 is
$61,489 and 80 percent of this equals $49,191 (U.S. Census, 2016).
Calistoga does appear to contain households which meet the “disadvantaged” status and
therefore pertinent available information on income is summarized herein. The 2010 U.S.
Census found that the median household income in Calistoga is $52,131 (US Census, 2014).
However, because the census is conducted on a broad geographic scale, it can sometimes
miss the subtle nuances that occur at a local level. The City of Calistoga has provided
supplemental information about the status of disadvantaged communities within the City.
The City’s Housing Element states that the poverty rate within Calistoga is 13.6%
(Calistoga, 2014). Also, the City of Calistoga requested that the Rural Community
Assistance Corporation (RCAC) perform an income survey of the City of Calistoga service
area. The income survey was conducted in 2015 per State and Federal Multi-Agency
Guidelines established for the State Water Resources Control Board’s State Revolving
Funding programs, and the United States Department of Agriculture – Rural Development.
This income survey found that the MHI for City of Calistoga is $43,366 (RCAC, 2015). The
$43,366 MHI is significantly below the $49,191 threshold to be classified as
“disadvantaged”.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has mapped the poverty rate for the Calistoga
areas as shown below.
11 Median income data from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/INC110214/06,2412150,00
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-11
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Data Source: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.
Based on the supplemental information provided by the City, the community may be
classified as “disadvantaged”. However, LAFCO’s role in this “disadvantaged” status is
limited because the City provides satisfactory water, wastewater and structural fire
protection services. Additionally, no public health and safety issues have been noted. Since
it meets the criteria for a “disadvantaged” community, the City may be eligible for grants
to assist with infrastructure improvements and these grants and programs are described in
Appendix E.
Chapter 3: Socio-Economics Page 3-12
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 4: CITY SERVICES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
This Chapter is organized into four main sections as specified in Table 4-1, below,
including: 1) City Services; 2) Infrastructure and Public Facilities; 3) Adequacy and
Challenges in Provision of Service and Infrastructure; and 4) Opportunities for Shared
Facilities.
Table 4-1: Directory to Chapter 4
Section Title Section Page
CITY SERVICES 4.1 4-1
Water 4.1.1 4-2
Sewer 4.1.2 4-15
Storm Drainage 4.1.3 4-23
Law Enforcement 4.1.4 4-24
Fire Protection And Emergency Medical 4.1.5 4-29
Street and Transportation Services 4.1.6 4-34
Planning 4.1.7 4-35
Parks 4.1.8 4-36
Recreation 4.1.9 4-38
Contract/JPA Services 4.1.10 4-38
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 4.2 4-39
Adequacy and Challenges in Provision of 4.3 4-41
Service and Infrastructure
Opportunities for Shared Facilities 4.4 4-41
4.1: CITY SERVICES
Service Overview
Calistoga provides a full range of municipal services either directly or through contracts or
joint power authorities with other governmental agencies or private companies.
Municipal services provided directly by Calistoga include water, sewer, law enforcement,
fire protection and emergency medical, streets, planning, and community recreation.
Municipal services provided by Calistoga through contracts or joint-power authorities with
other agencies or companies include garbage collection, animal control, specialized
engineering services, building inspection and plan check services, and other specialized
services as needed.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
City estimates for the number of customers served for most of the services is equivalent to
the number of people living in the City (i.e., 5,180). However, the definition of a water
and sewer customer is different and is based on the number of connections; hence the
lower number of “customers” listed in Table 4-2, below.
Table 4-2: Number of Customers for City Services
Number of Number of
Service Customers in 2010 Customers in 2015
Water1 1524 1674
Sewer1 1333 1357
Law Enforcement 5155 5180
Fire Protection 5155 5180
Emergency Medical 5155 5180
Streets 5155 5180
Planning 5155 5180
Building Inspection 5155 5180
Plan Check Services 5155 5180
Specialized Engineering Services 5155 5180
Community Recreation 5155 5180
Garbage Collection Not available Not available
Notes: 1 Measured by number of utility bill accounts. Data Source: City of
Calistoga Utility Billing Department, 2016
4.1.1: Water Services
Water – Overview
Calistoga's Public Works Department is responsible for providing water services in the City
and to several unincorporated properties located within the Planning Area of the City
General Plan. A total of 1,674 residential, commercial, and agricultural “customers”
receive water service. Customers are defined as the number of utility billing accounts and
do not take into consideration multiple users on individual accounts. For example there
are four accounts for the mobile home parks that provide water to 555 mobile homes.
The major type of user receiving municipal water is residential. Commercial customers are
primarily located downtown. Additionally, agricultural land within the City (up to 299
acres) and other agricultural parcels located outside the City boundaries receive municipal
water.
The City of Calistoga is located within the Napa River watershed and does receive a
significant portion of its water supply from outside its watershed through the State Water
Project (SWP) via indirect access to the North Bay Aqueduct. Although Calistoga is not
required to have an Urban Water Management Plan, the City does participate in the Bay
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) (Calistoga, 2016). Regulatory
requirements related to the provision of municipal water are described in Appendix F.
In 2010, the Napa County Grand Jury studied municipal water suppliers within the County
and made several recommendations that were relevant to Calistoga (Napa County, 2010).
The City Engineer responded to the Grand Jury report and described how Calistoga has
addressed each of the recommendations (Calistoga, 2010 and 2011). During the
preparation of this MSR, the consultants reviewed both the Grand Jury Report and the
City’s response and found that there are no remaining issues to be addressed with regard
to water facilities and supply.
In 2015, the cost of the City’s water service program was $3.1 million and this represents
24 percent of the City’s expenditures (CAFR, 2015). This amount represents an
approximate per connection annual expense of $2,113. This is significantly higher than the
per connection expense of $993 found in the 2008 MSR. The City attributes this increased
cost primarily to the construction of the new Mt. Washington Storage Tank, to day-to-day
operations and the purchase of water. The increase in contracted services, primarily
litigation costs, administration, and the reporting of pension contributions also contributed
to the increases in the cost of the water program (CAFR, 2015).
In the audited financial statement, water costs are categorized as a Business-Type activity
and are accounted for in an Enterprise Fund. The City charges fees to customers designed
to cover the costs of water service. The water funds are reported separately as a major
fund. Due to the drought and mandated conservation measures, the City has sold less
water to its customers in recent years. The financial impact of reduced water sales for
Fiscal Year (FY) 14/15 was 6% less in revenues as compared to FY 13/14; and expenditures
were $100,000 less in FY 14/15 or 2% less than in FY 13/14. Additionally, a conservation
program was added to bring awareness to the community and the City provided funds
towards this effort. Cash flows in the Water Enterprise Fund were not sufficient to meet
debt service principal, interest payments, and debt ratio coverage. Therefore, the general
fund supplied contingency funding to address the unanticipated impact of the drought
(CAFR, 2015).
Water Facilities
The City’s municipal water system includes facilities and infrastructure for the collection,
treatment, and distribution of water to its customers.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-3
Figure4-1
Page 4-4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Collection Facilities
Calistoga obtains water from
two sources, the Kimball
Reservoir and the State Water
Project (SWP). Kimball
Reservoir, which is located
north of the City, receives
diversions from Kimball Creek (a
tributary of the upper Napa
River) and has an estimated
holding capacity of 330 acre-feet
with all of the dam’s flashboards
installed. This dam does have water bypass requirements to protect downstream aquatic
resources and the City provides monthly summaries of bypass flows on its website12. Water
from Kimball Reservoir is treated at the adjacent Kimball Water Treatment Plant. The
Reservoir was created through the construction of a dam approximately 100 years ago and
has survived several seismic events. The dam is inspected annually by the State Division of
Safety of Dams and these inspections are necessary given the risk of an earthquake on a
nearby fault.
Water from the SWP is secured through a contract with the Napa County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District and currently allocates Calistoga an annual entitlement of
1,925 acre-feet. Calistoga contracts with the City of Napa to treat and deliver its SWP
entitlement through an interconnection between the two agencies' transmission lines.
A third source of water is recycled water and within the City boundary, approximately 250
to 300 acre-feet of recycled water are used annually. Recycled water users include the
fairgrounds, schools, city lands, resort properties, parks, a multi-family apartment
complex, churches, and several hotels as shown in Figure 4-2, below. Calistoga's Public
Works Department monitors the recycled water locations to ensure there are no discharge
violations or misuse (Napa County, 2010).
Treatment Facilities
Water from Kimball Reservoir is treated at the adjacent Kimball Water Treatment Plant,
which has a daily capacity of 2.7 acre-feet. The design capacity of the City’s water
distribution system is 1.9 mgd (Calistoga, 2016).
12 Monthly summaries of the Kimball Reservoir bypass flows available on-line at:
http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-
wastewater-treatment/kimball-dam-water-reservoir/kimball-reservoir-bypass
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-5
Figure 4-2
Page 4-6
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Through a contract, the City of Napa maintains the treatment facilities for the SWP water
supply. The City plans to replace the Dwyer Road Pump Station and this infrastructure
improvement will increase the amount of water from the North Bay Aqueduct that can be
delivered by approximately 200,000 gpd (Calistoga, 2016).
The City holds a Domestic Water Supply Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control
Board, Division of Drinking Water for treatment and delivery of drinking water used for
municipal purposes. The water system and plant are inspected annually by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
Water Distribution Facilities
Calistoga treats water and distributes it to domestic users, including residential,
commercial, lodging, and resort users. Calistoga currently provides water service to 1,674
connections. Of this amount, 82 connections are located outside the city limits. The City
maintains 40 miles of water mains, a dam, reservoir, two storage tanks, a water treatment
plant, and a pump station.
Current Infrastructure Needs
The City updates the Capital Improvement Plan annually as part of its Annual Budget. The
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as a comprehensive plan to identify new
construction and rehabilitation projects. The FY 2014-15 CIP Budget funded 36 projects.
Of those, eight are related to the City Water System as listed here:
Polybutylene Service Replacement
Bypass Structure
Pump Protection-Kimball
Replace Water Mains
Water Valve Replacement
Cross-Connection Survey
Feige Tank Replacement
THM Abatement
Myrtle St Water Main Replacement
Additional projects have been funded in the City’s FY15/16 and FY16/17 budgets.
Water Supply and Demand
Calistoga obtains water from two major sources, the State Water Project (SWP) and the
Kimball Reservoir. As shown in Table 4-3, below, the average annual total water supply
anticipated by the City is approximately 2,340 acre feet.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 4-3: Average Annual Total Water Supply
Source Amount
SWP carry-over 600 acre feet
SWP for 2016 1,443 acre feet
Kimball Reservoir 300 acre feet
Total Up to 2,340 acre feet
Source: Calistoga, 2016
The local water supply satisfies approximately 40 percent of annual demand. The
remaining water is imported from the State Water Project. Out the 2,340 acre-feet of
total water supply, local supplies (i.e. the Kimball Reservoir) accounts for thirteen percent
of the total available supply13. Water from the Kimball Reservoir is subject to bypass
requirements to support fish and other environmental resources in Kimball Creek. Please
note that since water allocation from the SWP varies annually, the City actively manages
its water supply, including carryover water, to ensure that annual demands are met,
including critically dry years. In addition to the fresh water supplies listed in Table 4-3,
above, Calistoga participates in water recycling and water conservation and these
programs help the City make it through drought conditions. As part of this MSR process,
the City prepared an Estimated Water Availability worksheet, presented in Table 4-4,
below.
State Water Project
The City purchases water via a contract for water supply from the State Water Project
(SWP). The SWP is managed by the CA Department of Water Resources (DWR). Calistoga’s
maximum entitlement is 1,925 acre-feet per year from the SWP and this includes:
Original agreement of 500-acre feet through the year 2035
Water transfer/purchase with American Canyon for 500 acre-feet
Water transfer/purchase with Kern County for 925 acre-feet
As part of the above agreements, two water right licenses (Licenses 9615 and 9616) have
been issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (Calistoga, 2016). SWP water
allocations vary annually. Drought, increased statewide water demand, and other Delta
issues are raising concerns about reliability for this water source. The average water
allocation from the State Water Project for the past ten years has been 53.2%. The term
“water year” measures the amount of precipitation that falls in the time period starting on
October 1 and ending on September 30. After several years of drought, water year 15/16
seems to be on track for near-average conditions. However, one good season cannot
compensate for four prior years of drought. The State has relaxed its water conservation
mandates but continues to encourage local agencies to take prudent measures to ensure
water supply in the next several years.
13 Calculation where percentage equals 300/2340 and this equates to 0.1282
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-8
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-9
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Physical access to the SWP is provided via the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA). The NBA is a
series of underground pipelines, totaling 27.4 miles (44.1 km) in length and
serving Napa and Solano counties. The SWP has rights to water originating from
the Sacramento River, which it stores in Lake Oroville. The Cordelia Forebay is utilized to
pump water to Napa County, Vallejo, and Benicia. Since the NBA is not able to deliver the
full 175 cfs flow it was designed and contracted for, DWR and the NBA users are
investigating methods to increase its capacity. The proposed North Bay Aqueduct Alternate
Intake Project is described on DWR’s website at: http://www.water.ca.gov/engineering
/Projects/Current/NBA/. Calistoga is expected to pay its fair share for the costs of this
project through various agreements. Since Calistoga does not have a direct connection to
the NBA of the SWP, it entered into a 1982 agreement with the Napa County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District and the City of Napa. Napa treats the water from SWP at
its Jamison Canyon water treatment plant and sends it through an interconnected pipeline
to Calistoga. This pipeline interconnection is sized such that flow is limited to
approximately 1.0 million gallons per day (i.e. 1,008 acre-feet per year) (Enchanted
Resorts EIR, Calistoga, 2012).
Kimball Reservoir
The Kimball Reservoir is located northeast of Calistoga, in the unincorporated area.
Kimball Reservoir and the associated Kimball Canyon Dam were constructed in 1939. The
Reservoir operates under Licenses 9615 and 9616 and Permit 20395 with the State Water
Board. The dam was raised in 1948 and had an original storage capacity of 409 acre-feet.
The current storage capacity of 330 (with all flash boards installed) is less than original
design capacity due to the gradual build up of sediment behind the dam. With adoption of
the Kimball Interim Bypass Plan (2011), Kimball Reservoir’s supply yield is reduced by 41
afy14, to 295 afy (Calistoga, 2016). The water supply from Kimball Reservoir has been
subject to two lawsuits from Grant Reynolds and the O'Gorman Family.
Water Recycling
Through Napa County, Calistoga participates in the North Bay Water Reuse Program and
was successful in obtaining $750,000 in Proposition 84 grant funding to construct a new
16.4 million gallon recycled water storage pond for recycled water produced at the
Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant. By re-using recycled water, Calistoga reduces
treated effluent discharged to the Napa River and provides a valuable resource as a
substitute for potable water for landscape irrigation. Boron concentrations average 3
milligrams per liter which precludes its use for irrigation of vineyards. Recycled water
activities are regulated by State Water Resources Control Board Order WQ 2014-0090–DWQ-
Corrected, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Recycled Water Use adopted June 3,
2014. This Order is under consideration for amendment and is tentatively scheduled for
June 7, 2016, State Water Resources Control Board meeting.
The City has seven wastewater storage ponds (the 20 MG, the 10 MG, the 16.4 MG and the
four Riverside Ponds) that hold approximately 48 million gallons of recycled water. The
14 Kimball Interim Bypass Plan, Appendix 34
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-10
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
City is seeking grant funds to reconstruct and line the Riverside Ponds as required by the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to mitigate potential impacts from
flooding and to remove them from the designated floodway, address riverside bank erosion
and to prevent tertiary treated effluent from seeping into the Napa River during low flow
conditions.
Water Conservation
Water conservation can function as a water “source” during droughts. The City of
Calistoga, along with most of the State, experienced a multi-year drought from 2012 to
2015. In early 2014 the City Council declared a Stage II Water Emergency and called for
mandatory practices for all water users to reduce overall water consumption by 20 percent
compared to 2013 usage.
Water Demand
The City provides water to 1,674 connections. Since 1995 the City has seen a reduction in
water consumption of approximately 35% from an annual demand of 950 acre feet to
slightly over 700 acre feet.
Of the total demand, 82 connections are located outside Calistoga’s incorporated
boundary.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-11
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 4-4, above, is the most recent and the most accurate source of information about
Calistoga’s water supply and water demand. However, since Table 4-4 does not describe
water demand based upon water year type (i.e. wet or dry) supplemental information is
provided below from two sources of information:
2003 Calistoga General Plan, and
2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study.
In 2003, the Calistoga General Plan projected municipal water demand and supply through
2032. These projections are shown in Table 4-5, below and are assumed to be worst case
scenario for water demand (current actual demand is significantly less than previously
projected). The water demand projection assumes an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent,
consistent with the General Plan’s assumed 1.35-percent residential growth rate.
Development of resorts and commercial areas also create a water demand and the
additional demands have been factored into the water availability/demand analysis. As
shown in the Table below, the City’s 2003 projections indicate deficits in supplies during
dry water years.
Table 4-5: City of Calistoga Water Demand and Supply Projections
Acre-Feet
2015 2032
Scenario Demand Supply Surplus Demand Supply Surplus
(Deficit) (Deficit)
Normal Year 1,191 1,748 557 1,517 2,379 862
Below Normal 1,072 1,078 6 1,365 1,385 20
Year (90 percent)
Dry Year (99 899 286 (613) 1,144 343 (801)
percent)
Source: City of Calistoga, General Plan 2003, Chapter 7 Infrastructure.
A second source of information is the 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study, written in
2005 as a series of technical memos from West Yost Consultants. The study was funded
and prepared cooperatively with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District along with the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, Town of
Yountville, Napa County, and the Napa Sanitation District.
http://www.napawatersheds.org/app_pages/view/4282. This study provides water use
and demand projections for Calistoga as shown in Table 4-6, below.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-12
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Supply Findings
Excess Supply (Shortfall), afy
2005 2020 2050
Normal Year 490 115 (160)
Multiple Dry Year* 243 74 (159)
Single Dry Year (304) (547) (781)
Source: NCFCWCD et. al., 2005
* The NCFCWCD report prepared by West Yost Associates (in Technical
Memorandum # 4) uses definitions from California Dept. of Water Resources
such that a single dry-year delivery would be 20 percent of the water
entitlement. Deliveries during a multiple dry year (4 or 6-year droughts) would
be 40 percent of entitlement.
The above tables show that Calistoga risks water shortfalls for single dry years under 2020
and 2050 demands and for normal and multiple dry years under 2050 demands. This study
also found that Calistoga could require extreme demand reduction measures due to
significant dependence on SWP water (NCFCWCD et. al., 2005). In addition to its current
water demand, the City has two outstanding will serve letters for new resort projects that
have a reservation for water and sewer service which has been factored into the available
capacities of the respective operations (Calistoga, 2016). Overall, the City indicates that
the risk of water shortfall is low, as described in Table 4.4, above.
As shown on Figure 4-3, below, a small (35-acre feet) part of the City’s water demand can
be attributed to the 82 metered connections located outside Calistoga’s incorporated
boundary. Calistoga Municipal Code § 13.16.040. C. prohibits property located outside of
Calistoga’s City limits to connect to the City’s water or wastewater treatment that would
increase consumption of municipal water or wastewater treatment capacity. If this
municipal code ever changes, then the City would be encouraged to coordinate with LAFCO
to ensure consistency with provisions of California Government Code § 56133, including AB
402.
The City recently submitted a report to the Division of Drinking Water, State Water
Resources Control Board outlining the City’s water supply/availability. The state reviewed
the report and found that “The Water Availability Report does meet the requirements of
the required Source Capacity Planning Study and will be used to fulfill this requirement.”15
Given the City’s reliance on the SWP and potential future shortfalls in water supply during
dry or extremely dry water years, it is recommended that the City of Calistoga prepare a
brief (3-page), but holistic study of alternative water supply sources and projects,
prepared by a hydrologist. This study could be conducted collaboratively with other
15 March 24, 2016 email to City of Calistoga from Karen Stufkosky, E.I.T. Water Resources Control Engineer, Division of
Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-13
n
L
s
b
b
Tu
¬«
29
wood
Ave
Green
d
R
ett
k
c
RosedaleRd Pi
UV Napa
128 R iv
e
r
Silverado
Trl
e
v
A
Petrified Forest Rd n
Foothill
Blvd Li n
c
ol
n
L
al
± u m
CanyonRd
D u
n
a
w
e
ort
K
¬«
29
LLAAKKEE City Limits
YYOOLLOO Sphere of Influence
Water Service Outside City Boundary*
NNAAPPAA
Calistoga Parcels
County Boundary
St. Helena
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
*The City provides water service to 82 customers outside the city limits,
Yountville but only 74 are shown on the map due to lack of GIS compatible data.
SSOONNOOMMAA
4.3 Parcels Outside Boundary
Figure :
SSOOLLAANNOO
City of Calistoga
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
municipalities in Napa County. Calistoga should submit this study to LAFCO prior to the
next MSR/SOI in the year 2021. Future water supply sources/projects to be included in the
study may include: 1) desalinization, 2) expanding its recycled water program, 3)
constructing wells with wellhead treatment down valley, 4) banking water from the SWP,
and/or 5) increased water use efficiency. This recommended study should also be
consistent with Calistoga’s General Plan policy which states “Policy P1: The City shall base
water capacity and supply plans and projections on the “below normal year” but will also
look for ways to decrease the impacts of a ‘dry year’ ”.
4.1.2: Wastewater (Sewer) Service
Calistoga's Public Works Department is responsible for providing sewer services in the
City. Calistoga’s sewer system collects and provides tertiary treatment of wastewater
before it is discharged into the Napa River during the wet season (October 1st through
May 15th) as permitted under Order No. R2-2016-0018 issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board, distributed for recycled water use, or conveyed
into storage ponds. Calistoga’s sewer treatment plant has a permitted dry-weather
capacity of 0.84 million gallons per day (mgd), or 2.6 acre-feet. The City of Calistoga
currently provides sewer service to approximately 1,357 connections. Customers are
defined as the number of utility billing accounts and do not take into consideration
multiple users on individual accounts. For example there are four accounts for the
mobile home parks that provide water to 555 mobile homes. Approximately 84% of
Calistoga’s sewer connections are for residential uses.
Funding for City sewer service is provided through fees the City charges to customers to
cover the cost of services. The City's water and wastewater enterprises are both classified
as Business-Type activities in the annual financial statement. Wastewater is reported as a
separate enterprise fund. In FY 14/15, Calistoga’s budgeted operating cost for its sewer
enterprise was $2.6 million (CAFR, 2015). This amount represents an approximate per
connection expense of $160/month. Charges for sewer service were slightly less ($2.4
million) than the costs.
All sewer connections are located within the City boundaries. There are no out-of-agency
boundary sewer services provided. Primary services provided by the City for the
wastewater system are collection, treatment, disposal, and maintenance.
Collection System
The City maintains 18 miles of sewer mains that collect sewage from homes and businesses
and conveys it to the Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Much of the City’s
sewer lines were built many decades ago, however for the most part they are functioning
adequately. A recent project completed was the replacement of the sewer trunk main
from Anna Street to the WWTP and the primary sewer pump station at Pine Street. Private
lateral lines connect a house to the City’s main line, typically located within a street right-
of-way. The City’s wastewater collection system serves approximately 50 percent of the
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-15
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
geographic area within the City limits. The remaining undeveloped portions of the City and
the adjacent unincorporated area utilize private individual septic systems to dispose of
their wastewater. The City’s Municipal Code requires all structures with plumbing which
are on properties within two hundred feet of a sewer main to connect to the public system
and this code requirement is implemented as new development or substantial remodeling
occurs (Calistoga, 2016). The City’s collection system includes 18 miles of sewer lines,
330 manholes, and 4 lift stations.
The City’s wastewater collection facilities face challenges including:
Age of infrastructure;
Type of material used (clay pipe) Pipe capacity
Spas and resorts use mud and geothermal resources, which introduce sediment,
minerals, and temperature issues into the wastewater stream;
Grease and oil from restaurants (New or expanded restaurants are required to
install grease traps or interceptors per the Calistoga Municipal Code)and
Infiltration/inflow (I&I)
The City continues to work to address these challenges. One method the City uses is a
request that private pretreatment facilities retain wastewater for an interval of time to
permit solids to settle and to allow oil and grease to separate (Calistoga 2003). The City is
also working with the resorts to reduce the amount of geothermal water discharged into
the collection system.
New connections to the wastewater collection system are allowed as outlined in the
Growth Management Allocation process (Calistoga, 2016). The City has issued several will
serve letters for new development that will ultimately connect to the system.
The City has no plans to provide wastewater service outside its current boundary.
Treatment System
The collection system brings sewage to the City’s WWTP, which provides tertiary-level
treatment of wastewater. The WWTP is located on Dunaweal Lane just south of the main
part of the City. The WWTP operates under NPDES Permit No. CA0037966 approved on
April 13, 2016 by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. The 2016 NPDES Permit
contains discharge prohibitions similar to the previous 2010 Permit, and identical limits on
chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and antimony. The WWTP has a
permitted dry-weather capacity of 0.84 million gallons per day (mgd), or 2.6 acre-feet.
Calistoga’s current average dry-weather sewer flow is approximately 0.47 mgd, or 1.7 acre-
feet (Calistoga, 2016).
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-16
n 0 600 1200 feet
FIGURE I-2
City Limits New Line Needed for Future Conditions Effluent Storage Ponds
Existing Line No Change SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
Percoloation Pond
Existing Line Needing Replacement for Current Conditions
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Existing Line Needing Replacement for Future Conditions Figure4-4 2 C 0 I 0 T 3 Y G O E F N C E A R L A I L S T P O LA G N A
MapprovidedbytheCityofCalistoga
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
The WWTP is an activated sludge tertiary treatment plant. The treatment processes consist
of the following:
primary treatment by coarse bar screening at the headworks structure;
secondary treatment by aeration and clarification;
tertiary treatment by coagulation, filtration and disinfection;
Effluent disposal either by beneficial reuse for irrigation or discharge to the Napa
River.
After tertiary treatment, effluent may be discharged to the Napa River from November 1
through June 15th (as per NPDES Permit No. CA0037966, Order R2-2016-0018). During the
remainder of the year, effluent is distributed for recycled water use or stored for future
use in effluent storage ponds.
Like any WWTP Bio-solids are generated as part of the treatment process. Some anaerobic
digestion occurs to reduce the amount sludge produced and to improve the final quality of
the bio-solids to secondary sludge. Sludge is dewatered on drying beds and delivered to
an approved solid waste facility, used as soil amendment (under approved permits) or
processed to a Class A compost (Calistoga, 2016).
The Dunaweal WWTP has several major components including a Headworks Structure;
Aeration Basins and Secondary Clarifiers; Filters; Effluent Chlorine Contact Basins; and
Effluent Storage Pond. Each of these components is described in more detail on the City’s
website at: http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-
department/water-wastewater-treatment/dunaweal-wastewater-treatment-plant
The City’s WWTP measures daily sewer. The design capacity and flow estimates are
described in Table 4-7, below. The wastewater treatment plant is regulated through State
laws via the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Table 4-7: Water Treatment Plant Design Capacity mgd
Permitted Daily Dry-Weather Flow Capacity 0.84 mgd
Average Daily Dry-Weather Flow Demand 0.47 mgd
Peak flow within the past year 3.8 mgd
Average Daily Flow Demand (Dry and Wet) 0.90 mgd
Capacity reserved or committed for planned or proposed 232 acre-feet
development
Source: NPDES Permit No. CA0037966, Order R2-2016-0018
and City of Calistoga, 2016.
The treatment plant can treat up to 4.0 mgd during wet weather. The discharge flow rate
from the WWTP during the 2006 and 2009 discharge seasons was 1.35 mgd. As shown in
Table 4-7, above, the average daily wastewater flows within Calistoga’s sewer system is
very different between dry-weather and wet-weather periods. These differences suggest
improvements are needed to the collection system to address suspected deficiencies
involving excessive storm and groundwater intrusion. Although the City has made
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-18
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
improvements over the past several years, additional improvements are still needed. The
recent replacement of the sewer trunk main and Pipe Street Lift Station has already shown
reduced flows to the WWTP. The City will conduct smoke testing in the summer of 2016 to
identify areas where I&I may be occurring.
Effluent Disposal
After secondary or tertiary treatment, effluent may be discharged directly to the Napa
River from November 1 through June 15. During the remaining months, effluent is treated
to tertiary standards and either beneficially reused for irrigation or stored in ponds for
later irrigation or discharge to the river. A large (16 million gallon) reclaimed storage pond
was recently completed (Calistoga, 2016).
The Regional Water Quality Control Board may issue a Cease and Desist Order in order to
address chronic permit exceedances. In 2010, the Board issued Cease and Desist Order No.
R2-2010-0107, which established tasks and a time schedule for the City to comply with the
chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane (disinfection byproducts) effluent limits
in the 2010 Permit by August 31, 2014. On April 13, 2016, the Regional Water Board
adopted an amended Cease and Desist Order No. R2-2016-0019 which requires the City to
comply with disinfection byproduct limits, antimony and boron effluent limits and to
address seepage from the riverside ponds. The City recently paid $6,000 in mandatory
minimum penalties for some permit exceedances (RWQCB, 2016).
As required by its NPDES permit, the City must undertake pollution prevention activities to
reduce certain constituents in its final effluent prior to discharge to the River. Pollutants of
concern are identified by the City and the Regional Water Board and include those
constituents that could cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality objectives in
the Napa River. Current pollutants of concern are mercury, boron, antimony, cyanide,
chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, ammonia, copper, oil and grease, and
PCBs. Annual Pollution Prevention Reports are required to be submitted to the Regional
Water Board.
Discharge permits are reviewed every five years by the RWQCB. The City will be expected
to meet future effluent limitations and take the steps necessary for any plant upgrades
required to achieve
compliance.
WasteWater
Treatment Plant
Demand
WWTP demand and
capacity can be
influenced by new
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-19
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
development occurring within the City. Other factors that impact supply in the City are
prolonged drought and stormwater intrusion.
Current Infrastructure Needs
Recent improvements to the wastewater system include:
Added low-energy aerators to Riverside Pond 2 for a total of two; the aerators help
to remove reduce chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane
concentrations.
Modified treatment operations to reduce chlorination during wastewater treatment
to minimize formation of disinfection byproducts.
Plumbed the 20-million-gallon tertiary effluent storage pond to allow recirculation
and aeration (by spraying recirculated effluent back into the pond).
Construction of a new 16.4 MG effluent storage pond.
Replacement of a new larger sewer trunk main from town to the WWTP.
Replacement of the Pine Street Lift Station.
New effluent filter feed and effluent disposal pumps
Installation of geothermal water meters at several spa resorts
Other projects include installation of geothermal water meters at several spa resorts,
smoke testing of the sewer collection system, reconstruction of the Riverside Ponds, and
compliance with the COD issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The City updates a Capital Improvement Plan annually as part of its Annual Budget. The
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as a comprehensive plan to identify new
construction and rehabilitation projects. The FY 2016-17 CIP Budget included several
wastewater related listed here:
Pine Street Lift Station
Sewer Lateral Replacement
Inflow Infiltration Improvements
Geothermal Water Meters per COO
Riverside Pond Restoration
WWTP Upgrades for COO Compliance
Sewer System Assessment and Master Plan projects
In the future, City staff will need to continue to refine the operation of the wastewater
treatment plant to meet permit requirements and to address continued growth in the
community (associated with housing development and visitor accommodations). A Sewer
Master Plan was developed by the City in 2011 and the City intends to update this Plan in
2016/17. As part of the annual Resource Management review the City has verified there is
adequate capacity in its wastewater system to serve existing and future customers.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-20
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
The City of Calistoga
General Plan 2003
contains a number of
actions regarding
wastewater treatment.
LAFCO recommends that
the City continue to
implement these actions.
An expanded review of
Calistoga’s sewer
services was prepared as
part of LAFCO’s
Comprehensive Study of
Sanitation and
Wastewater Treatment
Providers (2005). The
study is available at the
LAFCO office or website:
http://napa.LAFCO.ca.g
ov.
4.1.3: Storm Drainage
All precipitation and other water going into the City storm drains eventually runs to the
Napa River then onward to the San Pablo Bay. The City has in place several types of storm
drainage infrastructure including City-maintained storm drain lines, privately-maintained
storm drain lines, and a Caltrans storm drain line. Additionally, natural drainage features
include the Napa River, Cyrus Creek, Blossom Creek and Garnett Creek. There are also
several ponds, ditches and channels. The City Public Works Department maintains drain
inlets and drain manholes as shown in Figure 4-5, below. Many of the storm drainage
structures are located within sidewalks or other public rights-of-way.
Maintenance by City staff includes actively watching for all types of potential hazards,
storm drain blockages, and any other unforeseen safety problems. The City has an
inspection program to routinely inspect and maintain storm water inlets and outfalls for
debris and obstructions, sand and gravel build-up, structural damage, and vandalism.
Unlawful discharge into any storm drain is a violation of county, state and federal law. The
City of Calistoga has adopted CMC Ordinance 707 a State regulated program, known as the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Calistoga has adopted the Bay Area
Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual for
Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects. Also an information
flyer for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures for construction projects is available on
the City’s website.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-21
Figure 4-5
Page 4-22
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
4.1.4 Law Enforcement Services
In June 2012, LAFCO approved the Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law
Enforcement Services which covered law enforcement within the City of Calistoga. The
City’s law enforcement situation remains similar to that described in the 2012 MSR and
readers are referred to that document for the details. This section provides an overview
of existing police facilities and services, and provisions for future growth and systems
improvements. The Calistoga Police Department (CPD) is responsible for providing law
enforcement services within the 2.6 sq. mi. area of the City. Specific services that CPD
provides include: dispatch, patrols, investigations, parking enforcement, animal control,
search and rescue, canine deployment, drug enforcement, and short term holding of
suspects (Napa LAFCO, 2012). CPD also responds to incidents in surrounding
unincorporated areas based on separate mutual aid agreements with the California
Highway Patrol and County of Napa.
CPD’s Policy Manual provides a mission statement, as follows:
To provide a high level of service to the community;
To safeguard lives and property
To defend the constitutional rights of all people, and
To help create and preserve a safe and secure environment.
Furthermore, the people of the CPD assure the accomplishment of the foregoing statement
and ensure the success of the organization by adhering to the following values:
Displaying Competence - by maintaining a high standard of excellence in the
performance of all tasks.
Looking to the Future - by constantly planning for the future needs of the
community and the organization.
Meeting Community Needs - by serving identified needs and by providing services
for a safe and secure community.
Providing Support- as professionals, we provide the necessary resources toward the
betterment of our personal and professional lives.
Fostering Team Effort- each member's contribution is worthwhile and necessary to
the continued success of the department.
LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that “Calistoga and St. Helena both provide
their own animal control services within their respective jurisdictions. Given their
geographic locations, it would seem appropriate for the two agencies to consider merging
their animal control services and/or contracting with the County Sheriff as a cost-savings
and streamlining measure” (LAFCO, 2012). Calistoga has recently contracted with
Petaluma Animal Services Foundation located in Sonoma County to provide animal control
services.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-23
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
The County of Napa’s Department of Corrections provides long-term holding of suspects.
The Napa County Sheriff’s Dept. provides bomb squad and special weapons/tactics
expertise.
CPD operates out of a central police station located at 1235 Washington St., Calistoga, CA.
It is approximately 3027 square feet in size. The Calistoga Police Department operates on
a 12-hour shift schedule.
Police Staffing
The Police Department is authorized 16.0 full time equivalent positions. There are
currently 14 staff personnel; however one of these positions is part-time, as shown in
Table 4-8, below. In total, this calculates to 13.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff
positions which include eight sworn officers, plus support personnel of one
Dispatch/Records Supervisor, three dispatchers, a community service officer, and one
part-time parking enforcement officer. There are currently four vacant positions – one
Lieutenant and three Police Officers. Over the years the level of staffing has remained
fairly steady, with slight variation from a high of 18.39 staff in the year 2009 to a low of
14.5 staff in 2014. The existing eight sworn officers provide Calistoga with a relatively
high ratio of sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. The current average response time
is less than five minutes from dispatch to arrival, depending on priority and in progress
calls for service.
Table 4-8: Police Service Staffing
Staff Career/Paid
Police Chief 1 FTE
Sergeant 2 FTE
Police Officer 5 FTE
Dispatch/Records Supervisor 1 FTE
Dispatcher 3 FTE
Code Enforcement Officer 1 FTE
Parking Enforcement 1 PTE
Data Source: Calistoga, 2016
Dispatch: There is one Dispatcher on duty per twelve hour shift. The Dispatch Supervisor
is also assigned a shift. The dispatch system is set up to receive non-emergency business
calls (four lines), emergency 911 calls (two lines), and Public Works alarm calls (2 lines).
Information obtained by dispatch is relayed to officers for officer safety and documented
via CAD by the City’s RIMS system (Calistoga, 2016).
LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that “Calistoga and St. Helena should consider
the merits of establishing a joint dispatch system for law enforcement for their respective
jurisdictions. This type of joint arrangement, as evident in other parts of the county,
would enhance communication and delivery of emergency response services for a
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-24
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
relatively confined area that shares similar social and economic communities of interest”
(LAFCO, 2012). This recommendation remains relevant to the City of Calistoga.
Vehicles: The Department maintains several vehicles and other equipment including three
Ford Explorer SUV’s (Patrol Vehicles), one Ford Taurus (Patrol Vehicle), one Dodge –
Charger (used for administrative purposes), and one electric UTV (used for code
enforcement, parades, marathons and other road closures) (Calistoga, 2016). One ‘radar
trailer’ is utilized on selected streets to emphasize posted speed limits. The
Department has a total of six vehicles, four of which are used for patrol. Each is equipped
with multi-frequency radio and video. During years 2008 to 2009, the Department had eight
vehicles (Calistoga, 2015); however, with the economic downturn and associated smaller
city budgets, police vehicles have not been replaced at their former level. LAFCO’s 2012
Law Enforcement MSR noted that: “Measuring motor vehicle capacity relative to minimum
law enforcement needs of having at least one vehicle for every two sworn officers is a
reasonable tool in assessing resource adequacy for each agency. This measurement is
particularly relevant to cities given their predominant focus on patrol. Towards this end,
all five cities in Napa County adequately meet their respective calculated minimum
standards for motor vehicle capacity for law enforcement services” (LAFCO, 2012).
20
15
10
5
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Crime Statistics
CPD shares alerts, crime statistics, and police logs on its website at:
http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/police-department/press-
releases. However, its crime statistics have not been updated since 2009. Basic police
activity statistics are provided in the City’s Annual Financial Statement and this
information shows that on average, the CPD receives 7,753 calls on an annual basis. In
2015, the number of calls received was above average at 9,592 calls as shown in Figure 4-7,
below. This calculates to 1,845 calls per 1,000 residents. LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement
MSR noted that Calistoga averaged exceedingly high annual service calls over the five
reported years (2007 – 2012) relative to its population at 1,364 for every 1,000 residents.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-25
ffatS
fo
#
Figure 4-6: Staffing in the Police
Dept.
Year
Data Source: Calistoga, 2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Since then, the number of calls per 1,000 residents has increased by 481 calls and this is a
problematic trend. In 2015, the Department made 233 physical arrests and issued 314
traffic violations (Calistoga, 2015). It is recommended that the Police Department website
be updated to provide a link to its recent crime statistics either at the FBI or to the CAFR.
It is also recommended that prior to the next MSR (expected in 2021), the Police
Department provide a brief (1-page) study to LAFCO that explains why the City experiences
exceedingly high annual service calls.
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
The City also reports crime statistics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to be
included in the Uniform Crime Reports. A slight decrease in violent crime was experienced
in the City from 2012 to 2014 as shown in Figure 4-8, below. In 2014, Calistoga
experienced three violent crimes, which was less than that experienced by the cities of St.
Helena and Yountville.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-26
sllaC
fo
#
Figure 4-7: Police Dept. Calls For
Service
Year
Data Source: Calistoga, 2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Calistoga St. Helena Yountville
In 2014, there were 73 reported property crimes in Calistoga reported to the FBI which
represents an increase compared to that reported in 2012, as shown in Figure 4-9, above.
The 73 reported property crimes in Calistoga is also more than that reported in St. Helena
(56) and Yountville (40) during the same year. Property crimes include burglary, larceny,
theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The 76 total reported crimes in 2014 represents
14.4 crimes per thousand persons on an annual basis which is significantly lower than the
statewide average of 287 crimes per 1,000 persons (CA DOJ, 2014).
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-27
semirC
fo
#
Figure 4-8: Rates of Violent
Crime
2012 Violent
crime
2014 Violent
crime
Data Source: FBI, 2012 and 2014
100
80
60
40
20
0
Calistoga St. Helena Yountville
semirC
fo
#
Figure 4-9: Rates of Property
Crime
2012 Property
crime
2014 Property
crime
Data Source: FBI 2012, 2014
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Complaints Regarding Police
The Calistoga Police Department has a formal complaint process as outlined in the City
Personnel Manuel and CPD’s Lexipol Policies.
Police Funding
The Calistoga Police Department is funded primarily by the City’s General Fund; however
donations and grants also contribute a small amount. A police special revenue one-time
impact fund had a balance of $1,735 for FY14/15 (Calistoga, 2015). For the past several
years, the City has received a $100,000 grant from the State of California Citizen’s Option
for Public Safety (COPS) program. For FY 15/16, the City intends to allocate these grant
funds towards the Juvenile Diversion Program, salary of Community Service Officer,
maintenance of a Livescan fingerprint system, and purchase of a new Ford Explorer Patrol
SUV. In FY 14/15, CPD expended $1.7 million for police services plus half-million for police
dispatch, and the resulting expenditures totaled $2,239,981. This amount accounts for 27%
of Calistoga’s total operating budget for the fiscal year and represents a per capita
expense of $426. This is an increase in the per capita expense as compared to that in
LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR which found that the average law enforcement
expenses in Napa County on a per capita basis was $372 (LAFCO, 2012). The Police
Department has a total of $1,953,599 in fixed capital assets which includes the land under
the police station plus the station building, other improvements, and police equipment.
LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that the City has its own competitive
procurement processes with respect to purchasing motor vehicles for law enforcement
services. It would seem reasonable and more efficient for Calistoga to consider pooling its
respective resources and establish a joint procurement process with other local agencies
such as American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, and County Sheriff. Their combined
buying power would presumably produce cost-savings (LAFCO, 2012). This recommendation
remains relevant to the City of Calistoga.
LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that “It would seem appropriate for Calistoga
and St. Helena, given the costs and related challenges associated with sustaining relatively
small stand-alone departments, to consider structural alternatives in providing law
enforcement services. This includes – based on a cursory review of potential alternatives –
the two affected local agencies exploring the feasibilities of forming a joint-powers
authority with one another and/or one or both agencies contracting with County Sheriff.”
This recommendation remains relevant to the City of Calistoga.
Mutual Aid –Police Protection
Although the Calistoga Police Department is not directly responsible for responding to
incidents in the surrounding unincorporated area, they sometimes are the first responder
to arrive on scene. Separate mutual aid agreements with the California Highway Patrol and
County of Napa Sheriff detail the responsibilities. 911 calls from land-lines originating
outside the city limits are routed to the Napa County Sheriff’s Department. 911 calls from
cell phones are routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Golden Gate office. The CHP
monitors and generally handles traffic related issues along state highways. Napa County
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-28
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Sheriff’s Department is available to provide assistance to the City of Calistoga Police
Department, upon request. For example, Napa County Sheriff’s office can provide SWAT
support, staff training, backfill staffing, under-cover operations, and investigation
assistance. The Napa Special Investigations Bureau conducts narcotic investigations within
the City. The Coroner’s Office and the Civil Process Bureau also provide services to City
residents. The County Animal Services Office may sometimes respond to bite calls in the
City, to prevent the spread of rabies. The City of Calistoga participates on the Napa
County Major Crimes Investigation Team. Arrangements regarding the provision of
emergency services are outlined in the Napa Operational Area Agreement between cities of
Napa, American Canyon, Yountville, St Helena, Calistoga, and special districts. The
Agreement defines the roles and responsibilities of each party. The Napa
County Department of Corrections operates the County jail16.
4.1.5 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The City Fire Department primarily aims to serve residents of the City of Calistoga by
protecting lives, property and environment from medical emergencies, hazardous materials
incidents, fires and other disasters. For example, the retirement age population residing in
the three mobile home parks within the City boundaries depend largely on the Calistoga
Fire Department for emergency medical services. Additionally, the Department also has
agreements to automatically respond to emergencies in both unincorporated Napa and
Sonoma Counties. During a typical year, the Department responds to approximately 1,000
emergencies within a 96-square mile service area17. Specifically, in the unincorporated
area of Napa County near the City, the Calistoga Fire Department provides emergency
medical, rescue, and fire suppression and protection services to a zone that is defined by
contract18, as shown in Figure 4-10, below. Services to unincorporated Sonoma County, to
the north, are provided via a three-way automatic aid agreement with the County of
Sonoma and the Knights Valley Volunteer Fire Company. However, mutual aid is not often
requested and calls ranged between three and thirty calls per year during the 2011 – 2014
timeframe (Sonoma LAFCO, 2014). Fire protection is particularly important because the
unincorporated area surrounding Calistoga is within the Urban Wildland Interface, a
geographic area that CalFire defines as a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in accordance with
the Public Resources Code and the Government Code. Please see Figure 4-11 (next page).
16 Information on Mutual Aid provided by Sheriff’s Year End Report for 2011 available on-line at:
http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/DepartmentDocuments.aspx?id=4294967467 and by ,
Captain Keith Behlmer, personal communication on September 15, 2016
17 Per Fire Dept. website at: http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/fire-department
18 Agreement for Emergency Medical, Fire Protection and Related Services is Napa County Agreement No. 6379 and City of
Calistoga Agreement No. 0092. See also 6/23/2015 Board Agenda Letter at
http://services.countyofnapa.org/AgendaNetDocs/Agendas/BOS/6-23-2015/6D.pdf.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-29
122° 38.0000' W 122° 36.0000' W 122° 34.0000' W 122° 32.0000' W 122° 30.0000' W
122° 38.0000' W 122° 36.0000' W 122° 34.0000' W 122° 32.0000' W 122° 30.0000' W
N
'0000.24
°830
N
'0000.04
°830
N
'0000.83
°830
N
'0000.63
°830
N
'0000.43
°830
N
'0000.23
°830
N
'0000.24
°830
N
'0000.04
°830
N
'0000.83
°830
N
'0000.63
°830
N
'0000.43
°830
N
'0000.23
°830
Section C
Area Removed From
Contract Zone
EXHIBIT A
Calistoga City Fire Department
Napa County Contract Zone
SCALE 1:96000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
YARDS
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Data Source: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/web
The Howell Mountain and Mayacamas Mountain ridges surrounding the valley have
historically burned as shown in Figure 4-11.
The Calistoga Fire Department is the primary service provider for the following fire-related
services: Structural Fire Protection, Emergency Medical Response, Water Supply, and Fire
Safety Education. The remaining services are provided collaboratively with other local
agencies, state agencies, or private entities. Wildland Fire Protection is a joint effort
between the Calistoga Fire Department, Napa County Fire, and CalFire.
Rescue/Extrication, Hazardous Materials cleanup, and Fire Prevention are joint efforts
between the Calistoga Fire Department and Napa County Fire. Ambulance ground
transport is conducted by a private company called “AMR”. Air Ambulance/Helicopter
service is provided via a joint effort between Reach, Cal Star, H30 and Cal Fire. Fire
dispatch service is led by CalFire. The Calistoga Police Department serves as the Public
Safety Answering Point. Training is conducted by both the State Fire Marshall and The
Calistoga Fire Department. Arson Investigations is led by the State Fire Marshall (Calistoga,
2016).
Dispatch: Calistoga Police Department receives the 911 call and transfers the call to Cal
Fire Dispatch or Napa 911.
Fire Protection Water: Water supplies available for fire suppression include hydrants,
tanks and Swimming Pools. The hydrant capacity/rating of the system is 900- 2000 which is
sufficient. There are proposed increases to the capacity of the system by replacing the old
Feige water tank and replacing it with a lager tank.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-31
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Response Times: The City’s Fire Department
average response time is around 2 minutes
and the goal is 4 minutes 90% of the time. Calistoga Fire Dept.
Mission Statement
Due to the unpredictable nature of
emergency response, a target has not been The mission of the Calistoga Fire
Department is to provide those
established for the remaining 10% of calls.
services to the residents and visitors
of greater Calistoga which protect
Staffing: The Fire Department is
their lives, property and
predominantly staffed by professional fire
environment from, medical
personnel consisting of 4 FTE and 12 PTE City
emergencies, hazardous materials
employees. To provide additional support on
incidents and disasters.
an as needed basis, there are 12
firefighter/EMT’s who are on-call and are
paid by the call. Table 4-9 provides more
details about staffing.
Table 4-9: Fire Department Staffing
Staff Career/Paid Part-time
Fire Chief 1 0
Engineer 3
Firefighter 0 0
Firefighter/EMT 0 12
Training Officer 1 0
Source: Calistoga, 2016
Calistoga City Fire Department works on a 24 hour per day shift schedule 365 days a year.
The City has indicated that at this time the Fire Department has adequate staffing. Fire
Department staff receives regular training, usually 12 hours per month, in order to stay
current on new techniques and protocols. In addition, Fire Department staff participates in
numerus specialized courses as well as FF1 and FF2 academy.
The Department’s ISO rating is 3 (Calistoga, 2016).
Fire prevention education and planning is a service the Department provides to the general
public. The Department also implements fire prevention by inspecting all commercial
businesses annually. The department conducts fire prevention education by giving training
to the schools.
In 2014, the Department responded to a total of 854 calls as shown in Table 4-10, below.
This represents 162 calls for every 1,000 person in its jurisdiction, on average. This is a
significant increase from the 117 calls for every 1,000 persons calculated in LAFCO’s 2006
Fire MSR. It is also significantly higher than the call rate for other nearby jurisdictions.
The majority of the calls the Department responds to are related to emergency medical
service. It is possible that the City’s senior citizens are increasingly relying upon the
Department’s emergency medical service and this contributes to the high rate of calls the
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-32
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Department experiences. Tourists also contribute to the number of calls received. The
Department’s website at http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-
services/fire-department/department-statistics provides detailed statistics regarding the
number and type of calls responded to over a multi-year period.
Table 4-10: summary of the number and type of incidents responded to in
2014
Fire EMS/ALS Haz False Mutual
Suppression /Rescue Mat Alarms Aid
Number of calls 51 731 1 56 15
in 2014
Source: Calistoga, 2016
The Department maintains the following apparatus, vehicle and equipment: two engines of
Type 1, one engine of Type 3, one water tender, two utility pickups, and one patrol truck.
Administering CPR has been greatly enhanced with the purchase of a LUCAS automated
chest compressing machine. Additionally, the Department is responsible for the fire
station located at 1113 Washington St., Calistoga, CA.
Given the level of staffing, expertise, equipment, and practices, the Napa County
Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (2013 – 2018) gave Calistoga a Risk Assessment
score of 1.8 for Wildfire which is classified as “Low Risk”. Calistoga has adopted new
building codes and regulations that protect new development and buildings from flooding,
wildfire and Earthquakes (Napa County, 2013). This Hazard Mitigation Plan also assigned
Calistoga two mitigation actions including: 1) Retrofit Critical Public Safety Infrastructure
by first identifying critical infrastructure and then replacing that Infrastructure and 2)
continue to promote fire safety by addressing students at schools, enforcing the municipal
code for property maintenance, requiring burn permits, and investigating sources of fires
(Napa County, 2013).
Since fire protection service is a basic City service, it is accounted for from the General
Fund. In FY 14/15, $946,984 was expended for fire protection and emergency medical
services. This amount accounts for 11.6% of Calistoga’s total General Fund expenditures
for the fiscal year. Although the per capita expense equates to $185, this figure does not
reflect the services the City Fire Department provides to unincorporated Napa and Sonoma
Counties.
Please note that the fire station is part of the capital lease arrangement in an original
amount of $4,674,000 with West America Bank. The City entered into this arrangement in
fiscal year 2008 for the purpose of obtaining financing to make improvements to pool,
recreation, fire, and public works facilities. The lease is payable in semi-annual
installments. The water tender truck and a fire engine are under separate lease
agreements with Sun Trust Leasing (Calistoga, 2015).
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-33
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Mutual Aid – Fire Protection. The Calistoga Fire Department has agreements to be the first
responder in nearby areas of unincorporated Napa County and to provide mutual aid to
portions of unincorporated Sonoma County. Under the Department’s agreement with the
Napa County Fire Department, the City is paid for calls for service in unincorporated areas.
The City is often the first responder in these instances. The Napa County Fire Department
also responds to calls located with the city limits on an as-needed basis and does not
charge for this service. For example, a large structural fire within the City could require
response from five engines. The City would provide two engines and the County can
provide three engines and together they would have sufficient resources to address these
types of situations. Another example of collaboration is that each department will
occasionally provide backfill staffing/support for each other in cases where one
department is occupied with a response or training. Napa County Fire Chief Barry
Biermann describes the relationship between the two departments as positive and mutually
beneficial19.
4.1.6: Street and Transportation Services
Calistoga’s Public Works Department is responsible for providing minor street repair
(potholes and patching, curb and gutter maintenance) and street sign replacement services
in the City. Larger construction projects, such as overlays, handicapped curb cuts, and
striping, are contracted out to private companies. Current funding for street related
expenses is drawn from the General Fund ($271,96420) and Calistoga’s proportional share of
gas tax revenues ($140,650) (Calistoga CAFR, 2015).
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recently issued an update to its annual
report on the condition of the Bay Area’s transportation system. The report includes
evaluating and ranking current street conditions for all local agencies in the nine county
Bay Area. The most recent update computing 2014 pavement conditions using special
equipment measuring road vibrations ranked Calistoga as “fair.” This score indicates that
pavement in Calistoga is generally worn and in need of rehabilitation. The City has made
paving improvements, but more are still needed.
The City also maintains sidewalks, bike routes, bike lanes, and bike pathways within the
City’s public right of way. Transit service is provided by Napa Valley Transportation
Authority.
4.1.7: Planning and Building Services
In Calistoga, the planning and building functions are combined into one department which
is responsible for providing development application review, building inspection, and
19 Personal communication, Fire Chief Barry Biermann, September 15, 2016.
20 $271,964 per per 2015 CAFR, pg 56.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-34
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
certain code enforcement services in the City. The Department also reviews policy
document revisions, such as General Plan amendments, and current projects such as
rezoning requests, use permits, and parcel and subdivision maps. As part of its process,
the Department coordinates an interdepartmental review to determine if a project will
impact existing services in Calistoga including confirming the availability of water and
sewer services. Additionally, the Department provides staff support to the Planning
Commission, City Council, Active Transportation Advisory Committee and Green
Committee.
On a day-to-day basis, Building Division staff implements state and local building standards
for the protection of public health and safety by reviewing building plans and conducting
building inspections. Adopted standards relate to building and fire safety, energy
efficiency, and disabled accessibility. Department staff regularly interacts with the public
to facilitate plan submittals and to increase understanding of the building permit review
process.
Long-range planning activities that the Planning Division manages include updating the
Calistoga General Plan, Calistoga Active Transportation Plan and Climate Action Plan. The
Department also implements the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the Down
Payment Assistance Program for first time home buyers, the Mills Act program for historic
preservation, and the City's Local Preference Policy for filling subsidized housing vacancies.
At the regional level, planning staff coordinate with the Association of Bay Area
Governments, and participates in county-wide technical and planning advisory committees.
The City recently approved several large development projects, including a Four Seasons
resort, Calistoga Senior Apartments and a Boys and Girls Club. As these projects proceed,
staff will be busy issuing building and grading permits, conducting building and landscape
inspections, and ensuring compliance with a variety of city regulations. Additionally, the
Planning and Building Department is undertaking a comprehensive fee study.
Department Staffing: The Department is managed by the Planning and Building Director
and includes a Senior Planner and an Administrative Assistant. Building permit plan check
and inspection services are conducted by an outside consulting firm via contract with the
City (Calistoga, 2016).
Department Funding: The Department collects fees for services and permits. Funding is
sometimes subsidized by the City’s General Fund. However FY 13/14, a subsidy for the
Building Division was not needed due to revenues from fees and services. The Department’s
current budget is $0.49 million. This amount accounts for 5.1% of Calistoga’s total
operating budget for the fiscal year and represents a capita expense of $95 (Calistoga,
2016). In FY 14/15, Department expenditures totaled $593,152 (Calistoga, 2015).
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-35
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
4.1.8: Parks
Parks are managed by the Public Works Department Parks Division. The City owns and
operates several parks facilities totaling over 14 acres as listed in Table 4-11, below.
Table 4-11: Parks and Facilities
Name Principal Facilities Area
City-Owned Recreational Facilities
Fireman’s Park Passive recreation 0.13 acres
Heather Oak Park Playground 1.64 acres
Little League Field Baseball field 0.72 acres
Logvy Community Park Currently being developed 9.53 acres
Monhoff Center Tennis, racquetball, billiards 0.25 acres
Myrtle Street pocket park Passive recreation 0.12 acres
Pioneer Park Passive recreation, tot-lot 1.80 acres
Total City-Owned Public Acreage 14.19 acres
Recreational Facilities Owned by Other Agencies
Napa County Fairgrounds Camping, golf, public events 70.02 acres
Calistoga Elementary School Ball field, multipurpose 1.25 acres
auditorium
Calistoga High School Softball, track & field, 4.65 acres
gymnasium
Total Other Public Acreage 75.92 acres
Total Recreational Acreage 90.11 acres
Source: Calistoga, 2016
Three facilities owned by other agencies are available for recreational use as listed in the
above table. The Napa County Fairgrounds is a county-owned parcel which is governed by
a volunteer Board of Directors. The Napa County Fair Association is a 501(c)(3) charitable
organization. Local schools contain play grounds and other facilities that are available to
the public. Two schools provide ball fields and other facilities for children and adults
through a Joint Use agreement with the City.
The City General Plan notes that cities with an existing high ratio of park space to
inhabitants can require new development to provide up to 5 acres per thousand persons
that would live in the development, consistent with the State’s Quimby Act. However,
cities with a lower current ratio can only require the provision of up to three acres of park
space per thousand population. Calistoga currently has a ratio of 2.7 acres of city-owned
park space per thousand inhabitants. If the City were to improve this ratio by acquiring
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-36
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
more recreational land in Calistoga, a higher requirement for new development could be
triggered. Although the 2.7 acre ratio may seem to suggest that Calistoga has a relatively
low ratio of park space to population, it is important to note that this amount does not
include the Napa County Fairgrounds and school recreational facilities, both of which
provide important recreational facilities for Calistoga residents. If these spaces are
included in the calculations, Calistoga has 17 acres of recreational open space per 1,000
residents. The City’s preferred acreage ratio is a minimum five acres per thousand and the
General Plan contains policies that seek to implement this standard.
A goal of the City General Plan is “Develop a full complement of parks and other
recreational lands for public use and enjoyment (Goal OSC-1).” The General Plan contains
numerous policies and actions to continue to improve parks and recreation services within
the City. The City has also identified a need to develop additional facilities serving
disabled persons and has prepared a Transition Plan addressing requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The City collects fees for use parks facilities. The Parks Division expended $194,588 in FY
14/15 (Calistoga, 2015).
4.1.9 Recreation Services
Recreation Services is a separate department which provides a variety of community-
related services offering recreational activities for youth (summer camp, teen center),
adults (yoga, jujitsu, aerobics, golf, tennis, pilates), and seniors (golf, computers, day
trips). This Department utilizes a staff of 6.50 FTE, which includes full-time, part-time,
and seasonal workers. The City collects fees for recreation services. The Recreation
Department expended $515,757 in FY 14/15 (Calistoga, 2015).
4.1.10: Contract/JPA Services
Municipal services
provided by
Calistoga through
contracts or joint-
power authorities
with other
agencies or
companies include
garbage collection,
animal control,
specialized
engineering
services, building
inspection and
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-37
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
plan check services, and other specialized services as needed.
Also, the City is part of Joint Powers Agreements as follows:
Upper Valley Waste Management Agency - garbage collection
Marin Clean Energy - energy provider
Napa Valley Transportation Authority - regional transportation services
Napa County Flood Control - Napa County Stormwater Management Program
(Data Source: Calistoga, 2016)
Garbage Collection Services
Garbage collection in Calistoga is provided on a weekly basis by Upper Valley Disposal
Service, Inc. (UVDS). UVDS is a private company under Franchise Agreement with the
Upper Valley Waste Management Agency, a joint-powers authority that represents
Calistoga, St. Helena, Yountville, and the County. UVDS’ contract runs through 2025 and
specifies that it is the exclusive contractor for the collection of garbage and rubbish in
Calistoga. All customers also receive 96-gallon recycling and yard toters at no additional
charge.
Garbage is disposed of at the nearby Clover Flat Landfill, off Silverado Trail, which has a
projected lifespan to 2040 (Calistoga, 2016). Recycling is handled through the Whitehall
Lane Recycle Center in St. Helena. Clover Flat Resource Recovery Park has been producing
power made from landfill methane since the end of 2014.
Hazardous materials are disposed of properly through a private, licensed hazardous waste
handling company. UVDS hosts an annual one-day hazardous waste collection event that
allows local residents to bring in used paint cans and other household hazardous materials
for disposal. Electronic waste (or e-waste) consists of computer equipment and printers,
etc., and UVDS also hosts an annual one-day hazardous waste collection event that allows
local residents to dispose of their household e-waste.
Specialized Engineering Services
Calistoga contracts with private firms to provide specialized engineering services in the
City. These services include construction inspections, water and sewer system
improvements, and general architectural and engineering services.
Building Inspection and Plan Check Services
Calistoga contracts with qualified private firms to provide plan check and building
inspection services for most development.
Other Specialized Services
Calistoga contracts with a variety of private firms to provide specialized audit, financial,
legal, planning, information/communication systems, and other services for the City. This
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-38
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
is a typical and cost effective method of cities to contract for these types of periodic and
specialized services instead of providing the services with city staff.
4.2: INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Infrastructure development and maintenance is an important part of the service that the
City provides. The City has a Capital Improvement Plan as part of its FY 16/17 Budget.
The City has $17.6 million in net assets (i.e. those assets that exceed liabilities) (Calistoga
CAFR, 2015), as described in Table 4-12 and Table 4-13, below.
Table 4-12: Major City Facilities
Department/Division/Service Infrastructure/Facilities
Administration City Hall
Water Pipelines, water treatment plant, pipe
connection to City of Napa, North Bay
Aqueduct as described in Section 4.1.1
Sewer Pipelines, wastewater treatment plant, other
infrastructure described in Section 4.1.2
Storm Drainage Pipes and drains as described in Section
4.1.3.
Law Enforcement Police station, patrol vehicles, other
equipment as described in Section 4.1.4
Fire Protection And Emergency Medical Fire station, fire trucks, other equipment as
described in Section 4.1.5
Street and Transportation Services City roads, trails, sidewalks and other
infrastructure as described in Section 4.1.6
Planning Inspection vehicle
Parks Parks as listed in Section 4.1.8
Recreation Community Pool and Monhoff Recreation
Center
Contract/JPA Services None
Table 4-13: General Capital Assets Used in Governmental
Operations
Asset Type Asset Value
Land $1,964,744
Buildings $3,494,179
Improvements $9,077,964
Equipment $871,833
Infrastructure-street system $1,807,034
Construction in progress $710,267
Total $17,926,021
Data Source: Calistoga, 2015
The City owns buildings which are leased to the Sharpsteen Museum and to the Boys and
Girls Club of St. Helena and Calistoga. The City also owns agricultural land outside the city
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-39
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
limits which is leased to farmers for agricultural operations. Overall, the City believes its
existing public service facilities are sufficiently sized to accommodate the anticipated
growth for the next 5, 10, and 20 years (Calistoga, 2016).
4.3: Adequacy and Challenges in Provision of Service
and Infrastructure
The biggest challenge the City has identified regarding its infrastructure needs or
deficiencies are street repairs and addressing the Cease and Desist Order issued by the San
Francisco Bay regional Water Quality Control Board. The City does have a Capital
Improvement Plan and is working on addressing these challenges. One challenging
regulatory issue which most cities in California face is water quality regulations and
compliance with the RWQCB. As the City continues to dispose of treated wastewater and
continues to deal with stormwater, this issue is likely to continue into the future.
Calistoga provides several types of service to properties located outside the City
boundaries including water, police protection, and fire protection. Working to comply with
LAFCO policies and new state laws such as AB 402 is also a continuing challenge for the
City.
4.4: Opportunities for Shared Facilities
Although its small size and geographic location represents constraints to collaboration,
Calistoga does pursue opportunities to share facilities and services with its neighboring
government agencies as follows:
The City has a Joint Use agreement with the Calistoga Unified School District for use
of recreation fields and the high school gym (Calistoga, 2016).
The Fire Department has a contract with Napa County for fire protection services
for the portions of the unincorporated areas of the County (Calistoga, 2016).
The City has two mutual aid agreements: 1) Emergency medical, fire protection and
related services, and 2) CalWARN Mutual Aid Agreement for Public Works (Calistoga,
2016).
The City is part of Joint Powers Agreements as follows:
Upper Valley Waste Management Agency - garbage collection
o
Marin Clean Energy - energy provider
o
Napa Valley Transportation Authority - regional transportation services
o
Napa County Flood Control - Napa County Stormwater Management Program
o
Western Riverside Council of Governments - HERO Program
o
(Data Source: Calistoga, 2016).
It is recommended that the City continue to be open to new opportunities to share
facilities and to assess these ideas as they arise.
Chapter 4: City Services and Infrastructure Page 4-40
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 5: FINANCING
5.1: FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The City of Calistoga prepares an annual operating budget which includes capital
improvements, and also prepares an annual audit in the form of a Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR). Calistoga’s adopted budget serves as the base for the City’s
financial planning and budget control systems. The City Council has set an objective to
have the General Fund Reserve to be at least 30% of operating expenditures each Fiscal
Year (FY). For the current 2015-2016 FY, the City is projected to end with a General Fund
balance of 77.3% of operating expenditures. Both budgets and audits are available to the
public via the City’s website.
Calistoga practices an
annual budget
process for the Fiscal
Year beginning on
July 1st and ending on
June 30th. The
adoption of the
budget is preceded
by a process in which
each department
submits a schedule of
requests for
appropriations to the
City Manager. The
City Manager uses
these requests as the foundation in preparing a budget for consideration by the City
Council. Additionally, the City Council’s adopted goals and priority projects are included in
the budget. The budget is adopted at a noticed public hearing and is continually
monitored to consider whether revisions are appropriate. The City updates the budget
periodically throughout the fiscal year to reflect current conditions.
Calistoga’s budget is divided into three units: 1) General Fund; 2) Enterprise Funds; and 3)
Special Funds. General Fund revenues are primarily drawn from taxes, fees, and charges
for services. These revenues support discretionary governmental services. Enterprise Fund
revenues are collected from user fees and charges, and are intended to pay for the costs of
providing such services. Special Fund revenues are generated from a variety of sources,
including impact fees and governmental subventions, and are used to fund specific
programs and projects. Calistoga‘s General Fund comprises five categories: 1) operating;
2) debt proceeds; 3) grant improvements; 4) special projects; and 5) capital projects.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Please note that for purposes of this MSR, the financial analysis relies upon the City’s
Financial Statement and Independent Auditor’s Report. Budget information is also included
in this MSR and is primarily utilized to compare expenditures for each functional category
or City department.
The most recent independent auditor’s report was prepared for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014/2015
and dated December 31, 2015, and was attached to the Agency’s Financial Statements. The
audit found that there were no issues of noncompliance with financial regulations that
could have an effect on the financial statement. The Calistoga City Council also oversees
the Calistoga Public Facilities Corporation, a non-profit public benefit corporation for the
financing of City facilities and equipment. This non-profit corporation was included in the
City’s audited financial statements (Calistoga, 2015).
The City has been subject to Litigation which remains Outstanding on the topics of water
rights and mobile home park space rents (Calistoga, 2016). For some cities, the costs
associated with litigation can affect its financial status. In Calistoga’s case, the costs of
litigation have been significant; however, the City’s overall financial status remains strong.
In the 2008, LAFCO’s Final MSR found that half of Calistoga’s annual operating revenue is
generated from transient occupancy taxes, and although generally reliable, is dependent
on tourism for which the City does not have direct control. This represents a constraint for
budgeting purposes.
Revenues and Expenses
As indicated, the City of Calistoga conducts its operations through four types of funds: 1)
General Fund; 2) Water Enterprise Fund; 3) Wastewater Enterprise Fund; and 4) Special
Funds. This section describes sources of revenues and expenses associated with the City’s
normal operations.
Overview
Revenue
Calistoga’s total revenues from all governmental type activities in fiscal year 14/15 were
approximately $15.5 million. The Agency receives revenue from several sources including
sales tax, property tax, grants and other sources. Almost 40 percent of Calistoga’s total
revenue is generated from charges for water and sewer service, which are part of an
Enterprise Fund (CAFR, 2015). Most of the other revenues are utilized in the Agency’s
general fund. The City has increased multiple revenue streams including sales and
property tax as shown in Figure 5-1.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Figure 5-1: Sources of Revenue for Fiscal Year
2015
Other Revenues,
Grants &
3.1%
Contributions,
9.0%
Transient Tax,
31.7%
Charges for
Service, 38.6%
Property Tax,
11.3%
Governmental and
Business type Activities
Sales Tax, 6.3%
Expenses
The City expended approximately $12.8 million of its funds in 2015 to maintain basic
services for residents and businesses. This includes $2.5 million for public safety, $1.7
million for general government services, $1.1 million for public works, $3.1 million for
water service, $2.6 million for sewer service, and $1.8 on other governmental services, as
shown in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2: Functional Expenses for Fiscal Year 2015
General
Comm Housing &
Government,
Recreation, 8.2%
13.3%
Public Works,
8.3%
Other Programs,
6.2%
Police & Fire,
Water, 24.1% 19.8%
Sewer, 20.1%
Governmental and Business type Activities (Source: CAFR, 2015)
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-3
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
General Fund
This section discusses the major General Fund financing components for the City of
Calistoga and identifies the General Fund revenue sources and expenditures currently being
experienced by the City. All City services are funded by the General Fund except: Water
Service and Wastewater Service which are operated as Enterprise Funds; and Special
Revenue Funds, which are restricted for specific purposes.
General Fund Revenues
General Fund Revenues for the past three Fiscal Years are shown in Table 5-1. Total
revenues have increased over the past three fiscal years. This increase is attributed to a
slight but steady increase in property tax revenues, and an increase in tourism, resulting in
increased transient occupancy tax revenues.
The core operations of the City are accounted for in the General Fund, and the General
Fund balance is a key measure of the financial health of the City. For the period ending
June 30, 2013, the Available General Fund balance was $2,465,431. This amount increased
to $4,855,620 on June 30, 2014, and $7,195,044 on June 30, 2015.
Calistoga relies on General Fund revenues to fund 49.3% of City expenses. (Refer to Figure
5-1.) Primary revenue generators for the city are property tax, sales tax, and transient
occupancy tax (TOT), of which TOT is a major contributor, accounting for half of General
Fund revenues. (Refer to Table 5-1.)
It appears that the City is beginning to return to normal from the economic downturn, as
TOT revenues have increased in each of the past three fiscal years. In addition, the City is
anticipating an increase in property tax, sales tax, and TOT when proposed new resort
development projects are completed.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 5-1: Three-year Revenue and Expenditure Comparison
Fiscal Year FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Revenues
Property Tax $1,685,766 20% $1,718,834 18% $1,758,715 18%
Voter Approved Property Tax 0% 0% 0%
Sales Tax $954,573 11% $919,680 10% $953,927 10%
Transportation Tax 0% 0% 0%
Transient Lodging Tax $3,948,825 47% $4,456,456 47% $5,037,136 51%
Fines and Forfeitures $33,075 0% $35,799 0% $51,192 1%
Business License Taxes 0% 0% 0%
Licenses and Permits $92,315 1% $165,350 2% $140,668 1%
Franchises 0% 0% 0%
Other Non-Property Taxes $326,308 4% $384,488 4% $422,884 4%
Investment Earnings - Interest $20,249 0% $30,088 0% $43,423 0%
Intergovernmental $82,666 1% $91,001 1% $84,271 1%
Service Charges $778,797 9% $1,046,620 11% $1,046,992 11%
Other Revenues $155,730 2% $134,241 1% $140,613 1%
Transfers In $372,874 4% $488,689 5% $282,109 3%
Total Income $8,451,178 100% $9,471,246 100% $9,961,930 100%
Expenses
City Council and City Clerk $176,052 3% $121,047 2% $135,411 2%
Support Services $1,405,992 22% $1,352,524 20% $1,650,988 23%
Planning and Building $414,531 6% $659,254 10% $660,542 9%
Public Works $872,239 14% $907,873 14% $988,420 14%
Police Services $2,184,026 34% $2,141,507 32% $2,239,981 31%
Fire Services $841,996 13% $884,603 13% $968,396 14%
Recreation Services $497,407 8% $544,889 8% $515,757 7%
Other Expenditures 0% 0% 0%
Total Expenses $6,392,243 100% $6,611,697 100% $7,159,495 100%
Net Income (or Loss) $2,058,935 $2,859,549 $2,802,435
Budgeted Begining General
$717,752 $1,379,074 $2,867,240
Fund Balance
Budgeted Ending General Fund
$1,100,199 $2,009,674 $3,249,912
Balance
Data Source: City Budget for FY 12/13, 13/14, 14/15, and 15/16
General Fund Expenditures
Expenditure fund categories in Table 5-1 are broken down by City Department. Support
Services include City Manager, Economic Vitality, Legal Services, the Finance Department,
Risk Management, and Human Resources. The Public Works Department includes Streets,
Park Maintenance, Building Maintenance, and Pool Maintenance. Total General Fund
expenditures for FY 12-13 were $6.4 million, for FY 13-14, $6.6 million, and for FY 14-15,
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-5
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
$7.1 million. The City anticipates General Fund expenditures to be $8.4 million by the end
of FY 15-16. Almost without exception, expenditures by Departments have increased each
of the past three fiscal years. The Police Department utilizes 30.5% of the General Fund
budget, which is lower than most cities of similar size. This lower percentage is attributed
to the existing vacancies within the department.
Enterprise Funds
Enterprise Funds account for Calistoga’s municipal operations that are intended to be self-
funding through the collection of user fees and charges. Enterprise Funds in Calistoga
include water and sewer services.
Total revenue for the Enterprise Funds was $5.2 million comprised of $0.5 million in capital
grants and contributions, and $4.7 million in charges for services (CAFR, 2015). For fiscal
year 2015 the enterprise funds had an operating income loss of $0.4 million, as compared
to $0.2 million loss in fiscal year 2014. These losses are due to the reduced water fees
received as a result of water conservation and the drought and due to capital improvement
projects. The City’s general fund provides additional support to the enterprise funds as
necessary (CAFR, 2015).
Water Enterprise Fund
As detailed in Table 5-2, charges for services comprise the vast majority of revenue for the
Water Enterprise Fund, with Residential water sales accounting for 65% of total revenue.
However, the cost to treat potable water has increased substantially over the past three
fiscal years as indicated in Table 5-2. As a result, the Water enterprise Fund has been
operating at a deficit, requiring transfers from other City funds. Water rates were last
updated by the City Council in 2013 and are effective through 2017. However, given the
losses incurred (exacerbated by the necessity to conserve water during the drought), the
City may need to revisit the rates, fees, and charges associated with the Water Enterprise
Fund.
Wastewater Enterprise Fund
AS with Water, the Wastewater Enterprise derives a majority of its revenue from Charges
for Services, with Residential sales predominate although Transient sales comprise 25% of
Wastewater revenues. Over the past three fiscal years, costs for collection and treatment
have exceeded revenues. Similar to Water rates, Wastewater rates were last updated by
the City Council in 2013 and are effective through 2017. Updating the fees appears to be in
order for the upcoming year.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-6
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 5-2: Three-year Comparison of Water Revenues and Expenditures
Fiscal Year FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Revenues
OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for Services
Residential Sales $1,559,067 62% $1,564,402 56% $1,456,799 63%
Transient Sales $340,283 14% $367,250 13% $381,943 16%
Commercial sales $274,035 11% $311,665 11% $304,415 13%
Industrial Sales $87,487 3% $82,659 3% $94,162 4%
Other Revenues $99,164 4% $359,332 13% $83,068 4%
NON-OPERATING REVENUES
Interest Earnings $430 0% $1,231 0% $1,000 0%
Napa County Measure A Funding $153,068 6% $124,831 4% $0 0%
Total Revenues $2,513,534 100% $2,811,370 100% $2,321,387 100%
Expenses
OPERATING EXPENSES
Water Distribution $483,857 16% $503,968 15% $368,309 11%
Water Treatment $1,516,006 50% $1,847,990 56% $1,734,223 54%
Water Conservation $19,199 1% $32,604 1% $103,274 3%
Depreciation $535,752 18% $391,774 12% $495,310 15%
NON-OPERATING EXPENSES
Debt Payments $482,827 16% $473,980 14% $478,638 15%
Equipment $0 0% $26,006 1% $47,981 1%
Total Expenses $3,037,641 100% $3,276,322 100% $3,227,735 100%
Income (or Loss) Before Transfers -$524,107 -$464,952 -$906,348
Transfers From or (To) Other Funds $300,391 $1,376,500 $1,348,697
Net Income (or Loss) -$223,716 $911,548 -$408,414
Working Capital Available at Year En $0 $911,548 $1,355,979
Data Source: City of Calistoga Budgets for FY 12/13, 13/14, and 14/15
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 5-3: Three-year Comparison of Wastewater Revenues and Expenditures
Fiscal Year FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Revenues
OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for Services 57% 0% 56%
Residential Sales $1,276,591 57% $1,305,324 56% $1,337,783 56%
Transient Sales $544,780 24% $586,274 25% $590,197 25%
Commercial Sales $262,376 12% $303,862 13% $291,700 12%
Industrial Sales $50,969 2% $46,232 2% $63,017 3%
Other Revenues $95,000 4% $88,352 4% $94,714 4%
NON-OPERATING REVENUES
None
Total Revenues $2,229,716 100% $2,330,044 100% $2,377,411 100%
Expenses
OPERATING EXPENSES
Wastewater Collection $372,843 12% $405,120 13% $323,808 11%
Wastewater Treatment $1,326,272 42% $1,383,335 44% $1,378,037 45%
Depreciation $748,870 24% $621,672 20% $625,829 20%
NON-OPERATING EXPENSES
Debt Payments $694,077 22% $694,163 22% $694,557 23%
Equipment $25,272 1% $72,952 2% $59,720 2%
Total Expenses $3,167,334 100% $3,177,242 100% $3,081,951 100%
Income (or Loss) Before Transfers -$937,618 -$847,198 -$1,163,257
Transfers $1,092,013 $1,427,939 $1,338,599
Net Income (or Loss) $154,395 $580,741 $175,342
Working CapitalAvailable at Year End $154,395 $735,136 $1,359,195
Data Source: City of Calistoga Budgets for FY 12/13, 13/14, and 14/15.
Special Funds
Special Funds account for non-discretionary monies that may be used by Calistoga for
specific purposes. Calistoga has established 27 special revenue funds, most of which derive
their monies from specific sources, such as governmental subventions and developer fees,
state transportation funds, fees for services, and transfers from other funds. Some of the
major special funds include CDBG Open Grants, CDBG Loan Repayment, HOME, Gas Tax,
Parking Ordinance, Public Safety, Transportation, Palisades Landscape Maintenance, and
Asset Forfeiture. In 2010, Calistoga tracked special fund revenue on Schedule 3 within the
CAFR and this indicates $1,151,093 was in the fund. Since then the method to track special
funds has become more specific and a total was not readily available with the 2015 CAFR.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-8
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Asset Maintenance and Replacement
The City owns buildings, facilities, vehicles and equipment, and other infrastructure.
These capital assets and are depreciated over their estimated useful lives. For details,
refer to Tables 4-12 and 4-13. Asset maintenance is a significant issue for the City, given
the age of the water, wastewater, and storm drainage pipes.
Capital Improvements
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plan schedules permanent improvements, such as
major maintenance projects, new construction, and rehabilitation projects that are needed
to keep the city’s infrastructure in good shape. The CIP covers a five year timeframe;
however, only the first year’s funding is appropriated within the FY 14/15 Budget. The CIP
is reviewed on an annual basis for conformance to and consistency with the General Plan
and City Council Goals and Objectives.
The budget for FY 15/16 allocated almost $7 million towards 32 major capital improvement
projects and 12 equipment and technology projects. This includes $312,984 in routine
expenditures for property and equipment and $6,591,058 in significant non-routine capital
infrastructure improvements. Funding for these projects is derived from city funds, user
rate charges, and federal, state, and regional resources. 31 projects are sponsored by the
public works department including street, sidewalk, and culvert maintenance and repair;
wastewater system improvements; a lift station; water pumps and main improvements;
crosswalk; traffic signal; and the Berry Street Bridge Replacement. Planning and Building
sponsors one CIP project, the Fairway Path Extension.
Long-term Financial Considerations
In this section, the long-term liabilities and the debts the City has accumulated are briefly
summarized. Additional details about liability and debt can be found in the City’s Annual
Financial Statement, available on the City’s website. To cover capital expenses associated
with general government and enterprise activity, it is common for local governments to
take advantage of low interest rates by borrowing money from the state or other sources.
Financial and Audit Reports
Each fiscal Year, the City Staff prepare a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Contained within the CAFR is an audit prepared by a qualified Certified Public Accountant.
The most recent City Audit was for the 2014-15 Fiscal Year and was prepared by R.J.
Ricccardi, Inc., CPA. The FY 2014-15 CAFR (as well as previous years) is available on the
City’s website.
Reserves
As of June 30, 2015, the City maintained a number of assets which can be considered to be
reserves, although some are restricted for specific purposes. The General Fund balance
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-9
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
totaled $7.2 million, of which $0.6 million is non-spendable and $6.6 million is unassigned.
In addition, the General Fund had $5.7 million in cash and investments.
Funds restricted for capital improvements, facilities, parks, and streets totaled $723,792.
Funds restricted for affordable housing totaled $824,386. Funds restricted for public safety
totaled $396,777. The Water Enterprise Fund net position stood at $9,957,208, while the
Wastewater Enterprise Fund had a net position of $5,080,626.
Outstanding Debt
At the end of 2015, the City carried $20.2 million in long-term debt and capital lease
obligations, primarily related to the water and wastewater systems. All required payments
are being made on a timely basis.
Risk Management
The City of Calistoga utilizes insurance and business practices to minimize its financial risk,
including reducing hazards and injury to people, and damage to property in providing City
services and implementing projects. The City is an active member of a joint powers
authority, Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC), for the management
and insuring of general liability, property, employee, workers compensation and other
risks. The City Manager and the Administrative Services Director serve as representatives to
PARSAC. Processing liability or property claims as well as processing and management of
the insurance certificates required by agreements is a responsibility of the City Clerk's
office. Additionally, the City conducts an annual review of the City's self-insured
retentions, insurance coverage, and provides programs for training of City staff on safety.
City facilities, programs and services are periodically surveyed to identify hazards and
improve efficiencies. Legal contracts for construction and other services are carefully
considered in order to identify risks in the activity and mitigate or transfer the risk.
Cost Avoidance
This section highlights cost avoidance practices given necessary service requirements and
expectations. Ideally, proposed methods to reduce costs would not adversely affect service
levels. The City pursues an array of cost avoidance techniques that each contributes
incrementally towards keeping costs at a reasonable level, including:
a range of cost cutting measures, including budget cuts that resulted in staff layoffs
and the provision of only essential services that the City undertook to save money
and lower expenses during the recession.
minimization of financial risks by maintaining professional insurance as a member of
the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC). PARSAC is a Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) that provides comprehensive insurance to cities, towns and
non-municipal public agencies through the State. PARSAC offers a variety of
insurance coverage programs and the City participates in several.
standardized bidding practices implemented by the City ensure the lowest and most
responsive bid for services, supplies, and equipment.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-10
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Additionally, each City department seeks cost avoidance opportunities, as follows:
Fire: participates in automatic aid agreements
Parks and Recreation: coordinates with local service organizations
Police: participates in mutual aid agreements
LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that the City has its own competitive
procurement processes with respect to purchasing motor vehicles for law enforcement
services. It would seem reasonable and more efficient for Calistoga to consider pooling its
respective resources and establish a joint procurement process motor vehicle purchases
with other local agencies such as American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, and
County Sheriff. Their combined buying power would presumably produce cost-savings
(LAFCO, 2012).
Calistoga also participates in joint-power arrangements with the Upper Valley Waste
Management Agency, the Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency, and the Napa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. These arrangements help maximize
local resources among participating agencies in providing garbage collection, public
transportation, and flood control services within their respective jurisdictions.
5.2 FINANCIAL METRICS
Change in Assessed Value
In FY14/15, the properties within the City of Calistoga had a total assessed value of $741
million, which was a 4.84 percent increase over the previous year. Figure 5-3, below
depicts the percentage change in assessed value year-to-year.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-11
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
6.00
4.84
5.00
3.89
4.00
2.97
3.00
2.00 1.48
1.00
-0.45
0.00
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
-1.00
Table 5-4: Data for Assessed Property Value
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
End FY in Tax
roll Value $651,533,812 $676,866,460 $68,687,8025 $707,262,503 $741,509,414
Beginning Tax
roll Value $654,464,952 $651,533,812 $676,866,460 $686,878,025 $707,262,503
Source of Data: Schedule 7, Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
The City has resort projects that have been approved but not yet fully constructed. When
complete, these resort projects will likely increase the total Assessed Property Value
within the City.
Property Tax Revenue
Annual property tax revenue is used as a fiscal indicator for cities. Although property tax
revenue can be relatively stable, it does lag approximately two years behind changes in
market conditions. In 2015, Calistoga received $1.7 million in property tax revenue as
shown in Figure 5-4, below. During the five year study period, property tax revenue was at
its lowest in FY11/12 and has been steadily increasing since then. This increase is likely
due to increased property values as the region recovers from the national economic
recession of 2008-2009. These data were derived from Schedule 4 of the City’s Annual
Financial Report, 2015.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-12
egnahc
%
Figure 5-3: Change in Assessed Value
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2015, Schedule 7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
$1,780,000
$1,758,715
$1,760,000
$1,740,000
$1,718,853
$1,720,000
$1,700,000 $1,685,427 $1,685,766
$1,680,000
$1,660,000
$1,635,425
$1,640,000
$1,620,000
$1,600,000
$1,580,000
$1,560,000
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Transient Occupancy Tax
In 2015, the Transient Occupancy Tax represented 31.7% of the City’s total revenue and
totaled approximately $5 million, as shown in Figure 5-5, below. The revenue from the
Transient Occupancy Tax has been steadily increasing over the five-year study period.
Sales Tax Revenue
Annual sales tax revenue is used as a fiscal indicator for cities because it can help
determine sensitivity to changes in local economic conditions, possibly impacting the
ability of cities to fund and provide services. In 2015, sales tax revenue in Calistoga was
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-13
$
.S.U
Figure 5-4: Property Tax Revenue
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2015, Schedule 4
6,000,000
5,000,000
5,037,136
4,000,000 4,456,456
3,948,825
3,768,443
3,000,000 3,430,487
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
$
SU
Figure 5-5: Transient Occupancy Tax
Revenue
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2015, Schedule 4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
approximately $1 million, as shown in Figure 5-6, below. Sales tax revenue has increased
since FY10/11 and has remained steady during the FY11/12 to FY14/15 timeframe.
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$1,021,131 $1,019,262
$965,528 $985,555
$800,000
$796,563
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Revenues vs. Expenditures
Revenues exceeded expenses in four out of the five years studied as shown in Figure 5-7,
below. Since FY11/12, revenues have been trending upward. In FY 14/15 the City’s
revenues for governmental funds was $10,784,897 and expenses were $8,250,937. This
represented a positive difference of $2,533,960.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-14
$
SU
Figure 5-6: Sales Tax Revenue
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2015, Schedule 4
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
$
SU
Figure 5-7: Revenues and Expenditures
(Governmental Funds)
Revenues
Expenditures
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Service Obligation Ratio
The Service Obligation Ratio (governmental) measures whether or not an agency’s annual
revenues were sufficient to pay for annual operations. A ratio of one or higher indicates
that a government lived within its annual revenues. The formula for calculating this ratio
is the division of the operating revenue by the operating expenditures. As shown in Figure
5-8 below, the ratio for Calistoga was greater than one in four out of the five years
studied. Figure 5-8 describes governmental funds only. The “Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances” in CAFR 2011 – 2015 was utilized as the
source of data as shown in Table 5-5, below.
1.39
1.50 1.25 1.31
1.13
0.82
1.00
0.50
0.00
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-15
oitaR
Figure 5-8: Service Obligation Ratio
(governmental)
Source of Data: Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 5-5: Data for Service Obligation Ratio (governmental)
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Program Revenue $8,636,331 $8,129,629 $8,929,145 $10,510,288 $10,784,897
Program Expenses $10,468,388 $7,193,135 $7,146,072 $7,552,676 $8,250,937
Source of Data: Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances in
CAFR 2011-2015
Pension Payments
The amount of pension payments as a percentage of total revenues is a fiscal health
indicator, as shown in Figure 5-9, below. This was calculated by dividing the annual
pension cost by the total revenue. In 2015, the City changed the way it described pension
for workers in the enterprise units and this was factored into the percentages calculated.
FY 14/15 saw the highest percentage paid at 10.4 percent.
12.0%
10.0%
10.4%
9.9%
8.0% 8.8% 8.7%
7.3%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Liquidity Ratios
Liquidity measures a government’s ability to meet its short-term obligations. A high ratio
suggests a government is able to meet its short-term obligations. This liquidity ratio was
calculated by dividing “cash and cash equivalents” by “current liabilities”. The data for
Figure 5-10, below was derived from the Statement of Net Assets within the CAFR, years
2011 to 2015, as shown in Table 5-6 below. The Enterprise Funds and the Government
Funds were summed together. The City’s Liquidity Ratio has been improving in recent
years and the City was best able to meet its short term obligations in FY 13/14 when the
liquidity ratio was 3.82, as shown in Figure 5-10, below.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-16
eunever
latot
fo
%
Figure 5-9: Pension Payments
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR 2011-2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
4.50
4.00
3.50 3.82
3.51
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00 1.32
0.50
0.33 0.52
0.00
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Table 5-6: Data for Liquidity Ratio
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Cash and cash
equivalents $1,346,110 $1,351,422 $4,235,564 $8,526,704 $10,347,235
Total Current
Liabilities $4,045,091 $2,576,377 $3,198,062 $2,231,480 $2,946,841
CAFR, 2011 to 2015
Enterprise Fund Ratio of Charges
The Ratio of Charges for Services (business) is a metric that addresses the extent to which
charges for service covered total expenses. A ratio of one or higher indicates that the
service is self-supporting. The formula for calculating this ratio is the “charge for service”
divided by the “operating expenses”. The data originated from CAFR, 2011-2015 in the
Statement of Activities and Schedule 2. As shown in Figure 5-11, below, the Enterprise
Fund is not quite self-sustaining and must be supplemented by grant funds or by general
fund revenue. In FY 14/15, the City collected $4,714,756 in fees for water and sewer
service, as shown in Table 5-7, below.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-17
oitaR
Figure 5-10: Liquidity Ratio
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2011 - 2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
1.00
0.90
0.80 0.86
0.83 0.83
0.70 0.78
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Table 5-7: Data for the Ratio Charges for Service to Expenditures (Business/Enterprise)
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Charges for Service $4,052,917 $4,377,356 $4,641,119 $5,012,361 $4,714,756
Operating Expenses $5,750,699 $5,633,053 $5,625,065 $5,825,945 $5,710,604
Source of Data: CAFR, 2011-2015, Statement of Activities (charges for service) AND
Schedule 2
Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash and Cash Equivalents are the most liquid assets of an agency’s assets and can be
readily converted into cash, as needed. A positive percentage change indicates that an
agency’s cash position has improved. The “Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents” metric
shown in Figure 5-12, below, was calculated by dividing the ending year total cash and cash
equivalents for the Enterprise Funds by the previous years. Although FY11/12 had the
largest change, the actual value of cash and its equivalents was much larger in FY 13/14
($3,271,600) and 14/15 ($2,500,423) as shown in Table 5-8, below.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-18
oitaR
Figure 5-11: Ratio Charges for Service to
Expenditures
Enterprise Funds Only
Data Source: CAFR, 2011 -2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
2000.0%
1500.0%
1000.0%
500.0%
0.0%
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Table 5-8: Data for Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents (Business Only)
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
End Cash and cash
equivalents $13,564 $247,268 $1,878,757 $3,271,600 $2,500,423
Beginning Cash and
cash equivalents $96,412 $13,564 $247,268 $1,878,758 $3,271,600
From: Statement of Cash Flows for Enterprise Funds
Debt Service
The percentage of “Debt Service” to operating expenses (minus depreciation) is used as a
fiscal indicator because it considers the service flexibility by determining the amount of
total expenses committed to annual debt service. Service flexibility decreases as more
resources are committed to annual debt service. In FY 14/15 the annual service on debt
related to regular governmental activities was $342,643 and this represented 5.4 percent
of the $6,403,211 in governmental expenditures, as shown in Figure 5-13 and Table 5-9.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-19
egnahC
%
Figure 5-12: Change in Cash and
Equivalents (Business Only)
Source: Statement of Cash Flows for Enterprise Funds
12.0%
10.0%
10.1%
8.0%
8.4%
6.0% 7.2%
5.4%
4.0% 4.9%
2.0%
0.0%
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
serutidnepxE
latnemnrevoG
fo
%
Figure 5-13: Debt Service (Governmental)
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR 2011-2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 5-9: Data for Debt Service (Governmental) Analysis
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Annual Gov Debt
Service (Principal &
Interest) $651,615 $649,629 $477,165 $342,643 $342,643
Operating
Expenditures (minus
depreciation) $7,741,817 $6,432,745 $6,623,334 $6,970,224 $6,403,211
Data Source: CAFR, 2011 - 2015
In Calistoga, water and sewer funds are managed as an “enterprise” fund or business fund
that is separate from the general fund. This allows the City to track and ensure that water
and sewer customers only pay the amount that is directly required to sustain those
services. However, sewer and water infrastructure are quite expensive due to the capital
outlay for pipes, treatment plants, and associated facilities. To cover these capital
expenses it is common for local governments to take advantage of low interest rates by
borrowing money from the state or other sources. As a result, the City has acquired some
debt for water services as follows:
2005 Install Purchase Agreement
Measure A - 2008 Certificate of Participation
2011 Certificate of Participation
The City’s debt for sewer service includes the following loans:
2001 Install Purchase Agreement
2005 Certificate of Participation
2005 State Revolving Fund
In 2015, the joint expenses for the water and sewer system totaled $3,975,477, as shown in
Table 5-10, below. Approximately 32.8% of this was spent on debt service, paying off the
principal and interest associated with the above listed loans, as shown in Figure 5-14,
below.
36.0%
35.0%
35.3%
34.0% 34.8%
33.0%
32.0% 32.7% 32.8%
31.0%
30.0%
30.4%
29.0%
28.0%
27.0%
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-20
sesnepxE
fo
%
Figure 5-14: Debt Service (Business)
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 5-10: Data for Debt Service (Business)
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Total Debt
Service 1,420,224 1,414,578 1,227,073 1,271,686 1,302,351
Total expense $4,078,295 $4,005,410 $3,749,437 $4,181,636 $3,975,477
Source: CAFR, 2015
Other Post Employment Benefit
The City's annual “Other Post-Employment Benefit” (OPEB) cost (expense) is calculated
based on the annual required contribution of the employer (ARC), an amount actuarially
determined in accordance with the parameters of Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statement 45. This amount is considered a liability and these OPEB
obligations do not result in the use of current financial resources and are not reported in
the funds. The total liability as of June 2015 was $791,241 (CAFR, 2015). Figure 5-15,
below shows the ratio between the OPEB payments and the OPEB Annual Cost (Expense).
This ratio is variable from year-to-year and the highest ratio in FY 12/13 indicates that the
City made the best payment in terms of cost, comparatively. In all years shown in Table 5-
11, the costs exceeded the payments.
Figure 5-15: Other Post Employment Benefits
(OPEB) Ratio
0.3500
0.3000 0.3303
0.2500
0.2436 0.2452
0.2000
0.1500
0.1000
0.0500 0.0756
0.0611
0.0000
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR, 2011 - 2015
Table 5-11: Data for OPEB Payments Analysis
FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15
OPEB Payments $10,000 $14,000 $68,500 $30,367 $32,306
OPEB Annual Cost
(Expense) $163,695 $185,227 $207,409 $124,683 $131,760
The City has not defaulted on repayment of any bonds or other debt (Calistoga, 2016).
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-21
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Comparison of Revenues Per Acre
The average revenue the City generated on a per acre basis in 2015 was $9,314 and this is
higher than its neighboring city of St. Helena, but lower than that of Yountville as shown
in Figure 5-16, below. Revenue per acre is used as a fiscal indicator in this MSR/SOI
because land development patterns have a significant influence on the finances of a town
or city. A city has no management authority over its residents or businesses and they are
free to move as they wish. Management of a city’s water and air resources are regulated
for the most part by state and federal agencies. The key management authority of a city
is its land-use and zoning authority as found in its general plan and city ordinances. The
revenue per acre metric measures the efficiency of cities in utilizing its land use authority
to maximize local revenue generation. Since land is a finite resource, this metric also
provides an indication of land-use sustainability (SMA, 2013).
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Calistoga Yountville St Helena Napa County
Figure 5-16, Total Revenues Per Acre, above, shows that the unincorporated area of Napa
County generates a much lower amount of revenue on a per acre basis ($638), as compared
to the three cities. This is due to several factors related to different land-use patterns in
the unincorporated area, including the provision of agriculture and green space. The
County’s Measure J in 1990, as extended by Measure P in 2008, requires the protection of
agricultural land in the unincorporated area and focuses residential and commercial
development in cities. Another factor is Proposition 13, a statewide ballot initiative passed
by voters in 1978, which resulted in a state-wide standard for the amount and distribution
of property tax.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-22
$
.S.U
Figure 5-16:
Total Revenue Per Acre 2015
Data Source: CAFR, 2014 and 2015
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
One unintended consequence of Proposition 13 is the use of arcane finance techniques and
the fiscalization of land use. When a City Council makes land use decisions, it often
considers the revenue and expenditure consequences of such decisions. Specifically, those
land uses that generate sales tax and transient occupancy tax type revenues, in addition to
property taxes become more important, due to the consequences of Proposition 13. A
potential rationale that both Counties and Cities likely consider when scrutinizing potential
expansion of city boundaries or SOI’s is the potential transfer of revenue generating land-
uses, such as a winery, from the County to the City’s jurisdiction. Further compounding
the fiscal situation to which local Measures J/P and Williamson Act contracts contribute,
Napa County’s ability to generate new revenues through its land-use authority is
constrained. Also, due to Proposition 13, it is difficult for Napa County to raise property
tax on the unincorporated area. This places the County in a challenging situation from the
perspective of revenue generation. Nevertheless, residents of both the unincorporated
area and the five cities therein derive economic and other community benefits (i.e. quality
of life and environmental quality) from the scenic landscape the unincorporated area
provides. Additionally, clustering public services within the cities may be an efficient
approach.
Chapter 5: Financing Page 5-23
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDED MSR
DETERMINATIONS
6.1: MSR DETERMINATIONS
Based on the information included in this report, the following written determinations
make statements involving the service factors the Commission must consider as part of a
municipal service review21. The determinations listed below are recommendations from
the consultant to the Commission. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part
of a Resolution which the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting.
Growth and Population Projections
1. Calistoga’s population is 5,180 full-time residents as of January 2016. Between
census year 2010 and today (2015), the City’s population grew by 25 persons and
this represents a past average annual growth rate of 0.08%.
2. Calistoga has been proactive in adopting polices to control the amount of new
growth and development in the City. These efforts include a policy discouraging
annexations of unincorporated lands.
3. Calistoga’s Growth Management System is an innovative approach in controlling
growth and development in the City by creating a market for residential and non-
residential allocations. This system helps Calistoga preserve its desired rural
character while providing an incentive for applicants to submit quality proposals.
4. The Association of Bay Area Governments estimates a modest population growth of
200 residents for Calistoga over the next 10 years, which represents an annual
increase of less than 0.38%. This estimate reflects a regional assumption that
growth in the Bay Area will increasingly migrate towards existing urban areas.
5. County of Napa’s land use policies for unincorporated lands located within the
Planning Area of the Calistoga General Plan limit opportunities for new growth and
development adjacent to the City.
6. LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted the following: “Yountville and Calistoga
have the highest percentage of guestrooms relative to their resident populations
among the six affected local jurisdictions. If guestrooms are fully occupied,
Yountville and Calistoga’s overnight resident populations would increase by 35.3%
and 23.6%, respectively.” This determination remains relevant to the City of
Calistoga.
21 The service factors addressed in this report reflect the requirements of California Government Code §56430(a)
Chapter 6: Recommended MSR Determinations Page 6-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
7. Since Calistoga is an incorporated city, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within its boundaries.
8. The median household income (MHI) in Calistoga is $52,131 using recent data from
the U.S Census. The City’s RCAC survey found the MHI to be $43,366.
9. Based on supplemental information provided by the City, the community may be
classified as “disadvantaged”. However, LAFCO’s role in this “disadvantaged”
status is limited because the City provides sufficient provide water, wastewater and
structural fire protection services. Additionally, no public health and safety issues
have been noted.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities
10. The City of Calistoga has been diligent in developing plans to accommodate the
service needs of current and future constituents. Calistoga regularly reviews and
updates its service plans to help ensure that infrastructure needs and deficiencies
are addressed in a timely manner.
11. Calistoga has made a significant investment over the last several years in funding
various capital improvements and reflects a concerted effort by the City to enhance
the level and range of its municipal services.
Water Facilities
12. Calistoga’s local municipal average annual water demand is approximately 716 AF.
13. A considerable portion of Calistoga’s available water supply is the State Water
Project. However, allocations from this source vary annually depending on
available water flow.
14. Calistoga contracts with the City of Napa to treat and deliver its SWP entitlement
through an interconnection between the two agencies' transmission lines. Capacity
constraints with Calistoga's transmission line, however, limit the daily amount of
deliveries from Napa.
15. Factors that influence the City’s ability to supply and/or deliver water to its
customers include drought, environmental restrictions on pumping from the Delta,
pipe size capacity limits from the City of Napa
16. Given potential future shortfalls in water supply and the City’s reliance on the SWP
as described in this MSR, the City and LAFCO may wish to consider new policies or
processes which require very careful evaluation of long-term water supplies before
it commits to providing water to parcels outside city boundaries.
17. Given the City’s reliance on the SWP and potential future shortfalls in water supply
during dry or extremely dry water years, it is recommended that the City of
Calistoga prepare a brief (3-pages) study of potential for future water supply
alternatives, which may include: 1) desalinization, 2) expanding its recycled water
program, 3) constructing wells [possibly down valley], 4) increased water use
efficiency, or 5) other. This study should be prepared by a qualified hydrologist.
Chapter 6: Recommended MSR Determinations Page 6-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Calistoga should explore this concept of new future water supply alternatives
collaboratively with other municipalities in Napa County. Ideally, this study should
be submitted to LAFCO within the next five years, prior to preparation of the next
MSR.
Wastewater Facilities
19. There are fluctuations between the average daily wastewater flows within
Calistoga’s sewer system between dry-weather and wet-weather periods. These
fluctuations suggest improvements are needed to the collection system to address
suspected deficiencies involving excessive storm and groundwater intrusion.
Although the City has made improvements over the past several years, additional
work is needed.
Street and Transportation Facilities
20. Calistoga recently received a score of “fair” for pavement conditions within the City
from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This score indicates that
pavement in Calistoga is generally worn and in need of rehabilitation. Improvements
have been made but more are still needed.
Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services
21. The City’s budget process provides a revenue forecast for one year in advance
allowing a longer look into the future to fund service delivery and to plan for future
improvements. The City adopts a comprehensive budget and receives an audited
financial statement on an annual basis.
22. Both the Water and the Wastewater Enterprise Fund are managed efficiently.
However, charges for service do not fully cover costs. A subsidy from the General
Fund is sometimes needed to help cover the costs of capital improvements to the
system.
23. Calistoga adopts its budget at public meetings in which members of the public are
allowed to comment with regard to expenditures and service programs. The budget
process enhances the accountability of elected officials and provides a clear
directive towards staff with regard to prioritizing local resources.
24. Calistoga has been diligent in the development of policies and service plans that
address the existing and future needs of the community. These efforts provide
effective performance measures and demonstrate a commitment by Calistoga to
hold itself accountable to the public.
25. Calistoga’s rates and fees for municipal services are established by ordinance or
resolution. The ordinances or resolutions are based on staff recommendations and
adopted by the City Council. This administrative process provides an opportunity
for public input and strengthens the ability of Calistoga to allocate costs with the
desired levels of service of its constituents.
Chapter 6: Recommended MSR Determinations Page 6-3
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
26. Calistoga has been proactive in establishing and implementing a number of impact
fees relating to new development. These fees help ensure that Calistoga is
practicing an appropriate level of cost-recovery as it relates to serving new
development in a manner that is equitable to existing constituents.
27. Calistoga periodically reviews and updates its rates for public services.
28. Calistoga benefits from participating in a number of cost-sharing programs with
other local governmental agencies. These programs promote the benefits of
regional partnerships and provide significant cost-savings in providing key
governmental services, such as affordable housing, garbage collection, and public
transit.
29. Calistoga maintains and annually reviews a capital improvement plan (part of FY
15/16 – annual -Budget) to coordinate the financing and construction of needed
infrastructure and facility improvements. This process enables Calistoga to
maximize its operational efficiencies while avoiding unnecessary expenditures
associated with deferring improvements.
30. Calistoga’s annual budget process includes several checks and procedures during the
fiscal year to help allocate available funding with appropriate levels of service.
31. The City generated $9,314 per acre in average revenue in 2015 and this higher than
its neighboring City of St. Helena and lower than Yountville.
32. In FY14/15, Calistoga collected approximately $5,037,136 (total) in transient-
occupancy tax revenues. In the past overreliance on this one revenue stream
created a risk. Since then, the City has worked to increase multiple revenue
streams including sales and property tax.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
33. Calistoga has a solid track record of working cooperatively with neighboring
jurisdictions.
34. Calistoga participates in joint-power arrangements with the Upper Valley Waste
Management Agency, the Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency, and the
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and others. These
arrangements help maximize local resources among participating agencies in
providing garbage collection, public transportation, and flood control services
within their respective jurisdictions.
35. LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that the City has its own competitive
procurement processes with respect to purchasing motor vehicles for law
enforcement services. It would seem reasonable and more efficient for Calistoga to
consider pooling its respective resources and establish a joint procurement process
with other local agencies such as American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena,
and County Sheriff. Their combined buying power would presumably produce cost-
savings (LAFCO, 2012). This recommendation remains relevant to the City of
Calistoga.
36. LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that “Calistoga and St. Helena should
consider the merits of establishing a joint dispatch system for law enforcement for
their respective jurisdictions. This type of joint arrangement, as evident in other
Chapter 6: Recommended MSR Determinations Page 6-4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
parts of the county, would enhance communication and delivery of emergency
response services for a relatively confined area that shares similar social and
economic communities of interest” (LAFCO, 2012). This recommendation remains
relevant to the City of Calistoga.
Accountability for Community Service Needs
37. Calistoga City Council meetings are held twice a month and are open to the
public.
38. Regularly scheduled meetings provide an opportunity for residents to ask
questions of elected representatives and help ensure service information is
effectively communicated to the public. The meetings are noticed and
conducted according to the Brown Act.
39. Calistoga provides effective services through its council-manager form of
government, and utilizes other governmental advising bodies, community
organizations, and the general public to help inform its decision-making process.
Through this structure, public engagement is encouraged and City plans and
programs reflect citizen input.
40. Calistoga has utilized its General Plan and other planning tools to:
Steer a course for its own future
o
Promote economic development
o
Protect historic areas, neighborhoods, and farmland
o
Limit the obligations of government by strategic building and maintaining
o
infrastructure through capital improvement planning and investments.
41. In the past, Calistoga established water service to 82 properties located
outside its incorporated boundary. LAFCO and Calistoga must work together to
ensure new and extended services provided by the City outside its jurisdiction is
consistent with the provisions of California Government Code Section 56133,
including AB 402 and the recommendations of this MSR/SOI Update. California
Government Code §56133 was enacted in 1994 and requires cities and special
districts to receive written approval from LAFCO prior to providing new and
extended services by contract or agreement outside their jurisdictions. This Code
includes newly approved AB 402 by Assemblyman Dodd.
42. LAFCO approved several small annexations to Calistoga in the early 1970s that
were not subsequently recorded with the State of California. As part of this
MSR/SOI Update process LAFCO reviewed its records and could find no information
explaining why these proposals were not recorded. However, LAFCO may also
consider working with Calistoga and the State in identifying why these proposals
were not recorded. .
43. The Institute for Local Government’s Sustainability Best Practices Framework offers
options for cities and water service providers to take local action concerning Energy
Efficiency & Conservation, Water and Wastewater Systems, Waste Reduction and
Recycling, and other civic topics as described here: http://www.ca-
ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/sustainability_best_practices_
framework_7.0_version_june_2013_final.pdf. When Calistoga next develops new
programs or policies on water, wastewater, or waste reduction it is recommended
that some of the ideas listed in the Best Practices Framework be briefly reviewed.
Chapter 6: Recommended MSR Determinations Page 6-5
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Accountability of Police Services
44. The City’s Police Department is effectively managed and is responsive to current
community needs.
45. LAFCO’s 2012 MSR on Law Enforcement noted the following: “The planning and
delivery of local law enforcement services are generally guided by qualitative goals
outlined in the six affected agencies’ general plans. Measuring the achievement of
these goals would be strengthened by each affected local agency establishing
quantitative standards to help track performance and inform decision-making as it
relates to current and future resource needs.” This recommendation remains
pertinent to the City of Calistoga.
46. LAFCO’s 2012 MSR on Law Enforcement noted the following: “Calistoga and St.
Helena’s geographic and socioeconomic similarities suggest there may be viable
opportunities to share and/or combine resources in delivering law enforcement
services within their respective jurisdictions. This includes back-officing dispatch.”
This recommendation remains pertinent to the City of Calistoga. Please note that
Calistoga has recently contracted with Petaluma Animal Services Foundation
located in Sonoma County to provide animal control services.
47. LAFCO’s 2012 MSR on Law Enforcement noted the following: “Visitors are an
integral component in supporting Napa County’s economy as evident by sales and
transient-occupancy tax revenues and create additional and fluid demands on all six
local law enforcement agencies.” This determination remains pertinent to the City
of Calistoga.
48. Crime statistics on the Police Department website have not been updated since
2009. It is recommended that the Police Department website be updated to
provide a link to its recent crime statistics either at the FBI or in the City’s Annual
Audited Financial Report.
49. In 2015, the police Department received 9,592 calls for service. This is an
exceedingly high number of annual service calls relative to Calistoga’s geographic
and population size. It is also recommended that prior to the next MSR (expected in
2021), the Police Department provides a brief (1-page) study to LAFCO that explains
why the City experiences such a high number of annual service calls.
50. In 2014 the Department reported a total of 76 crimes to the FBI and this represents
14.4 crimes per thousand persons on an annual basis. This is significantly lower
than the statewide average of 287 crimes per 1,000 persons.
51. LAFCO’s 2012 Law Enforcement MSR noted that “It would seem appropriate for
Calistoga and St. Helena, given the costs and related challenges associated with
sustaining relatively small stand-alone departments, to consider structural
alternatives in providing law enforcement services. This includes – based on a
cursory review of potential alternatives – the two affected local agencies exploring
the feasibilities of forming a joint-powers authority with one another and/or one
or both agencies contracting with County Sheriff.” This recommendation remains
relevant to the City of Calistoga. Furthermore, it is recommended that the
Calistoga Police Chief work with the St. Helena Police Chief to submit a brief (two-
pages) joint analysis of this issue to LAFCO prior to the next City MSR expected in
the year 2021.
Chapter 6: Recommended MSR Determinations Page 6-6
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Accountability for Fire Services
55. The City Fire Department responded to 854 calls for service in 2014. The high rate
of calls per 1,000 residents is likely influenced by requests for services from senior
citizens and tourists.
56. The City maintains a contract with Napa County such that the City provides
emergency response services to all incidents in the unincorporated area surrounding
Calistoga. Under the contract, the City receives a set fee per call to compensate for
the costs the City incurs.
Any Other Matters Related to Service Delivery as
Required by LAFCo Policy
57. There are no other aspects of City services required to be addressed in this
report by LAFCo policies that would affect delivery of services.
Chapter 6: Recommended MSR Determinations Page 6-7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 7: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATIONS
7.1: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE OPTIONS
Sphere of Influence Considerations
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that
LAFCO review and update the Sphere of Influence (SOI or Sphere) for each city within the
county. In determining the Sphere of Influence for an agency, LAFCO must consider and
prepare written determinations with respect to five factors [Government Code §56425(e)].
These factors relate to the present and planned land uses including agricultural and open-
space lands, the present and probable need for public facilities and services, the present
capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, the existence of any social or
economic communities of interest in the area, and the present and probable need for public
facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing
sphere. Further, Napa LAFCO policies relating to Spheres specify that:
The Commission shall consider removal of lands from an agency’s SOI if the lands are
not expected to be developed for urban uses or require urban-type services within the
next 10 years (e.g., agricultural lands within St. Helena’s SOI and boundary) (Policy
III[B][5)]).
City Spheres of Influence further emphasize that city SOIs are intended to be guides
for urban growth and development (Policy III[C]).
These policies also require the relevant MSR data be utilized to document service and
facility capacity. This chapter represents Napa LAFCO’s scheduled sphere review of the
City of Calistoga. The most recent comprehensive review of Calistoga’s sphere was
presented to the Commission in August 2008.
Objective
The objective of this Chapter is to identify and evaluate areas that warrant consideration for
inclusion or removal from Calistoga’s sphere as part of a comprehensive review. The aim is to
be consistent with the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Commission’s adopted policies. 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 Calistoga General Plan’s Land Use Element
identified almost 400 acres of agricultural land and vacant land located within the existing
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
City limits that could potentially be developed at some point in the future, provided that
zoning, CEQA, and other requirements can be met. It should be noted that none of this land is
zoned as “agriculture” or “open space” and is therefore available for development.
State law suggests 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.
Existing Sphere of Influence
Calistoga’s sphere was established by the Commission in 1973. The Commission designated
the sphere to reflect what it believed to be Calistoga’s incorporated boundary. This included
adding an approximate 5.2 acre parcel located along Calistoga’s southeast “panhandle”
section that was approved for annexation one year earlier. However, as part of the 2008
municipal service review, it was determined that the annexation was abandoned prior to
recordation for unknown reasons. No amendments to the sphere have been approved by the
Commission since its establishment.
In terms of proportions, Calistoga’s sphere is approximately 1,657 acres or 2.6 square miles in
size. The sphere includes a total of 1,660 assessor parcels with an average size of 0.9 acres.
The sphere is coterminous with Calistoga’s incorporated boundary with the aforementioned
exception of including a 5.2 acre unincorporated parcel located along Calistoga’s southeast
panhandle section.
SOI BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The intent of an SOI is to identify the most appropriate areas for an agency’s service area in
the probable future. Pursuant to Napa LAFCO policies relating to SOIs, LAFCO discourages
inclusion of land in an agency’s Sphere if a need for services provided by that agency cannot
be demonstrated. Accordingly, territory included in an agency’s Sphere is an indication that
the probable need for service has been established, and that the subject agency has been
determined by LAFCO to be the most logical service provider for the area.
There are a number of ways to look at Spheres of Influence. One option is to consider growth
and development and the need for municipal services over time. A second option is to
determine an agency’s ability to provide municipal services beyond its current boundary. For
a City or District that does not plan to provide municipal services beyond its present
boundary, a Sphere boundary that is the same as the agency boundary is called a Coterminous
Sphere of Influence. A third option is related to reducing the current Sphere of Influence of
an agency by adopting a Minus Sphere of Influence (or Reduced Sphere of Influence) by
excluding territory currently within an agency’s Sphere. A fourth option relates to Sphere
areas for which municipal services are not intended to be provided; that is, areas within a
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Sphere which will remain undeveloped (such as open space or ‘protected lands’). Such an
area is a special case, and requires the agency to demonstrate why an area should be
included within a Sphere for which no municipal services will be provided. LAFCO also has
the ability to determine a Zero Sphere of Influence for a City or District, signaling that the
City or District does not have the wherewithal, governance capability, financial means,
and/or operational capability to provide the municipal services for which it was formed, and
should be dissolved or its function(s) reallocated to another agency.
In the future, Napa LAFCO could potentially create an additional category related to Spheres
called Areas of Concern. Areas of Concern are defined as “a geographic area beyond the
Sphere of Influence in which land use decisions or other government actions of one local
agency impact directly or indirectly upon another local agency.”
Presented within this Chapter are Sphere of Influence Options for the City of Calistoga. The
options presented are not mutually exclusive, but can be utilized in combination to allow the
Commission to adopt the most appropriate Sphere Update for the City. Sphere Options are
presented, followed by a discussion of the options, along with a Sphere matrix of factors
LAFCO considers in updating a Sphere of Influence.
Agricultural Preservation
During the July 18, 2016 public meeting on the Draft MSR/SOI, the Commission requested that
this document include additional information on the regional importance of agriculture and
associated agricultural protection policies and programs. Agricultural preservation has long
been important to the citizens of Napa County and the County’s policies aim to ensure a
sustainable future. This approach has eased Napa County’s retention of its prime vineyard
lands in production as compared to the large tracts of farmland in other parts of the Bay Area
which have been urbanized. The County established the first Agricultural Preserve in
California in 1968. Measure J was adopted by County voters in 1990 and this ordinance has
provided a significant level of agricultural protection since its adoption. Measure J’s term
was extended beyond the original sunset date of 2020 when the voters adopted Measure P in
2008. Measure P is scheduled to sunset in the year 2058. Policies and regulations that
implement Measure J and P are located within the Napa County General Plan and the Napa
County Zoning Ordinance (Napa County, 2013b). Measures J and P require a two-thirds vote
of the county’s citizens to rezone any land from Agricultural to a different use. Only a handful
of these rezoning attempts have passed, and all were very specific, such as allowing the sale
of pumpkins and produce in a rural site and allowing a local restaurant to serve meals on its
existing patio. The resistance the local citizenry has shown to rezoning attempts reflect local
values and the importance placed on agricultural land. Additional details regarding the
importance of the Agricultural Preserve can be found in Appendix G, Napa Vitners: 40 years of
Agricultural Preservation.
Although Measures J and P and the Napa County General Plan are important in the context of
countywide land use planning, they do not apply to local cities such as Calistoga, Yountville,
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-3
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
and St. Helena. Since local jurisdictions retain land-use authority, city councils and/or
planning commissions have the ability to rezone land from Agriculture to other uses. Since
cities can rezone properties without putting the rezone in front of the voters and since cities
are not required to comply with the Napa County General Plan or County Ordinances, allowing
new and more diverse land uses is easier within a city. This relates to the sphere of influence
update because a potential future annexation of land into a city allows the city to rezone an
annexed parcel from Agricultural Preserve to a non-agricultural use. However, it should be
noted that rezoning has not been proposed and is not contemplated by the City of Calistoga.
This paragraph merely describes what could be possible at some future date if certain actions
are taken.
Summary of Sphere Update Process
This Chapter presents options for updating the SOI for the City of Calistoga. The presented
options are informational and may assist the Commission in considering next steps. When
LAFCO moves to choose a specific option for updating the SOI, the Commission may request
additional information at that time. LAFCO’s process provides for a meeting/conference
between cities and the County prior to updating a city’s SOI. Additionally, the Commission
will hold a public hearing and adopt written statements of fact regarding the SOI prior to or in
conjunction with adopting any option for a specific update. Environmental review, consistent
with CEQA, would also be required.
This SOI analysis relied upon a wide range of information as detailed in Chapter 9,
References. When selecting study areas, the consultants significantly relied upon the
following five factors:
planning area of the City and County General Plan
Parcels that receive water service
Fire protection area (per agreement)
Police protection area (per agreement)
Opportunity for infill development rather than SOI expansion
STUDY AREAS
Three study areas were chosen by the consultants to form the basis of an analysis of various
options for the Commission to consider regarding the City’s SOI. Several factors were used to
identify these study areas to evaluate adding or removing from Calistoga’s sphere as part of
this comprehensive review. These factors include (a) relationship and proximity to
incorporated boundary, (b) land use designations, (c) infrastructure capacities, and (d)
provision of public services.
Consideration was given to establishing study areas to reflect Calistoga’s outside water
service area, which extends north of the City along State Highway 128, Petrified Forest Road,
and Tubbs Lane, among other areas as shown in Figure 7-1. The merits in establishing this
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
type of study area relates to the role of the sphere in designating each agency’s present and
probable future service area.
Traditionally, cities, towns, and special districts have been required 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. However, AB 402 (Dodd),
codified under Government Code Section 56133.5, establishes a pilot program to authorize
service provision outside a local agency’s jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence to
support existing or planned uses that do not involve a threat to public health. This includes
LAFCO making a determination that the extension of service or services deficiency was
identified and evaluated in a review of municipal services prepared pursuant to Government
Code Section 56430. Further, LAFCO would be required to determine that a sphere of
influence change involving the subject territory and its affected agency is not feasible or
desirable based on the adopted LAFCO policies.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-5
n
L
s
b
b
Tu
¬«
29
wood
Ave
Green
d
R
ett
k
c
RosedaleRd Pi
UV Napa
128 R iv
e
r
Silverado
Trl
e
v
A
Petrified Forest Rd n
Foothill
Blvd Li n
c
ol
n
L
al
± u m
CanyonRd
D u
n
a
w
e
ort
K
¬«
29
LLAAKKEE City Limits
YYOOLLOO Sphere of Influence
Water Service Outside City Boundary*
NNAAPPAA
Calistoga Parcels
County Boundary
St. Helena
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
*The City provides water service to 82 customers outside the city limits,
Yountville but only 74 are shown on the map due to lack of GIS compatible data.
SSOONNOOMMAA
7.1 Three Study Areas
Figure :
SSOOLLAANNOO
City of Calistoga
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-1: Analysis of Study Area #1
Issue Comments
Parcel Numbers Study Area #1 is 107+ acres in size and contains 17 parcels. The Assessor
Parcel Numbers are as follows:
017-130-011-000, 017-130-057-000, 017-130-009, 017-160-010-
000, 017-160-011-000, 017-160-016-000, 017-160-017-000, 017-
160-024-000, 017-160-025-000, 017-210-006-000, 017-221-002-
000, 017-221-003-000, 017-221-004-000, 017-221-006-000, 017-
221-012-000, 017-222-009-000, and 017-222-010-000.
Location Study Area #1 is located north of Greenwood Avenue and along the Napa
River.
Services Provided The City currently provides municipal water service to properties within
Study Area #1. Police protection and fire protection services are provided
by the City and the County through mutual aid agreements.
Each of the parcels contains a single family home, with the exception of:
Present and planned land
1) APN 017-130-057-000 which contains a medical care use and 2) APN
uses in the area
017-130-009 which contains The Geyser, a commercial use.
The City’s 2015 General Plan states “The City has no intention of
annexing any area outside of the current city limits, and the City’s Sphere
of Influence is coterminous with the city limits.“ The City General Plan
does not contemplate the development of or designate land uses for
Study Area #1.
Since these parcels lie within the unincorporated area, the Napa County
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance serve as the guide for land use
decisions. The Napa County Zoning designation for each of the 17 parcels
is Agricultural Preservation District (AP). The Napa County General Plan
designation for the 17 parcels is Agricultural Resource (AR).
Potential effects on All of the 107+ acres located within the Study Area #1 are zoned for
agricultural and open-space agriculture. The State Dept. of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
lands Monitoring Program designates a portion of Study Area #1 as “Farmland of
Local Importance”. Including Study Area #1 into the city’s SOI and
boundary could result in removing agricultural soils from production.
Napa County General Plan Figure AG/LU-3.5: AR AND AWOS LANDS NOT
SUBJECT TO MEASURE J, indicates that a small portion of Study Area #1 is
not subject to Measure J.
Present and probable need The City currently provides municipal water service to properties within
for public facilities and Study Area #1. Police protection and fire protection services are provided
services in the area by the City and the County through mutual aid agreements. Future
extension of wastewater service or other public services to Study #1 have
not been contemplated.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-1: Analysis of Study Area #1
Issue Comments
Present capacity of public The parcels located within Study Area #1 currently receive water from
facilities and adequacy of the City, with the exception of one small parcel. Due to resource
public services
constraints, LAFCO has recommended that the City conduct studies of
future water supply options. Parcels in Study Area #1 may currently pay
an out-of-boundary rate for water service and this rate may change if the
area were to be annexed. To ascertain financial impacts on property
owners and service providers, additional fiscal analysis would be needed.
The permitted capacity and average flow volume of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) is described in Chapter 4. The City has indicated
that the WWTP can be expanded to meet future projected increases in
demand. However, the existing sewer pipeline infrastructure currently
serves about half of the city. Extending the sewer pipelines beyond the
city limits may be cost prohibitive and a detailed engineering and cost
study is recommended before this is contemplated.
The Napa County Fire Department provides fire protection to Study Area
#1 and mutual aid agreements indicate that the City of Calistoga is
sometimes the first responder to this area. Please see section 4.1.5 for
more information on fire protection services and mutual aid agreements.
The Napa County Sheriff provides police protection to Study Area #1 and
mutual aid agreements indicate that the City of Calistoga is sometimes
the first responder to this area. Please see section 4.1.4 for more
information on police protection services and mutual aid agreements.
Calistoga appears to be sufficiently reimbursed for its costs associated
with police and fire service to this area.
Prior to considering future annexation, a detailed fiscal analysis of future
tax revenue would be needed to determine if additional public services
can be provided at an adequate level. Various fees for service might
increase or decrease. For example, the City currently receives a fee for
service when responding to fire related calls in the unincorporated area.
When an area is annexed, the City would no longer receive this fee. This
fiscal analysis should also consider potential difference in taxes a
property owner would potentially need to pay if annexed.
The existence of any social The City incorporated in 1886 and has a long history as an established
or economic communities community.
of interest in the area
As described in Chapter 3, the City provided supplemental information
indicating that an economically disadvantaged community resides within
the City boundaries.
The present and probable No DUCs have been identified within Study Area #1.
need for water, sewer and
structural fire protection of
any DUC within the existing
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-8
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-1: Analysis of Study Area #1
Issue Comments
SOI
Effects on other agencies Including Study Area #1 in the SOI as a stand-alone action would not likely
affect other agencies. However, if this area were to eventually be
annexed, some agencies that provide services to this area, such as the
Napa County Sheriff and the Napa County Fire Department could see a
reduction in service demand. Other agencies such as Caltrans could see
an increase in service demand.
The following Napa County policies should be considered:
Policy Considerations
Napa County General Plan, including policies related to agricultural
protection;
Measure J, approved by voters in 1990, is the Agricultural Lands
Preservation Initiative; and
Measure P, approved by voters in 2008, extends the life of Measure
J through to the year 2058.
Please see the description of Agricultural Preservation written in the
above pages of Chapter 7 for additional detail on agricultural policy
considerations.
Potential for consolidations The City’s existing SOI does not divide communities.
or other reorganizations
Study Area #1 is adjacent to the existing city boundary. There are no
when boundaries divide
topographic or geographic barriers between the City and Study Area #1.
communities
Location of facilities, The location of the WWTP is south of the City, whereas Study Area #1 is
infrastructure and natural north of the city. Extending the sewer pipelines to Study Area #1 may be
features cost prohibitive. Additional study of cost is needed prior to formal
consideration of this option.
Willingness to serve The City wishes to continue to provide water service within Study Area #1
and it wishes to continue its participation in mutual aid agreements for
fire and police protection arrangements that provide service to this area.
However, it has not expressed a willingness to assume responsibility for
wastewater service, land use planning, building inspection and other
public services to this area. An annexation plan and a plan for future
services have not been contemplated for study area #1.
Potential environmental The City received Cease and Desist Orders from the San Francisco Water
impacts Board due to contaminants in its WWTP effluent. The City complied with
these requirements and a new permit was issued in 2016. However,
further study would be needed to determine if the WWTP has sufficient
capacity to extend the sewer service outside the City’s current
jurisdictional boundary.
If the parcels are slated for future development, other potential
environmental impacts could include traffic, water quality, and air
quality impacts.
Environmental review in compliance with CEQA should be required prior
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-9
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-1: Analysis of Study Area #1
Issue Comments
to moving this study area into the City’s sphere of influence. This
environmental review should include a detailed policy analysis, including
Measures J and P and policies of Napa County, and the City.
Table 7-2: Analysis of Study Area #2
Issue Comments
Parcel Numbers Study Area #2 is 57.4 acres in size and contains 21 parcels. The Assessor
Parcel Numbers are as follows:
017-200-006-000, 017-200-009-000, 017-200-010-000, 017-200-
011-000, 017-200-012-000, 017-200-013-000, 017-210-001-000,
017-210-002-000, 017-240-005-000, 017-250-001-000, 017-250-
002-000, 017-250-003-000, 017-250-004-000, 017-250-005-000,
017-250-006-000, 017-250-007-000, 017-250-008-000, 017-250-
009-000, 017-250-014-000, 017-250-015-000, and 017-200-014-000
Location Study Area #2 is located north of White Lane and the east and west of
Foothill Boulevard (Hwy 128).
Services Provided The City currently provides municipal water service to properties within
Study Area #2. Police protection and fire protection services are provided
by the City and the County through mutual aid agreements.
19 of the parcels currently contain a single family home. One parcel has a
Present and planned land
small commercial establishment. A different parcel contains a bed and
uses in the area
breakfast establishment.
The City’s 2015 General Plan states “The City has no intention of
annexing any area outside of the current city limits, and the City’s
Sphere of Influence is coterminous with the city limits.“ The City
General Plan does not contemplate the development of or designate land
uses for Study Area #2. Additionally, the City has not pre-zoned the
parcels within Study Area #2.
Since these parcels lie within the unincorporated area, the Napa County
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance serve as the guide for land use
decisions. The Napa County Zoning designations for the parcels are as
follows:
8 parcels totaling 22.94 acres are designated as Agricultural
Preservation District (AP).
1 parcel totaling 1.61 acres is designated as Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) District.
12 parcels totaling 33 acres are designated as Agricultural
Watershed (AW) District.
The Napa County General Plan designation for the 17 parcels is Agricultural
Resource (AR).
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-10
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-2: Analysis of Study Area #2
Issue Comments
Of the 57.4 acres within this study area, most (55.79 acres) is zoned for
Potential effects on
agriculture. The State Dept. of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
agricultural and open-space
lands Monitoring Program designates a portion of Study Area #2 as “Farmland of
Local Importance”. Including Study Area #2 into the city’s SOI and
boundary could result in removing agricultural soils from production
Present and probable need The City currently provides municipal water service to properties within
for public facilities and Study Area #2. Police protection and fire protection services are provided
services in the area by the City and the County through mutual aid agreements. Future
extension of wastewater service or other public services to Study #2 have
not been contemplated.
Present capacity of public The parcels located within Study Area #2 currently receive municipal
facilities and adequacy of water from the City. Due to resource constraints, LAFCO has
public services
recommended that the City conduct studies of future water supply
options. Parcels in Study Area #2 may currently pay an out-of-boundary
rate for water service and this rate may change if the area were to be
annexed. To ascertain financial impacts on property owners and service
providers, additional fiscal analysis would be needed.
The permitted capacity and average flow volume of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) are described in Chapter 4. The City has
indicated that the WWTP can be expanded to meet future projected
increases in demand. However, the existing sewer pipeline infrastructure
currently serves about half of the city. Extending the sewer pipelines
beyond the city limits may be cost prohibitive and a detailed engineering
and cost study is recommended before this is contemplated.
The Napa County Fire Department provides fire protection to Study Area
#2 and mutual aid agreements indicate that the City of Calistoga is
sometimes the first responder to this area. Please see section 4.1.5 for
more information on fire protection services and mutual aid agreements.
The Napa County Sheriff provides police protection to Study Area #2 and
mutual aid agreements indicate that the City of Calistoga is sometimes
the first responder to this area. Please see section 4.1.4 for more
information on police protection services and mutual aid agreements.
Calistoga appears to be sufficiently reimbursed for its costs associated
with police and fire service to this area.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-11
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-2: Analysis of Study Area #2
Issue Comments
Continued
Prior to considering future annexation, a detailed fiscal analysis of future
Present capacity of public
tax revenue would be needed to determine if additional public services
facilities and adequacy of
public services can be provided at an adequate level. Various fees for service might
increase or decrease. For example, the City currently receives a fee for
service when responding to fire related calls in the unincorporated area.
When an area is annexed, the City would no longer receive this fee. This
fiscal analysis should also consider potential difference in taxes a
property owner would potentially need to pay if annexed.
The existence of any social The City incorporated in 1886 and has a long history as an established
or economic communities community.
of interest in the area
As described in Chapter 3, the City provided supplemental information
indicating that an economically disadvantaged community resides within
the City boundaries.
The present and probable No DUCs have been identified within Study Area #2.
need for water, sewer and
structural fire protection of
any DUC within the existing
SOI
Including Study Area #2 in the SOI as a stand-alone action would not likely
Effects on other agencies
affect other agencies. However, if this area were to eventually be
annexed, some agencies that provide services to this area, such as the
Napa County Sheriff and the Napa County Fire Department could see a
reduction in service demand. Other agencies such as Caltrans could see
an increase in service demand.
The following Napa County policies should be considered:
Policy Considerations
Napa County General Plan, including policies related to agricultural
protection;
Measure J, approved by voters in 1990, is the Agricultural Lands
Preservation Initiative; and
Measure P, approved by voters in 2008, extends the life of Measure
J through to the year 2058.
Please see the description of Agricultural Preservation written in the
above pages of Chapter 7 for additional detail on agricultural policy
considerations.
Potential for consolidations The City’s existing boundary and SOI do not divide communities.
or other reorganizations
Study Area #2 is adjacent to the existing city boundary. There are no
when boundaries divide
topographic or geographic barriers between the City and Study Area #2.
communities
Location of facilities, The location of the WWTP is south of the City, whereas Study Area #2 is
infrastructure and natural north of the city. Extending the sewer pipelines to Study Area #2 may be
features cost prohibitive. Additional study of cost is needed prior to formal
consideration of this option.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-12
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-2: Analysis of Study Area #2
Issue Comments
Willingness to serve The City wishes to continue to provide water service within Study Area #2
and it wishes to continue its participation in mutual aid agreements for
fire and police protection arrangements that provide service to this area.
However, it has not expressed a willingness to assume responsibility for
wastewater service, land use planning, building inspection and other
public services to this area. An annexation plan and a plan for future
services have not been contemplated for study area #2.
Potential environmental The City received Cease and Desist Orders from the San Francisco
impacts Water Board due to contaminants in its WWTP effluent. The City
complied with these requirements and a new permit was issued in
2016. However, further study would be needed to determine if the
WWTP has sufficient capacity to extend the sewer service outside
the City’s current jurisdictional boundary.
Environmental review in compliance with CEQA should be required
prior to moving this study area into the City’s sphere of influence.
This environmental review should include a detailed policy
analysis, including Measures J and P and policies of Napa County,
and the City. If the parcels are slated for future development,
other potential environmental impacts could include traffic, water
quality, and air quality impacts.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-13
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-3: Analysis of Study Area #3
Issue Comments
Study Area #3 is 51.28 acres in size and contains 4 parcels. The Assessor
Parcel Numbers
Parcel Numbers are as follows:
017-230-004-000, 017-230-005-000, 017-230-007-000, 017-230-
028-000
Location Study Area #3 is located east of Lincoln Avenue, adjacent to and directly
east of the City.
Services Provided The City currently provides municipal water service to properties within
Study Area #3. Police protection and fire protection services are provided
by the City and the County through mutual aid agreements.
Present and planned land Each of the four parcels is currently developed with a single family home.
uses in the area The smallest parcel is 2.14 acres and the largest parcel is 23.32 acres in
size.
The City’s 2015 General Plan states “The City has no intention of
annexing any area outside of the current city limits, and the City’s
Sphere of Influence is coterminous with the city limits.“ The City
General Plan does not contemplate the development of or designate land
uses for Study Area #3. Additionally, the City has not pre-zoned the
parcels within Study Area #3.
Since these parcels lie within the unincorporated area, the Napa County
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance serve as the guide for land use
decisions. The Napa County Zoning designations for the parcels are as
follows:
Two parcels totaling 23.82 acres are designated as Agricultural
Preservation District (AP).
Two parcels totaling 27.46 acres are designated as Agricultural
Watershed (AW) District.
The Napa County General Plan designation for the 17 parcels is Agricultural
Resource (AR).
Potential effects on All of the 51.28 acres within this study area is zoned for agriculture. The
agricultural and open-space State Dept. of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
lands designates a portion of Study Area #4 as “Prime Farmland” and another
portion as “Unique Farmland”. Including Study Area #3 into the city’s SOI
and boundary could result in removing agricultural soils from production
Present and probable need The City currently provides municipal water service to properties within
for public facilities and Study Area #3. Police protection and fire protection services are provided
services in the area by the City and the County through mutual aid agreements. Future
extension of wastewater service or other public services to Study #3 have
not been contemplated.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-14
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-3: Analysis of Study Area #3
Issue Comments
Present capacity of public The parcels located within Study Area #3 currently receive municipal
facilities and adequacy of water from the City. Due to resource constraints, LAFCO has
public services
recommended that the City conduct studies of future water supply
options. Parcels in Study Area #3 may currently pay an out-of-boundary
rate for water service and this rate may change if the area were to be
annexed. To ascertain financial impacts on property owners and service
providers, additional fiscal analysis would be needed.
The permitted capacity and average flow volume of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) are described in Chapter 4. The City has
indicated that the WWTP can be expanded to meet future projected
increases in demand. However, the existing sewer pipeline infrastructure
currently serves about half of the city. Extending the sewer pipelines
beyond the city limits may be cost prohibitive and a detailed engineering
and cost study is recommended before this is contemplated.
The Napa County Fire Department provides fire protection to Study Area
#3 and mutual aid agreements indicate that the City of Calistoga is
sometimes the first responder to this area. Please see section 4.1.5 for
more information on fire protection services and mutual aid agreements.
The Napa County Sheriff provides police protection to Study Area #3 and
mutual aid agreements indicate that the City of Calistoga is sometimes
the first responder to this area. Please see section 4.1.4 for more
information on police protection services and mutual aid agreements.
Calistoga appears to be sufficiently reimbursed for its costs associated
with police and fire service to this area.
Prior to considering future annexation, a detailed fiscal analysis of future
tax revenue would be needed to determine if additional public services
can be provided at an adequate level. Various fees for service might
increase or decrease. For example, the City currently receives a fee for
service when responding to fire related calls in the unincorporated area.
When an area is annexed, the City would no longer receive this fee. This
fiscal analysis should also consider potential difference in taxes a
property owner would potentially need to pay if annexed.
The existence of any social The City incorporated in 1886 and has a long history as an established
or economic communities community.
of interest in the area
As described in Chapter 3, the City provided supplemental information
indicating that an economically disadvantaged community resides within
the City boundaries.
The present and probable No DUCs have been identified within Study Area #3.
need for water, sewer and
structural fire protection of
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-15
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Table 7-3: Analysis of Study Area #3
Issue Comments
any DUC within the existing
SOI
Including Study Area #1 in the SOI as a stand-alone action would not likely
Effects on other agencies
affect other agencies. However, if this area were to eventually be
annexed, some agencies that provide services to this area, such as the
Napa County Sheriff and the Napa County Fire Department could see a
reduction in service demand. Other agencies such as Caltrans could see
an increase in service demand.
The following Napa County policies should be considered:
Policy Considerations
Napa County General Plan, including policies related to agricultural
protection;
Measure J, approved by voters in 1990, is the Agricultural Lands
Preservation Initiative; and
Measure P, approved by voters in 2008, extends the life of Measure
J through to the year 2058.
Please see the description of agricultural preservation written in the
above pages of Chapter 7 for additional detail on agricultural policy
considerations.
Potential for consolidations The City’s existing SOI does not divide communities.
or other reorganizations
Study Area #3 is adjacent to the existing city boundary. There are no
when boundaries divide
topographic or geographic barriers between the City and Study Area #4.
communities
Location of facilities, Extending the sewer pipelines to Study Area #3 may be cost prohibitive.
infrastructure and natural Additional study of cost is needed prior to formal consideration of this
features option.
Willingness to serve The City wishes to continue to provide water service within Study Area #3
and it wishes to continue its participation in mutual aid agreements for
fire and police protection arrangements that provide service to this area.
However, it has not expressed a willingness to assume responsibility for
wastewater service, land use planning, building inspection and other
public services to this area. An annexation plan and a plan for future
services have not been contemplated for study area #3.
Potential environmental The City received Cease and Desist Orders from the San Francisco Water
impacts Board due to contaminants in its WWTP effluent. The City complied with
these requirements and a new permit was issued in 2016. However,
further study would be needed to determine if the WWTP has sufficient
capacity to extend the sewer service outside the City’s current
jurisdictional boundary.
Environmental review in compliance with CEQA should be required prior
to moving this study area into the City’s sphere of influence. This
environmental review should include a detailed policy analysis, including
Measures J and P and policies of Napa County, and the City. If the parcels
are slated for future development, other potential environmental impacts
could include traffic, water quality, and air quality impacts.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-16
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
SOI OPTIONS
Sphere of Influence Options
Four preliminary options have been identified for potential future action regarding the City of
Calistoga Sphere of Influence, as listed below. The Commission may consider each option
individually or may combine two or three options to form a new SOI plan. These options are
intended to provide the Commission with examples of the types of actions that could be taken
in regards to the SOI. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or all-inclusive list of
potential actions. If the Commission has a suggestion for a new or different option, they may
direct staff to further study that new option. The four preliminary options are as follows:
A. Retain the Existing Sphere of Influence
B. Transfer Study Area #1 into the Sphere of Influence
C. Transfer Study Area #2 into the Sphere of Influence
D. Transfer Study Area #3 into the Sphere of Influence
Discussion of Preliminary Options
A. Retain the Existing Sphere of Influence
If Napa LAFCO determines that the existing SOI and jurisdictional boundary are
appropriate to provide public services, then the existing Sphere of Influence
should be retained. Under this option the City would continue to provide
existing public services within its City boundary. The City would also continue
to provide water, police, and fire service to specific parcels located outside its
jurisdictional boundary. AB 402 (Dodd) facilitates this approach by allowing
cities to provide services to parcels located outside their jurisdictional
boundary and SOI. The existing SOI allows sufficient opportunities for infill
development, as the City has 95 vacant acres, as shown in Table 3-1,
B. Transfer Study Area #1 into the Sphere of Influence
Transfer Study Area #1 (shown in Figure 7-1, above) into the Sphere of
Influence. This option would expand the City’s SOI to add 107+ acres. The
area would not necessarily be annexed into the City immediately. Rather,
including this area into the SOI indicates that the City may annex the area at
some future time, after the appropriate cost analysis, environmental, plan for
service, and other studies have been completed. Upon annexation, it is also
likely that the existing land uses (i.e. one single-family residence) would
change to allow higher density residential development and this change could
bring along associated traffic, air quality, solid waste, storm drainage changes.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-17
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
An increased demand for public facilities and services is inherent in urban
settings and if Study Area #1 were to be annexed into the City increased public
service would become necessary. However, at this early state, inclusion of a
study area into a sphere of influence would have no immediate impact on the
type and level of services now being provided by the County to residents in the
unincorporated area. Expansion of a sphere of influence will, however, provide
the City of Calistoga with suitable assurance and means to properly plan for the
most cost-efficient manner of adequate service provision.
Prior to including Study Area #1 into the Sphere of Influence, the Commission
may wish to obtain additional study of potential fiscal, policy, public service,
environmental, and agricultural impacts. For annexations, LAFCO has limited
authority and could only recommend the City initiate annexation proceedings.
C. Transfer Study Area #2 into the Sphere of Influence
Similar to Option #B above, this option would transfer Study Area #2 (shown in
Figure 7-1, above) into the Sphere of Influence. This option would expand the
City’s SOI to add 57.4 acres. Study Area #2 would not necessarily be annexed
into the City immediately. Rather, including this area into the SOI indicates
that the City may annex the area at some future time, after the appropriate
cost analysis, environmental, plan for service, and other studies have been
completed. Upon annexation, it is also likely that the existing land uses (i.e.
one single-family residence) would change to allow higher density residential
development and this change could bring along associated traffic, air quality,
solid waste, storm drainage changes.
An increased demand for public facilities and services is inherent in urban
settings and if Study Area #2 were to be annexed into the City increased public
service would become necessary. However, at this early state, inclusion of a
study area into a sphere of influence would have no immediate impact on the
type and level of services now being provided by the County to residents in the
unincorporated area. Expansion of a sphere of influence will, however, provide
the City of Calistoga with suitable assurance and means to properly plan for the
most cost-efficient manner of adequate service provision.
Prior to including Study Area #2 into the Sphere of Influence, the Commission
may wish to obtain additional study of potential fiscal, policy, public service,
environmental, and agricultural impacts. For annexations, LAFCO has limited
authority and could only recommend the City initiate annexation proceedings.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-18
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
D. Transfer Study Area #3 into the Sphere of Influence
Transfer Study Area #3 (shown in Figure 7-1, above and in detail below) into
the Sphere of Influence and expand the City’s SOI to add 51.28 acres. Study
Area #3 would not necessarily be annexed into the City immediately. Rather,
including this area into the SOI indicates that the City may annex the area at
some future time, after the appropriate cost analysis, environmental, plan for
service, and other studies have been completed. Upon annexation, it is also
likely that the existing land uses (i.e. one single-family residence) would
change to allow higher density residential development and this change could
bring along associated traffic, air quality, solid waste, storm drainage changes.
An increased demand for public facilities and services is inherent in urban
settings and if Study Area #3 were to be annexed into the City increased public
service would become necessary. However, at this early state, inclusion of a
study area into a sphere of influence would have no immediate impact on the
type and level of services now being provided by the County to residents in the
unincorporated area. Prior to including Study Area #3 into the Sphere of
Influence, the Commission may wish to obtain additional study of potential
fiscal, policy, public service, environmental, and agricultural impacts.
Expansion of a sphere of influence will, however, provide the City of Calistoga
with suitable assurance and means to properly plan for the most cost-efficient
manner of adequate service provision. For annexations, LAFCO has limited
authority and could only recommend the City initiate annexation proceedings.
Analysis of Tradeoffs
At their July 18, 2016 meeting, the Commission requested that the consultant provide
additional analysis of tradeoffs regarding the decision to either include or exclude Study Areas
from the City’s SOI. The consultant’s analysis of tradeoffs presented in Table 7-4, below is
applicable to each of the three study areas.
Table 7-4: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Tradeoffs Associated with including Study Areas
in the SOI.
Inclusion Exclusion Insufficient
Tradeoff Factor Factor information Notes
The geographic proximity of
Study Areas #1, 2 and 3 are such
that they are adjacent to the
City boundary X
Parcels located within Study Yes. Parcels likely
Areas likely contain agricultural contain agricultural
uses and/or soils X uses. Consistent
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-19
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
with local policies,
this is a potential
exclusion factor.
Future development potential in
the Study Areas has been
evaluated X
Amount of existing vacant or Calistoga has
underdeveloped land located sufficient vacant
within an affected agency’s land to accommodate
jurisdiction X infill development.
The City provides
water service to
parcels within the
Study Areas.
However, capacity to
expand wastewater
infrastructure to
serve area has not
Service provision X been demonstrated.
Financial effects on other
agencies X
Financial effects on property
owners within the Study Area X
Area is expected to be developed
for urban uses or require urban-
type services within the next 10
years X
Consistency with County
General Plan and City General See tables 7.1, 7.2,
Plan X and 7.3 for details.
Not applicable.
Calistoga does not
have an adopted
Adopted Urban Growth urban growth
boundary boundary.
Would vacant or underdeveloped
Yes. Consistent with
land that requires the extension LAFCO policy, this is
of urban facilities, utilities, and a potential exclusion
services be added to the SOI? X factor.
City and County agree that Study Insufficient
Areas should be added to SOI. X Information.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-20
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Consultant Recommendation
The consultants recommend that the LAFCO staff and the Commission consider the following
when selecting any of the SOI options:
LAFCO’s adopted policies.
All of the information presented in this MSR/SOI Update.
.City staff response to LAFCO’s request for information in March 2016 indicated that at
that time, no change to Calistoga’s Sphere of Influence was contemplated.
Additionally, the City’s General Plan does not describe future expansion of the City’s
SOI.
If the Commission wishes to pursue Options B, C, or D, please ask staff to prepare a
list of studies that should be prepared prior to SOI expansion and prior to annexation.
Documentation of the process to SOI expansion and annexation is also recommended.
Additionally, the consultants recommend that the Commission carefully consider each of the
four options presented above. After the Commission provides direction to staff regarding the
preferred option, formal determinations will be provided for the Commission’s consideration
as described below.
7.2: DRAFT SOI DETERMINATIONS: OPTION #A
In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and
orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies to advantageously
provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities, LAFCO is
required to develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency
within the county. The CKH recommends that a SOI be updated every five years. As part of
this process and pursuant to CA Government Code Sections 56425-56434, the Commission is
required to make specific written determinations on five factors as follows:
1. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space
lands.
2. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area.
3. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency
provides or is authorized to provide.
4. Existence of social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission
determines that they are relevant to the agency.
5. Present and Probable need for Public Facilities and Services of Disadvantaged
Unincorporated Communities.
Chapters 1-6 of this MSR/SOI Update provide sufficient factual information to support the
Commission’s determinations for the five SOI factors listed above. Chapter 7 of this MSR/SOI
Update provides a detailed analysis of four options for updating the sphere of influence for
the City of Calistoga. Each of these four options plus other options may be considered by the
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-21
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Commission. The Commission may request additional information regarding the options, as
needed.
This section provides draft SOI determinations for Option #A and these determinations will be
modified to fit the specific option that the Commission chooses. The provision of draft
determinations for Option #A should not be construed as a recommendation from the
consulting team in favor of Option #A; rather these determinations serve as a starting point
for discussion with the Commission. These draft SOI determinations are provided to exemplify
the type of determinations the Commission could potentially make in the future. After the
Commission provides feedback to LAFCO’s Executive Officer regarding the SOI options, the
Executive Officer may develop formal SOI determinations based on the required five factors
to fit the Commission’s specific option. The final determinations will be part of a Resolution
that the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting.
The present and planned land uses in the sphere,
including agricultural and open-space lands.
1. The present and planned land uses in the sphere are adequately contemplated under
the Calistoga General Plan. The Calistoga General Plan provides for the current and
future urban uses characterizing the majority of the sphere.
2. Present land uses within the SOI include residential and commercial uses. A small
amount of land located in the sphere is under agricultural use. These existing
agricultural uses will not be affected by their retention in the sphere.
3. The territory within Calistoga provides several opportunities for infill development
and SOI expansion is not necessary.
The present and probable need for public facilities and
services in the study area.
4. The City of Calistoga 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 Calistoga General Plan.
5. Undeveloped and unincorporated parcels located adjacent to the City do not need
traditional urban services, as most of the area is currently agricultural.
The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of
public services that the agency provides or is authorized
to provide.
6. Calistoga has demonstrated its ability to provide an adequate level and range of
public services within its sphere of influence. The City has developed policies, service
plans, and programs to provide adequate and effective municipal services for the
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-22
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
area. These public services were comprehensively evaluated by LAFCO as part the
municipal service review update provided in Chapters 1-6 of this document.
The existence of any social or economic communities of
interest in the sphere if the commission determines that
they are relevant to the agency.
7. The City of Calistoga has established social and economic interdependencies within
the sphere that are distinct from neighboring unincorporated areas. This MSR/SOI
Update acknowledges these established community ties.
8. The social and economic health of the area is measurably enhanced by the municipal
services provided by the City of Calistoga.
Present and Probable need for Public Facilities and
Services of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.
9. No disadvantaged unincorporated communities meeting the definition under State law
have been identified anywhere in Napa County. Since Calistoga is an incorporated
city, there are no unincorporated communities within its boundaries and sphere of
influence. Disadvantaged community status is described in detail in chapter 3.3.
Chapter 7: Sphere of Influence Page 7-23
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Chapter 8: Comments received and
responses to comments
The Draft MSR Update for the City of Calistoga was posted to LAFCO’s website for public
review on June 30, 2016. The public comment period closed on August 1, 2016. The Draft
MSR Update was considered by the Commission during a public meeting on July 18, 2016.
During the public meeting, the Commission offered several comments on the draft document.
Also, at that time, the public was encouraged to provide comments for staff to review and
possibly incorporate into the final document. Four comment letters were received during the
public comment period as listed below.
1. Leanne Link (e-mail dated July 22)
2. Paul and Yuan D’Antilio (letter dated July 29)
3. Stephanie Sheridan (letter dated August 1)
4. Calistoga Planning Dept. (.pdf dated August 2) – misc. edits
5. Calistoga Public Works Dept. (.pdf dated August 17) – misc. edits
6. Comments from LAFCO during public meeting July 18, 2016
The comments and the consultant’s responses to those comments are provided on the
following pages of this chapter.
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Comment #1: Leanne Link (e-mail dated July 22)
From: Link, Leanne
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:26 AM
To: Freeman, Brendon
Subject: Comment on Calistoga MSR/SOI Draft Report
Brendon,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Calistoga.
I recommend that the consultants from Swale interview Napa County Sheriff John Robertson
and Napa County Fire Chief Barry Biermann for their perspective on police and fire services in
the City of Calistoga. While the report touches on the contract and mutual aid services provided
by Calistoga, the report does not address or include the mutual aid support provided to the City
of Calistoga by the County of Napa. We believe this information, including a financial analysis of
the value of these services, should be included in the final report.
Please contact me with questions.
Sincerely,
Leanne Link
Assistant County Executive Officer
Napa County Executive Office
1195 3rd Street, Suite 310
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 253-4406
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Response to Comment #1
The consultants have prepared a response to comment #1 from Leanne Link (e-mail dated
July 22):
Thank you for providing comments on the Draft MSR Update on the City of Calistoga. The
consultants spoke via telephone with Fire Chief Barry Biermann on September 15, 2016. Chief
Biermann explained the contract for services that Napa County Fire Department has with the
City of Calistoga. Based on that information, the consultants provided additional detail
regarding mutual aid arrangements in section 4.1.5 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical
Services of the MSR.
The consultants also spoke with representatives of the County Sheriff’s Department, Captain
Keith Behlmer on September 15, 2016 and the consultants reviewed the Sheriff’s Year End
Report for 2011 available on-line at: <http://www.countyofnapa.org/Pages/
DepartmentDocuments.aspx?id=4294967467>. Based on information received from Captain
Behlmer and the Year End Report, a new paragraph entitled “Mutual Aid –Police Protection”
has been added to Section 4.1.4: Law Enforcement Services. Mutual aid agreements with
Napa County Sheriff and Napa County Fire Department have also been added to the list of
non-city services in Table 2.1 of the MSR.
It is recognized that Napa County provides social and financial value to Calistoga (and vice-
versa) in relation to the provision of police and fire protection services. However, a detailed
financial analysis is beyond the scope of this report. The Commission has the authority to
request this type of study prior to any action on changes to a sphere of influence or
annexation.
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-3
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Comment #2: Paul and Yuan D’Antilio (letter dated July 29)
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-4
29,2016
lulY
1419 Greenwood Ave
Calistoga CA 94515
650.644'8520
Brendon Freeman
iocal Agency Formation Commission of Napa County
1030 SeminarY Street, Suite B
Napa, California 94559
RE: comments for "Municipal Service Review and Sphere of lnfluence update for the city
of Calistoga"
Dear Mr. Freeman,
we are long time homeowners of the w p ;t r e o ; p erty atL t 4 h L ro g u G gh re L e A n F w C o O od i n A S ve e p in te c m a b li e s r t o o g f a 2 ' 0 w 1 e 5' We
p a d r r e e e t v e s i r o t m i u il i s n w l a y o ti r r o k e n i q n u g a e n s o d t n e h d t e h r C e p a p u li r s s o t c o s e g e s a c s u C r t e o i r y L g A e F i C th o e 's a " a p * i p s it r is o " t p a r n ia ce te to m u en n a ic b i i p e a r a i c ti c e e s s s t o to m c a a k li e s t a o g h a e a c lt i h ty im w p a a te c r t '
W In e flu w e o n u ce ld U li p k d e a t t o e m fo a . k t e t a C sp it e y c o if f i c C r r e f q ii u io es g t r ' t ; o ' W the e " a M ls u o n n ic a i d p a a l q S u e e r s v t i i c o e n R re e l v a ie tiv w e a t n o d t h S e p h c e u r r e r e o n f t
"
draft document.
o
,,s
u
p
r
h
s
e
p
re
e
s
c i
o
fi
f
c
in
re
R
q
u
u
en
e
c
s
e
ti
"
s
f
t
o
h
r
a
t
t
h
w
e
e
d
w
ra
o
f
u
t
l
d
d
o
li
c
k
u
e
m
o
e
u
n
r
t
p
'
r
F
o
o
p
il
e
o
r
w
ty
in
to
g
b
a
e
re
in
t
c
h
l
e
u d
re
e
a
d
so
in
n
o
s
n
w
e
e
o
w
fth
is
e
h
p troo bpeosed
included:
1)Publichealthandwateraccess.AswedetailedinourrequestfromSeptemberof
2015ourwelldrinkingwaterhasboronconcentrationlevels20timesoverwhatis
,,safe,, for drinking *r".. In addition our drinking water has boron
c c o o n n s c i e d n e t r r e a d t ions 2 times the le?el ih. St'tt of California recommends for
d d ac i e f c f c e e o r s e m s n . m t A s g is o y s v o i e o u r n n c i m a n n g e a i n m d t a r a i g g n e i k n n i " n c i g f e ; w s ; e i ; n ll f . a a W m dd e il i y a ti o r w e n i c t t h u o r t r L w e A n o F t C s ly O m in a t t o l h l e s c e h m c il u i d d r r e d e l n s e a o t f h e fn a ' t a h e v a a r ig e lt a h a t y t i n g wg re ath a ter t e l r y e
increasedlong-termhealthriskduetottrewaterqualitythisis?l','g"burden'Being
i p p n o o c l l l i i u t t i i d c c e a s d . l s T in i h t u e th a s e ti e o S r n v p i . c h A e e s r c e c a e o r s e f s I . n a " f o r l u d . e t i u n l; r c ; ,, " e , ; i s f l o a a r f b e t h l d e e r i n c a i k n ty i d n o g iu f w n ia a l t r i e i s g r t h b t t g f a d ,o o w ' w ta o n n u t l h d t e - b h e m e l i i p m d d p re l a e m c t o e e f d d o y u b t y r h e s lo tr c e a e l t'
Only local politics ,.. pr.u.nii-rrg us from having safe]healthy water for our children
,) 3 La l n t e ii : a n s d a r m e a tv n y a n p d ro n p r e e r ti p e r s o t * e " c * t io i n n . ie * o -" p a 1 rd " y , . : : F ': 6 Y rt i u * n : a :i te J l ? y ; t h" j t f l i : ." i T w : a : s : c 1 o T nta : i * ne ; d ll T be t fo :: re
itspreadtotheresidences
d
in
i
o
re
ur
c
n
t
e
t;
ig
i
h
f;
b
;
o
.;
r
s
h
o
o
n
o
a
d
l
.
l
'
y
H
k
o
e
w
e
e
p
v e
o
r,
v
t
e
h
r
i s
1
w
2
a
,0
s
0
a
0
l ugcakllyonbsre oafk
based on wind speed and UnvyWinery also have individual
standingwater o H n o o * u . r u p .r r , o i p h e . r r t . y , in "a d iv " i " d " u 't a ig l thfbfoor'st" " ntt adequate given the risk
f p ir r e o f p ile ro t , e n c a a p io o n ^ p . h r y r d J r t a i n t, t s a ."rr.y,"il; n c " i i t e ! t p u r o o . v t i d o e o d d . f i T re h e e r q e u m ip u m s e t n b t e to a d e e n q s u u a r t e e p c r a o li p s e to r ga
c fi i r t e y s p a r f o e v ry id i e n d t tri irir... an A d n w e c r c a i d t li i s o n t t ! o a g i p ly a i o r p h e i r v t e y h in e s a u rd *n o c f e a f m or a i o o u r r c n a e s i u g a h lt b y o i r n h s o u o ra d n d c u e e to the
company that is no longer
'#fl::'.:ili:H[:::x11iil]3:li:1:- rhe currentry proposed boundaries armost
,)
gerrymande_red.*:;;ifiy exclude out piop"tty and several
appear to be properties. Study Aiea 1 suriounds us on tire east and north and Study
n (s A e o i r g e u h t a h b . e i o s r r n i o n u g ,i r a w " e o i i t e c r .. n e n b w or o d o e r d . r. . A , S v # e ; r ) ; r ; a d ; n e e d d th s 9 f u r o t r w r m o o u t n t p r d e ro e p p d r o o s o p e n o d s a e l a l d d s i d s d i e t t i s u o r b d s y y t t ' o h : : e t " h c e h i t a y s v e o e rv f t i C c h e a e l i s s a to m g e a
areas. The thirteen parcel
orgreaterpopulationdensity
*
",
;
.r
il
,"
;
a
;t
d
i
j
d
a
e
ce
n
n
l
t
i
c
{
it ya
pr
n
o
d
p
'
e
t,
r
a
ti
y
e
a
s
r
w
ea
ith
s .T
ve
h
r
e
y
yliamlsitoehdave
s a i g m ri i c la u r l tu p r r a o f f il u e r i . n , t a h n a d t v th a e lu y e a . r e f t sJ"# imf ossiUte it" w i h - il y e * n y e ig p h to bo p r t s tt y o n a a n l d l f s o e u v r e s ra id l es
can get city services and , r it ,r . u o . * t i o i; .r ; t l . t e '; p ; r . e " s u e n nt d a e tio d n by the City of Calistoga and the
propertie,
n pr e o ig p h o b se o d ri n s g tu dy areas. we are ;;;il;;;ore a "part of calistoga" than some of the
-other
studY areas'
ProPosed
o th u e r r e q u a e re s ti a o n n u is m r b e " la . t o i i i v r e .o t r o ., t p , y i a " p g ta e e n a 2 d r - s 5 a t o n h f n a t e i h x o e a n t c e io a o n lis t s t t o u n g y l a t t t tr M e o S f C R tt i - t r S y " s O o e I f D a C b r a a a li f n s t t d o R o g n e a e p t d o h r a t t r ' t a I w n t s e a a r p e c p t e i n o a e n r v s s e t c r h o a u t ld
p i L t m h r A o e p F p a p c e c o o r t t l y e h o n a u r t s e r i a c r p l e o r s t r o h d o p a e r e v t d t . h r . " t e j y s a . e r " T , r . h r b r " " e o u i r s l n z p d u o a e r r s t i . e s w , ta t , t * e it s n U i i f r r " a e i r s s n s t e u a e i b t h l b is e e h r e a t d d h d e a r e n C s d A s r e S e d c t a o a t r e s d p B e a d o r a t a r s d o f p o t a h f r e E t q s o u t f u t a h d li e z y a ? p t i r o I o s n c t e h n s e s o r ? e r
T th h is a n r k e q y u o e u s f t o . r A y l o s u o r p a le s a s s is e t a le nc t e u s a f n . d n o pr * e a * s f e tJ le if t u a s n k y n a o d w d it if io t n h a is l i s s t e th p e s c a o re r r r e e c q t u fo ir r e m d' at for making
Paul and Yuan D'Antilio
1419 Greenwood Ave
650.644.8520
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Response to Comment #2
The consultants have prepared a response to comment #2 from Paul and Yuan D’Antilio (letter
dated July 29):
Comment #2-1: Request property be included in a proposed sphere of influence.
Response to comment #2-1: Thank you for providing comments on the Draft MSR Update on
the City of Calistoga. The referenced parcel is not within Calistoga’s existing sphere of
influence (SOI). The Draft MSR does not present any proposed changes to the existing SOI;
rather it presents study areas only for analytical purposes. Neither LAFCO nor Calistoga has
proposed any amendment to the SOI for Calistoga. The study areas were chosen based on a
number of specific factors, most notable (1) existing outside-City water service connections
and (2) geographic proximity to the existing City boundary and others as described in Chapter
7. 1419 Greenwood Avenue did not fit the criteria used to draw the study areas. All parcels
included in a study area currently receive water from the City. The parcel at 1419
Greenwood Avenue does not currently receive water from the City. Therefore, it does not
meet the criteria to be included in a study area at this time.
Comment #2-2: Public health and water access.
Response to comment #2-2: We are very sorry to learn of the high level of boron in the
groundwater accessed by a privately owned well. Page 2-7 of the MSR describes Assembly Bill
(AB) 4022 which created a five-year pilot program for Napa and San Bernardino Counties that
establishes a mechanism for the Commission to authorize service provision outside a local
agency’s jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence under special circumstances. This
pilot program may offer you a potential avenue to ask the City of Calistoga for service.
Please note however that Chapter 4 (pages 4-7 through 4-15) of the MSR describes Calistoga’s
water supply and water demand. These pages reference data and studies indicating that
water supply in Calistoga is a limited resource and LAFCO has recommended that the City
further study options for future water supplies. We suggest you work directly with the City of
Calistoga as there are complex resource limitations and policy implications that would need
additional study to respond to your situation.
Generally, private well owners are responsible for testing and, if necessary, treating their
water to ensure it is safe to drink. Water treatment methods that can remove boron from
drinking water may include reverse osmosis, distillation, anion exchange units and adsorption
with magnesium and we encourage you to investigate these methods. The Napa County
Environmental Health Department, Napa County Groundwater Advisory Committee, and
the California State Water Resources Control Board Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and
Assessment (GAMA) Program also have information about private well use and you may wish to
contact these agencies for details. Other water supply options that may merit additional
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-7
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
research by private property owners in the area include formation of a mutual water
company, water trucking services22, and/or delivery of bottled water.
Comment #2-3, Public safety and fire protection.
Response to comment #2-3: Thank you for providing information on the recent large fire that
started on Tubbs Lane. This comment is noted. Section 4.1.5 of the MSR describes Fire
Protection and Emergency Medical Services in the City of Calistoga. Since your parcel is
currently located outside of the City, fire protection service is provided by Napa County Fire
Department and CALFIRE and is coordinated with the City of Calistoga through various mutual
aid agreements and contractual arrangements. Section 4.1.5 of the MSR correctly notes that
the area near Calistoga, including the Howell Mountain and Mayacamas Mountain ridges
surrounding the Valley, have historically burned. The standards that Napa County Fire
Department uses for hydrant placement incorporates nationally-accepted standards and
subsequent revisions developed by the National Fire Protection Association, American Water
Works Association, and other professional organizations. The Napa County Fire Department is
the best local agency to address your concerns.
Comment #2-4, Other City services and representation
Response to Comment #2-4: The study areas were chosen based on a number of specific
factors, most notable (1) existing outside-City water service connections and (2) geographic
proximity to the existing City boundary and other criteria listed in Chapter 7. The parcel
located at 1419 Greenwood Ave. does not meet these criteria for inclusion within a study
area, at this time. Social or cultural connection to the City of Calistoga was not utilized as a
criterion for inclusion in a study area. Please refer to Chapter 7 of the MSR/SOI Update for
additional information. Please note that the purpose of a study area is only to draw a
bounded area for analytical purposes in this specific MSR/SOI Update. A parcel located within
a study area does not receive any special benefit; it only received additional scrutiny and
analysis within the MSR/SOI document. Neither LAFCO nor Calistoga has proposed any
amendment to the SOI for Calistoga. The unincorporated areas of Napa County are sufficiently
represented by the Napa County Board of Supervisors and the various public service
departments within Napa County.
Comment #2-5, Annexations were never properly recorded.
Response to Comment #2-5: This comment references Table 2-3: Approved Jurisdictional
Changes involving the City of Calistoga. The annexations were proposed and abandoned over
44+ years ago as described in detail in Section 2.3 of the 2016 MSR/SOI Update and as
described in the 2008 MSR for Calistoga. Since nothing was ever recorded, those proposals
remain dead. All available information on this subject has been provided in Chapter 2 of the
MSR/SOI Update.
22 Please note that trucked water leaving the City limits could potentially be a violation of GC Section
56133. Each city may develop their own policy regarding trucked water that limits the amount of this
type of water use. A staff report to a proposed (example) policy on trucked water is provided at:
http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov/uploads/documents/12-1-14_7g_TruckedWater.pdf
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-8
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Comment #3: Stephanie Sheridan (letter dated August 1)
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-9
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
333 BUSH STREET, 30TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-2834
www.sedgwicklaw.com 415.781.7900 phone 415.781.2635 fax
Stephanie A. Sheridan
415.627.1410
stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com
August 1, 2016, 2016
Brendon Freeman
Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County
1030 Seminary Street, Suite B
Napa, California 94559
Re: Request for 1403 Greenwood Avenue Calistoga to be Included Within
the Sphere of Influence to get Calistoga City Water
Dear Mr. Freeman:
We are longtime property homeowners of 1403 Greenwood Avenue in Calistoga. As you know,
we have been very concerned about the quality of the water on our property for some time. We
are therefore very pleased to be made aware of the current study underway by LAFCO to
evaluate water needs and potential restructuring of spheres in our area, and submit this request
as part of the public commentary process.
Our property, for reasons increasingly unclear to us, does not have access to City of Calistoga
water (even though we are surrounded by properties that do have City water). After having paid
out of pocket last year to have our well-water tested by an outside agency, and learning it had
unacceptable levels of boron (indeed, at levels that the EPA recommends decommissioning the
well), we previously requested Calistoga City water service through LAFCO in 2015. At that same
time, we also provided our water test results. (Please let me know if you need additional copies
of those previously submitted materials.) Since that time, we have continued to work on the
process of obtaining assistance from the appropriate municipalities to make a health impact
determination in order to secure LAFCO’s recommendation to enable us access to Calistoga City
water. Indeed, over the past 18 months, we have been in the middle of navigating three different
government agencies (including the State, the County, and the City) in addition to LAFCO, to
secure safe, healthy water access. As you can imagine, for a responsible tax-paying family with
three small children that are at greatly increased long-term health risks from this obvious
adverse water quality threat, this is a heavy burden and an ongoing serious concern.
The purpose of this letter is to make a request to the “Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Update for the City of Calistoga” that our property at 1403 Greenwood Avenue be
included within the proposed “spheres of influence” in order to have access to the City of
Calistoga water to which we believe we are entitled. We are hopeful that our request may be
83596216v1
Letter to Brendon Freeman
August 1, 2016, 2016
Page 2
resolved through this process, in order to secure something as basic as non-toxic water for our
family.
Below, we detail the reasons why our property mostly should be included to have access to City
water:
1) There are confirmed unacceptable levels of boron in our well water (according to
both the EPA and the State of California), which pose continued and significant
public health risks. As we previously detailed in our request for access to City water in
2015, our well- drinking water has boron concentration levels twenty times over what is
considered “safe” for drinking water. In addition, our drinking water has boron
concentrations over the levels the State of California recommends for decommissioning
a drinking well. Being included in the Sphere of Influence for the City of Calistoga, and
thereafter as part of the City so that we can be guaranteed City water, would completely
remedy this situation, not to mention greatly mitigate the ongoing and continuous health
risks.
2) Public safety and fire protection. As you are no doubt aware, on June 28, 2016 there
was a significant fire on Tubbs Lane, which posed a serious risk to the many residences in
our neighborhood. I was actually one of the first people to call 911, having been able to
see the flames from our yard. Unfortunately, all three of my small children were home as
well, and were completely panicked by the close proximity of such a frightening fire to
our house. We went so far as to begin evacuation procedures. Blessedly, given the lucky
break of the wind direction, the fire was contained before it spread to the residences in
our neighborhood. This "close call" experience confirmed for us that there must be
adequate Calistoga City-provided hydrants and Calistoga City-provided fire equipment to
ensure proper fire safety in the future.
3) Our property was intended to be included within City of Calistoga boundaries for
water purposes years ago, but due to an administrative oversight that access was
never properly recorded. Now is the time to "right that wrong." According to the
Calistoga MSR-SOI Draft Report, it appears that there are a number of county land
annexations that were never properly recorded, which directly involve our property.
Based on preliminary discussions with land use experts familiar with the process, this
appears to have simply been an "administrative oversight." Given that the report states
that neither the State Board of Equalization nor LAFCO has resolved these issues, we
trust that this issue can be addressed as part of the study so that these boundaries can be
established and properly recorded, as originally intended, as part of the process.
4) Our property appears to be randomly excluded for the proposed new water
boundaries, without any justification, given that we are surrounded on all sides by
others who have City water. We were very disheartened to see that the currently
83596216v1
Letter to Brendon Freeman
August 1, 2016, 2016
Page 3
proposed boundaries appear to specifically exclude our property and a few other
neighboring properties, for no apparent reason. According to what is shown in Study
Areas 1 and 2, we are surrounded on all sides by the City of Calistoga (southern side of
Greenwood Ave) and the two proposed additions to the service areas. The 7-8 parcel area
excluded from the proposed study areas have the same or greater population density as
the adjacent city and study areas, which all have similar profiles in that they are mostly
residential with limited agricultural uses and value. It seems impossible that my
neighbors on all four sides can get City water and services and have local representation,
while my property sits completely surrounded by the City of Calistoga and the proposed
study areas without the same benefits.
5) For an entire year, our property was significantly impacted by the "temporary
road" installed to address the Greenwood Avenue culvert- bridge project. As a
result of the Greenwood Avenue culvert project, a "temporary" road was installed to allow
City residents ingress and egress from their properties to City roads. This "temporary"
road ran the entire length of our property, directly in front of our house, and was in place
for an entire year. Our previously quiet, bucolic property thus had cars driving directly in
front of our house for an entire year at all hours, resulting in great upset to our use and
enjoyment of our property. We were good citizens (although, understandably,
concerned) throughout this entire process. During this same time, we consistently made
efforts to work with County, City and even State representatives to tie us into City water,
given that the construction presented a unique opportunity to do so.
In closing, we want LAFCO to know that our family loves Calistoga, and plans to make this
property our family legacy home for generations to come. We are already very active in civic,
pro bono, and nonprofit groups throughout the valley, and intend to continue our involvement
and investment in local resources. Unfortunately, our experience thus far both with the
"temporary" road and our reasonable request for access to safe and healthy water for our family
with three young children has been very disappointing.
Nevertheless, we remain confident that this process is the avenue we've been waiting for to
finally insure that we have the safe, healthy, and non-toxic water that should be entitled to as
residents of Calistoga.
Thank you for your assistance, and please let us know if there is any additional information you
require from us.
83596216v1
Letter to Brendon Freeman
August 1, 2016, 2016
Page 4
Regards,
Stephanie Sheridan
Stephanie A. Sheridan
Sedgwick LLP
83596216v1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Response to Comment #3,
The consultants have prepared a response to comment #3 from Stephanie Sheridan (letter
dated August 1).
Comment #3-1: request to be part of the public commentary process.
Response to comment #3-1: Thank you for providing comments on the Draft MSR Update on
the City of Calistoga. Your comment letter is included in the public record.
Comment #3-2: Property does not have access to City of Calistoga water
Response to comment #3-2: The referenced property located at 1403 Greenwood Avenue is
located outside the City of Calistoga’s existing boundary and sphere of influence. Private well
owners are responsible for testing and, if necessary, treating their water to ensure it is safe
to drink. Your patience in working with numerous government agencies to locate a new
water supply for your private property is noted. Please see response to comment #2-2
regarding boron, water quality, and water supply issues.
Comment #3-3: Request to be included within the proposed “spheres of influence”.
Response to comment #3-3: Please refer to Response to comment #2-1. Also please note that
1403 Greenwood Avenue did not fit the criteria used to draw the study areas. All parcels
included in a study area currently receive water from the City. The parcel at 1403
Greenwood Avenue does not currently receive water from the City. Therefore, it does not
meet the criteria to be included in a study area at this time.
Comment #3-4: Boron in well water
Response to comment #3-4: We are very sorry to learn of the high level of boron in the
groundwater accessed by a privately owned well. Please refer to response to comment #2-2.
Comment #3-5: Public safety and fire protection.
Response to comment #3-5: Please see response to comment #2-3.
Comment #3-6: property was intended to be included within City of Calistoga boundaries
Response to comment #3-6: Please see response to comment #2-5. There is no evidence to
suggest that “an administrative oversight” is the reason why the proposed boundary changes
were not recorded. It would be more accurate to state that the reasons why the proposed
boundary changes were not recorded are unknown at this time.
Comment #3-7: Property excluded for the proposed new water boundaries
Response to comment #3-7: The MSR/SOI Update does not describe or propose any “new
proposed water boundaries”. Any reference to “new proposed water boundaries” is a
misstatement. Figure 4-3 is a preliminary map of those properties that currently receive “Out
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-14
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
of Boundary Water Service”. Based on the data presented in Figure 4-3 and the criteria
described in Chapter 7 of the MSR/SOI Update, study areas were drawn for analytical
purposes only. Population density and/or agricultural use were not criteria for drawing study
areas. Please refer to Response to Comment #2-4 for additional details.
Comment #3-8: impacted by the "temporary road"
Response to comment #3-8: Thank you for your patience and cooperation while the public
works department installed a culvert along Greenwood Avenue. While these types of public
improvement projects are necessary, they do sometime inconvenience adjacent property
owners. However, addressing the boron in the local groundwater supply and/or securing a
new water supply for property owners in the Greenwood Avenue neighborhood is a separate
and distinct dilemma, apart from the past road and culvert work on Greenwood Avenue.
Comment #3-9: family legacy
Response to comment #3-9: Your vision for your family, property, and community is
commendable. We sympathize with the disappointment you have experienced relating to the
temporary road and to poor water quality in the private well. Sadly, many property owners in
California have also experienced water quality problems with their private wells. Please see
response to comment #2-2 for ideas and options you may wish to explore to secure a new
water supply.
Comment #3-10: water that should be entitled to residents of Calistoga.
Response to comment #3-10: The referenced parcel is not currently located in the City of
Calistoga. Use of the term “entitled” is problematic due to the complex suite of laws that
govern water rights in California and water service in Napa County. The City of Calistoga has
limited water resources. Please see response to comment #2-2 for ideas and options you may
wish to explore to secure a new water supply.
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-15
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Comment #4: City of Calistoga Planning Department (.pdf file dated August 2) – misc. edits
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-16
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Response to Comment #4
The consultants have prepared a response to comment #4 from City of Calistoga Planning
Department (.pdf file dated August 2) – misc. edits
Response: Thank you for providing comments on the Draft MSR/SOI Update. All of the edits
the City suggested have been incorporated into the Final Document, with the following two
exceptions:
Exception #1 - Request to use 2016 data in Table 4-4 Calistoga’s Estimated Water Availability,
December 2014. Response: The year 2016 is not yet complete, so it is not possible to have
complete data on water demand/supply for this current year. The 2014 data provided in
Table 4-4 is based upon information the City provided in 2016 as noted in the “Source” at the
bottom of the Table.
Exception #2 - Request to add RCAC Figure to the determinations. Response: it is not our
practice to show figures in the list of determinations. The determinations are lists of
conclusions and recommendations. Data, including figures, is provided in the body of the
report.
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-31
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Comment #5: City of Calistoga Public Works Department (.pdf file dated August 17) – misc.
edits
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-32
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Response to Comment #5
The consultants have prepared a response to comment #5 from City of Calistoga Public Works
Department (.pdf file dated August 17) – misc. edits
Response: Thank you for providing comments on the Draft MSR/SOI Update. All of the edits
the City Public Works Department has suggested have been incorporated into the Final
Document.
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-41
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Comment #6: Comments from LAFCO during public meeting July 18, 2016
The consultants have paraphrased comments the Commission provided during the public
meeting July 18, 2016 and have prepared a response to these comments as shown below.
Water
♦ Commission Comment #1: What is the difference between single dry year and multiple
dry years in the Table 4-6? (Consultant Response: Consultants reviewed the report
prepared by West Yost Associates referenced in Table 4-6. West Yost Technical
Memorandum # 4 indicates the definition of a single dry year and multiple dry years is
based on established definitions by the California Dept. of Water Resources such that
the single dry-year delivery would be 20 percent of the water entitlement. Deliveries
during a multiple dry year [4 or 6-year droughts] would be 40 percent of entitlement.
This information has been added as a footnote to Table 4-6.)
♦ Commission Comment #2: Table 4-5, City of Calistoga Water Demand and Supply
Projections, indicates water supply will increase by 631 AF by year 2032. Where is this
extra water to come from? (Consultant Response: The 631 AF is derived from
improvements to water storage. The City has built (or is constructing) new water
storage tanks. This includes a new 1.5 million gallon water storage tank on Mt.
Washington and the proposed replacement of the Feige Tank with a new larger water
storage tank. Other water related infrastructure improvements are listed in the City’s
capital improvement plan.)
♦ Commission Comment #3: How much water must be allowed to bypass Kimball Dam?
(Consultant Response: The City’s Note #4 in Table 4.4 states that Kimball Reservoir
supply is 336 afy. With adoption of the Kimball Interim Bypass Plan (2011), Kimball
Reservoir’s supply yield is reduced by 41 afy, to 295 afy. This is the most recent
information available. A sentence has been added to the water supply/demand
section of the MSR/SOI to note that Kimball Reservoir is subject to bypass
requirements.)
♦ Commission Comment #4: Figure 4-3 shows out of boundary water customers. Can
they utilize recycled water instead of municipal water? (Consultant Response: The
properties shown in green on Figure 4-3 utilize water from the City of Calistoga for
domestic purposes. Water from the recycled water program is not appropriate for
domestic use due to water quality issues.)
Police
♦ Commission Comment #5: The MSR’s public safety analysis should consistently
describe the contracts with County police and fire. The consultants should contact the
Napa County Sheriff and County Fire Department to obtain more information about
mutual aid agreements. (Consultant Response: Comment noted. Please see response
to comment #1 for more information.)
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-42
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
SOI Analysis Chapter 7
♦ Commission Comment #6: Please clarify zoning as it relates to agricultural parcels in
Chapter 7. Commissioners expect the city to change the zoning and increase density if
parcels are annexed. (Consultant Response: Comment noted. Additional text has
been added to Chapter 7 to reflect these concerns.)
♦ Commission Comment #7: Napa County is the first county in the country to have a
voter initiative to protect agriculture. Please add a high level policy discussion of
agricultural protection measures in Napa County. (Consultant Response: Additional
information on agricultural protection in general and Measures J/P specifically have
been added to Chapter 7).
♦ Commission Comment #8: The financial effects of expanding the SOI should be
considered. For example, if a parcel is annexed to the City, the rate they pay for
water would change. (Consultant Response: Chapter 7 now includes a
recommendation that a fiscal analysis be done to analyze the potential difference in
taxes a property owner could pay if a parcel is annexed.)
♦ Commission Comment #9: Table 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 should accurately reflect the type of
police and fire service. (Consultant Response: Table 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 have been
amended to reflect police and fire mutual aid agreements and associated fees per
service.)
♦ Commission Comment #10: Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 list effects on other agencies.
Measures J and P are not an effect on a different agency; rather they should be
described as a policy consideration. (Consultant Response: Chapter 7 has been
updated to add a more thorough description of agricultural preservation including
Measures J and P. A new line item entitled “policy considerations” has been added to
Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3.)
♦ Commission Comment #11: Expansion of the City’s SOI could impact water and sewer
service and create demands for new infrastructure to service existing levels of
development and potential new development. This would need to be studied in more
detail (Consultant Response: It is agreed that expanding an SOI could lead to potential
new development potential upon future annexation. The ability of the City to provide
water and sewer service should be studied in more detail prior to expanding an SOI
and this recommendation is included in Chapter 7.)
Chapter 8: Comments and Response to Comments Page 8-43
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Regional Housing Need Plan San Francisco Bay
Area 2014-2022. 30-pages. Oakland, California. Available on-line at:
<http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/ABAG_Final_RHNA_Publicatio
n.pdf>. Accessed 24March2016.
CA Department of Justice (DOJ). Office of Attorney General. 2014. Crimes in California,
2014. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General. Sacramento, CA. 76-pages. Available on-
line: <https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/
candd/cd14/cd14.pdf?>
CA Department of Finance (DOF), Demographic Research Unit. Table E-1, Cities, Counties,
and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent change – January 1, 2014 and
2015. May 2015. Sacramento, California. Available on-line at: <http://www.dof.
ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php>. Accessed March 23,
2016.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region. March
2016. Tentative Order No. R2-2016-0019, Rescission of Cease and Desist Order No. R2-
2010-0107 and Amendment of Cease and Desist Order No. R2-2014-0043 for the City of
Calistoga Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant Calistoga, Napa County. 5- pages.
Oakland, CA. Available on-line at:
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_info/
agendas/2016/March/Calistoga/Revised_CDO_Final.pdf>
California State Controller’s Office. 2014. Government Compensation in California Website.
Data from annual compensation reports, under Government Codes section 53891 and
53892. Available on-line at: <http://www.publicpay.ca.gov/>. Downloaded
14March2016.
Calistoga, City of. July 22, 2010. City of Calistoga Response to Grand Jury Final Report on
Water: Our Precious, Critical Resource. 4-pages. Available on-line at:
http://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/images/grandjury/grandjury09-
10/City%20of%20Calistoga%202010.pdf.
Calistoga, City of. March 16, 2011. City of Calistoga Follow-up Response to Grand Jury Final
Report on Water: Our Precious, Critical Resource. 6-pages. Available on-line at:
http://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/images/grandjury/grandjury09-
10/CALI%20COUN%20PW%20Add%20Resp.pdf.
Calistoga, City of. December 31, 2015. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 2015. Prepared by Administrative Services Department. 133-
pages. Calistoga, Ca.
Chapter 9: References Page 9-1
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Calistoga, City of. February 10, 2012. Enchanted Resorts Project Draft Environmental Impact
Report. Napa County, California. State Clearinghouse No. 2010082028. Prepared by
Michael Brandman Associates. Available on-line at: <http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/>.
Accessed 24March2016.
Calistoga, City of. 2014. Housing Element, Chapter 6 of City of Calistoga General Plan. 79-
pages. Calistoga, California. Available on-line at:
<http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/planning-building-
department/plans-programs-and-land-use-regulations/calistoga-general-
plan/calistoga-general-plan>. Accessed 24March2016.
Calistoga, City of. 2015. 2015 Land Use Element of the City of Calistoga General Plan. 40-
pages. Calistoga, California. Available on-line at: <http://www.ci.calistoga.
ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/planning-building-department/plans-programs-
and-land-use-regulations/calistoga-general-plan/calistoga-general-plan>.
Calistoga, City of. March 17, 2016. Staff Response to Information Request from the Local
Agency Formation Commission of Napa County in preparation for the 2016 Municipal
Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates. 35-pages. Available at LAFCO’s
office upon request.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Uniform Crime Reports. 2014 Crime in the United
States. Table 8 – California: Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by City, 2014.
Available on-line at:<https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-
u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-8/table-8-by-state/Table_8
_Offenses_Known_to_Law_Enforcement_by_California_by_City_2014.xls>. Accessed
16March2016.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Vital Signs Website at:
<http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/greenhouse-gas-emissions>. Accessed on
21March2016.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG). July 18, 2013. Plan Bay Area: Strategy for A Sustainable Region. 154-pages.
Oakland, CA. Available on-line at:
<http://files.mtc.ca.gov/pdf/Plan_Bay_Area_FINAL/Plan_Bay_Area.pdf>.
Napa County Grand Jury. May 31, 2010. Final Report on Water Our Precious, Critical
Resource, 2009-2010. Napa, California. 39-pages. Available on-line:
<http://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/images/grandjury/grandjury09-
10/Water%20Release.pdf>.
Napa County. 2013a. Napa County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013 - 2018.
County Executive Office, Emergency Services Division. 361-pages. Napa, California.
Available on-line at: <http://www.countyofnapa.org/emergencies/>.
Chapter 9: References Page 9-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Napa County. June 4, 2013b. General Plan. Prepared by the Napa County Department of
Conservation, Development & Planning. 352-pages. Napa, California. Available on-
line at: http://www.countyofnapa.org/generalplan/. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD), American Canyon,
Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, Town of Yountville, Napa County, and the Napa Sanitation
District. October 2005. 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study, Series of Technical
Memos. Prepared by West Yost Consultants. Available on-line at:
<http://www.napawatersheds.org/app_pages/view/4282>. Accessed on
21March2016.
Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency. December 2009. Napa Countywide
Community Climate Action Framework. Community Review Draft. Contributions from
Climate Campaign and MIG consultants. Napa, CA.
http://www.napawatersheds.org/img/managed/Document/4269/Draft_napa_climate
.pdf
Napa County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013 - 2018. County Executive Office,
Emergency Services Division. 2013. 361-pages. Napa, California. Available on-line
at: <http://www.countyofnapa.org/emergencies/>.
Napa LAFCO. June 2012. Municipal Service Review: Countywide Law Enforcement Services.
120 pages. Available on-line at: < http://www.napa.LAFCO.ca.
gov/s_municipal_reviews.aspx>. Downloaded 15March2016.
Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC). November 23, 2015. Median Household
Income Survey Results for City of Calistoga. Transmitted via letter to Derek Rayner,
P.E. 12-pages. West Sacramento, California.
Smart Growth America (SMA). May 2013. Building Better Budgets- A National Examination of
the Fiscal Benefits of Smart Growth Development. Washington, D.C. 47-pages.
Available on-line at: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/building-
better-budgets.pdf. Accessed 28March2016.
Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). September 2014. Zone 6 Fire
Municipal Service Review Draft Report. Prepared By: Citygate Associates, LLC. 70-
pages. Available on-line at: <http://www.sonomalafco.org/documents/Zone6-
Municipal-Service-Review-Review-draft.pdf>. Accessed 28March2016.
U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Educational
Attainment. Generated by Kateri Harrison, using American FactFinder;
<http://factfinder2.census.gov>. Accessed March 23, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau; 2016. Quick Facts California. Generated by Kateri Harrison using <
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/INC110214/06,2412150,00>. Accessed
June 27, 2016.
Chapter 9: References Page 9-3
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Urban Land Institute (ULI). March 2016. Active Transportation and Real Estate: The Next
Frontier. 65-pages. Washington, D.C. Available on line at: <http://uli.org/wp-
content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Active-Transportation-and-Real-Estate-The-Next-
Frontier.pdf>. Accessed April 19, 2016.
Zuk, M., & Chapple, K. (2015). Urban Displacement Project. Berkeley, CA. Website
information and data from: <http://www.urbandisplacement.org/about>. Accessed
27March2016.
Chapter 9: References Page 9-4
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
CHAPTER 10: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Assistance and Support
Several people contributed information that was utilized in this Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Update. Napa LAFCO and SWALE Inc. wish to acknowledge the support
received from the following individuals and organizations.
LAFCO Staff Brendon Freeman, Executive Officer
Kathy Mabry - Commission Clerk
City of Calistoga Dylan Feik, City Manager
Lynn Goldberg, Planning and Building Director
Erik Lundquist, Senior Planner
Report Preparers
A team of consultants authored this MSR and SOI Update and provided an independent
analysis. The expertise and contributions provided by this consulting team are greatly
appreciated. The names and roles of the individual experts responsible for writing this MSR
are provided below.
SWALE Inc.
Kateri Harrison, Project Manager
Judy Stolen Geographic Information System Maps
Baracco & Associates Bruce Baracco, Project Advisor
Chapter 10: Acknowledgements Page 10-1
Appendices
A. List of City advisory bodies and the names of City representatives
B. Economic forecast within Napa County by Caltrans
C. List of Pending And Approved Development Projects
D. Population Study of Napa County
E. Grants for Disadvantaged Communities
F. Regulatory requirements - Municipal Water
G. Napa Vitners: 40 years of Agricultural Preservation
CITY OF CALISTOGA
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST – 2016
BOARD/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (FORMERLY THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 2yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Efrain Gonzalez 01/01/14 12/31/16
Brad Suhr 08/07/14 12/31/16
Dieter Deiss 01/01/15 12/31/17
David Kumamoto 01/01/15 12/31/17
Tiana Fillman 01/01/15 12/31/17
Qualifications: Committee members shall have residency within the Calistoga Joint Unified School District. Members shall have
an interest in improving bicycle and pedestrian travel within the City. (Resolution 2013-111)
Committee Meetings: The 1st Monday of each month at 1pm in the Administration Conference Room at City Hall
BUILDING STANDARDS ADVISORY & APPEALS BOARD
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 3yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Timothy Wilkes 01/01/14 12/31/16
Bev More 01/01/14 12/31/16
Kate Coates 01/01/15 12/31/18
Paul Coates 01/01/14 12/31/16
Bill Nance 01/01/14 12/31/16
Shelby Valentine 01/01/16 12/31/18
Jadd Elkeshen 01/01/14 12/31/16
Qualifications: The members shall be qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building
construction, accessibility and hazards of fire, explosions, hazardous conditions or fire protection systems and are not
employees of the jurisdiction. Individuals from each of the following professions or disciplines may be appointed to the Board:
Registered Design Professional, Registered Fire Protection Professional, Registered Engineer (preferred: Industrial/Mechanical)
Professional, General Contractor, Certified Access Professional, General Industry or Business Representative. (Ordinance 661)
Term: Members shall be appointed for a staggered term of three years after the initial Board has been appointed and may not
serve for more than two consecutive full terms. When a member is appointed to fill an open position due to the voluntary
withdrawal or removal of a member, the appointed member’s term shall coincide with the term of the departing member.
(Resolution 2013-111) (Resolution 2014-014)
CALISTOGA CITY COUNCIL
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 2yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Chris Canning (Mayor) 01/01/15 12/31/16
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 4yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Michael Dunsford (Vice Mayor) 01/01/13 12/31/16
Gary Kraus 01/01/15 12/31/18
James Barnes 01/01/15 12/31/18
Irais Lopez-Ortega* 02/05/13 12/31/16
Notes: *Irais Lopez-Ortega was appointed to take Carl Sherill’s seat on the Council
Updated 12/31/15
CITY OF CALISTOGA
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST – 2016
BOARD/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS
CALISTOGA COMMUNITY POOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 2 yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Shirley Blomquist 09/03/15 09/02/17
Hazel Cole 09/03/15 09/02/17
Kerry Eddy (Appointed by CCPP) N/A
Alf Burtleson (Appointed by CCPP) N/A
Shannon Clegg (Staff Member) N/A
Notes: CPAC consists of 5 committee members. Per Resolution No. 2010-067, two members are appointed by the City Council
to serve a two-year term; two members are appointed by the Calistoga Community Pool Project (CCPP), and one City staff
member shall serve as the Committee Secretary. (Resolution 2011-087) (Resolution 2013-081)
CALISTOGA PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION
INCUMBENT APPOINTED TERM EXPIRATION
President City Manager N/A
Treasurer Administrative Services Director N/A
Secretary City Clerk N/A
Board Members Sitting City Council Members N/A
Purpose: To assist the City in certain types of public financing instruments for public facilities. It meets the 3rd Tuesday in July
annually as needed. (Resolution 2002-001)
CITY-COUNTY LIBRARY COMMISSION
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 3yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Shelby Valentine 08/07/12 02/01/16
Qualifications: Commission members shall have residency within the Calistoga Joint Unified School District.
(Resolution 2012-56)
COUNTY WIDE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 3yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Dieter Deiss 01/01/16 12/31/18
Qualifications: Committee members shall have residency within the City limits of Calistoga. Have an interest in improving
bicycle and pedestrian travel within the City. Provides advice to the Napa County Transportation Planning Agency on bicycle
matters and issues, including advice regarding disbursement of bicycle oriented funds. The council will recommend to the Napa
County Transportation Planning. (Resolution 2013-111)
Updated 12/31/15
CITY OF CALISTOGA
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST – 2016
BOARD/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS
GREEN COMMITTEE
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 2yr - TERM EXPIRATION
VACANT - -
VACANT - -
Eden Umble 01/01/15 12/31/16
Qualifications: (Resolution 2014-004)
Committee Meetings: The 1st Friday of even numbered months at 10am in the Administration Conference Room at City Hall
NAPA COUNTY ART & CULTURE COMMISSION
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 4yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Elizabeth Stokkebye 12/16/14 12/31/18
Qualifications: Commission members shall have residency within the Calistoga Joint Unified School District and should have a
broad range of artistic and cultural disciplines. (Appointment confirmed with Resolution 2014-115)
NAPA COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 2yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Shirley Blomquist 01/01/16 12/31/17
Qualifications: NCCA consists of 15 members-one member from each of the 5 Supervisorial Districts and 10 additional
members from among individuals recommended by organizations concerned with older adults. It is desirable that all
appointees are over the age of 55, but a person of a younger age will not be excluded. (No Resolution Found)
NAPA COUNTY LOCAL FOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 4yr - TERM EXPIRATION
VACANT 01/01/15 12/31/18
Qualifications: Members are appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors. (Resolution 2010-115) The Napa County
Local Food Advisory Council’s mission is to nurture a more sustainable local food system in Napa County.
The Advisory Council consists of 15 individuals: One (1) representative from the Board of Supervisors, Five (5) representatives
from the incorporated cities/town, Three (3) representatives from Agriculture, One (1) individual representing public health
and/or nutrition, One (1) individual representing institutions, One (1) individual representing marketing and/or distribution of
agricultural products and Three (3) representatives from the community at large.
NAPA COUNTY MEASURE A FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 3yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Brian McBride 07/01/13 06/30/18
Qualifications: Committee members shall have residency within the City limits of Calistoga. (Resolution 2015-073)
Updated 12/31/15
CITY OF CALISTOGA
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST – 2016
BOARD/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS
NAPA COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMEMNT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 2yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Ann Shelby Valentine 01/01/16 12/31/17
Qualifications: Board members shall have residency within the City limits of Calistoga. Appointment does not need to be
approved by Board of Supervisors. (Resolution 2014-004)
PARK & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 1yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Karen Chang 08/19/14 06/30/15
Qualifications: All members shall reside in the incorporated or unincorporated areas of Napa County. Appointment does not
need to be approved by Board of Supervisors. (Napa County Board of Directors Resolution 14-03)
PLANNING COMMISSION
INCUMBENT APPOINTED 2yr - TERM EXPIRATION
Alissa McNair 01/01/16 12/31/17
Walter Abernathy 01/01/16 12/31/17
Timothy Wilkes 01/01/16 12/31/17
Paul Coates 01/01/15 12/31/16
Scott Cooper 01/01/15 12/31/16
Qualifications: Commission members shall have residency within the City limits of Calistoga. Planning Commissioners are
community-minded citizens volunteering time to serve as a citizens’ governing board over Calistoga’s professional planning
staff and as an advisory board to the City Council. The Planning Commission leads the community in helping set Calistoga’s
goals for the future and evaluating projects for their compliance with the plan the community has adopted. Issues of particular
interest or experience include design review and building positive working relationships. Commissioners are appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council on two-year terms. (Resolution 2014-115)
Committee Meetings: The 2nd & 4th Wednesday of each month at 5:30pm at the Calistoga Community Center
Updated 12/31/15
N C E F
apa ouNty CoNomiC orECast
Napa County is home to the Napa Valley, a popular tourist
thousands Total Wage & Salary Job Creation
destination known for wine grapes and premium wine production. of jobs 1990 - 2040
Napa County has a population of 140,300 people and a total of
4
74,200 wage and salary jobs. The per capita income in Napa County
3
is $60,576, and the average salary per worker is $58,557.
Wine grapes account for 99 percent of all agricultural output 2
in Napa County. Red grapes are dominant in the region, with a total 1
value that is almost 5 times than that of white grapes. The viticulture
0
industry also attracts a large number of tourists to the county each
-1
year, generating a substantial amount of economic activity.
In 2014, employment in Northern California increased by -2
3.4 percent, whereas employment in the greater Bay Area grew -3
by 4.0 percent. In Napa County, a total of 2,800 jobs were created,
-4
representing a growth rate of 3.9 percent. Non-farm employment 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
increased by 4.1 percent, while farm employment increased by 1.8
percent. The unemployment rate improved substantially, falling from constant 2014 Real Per Capita Personal Income
6.8 percent in 2013 to 5.6 percent in 2014. dollars per person 1990 - 2040
During 2014, the largest employment increases were observed 80,000
in leisure and hospitality (+670 jobs), manufacturing (+670 jobs), 75,000
education and healthcare (+420 jobs), and construction (+410 jobs). 70,000
No industries were characterized by jobs losses. 65,000
Between 2009 and 2014, the population of Napa County grew
60,000
at an annual average rate of 0.7 percent. Net migration accounted Napa County
55,000
for more than 60 percent of this growth, with an average of 600 net
50,000
migrants entering the county each year.
45,000
California
40,000
forecast
F H 35,000
orecast igHligHts
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
• Job growth of 2.7 percent is forecasted for 2015. Between 2015 • Real per capita income will rise by 4.8 percent in 2015. From
and 2020, the annual growth rate for total wage and salary jobs 2015 to 2020, real per capita income is forecasted to increase
will average 1.3 percent. by 1.4 percent per year.
• Average salaries are below the California average, and will remain • Total taxable sales, adjusted for inflation, are expected to increase
so over the foreseeable future. In Napa County, inflation-adjusted by an average of 2.7 percent per year between 2015 and 2020.
salaries are forecasted to rise by 0.6 percent per year from 2015
to 2020. • Industrial production is expected to rise by 4.1 percent in 2015.
From 2015 to 2020, industrial production will grow at an average
• Between 2015 and 2020, job creation will be concentrated in leisure rate of 2.6 percent per year.
services (+1,700 jobs), professional and business services (+1,000
jobs), education and healthcare (+530 jobs), and wholesale and • Farm production is forecasted to increase by 1.2 percent per year
retail trade (+500 jobs). Together, these industries will account for between 2015 and 2020. Wine grapes will continue to account
71 percent of net job creation in the county. for the vast majority of all output.
• Population growth is expected to average 0.4 percent per year
from 2015 to 2020.
• During the 2015-2020 period, an average of 470 net migrants
will enter the county each year, accounting for 77 percent of total
population growth.
109
Napa County Economic Forecast
2006-2014 History, 2015-2040 Forecast
Net Registered New Homes Total Taxable Personal Real Per Inflation Rate Real Farm Real Industrial Unemploy-
Population Migration Vehicles Households Permitted Sales Income Capita Income (% change Crop Value Production ment Rate
(people) (people) (thousands) (thousands) (homes) (billions) (billions) (dollars) in CPI) (millions) (billions) (percent)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 131,920 630 138 48.4 503 $2.4 $6.4 $58,181 3.2 576.3 2.4 3.9
2007 133,155 701 138 48.8 314 $2.6 $6.7 $58,407 3.4 562.1 2.6 4.0
2008 134,786 1,170 139 48.9 247 $2.5 $6.8 $57,124 2.9 463.4 3.0 5.1
2009 135,664 321 138 48.9 132 $2.2 $6.6 $54,441 0.8 564.0 2.7 8.6
2010 136,798 648 138 48.9 106 $2.3 $6.6 $53,865 1.3 511.5 2.6 10.3
2011 137,653 496 137 49.0 131 $2.5 $7.1 $55,359 2.7 464.8 2.5 9.8
2012 138,019 -43 137 49.1 153 $2.7 $7.7 $58,326 2.7 699.7 2.8 8.4
2013 138,932 742 141 49.2 237 $2.9 $7.9 $58,830 2.3 681.0 2.9 6.8
2014 140,348 1,149 143 49.2 126 $3.1 $8.5 $60,576 2.8 682.0 3.1 5.6
2015 140,984 537 144 49.4 143 $3.3 $9.1 $63,464 1.2 696.6 3.2 5.1
2016 141,633 542 146 49.5 172 $3.6 $9.6 $65,126 3.2 700.0 3.3 4.3
2017 142,235 477 147 49.7 189 $3.8 $10.1 $65,791 3.2 708.1 3.4 4.1
2018 142,808 434 147 49.9 202 $4.0 $10.5 $66,499 3.0 711.2 3.5 4.0
2019 143,405 438 148 50.1 204 $4.2 $11.0 $67,355 2.8 720.5 3.6 3.9
2020 144,053 468 148 50.3 206 $4.4 $11.5 $68,033 2.9 739.1 3.7 3.9
2021 144,704 455 149 50.5 199 $4.6 $12.0 $68,562 3.0 737.9 3.8 3.9
2022 145,393 473 149 50.7 196 $4.8 $12.5 $68,824 3.1 750.1 3.9 3.9
2023 146,107 477 149 50.9 197 $5.0 $13.0 $69,327 2.7 754.3 4.0 3.8
2024 146,837 479 150 51.1 189 $5.2 $13.5 $70,149 2.6 762.4 4.1 3.8
2025 147,572 474 150 51.3 188 $5.4 $14.1 $70,699 2.8 768.9 4.2 3.8
2026 148,320 475 150 51.5 186 $5.6 $14.6 $70,990 2.8 776.2 4.4 3.8
2027 149,074 472 151 51.6 184 $5.8 $15.2 $71,230 2.8 783.3 4.5 3.8
2028 149,833 470 151 51.8 189 $6.0 $15.7 $71,598 2.7 790.6 4.6 3.8
2029 150,599 465 152 52.0 186 $6.2 $16.3 $72,096 2.5 797.9 4.8 3.8
2030 151,359 454 152 52.2 180 $6.4 $16.9 $72,628 2.4 805.5 4.9 3.8
2031 152,116 442 152 52.4 174 $6.6 $17.5 $73,177 2.3 813.1 5.1 3.8
2032 152,860 426 153 52.6 167 $6.8 $18.1 $73,480 2.5 820.7 5.3 3.8
2033 153,604 420 153 52.7 162 $7.1 $18.8 $74,152 2.1 828.3 5.4 3.8
2034 154,341 411 154 52.9 157 $7.3 $19.4 $74,725 2.3 836.2 5.6 3.8
2035 155,068 404 154 53.0 152 $7.6 $20.1 $75,264 2.4 844.0 5.8 3.8
2036 155,781 395 154 53.2 147 $7.8 $20.8 $75,501 2.8 851.9 5.9 3.8
2037 156,473 387 155 53.3 142 $8.1 $21.6 $75,702 2.8 860.1 6.1 3.8
2038 157,154 382 155 53.5 137 $8.4 $22.4 $76,071 2.7 868.0 6.3 3.8
2039 157,811 375 155 53.6 132 $8.6 $23.2 $76,311 2.8 876.4 6.4 3.8
2040 158,460 368 156 53.8 128 $8.9 $24.0 $76,587 2.8 884.6 6.6 3.8
percent Population Growth units New Residential Units
change 1990 - 2040 permitted 1990 - 2040
3.0 1,200
2.5 1,000
2.0 800
1.5 600
1.0 400
0.5 200
0.0 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
110
Napa County Employment Forecast
2006-2014 History, 2015-2040 Forecast
Total Wage Manufac- Transportation Wholesale & Financial Professional Health &
& Salary Farm Construction turing & Utilities Retail Trade Activities Services Information Education Leisure Government
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------employment (thousands of jobs)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 67.8 4.74 5.1 11.6 1.4 7.6 2.8 5.7 0.7 8.0 8.5 10.0
2007 69.4 4.91 4.6 11.7 1.6 7.8 2.6 6.1 0.7 8.4 9.1 10.2
2008 70.3 4.87 4.0 12.0 1.7 7.7 2.6 6.1 0.7 8.6 9.3 10.6
2009 66.3 4.93 3.0 10.9 1.6 7.3 2.4 5.7 0.6 8.5 8.8 10.7
2010 65.3 4.67 2.6 10.7 1.5 7.3 2.3 5.3 0.6 8.7 9.3 10.4
2011 66.0 4.80 2.5 10.9 1.6 7.1 2.3 5.5 0.6 8.8 10.0 10.1
2012 68.3 4.81 2.7 11.2 1.8 7.3 2.3 6.1 0.6 9.1 10.7 9.9
2013 71.4 4.95 3.2 11.6 1.9 7.7 2.2 6.5 0.6 9.6 11.3 10.0
2014 74.2 5.04 3.6 12.3 2.0 7.9 2.2 6.5 0.6 10.0 12.0 10.1
2015 76.2 5.09 3.6 12.5 1.9 8.1 2.3 6.9 0.6 10.2 12.8 10.2
2016 77.9 5.12 3.7 12.6 2.0 8.2 2.2 7.2 0.6 10.4 13.4 10.3
2017 79.2 5.17 3.7 12.7 2.0 8.3 2.2 7.4 0.6 10.5 13.9 10.4
2018 80.0 5.19 3.7 12.8 2.0 8.4 2.2 7.6 0.6 10.6 14.2 10.4
2019 80.7 5.25 3.7 12.8 2.0 8.5 2.3 7.7 0.6 10.7 14.4 10.5
2020 81.4 5.38 3.7 12.9 2.0 8.6 2.3 7.8 0.7 10.7 14.4 10.5
2021 81.8 5.37 3.7 12.9 2.1 8.7 2.3 8.0 0.7 10.8 14.5 10.5
2022 82.2 5.45 3.7 12.9 2.1 8.7 2.3 8.1 0.7 10.9 14.5 10.5
2023 82.7 5.48 3.7 12.9 2.1 8.8 2.3 8.3 0.7 11.0 14.5 10.6
2024 83.2 5.53 3.7 12.9 2.1 8.8 2.3 8.5 0.7 11.1 14.5 10.6
2025 83.7 5.57 3.7 12.9 2.1 8.9 2.3 8.7 0.7 11.1 14.6 10.6
2026 84.2 5.62 3.6 12.9 2.2 8.9 2.4 8.8 0.7 11.2 14.6 10.7
2027 84.7 5.67 3.6 12.9 2.2 9.0 2.4 9.0 0.7 11.3 14.7 10.7
2028 85.3 5.72 3.6 12.9 2.2 9.0 2.4 9.2 0.7 11.4 14.8 10.7
2029 85.9 5.77 3.6 12.9 2.2 9.1 2.4 9.4 0.7 11.5 14.9 10.8
2030 86.5 5.82 3.6 12.9 2.3 9.1 2.4 9.5 0.7 11.7 15.0 10.8
2031 87.1 5.87 3.6 12.9 2.3 9.2 2.5 9.7 0.7 11.8 15.2 10.8
2032 87.6 5.92 3.6 12.9 2.3 9.2 2.5 9.8 0.7 11.9 15.3 10.8
2033 88.2 5.97 3.6 12.9 2.3 9.3 2.5 10.0 0.7 12.0 15.5 10.9
2034 88.8 6.02 3.6 12.9 2.4 9.4 2.5 10.1 0.7 12.1 15.6 10.9
2035 89.4 6.07 3.6 12.8 2.4 9.4 2.5 10.2 0.7 12.3 15.7 10.9
2036 89.9 6.12 3.6 12.8 2.4 9.5 2.5 10.3 0.7 12.4 15.9 11.0
2037 90.4 6.18 3.6 12.8 2.4 9.5 2.5 10.5 0.7 12.5 16.0 11.0
2038 91.0 6.23 3.6 12.8 2.4 9.5 2.6 10.6 0.7 12.6 16.2 11.0
2039 91.5 6.29 3.6 12.7 2.5 9.6 2.6 10.7 0.7 12.7 16.3 11.0
2040 92.0 6.34 3.6 12.7 2.5 9.6 2.6 10.9 0.7 12.8 16.5 11.1
thousands Manufacturing Employment thousands Employment in Professional Services
of jobs 1990 - 2040 of jobs 1990 - 2040
11
13
10
12
9
11
8
10
7
9
6
8 5
7 4
6 3
5 2
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
111
percent Real Retail Sales Growth thousands of Real Earnings Per Worker
change 1990 - 2040 c d o o n lla st r a s n p t e 2 r 0 w 1 o 4 r ker 1990 - 2040
15 90
10
80
5
70
0 California
60
-5
50
-10
Napa County
forecast
-15 40
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
inmigrants Net Migration inflation adjusted Industrial and Farm Production Indices
m ou in tm us ig rants 1990 - 2040 index (1990=100) 1990 - 2040
1,200
2,800
2,400 1,000
2,000
800
1,600
1,200 600
Industrial
800
400
400
200
0
Farm
forecast
-400 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
County Economic and Demographic Indicators
Projected Economic Growth (2015-2020)
Expected retail sales growth: 16.8% Expected population growth: 2.6%
Expected job growth: 9.6% Net migration to account for: 76.8%
Fastest growing jobs sector: Leisure Services Expected growth in number of vehicles: 3.8%
Expected personal income growth: 15.3%
Demographics (2015)
Unemployment rate (March 2015): 4.6% Population with B.A. or higher: 30.8%
County rank* in California (58 counties): 6th Median home selling price (2014): $485,000
Percent of population working age:(16-64) 63.6% Median household income: $69,717
Quality of Life
Violent crime rate (2013): 262 per 100,000 persons High School drop out rate (2014): 9.3%
County rank* in California (58 counties): 15th Households at/below poverty line (2015): 7.3%
Average commute time to work (2015): 26.1 minutes * The county ranked 1st corresponds to the lowest rate in California
112
CITY OF CALISTOGA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED AND APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REPORT
MARCH 2016
Location Project Name/Applicant Project Description Status Planner
411 Foothill Boulevard CALISTOGA HILLS (Formerly Enchanted Resorts) Resort/Residential Project Approved Erik Lundquist
Aaron Harkin 13 single-family dwellings
1019 Myrtle Street 20 Fractional Units
Calistoga, CA 94515 110 Hotel Units
707-332-8917
1300 Washington Street ROMAN SPA Resort Expansion Project Proposed Erik Lundquist
Michael and Kathy Quast
1300 Washington Street
Calistoga, CA 94515
707-942-4441 ext. 7242
207 Wappo Avenue Wappo Avenue Guest Accomodations 3 Family and/or Group Approved Erik Lundquist
Thomas Hodge and Margaret Nicholson Guest Suites
PO Box 6942
Napa, CA
707.501.8550
1998 Cedar Street IMPER RESIDENCE 4,000+ sf single-family dwelling Approved Lynn Goldberg
Patrick Mervin + Associates c/o Allisa McNair
4668 Petrified Forest Road
Calistoga, CA 94515
707-942-6540
400 Silverado Trail SILVER ROSE RESORT Resort/Residential Project Under Construction Erik Lundqiust
Silver Rose Venture, LLC 85 guest rooms
1 Post Office Square 3520 57,630 sf resort facilities
Boston, MA 02109 110-seat restaurant
650-868-3708 21 single-family dwellings
1801 & 1805 Michael Way NEW VINE HOMES LLC 4 New Single Family Dwellings Approved Erik Lundquist
1301 Farmer's Lane, Suite 302
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
1
CITY OF CALISTOGA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED AND APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REPORT
MARCH 2016
Location Project Name/Applicant Project Description Status Planner
957 Petrified Forest Road BRANSTAD PARCEL MAP PM 2014-4 2-lot Subdivision Under Construction Erik Lundquist
c/o Robert Branstad
PO Box 1009
Winnemucca, NV 89446
510.334.2232
2085 Mora Avenue DECKARD AND FRANQUELIN PARCEL MAP PM 2014-3 3-lot Subdivision Approved Erik Lundquist
1718 Michael Way
Calistoga, CA 94515
707.544.2104
CALISTOGA PET CLINIC USE PERMIT AMENDMENT UP
2960 Foothill Boulevard 2013-7 Expansion of Use Pending Erik Lundquist
Steve Franquelin
2960 Foothill Boulevard
Calistoga, CA 94515
707.942.0404
Rancho de Calistoga Clubhouse Design Review DR 2015-1
2412 Foothill Boulevard and Variance VR 2015-1 New Clubhouse Under Construction Erik Lundquist
HCA Management c/o Dean Moser
7250 Redwood Blvd., #350
Novato, CA 94945
415.892.4795 x217
2
CITY OF CALISTOGA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED AND APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REPORT
MARCH 2016
Location Project Name/Applicant Project Description Status Planner
285 Rosedale Road Luvisi Parcel Map PM 2015-1 2-lot subdivision Pending Erik Lundquist
Clarence Luvisi and Donal Luvisi
PO Box 967
Calistoga, CA 94515
707-942-4074
Short-term Rental of Single
345 Silverado Trail Helmer Short-term Rental Family Dwelling Pending Erik V. Lundquist
Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 2016-9 & Use Permit UP
2015-13
345 Silverado Trail
Calistoga, CA 94515
109 Wappo Avenue Brannan Cottage Inn Event Venue Special Events Pending Erik V. Lundquist
Use Permit Amendment UP 2015-12
Brannan Group, LLC
109 Wappo Avenue
Calistoga, CA 94515
3
Appendix D
Population Study for Napa County
This appendix analyzes the existing and projected population in Napa County. This
information is provided as context to the City of Calistoga as studied in this MSR/SOI.
Napa County has the smallest population of any of the nine bay area counties that participate
in Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The population of Napa County is
approximately 140,300 persons in 2015. The second smallest county in the ABAG region is
Marin County at 258,972 persons and this is 84% larger than Napa County (DOF, 2015). Figure
D-1, below depicts
the general
population of Napa
County in relation
to the surrounding
counties.
ABAG provides
analysis of
population data for
local governments
throughout the
nine county region
it serves.
Projections 2013 is
the most recent in
the Association of
Bay Area
Governments’
series of statistical
compendia on
demographic,
economic, and land use changes in coming decades. This current version covers the period
between 2010 and 2040. Table D.1, below lists ABAG’s projected population for Napa County
in the years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040. Between the years 2015 to 2040, Napa
County’s population will grow by 23,400 persons or an overall increase of 17%. Currently,
most (56%) of the population of Napa County resides within the City of Napa, making Napa the
largest city in the County. Nineteen percent live in the unincorporated area of the County.
Appendix D: Population Page D-1
Table D-1: Projected Total Population Napa County
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
AMERICAN
CANYON 20,500 21,500 22,600 23,700 25,000 26,200
CALISTOGA 5,200 5,300 5,400 5,500 5,500 5,600
NAPA 78,800 80,700 82,800 85,100 87,700 90,300
ST. HELENA 5,900 6,000 6,100 6,100 6,200 6,300
YOUNTVILLE 3,000 3,100 3,300 3,400 3,600 3,800
UNINCORPORATED 26,900 27,600 28,400 29,300 30,400 31,500
NAPA COUNTY 140,300 144,200 148,600 153,100 158,400 163,700
Source: ABAG Projections 2013 for Napa County
The number of persons sharing a household is projected to increase slightly by the year 2040
to 2.77, on average as shown in Table D-2, below (ABAG, 2013).
Table D-2: Persons Per Household in Napa County
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
AMERICAN
CANYON 3.41 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.41 3.43
CALISTOGA 2.53 2.54 2.55 2.56 2.58 2.60
NAPA 2.69 2.69 2.71 2.72 2.74 2.76
ST. HELENA 2.39 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.43 2.45
YOUNTVILLE 1.86 1.86 1.87 1.88 1.89 1.91
UNINCORPORATED 2.48 2.49 2.50 2.51 2.53 2.55
NAPA COUNTY 2.70 2.70 2.72 2.73 2.75 2.77
Source: ABAG Projections 2013 for Napa County
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission analyzes and publishes various statistics about
local counties as part of their transportation planning process. The historical trend of poverty
rates is shown in Figure below. Napa County is shown as a blue line and it indicates that
poverty in Napa County has become more variable and has increased during the past decade.
Appendix D: Population Page D-2
Figure D-2 with Data Source: Metropolitan Trans Commis
The U.S. Census collects data on race and this provides background information about
ancestry and ethno-linguistic categories. This data also provides contextual information on
the historical role of immigration, race and inequality in American society. The Bay Area
Census1 reports this data for Napa County. California is a racially diverse state and Napa
County somewhat reflects this diversity. White and Hispanics are the two largest racial
categories in Napa County as shown in Figure D-3 below. Other categories include African
American (1.20%); American Indian/Alaskan (0.50%); Asian (2.90%); and Native Hawaiian &
Pacific Islander (0.20%). 0.20% of people self-identify as belonging to some other race and
2.10% identify as belonging to two or more races (MTC-ABAG, 2010).
1 The Bay Area Census is a project and website provided jointly by provided by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments and it contains selected
Census data for the San Francisco Bay Area.
Appendix D: Population Page D-3
Figure D-3: Racial Distribution Napa County
Native
Hawaiian &
Asian Pacific Islander S o me other race
2 or more races
American
Indian/Alaskan
African
American
Hispanic ,
32.20%
White, 56.40%
Data Source: MTC-ABAG , 2010
Age distribution
The Median age in Napa County is 39.7 years. There are 20,594 senior citizens living in the
County, as shown in Table D-3, below.
Table D-3: Age Distribution in Napa County
Age Category # of residents
Under 5 years 8,131
5 to 17 years 23,355
18 to 64 years 84,404
65 years and over 20,594
Data Source: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/NapaCounty.htm
Average household size was 2.69 persons in 2010. There were a total of 54,759 housing units
in Napa County in 2010. Approximately 11% or 5,883 of these units were vacant or used as
vacation homes. Of the occupied homes, approximately 63% or 30,597 were owner-occupied
and 37% (18,279 units) were rental homes (MTC-ABAG, 2010).
Appendix D: Population Page D-4
The total number households in the County in 2014 was 49,631. The median household
income was $70,925. The Mean household income was estimated to be $95,454 in 2014. The
percentage of people whose income in the past 12 months is below federal poverty level was
10.30% (approximately 13,000 people) (US Census, 2014).
The Educational Attainment In the population aged 25 years and over is that 82.80% of the
county’s population is a high school graduate or higher. Almost 32% of the county’s
population has attained a bachelor's degree or higher, as shown in Figure D-4, below (US
Census, 2014).
Figure D-4: Educational Attainment in
Napa County, 2014
Grad >9th 9-12th grd
Scl+ grd
BA/BS
HS grad
AA/AS
Some Col
US Census, 2014
Figure D-5, below depicts a comparison between the number of employed residents an area
has to the total number of jobs that area provides, as of 2015. In the Figure, abbreviations
for the jurisdictions along the horizontal access are as follows: City of American Canyon, AC;
City of Calistoga, CL; City of Napa, NP; City of St. Helena , SH; City of Yountville, YT;
Unincorporated, UNI; and Napa County, NCOU. Three cities, such as American Canyon and
Calistoga, and Napa have more employed residents and fewer jobs, in comparison. This
indicates that many people commute out of the city to work. The cities of St. Helena and
Yountville along with the unincorporated area provide more jobs than employed residents.
This indicates that these areas provide jobs that attract people to commute there for work.
By the year 2040, the number of employed residents in Napa County is expected to rise to
74,690 persons (ABAG, 2013).
Appendix D: Population Page D-5
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
AC CL NP SH YT UNI NCOU
There are 75,700 jobs in Napa County as of the year 2015, as shown in Figure D-6, below,
according to ABAG. The number of jobs is expected to increase to 89,540 by the year 2040,
an overall increase of almost two percent. The jobs cover a range of economic sectors. In
the Figure below, these economic sectors are given the following abbreviations: Agriculture
and Natural Resources Jobs, AG; Manufacturing, Wholesale and Transportation Jobs, MWT;
Retail Jobs, Re; Financial and Professional Service Jobs, F&P; Health, Educational and
Recreational Service Jobs, HER; and Other Jobs, OJ.
Appendix D: Population Page D-6
sboJ
RO
stnediser
fo
#
Figure D-5: Comparison # Employed
Residents and Jobs in 2015
Employed Residents
Total Jobs
Jurisdiction
Data Source: ABAG Population Projections 2013
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Although the agricultural sector represents only a small fraction of the number of current and
projected jobs, this sector does provide many other ancillary benefits. For example, many of
the retail jobs in Napa County are related to the wine industry. The scenic vineyards and
pastures create an attractive visual amenity which increase the quality of life and helps other
businesses and industries attract workers. The agricultural sector also supports the creation
and protection of green open space which is one of LAFCO’s goals.
Appendix D: Population Page D-7
sboj
fo
#
Figure D-6: Projected Job Growth -
Napa County
OJ
HER
F&P
Re
MWT
AG
Year
Data Source: ABAG Projections, 2013
References
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Bay Area Plan Projections 2013. Oakland,
California. Available on-line at: <http://abag.ca.gov/planning/
housing/projections13.html>. Accessed March 23, 2016.
CA Department of Finance (DOF), Demographic Research Unit. Table E-1, Cities, Counties,
and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent change – January 1, 2014 and
2015. May 2015. Sacramento, California. Available on-line at: <http://www.dof.
ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php>. Accessed March 23,
2016.
MTC-ABAG Library. Bay Area Census website. 2010 Census data for Bay Area. Oakland,
California. Available on-line at: <http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/index.html>.
Accessed March 23, 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau; 2014. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Educational
Attainment. Generated by Kateri Harrison; using American FactFinder;
<http://factfinder2.census.gov>. Accessed March 23, 2016.
Appendix D: Population Page D-8
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Appendix E
Grants for Disadvantaged Communities
Cap and Trade Funds: AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 1996) requires the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020 within California. AB 32
required the California Air Resources Board to administer this program. Facilities subject to
the cap must obtain permits (called allowances) to emit these GHG. These allowances are
auctioned by the state, and businesses can then sell or trade them. California’s cap-and-trade
program was launched in November 2012 and has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in
revenue. SB 535, signed into law in September 2012, requires that 25 percent of the cap-and-
trade funds go to projects that will benefit disadvantaged areas and that at least 10 percent
must be allocated to projects actually located in disadvantaged communities. The law defines
“disadvantaged communities” as those that are disproportionately affected by pollution and
suffering from high concentrations of unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent
burden, and low levels of educational attainment. The California Air Resources Board has
Maps for Evaluating Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities and has additional information
about potential funding opportunities. See their website at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/535investments.htm for more
information.
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: The California Department of Public Health
administers the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund which provides low interest loans to
fund water infrastructure projects and public water system planning. Disadvantaged
communities that are unable to afford loans for water systems may be eligible for these
grants. Projects that solve public health and significant compliance issues are emphasized by
the grant funders.
State Water Resources Control Board Revolving Fund Program: The U.S. Clean Water Act
(amended in 1987) established the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. Through this
program, low interest financing agreements for water quality projects may be provided to
state and local governments. $200 and $300 million is offered to eligible projects each year
across the country.
Proposition 1, Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure: This water bond measure was
approved by California voters on November 4, 2014. Proposition 1, known as the Water
Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 authorized $1.4 billion for
water-quality projects, as part of Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation and
Planning efforts in each hydrologic region of the State. The $1.4 billion in funding includes
$260 million for drinking water in disadvantaged communities.
Appendix
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Community Development Block Grant Funds: This program began in 1974, and is
administered by the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Community
Development Block Grant Funds program provides annual grants to allow communities address
a wide range of unique community development needs.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: California’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant and Loan
Program contributes towards capital investments in recycling manufacturing facilities and
composting/digestion infrastructure. CalRecycle administers this program whose aim is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to realize economic benefits in disadvantaged
communities. Ideally, material can be diverted from landfills and utilized to produce
beneficial products such as compost or bio-digesters. Grants may also be used to expand
infrastructure for manufacturing products with recycled content fiber, plastic, or glass.
Details are available on the CalRecycle website at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/GrantsLoans/.
Appendix
APPENDIX F: REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS - MUNICIPAL
WATER
Federal Regulations
U.S. Clean Water Act (1972)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal statute governing the protection of water
quality. The EPA’s implementation of this law provides a comprehensive program to protect
the nation’s surface waters. Under CWA Section 304, states are required to ensure that
potable water retailed to the public meets specific standards.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify water bodies that do not meet water
quality objectives and that do not support beneficial uses. The 303(d) list includes the Napa
River for pathogens, nutrients, and sedimentation/siltation.
U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (1974)
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 USC Sections 300f et seq.), U.S. EPA regulates
contaminants of concern to domestic water supply. Contaminants of concern relevant to
domestic water supply are defined as those that pose a public health threat or that alter the
aesthetic acceptability of the water. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has
been granted primary enforcement responsibility for the SDWA. Title 22 of the California
Administrative Code establishes CDPH authority, and stipulates drinking water quality and
monitoring standards.
State Regulations
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (1969)
The Porter-Cologne Act provides the statutory authority for the protection of water quality in
California. Consistent with the Porter-Cologne Act, the state adopts water quality policies,
plans, and objectives to protect the state’s waters. The Act outlines the obligations of the
SWRCB and nine RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update basin plans.
San Francisco Bay (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan
The State Water Resources Control Board and nine RWQCBs are responsible for ensuring
implementation and compliance with the provisions of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act.
Appendix F: Regulatory requirements - Municipal Water Page F-1
Urban Water Management Planning Act (1983)
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6,
Section 10610 et seq.) requires water suppliers to document water supplies available during
normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection period, and to
document the existing and projected future water demand during a 20-year projection
period. The Act applies to municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or
provides more than 3,000 afy of water.
Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221
SB 610 (now CEQA Guidelines Section 15155) amended the Water Code requirements within
the CEQA process and broadened the types of information required in a UWMP. SB 221 is
applicable within the Subdivision Map Act and it allows jurisdictions to condition a tentative
map such that documentation from a public water supplier regarding availability of sufficient
water supply is needed.
Recycled Water Regulations
Recycled water is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB),
and the CA Department of Health Services (DHS). Resolution No. 77-1 from the SWRCB, allows
the SWRCB and RWQCB to encourage and consider funding of water reclamation projects that
do not impair water rights or beneficial instream uses.
California Water Code
The California Water Code outlines the general state authority and responsibilities over water
in California.
Title 22
The California Water Code requires the DHS to establish water reclamation criteria. In 1975,
the DHS prepared Title 22 to fulfill this requirement. Title 22 regulates the production and
use of reclaimed water in California.
California Water Code (Division 3, Dams and Reservoirs)
The State of California inspects dams to prevent failure in order to safeguard life and protect
property. DWR Division of Safety of Dams implements this legislation.
Local Regulations
Napa County has several policies related to water quality including its General Plan. The
County Environmental Health Department also aims to ensure drinking water is safe.
Appendix F: Regulatory requirements - Municipal Water Page F-2
FINAL MSR/SOI Update City of Calistoga
Appendix G: How 40 years of Agricultural Preservation Transformed Napa Valley
From: https://napavintners.com/downloads/Napa_Ag_Preserve_Essay.pdf
Appendix
40 years
How of Agricultural
Napa
Preservation Transformed
Valley
BY PAUL FRANSON
If Prohibition was society’s worst social experiment, Napa Valley’s ners had considered placing the Bay Area’s fourth major airport in the
Agricultural Preserve is one of its best. For more than a century, our marshes south of Carneros, and the Army Corps of Engineers sug-
country had set aside land for national parks, scenic byways, historic gested turning the Napa River into a concrete channel like the once-
sites, cultural attractions and recreation areas, but never for agricul- flowing Los Angeles River. Projections envisioned 200,000 people in
ture. That changed in 1968 with the establishment of the Napa Valley the city of Napa by 2000, half a million by 2020. Most people here
Agricultural Preserve. think it’s fine with today’s 75,000.
2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the act that protected much of Locals saw that rising land values would soon mean that property
Napa Valley for agriculture. You only need to look around the valley would be worth far more for development than for the nuts, fruit, dairy
to recognize its success: the valley is lush with grapevines, not tract and cattle, grapes and other agricultural products then grown in the
housing and shopping malls. It has maintained a rural character long county. Grape growers were getting only $300 a ton for Cabernet
lost by adjoining counties around San Francisco Bay. Sauvignon but the most widely planted grapes were Napa Gamay,
Petite Sirah and other varieties that sold for even less. In 1968, the
If Prohibition was If the act hadn’t succeeded, there’s county had less than 12,000 acres planted to grapevines compared
little doubt that Napa Valley would
society’s worst social to about 45,000 acres plant-
have gone the way of Santa Clara
ed today. That price per ton
experiment, Napa Valley’s
Valley, which was called the Valley
for Cabernet Sauvignon has
Agricultural Preserve of Heart’s Delight for its orchards
risen to nearly $4000 and
is one of its best. and vines long before it became a the value of the grape crop
symbol for technology and urban
from $6 million to nearly half
development. If Napa Valley hadn’t been saved, a major divided
a billion dollars. From 25 or
highway would run through what are now some of the world’s fin-
so wineries in 1968, today
est vineyards, and Yountville, St Helena and Calistoga would be a
there are over 325 produc-
sea of housing development and their quaint downtowns would be
ing wineries, and nearly 400
bypassed and largely unused.
brands.
Instead, Napa Valley is America’s premier wine destination, and its
L. Pierce Carson came to the
communities offer the lifestyle that both residents and visitors value so
valley as a cub reporter only
highly. The fact that Napa Valley wasn’t lost is primarily due to the vision
a month or so before the
of vintners and growers of Napa Valley’s wine community. That vision
original proposal for the Ag Preserve was formulated, and he wrote
has led to great success, and the world-wide acclaim for Napa wines
the article about it when it was passed in April of 1968. “It sounded
has helped support ever-heightened protection and leadership.
reasonable to me,” he says. “I couldn’t understand why some people
were so adamantly against it.” He says that emotions ran high, and as
NAPA’S UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT
written in the local headlines, long-time friendships dissolved.
To understand why Napa Valley has maintained its unique character
while much of coastal California has been overtaken by development,
“Dirt Farmers Rebel Against Ag. Pres.”
you have to start with its environment. Part of the answer is in Napa
St Helena Star, February 25, 1968
Valley’s unique suitability for growing premium wine grapes. It boasts
an incomparable combination of climate, geography and geology
“Landowners Launch Heavy Attack On Ag. Preserves”
ideal for producing some of the world’s best wines. The valley’s natu-
St Helena Star, February 22, 1968
ral beauty has captivated visitors to return time and again.
As one of the nine counties that front the San Francisco Bay, Napa “Agricultural Preserves: Why They Are Needed”
County residents don’t often consider themselves part of the Bay St Helena Star, January 11, 1968
Area at all. Residents feel more on the fringe, but distance from the
hub would not have kept the valley safe from development, as a drive “Agricultural Preserves Under Heavy Fire Here”
through neighboring counties attests. As the Bay Area prospered St Helena Star, January 4, 1968
in the years after World War II, progress inevitably spread. Though
Back in the ‘60s, many landowners felt that their only attractive
Prohibition had ended in 1933, there were only about 25 wineries
economic course was to sell their land to developers, or develop it
in Napa Valley in the mid-1960s, and only a few small wineries had
themselves, as had already occurred on prime farm land from San
begun operation until Napa County’s landowners and farmers could
Diego to Redding. Others wanted to maintain the special environ-
see development creeping toward them. The state of California talked
ment that is Napa Valley—beautiful views, slow pace and enchanted
of building a major highway through the valley while regional plan-
lifestyle. They recognized that Napa Valley had unique properties for
– 1 –
growing fine wine grapes: people could live most anywhere, but rare or winery, since intense environmental review must be passed to build
few places allowed noble grapevines to flourish. Conservationists or even plant vineyards in most cases.
felt that the highest and best use of the fertile valley and foothills of
AGRICULTURE RULES
the county was in growing grapes—not in homes and development.
They also knew that it would take a strong legal change to preserve Beyond county regulations, Napa landowners, many of whom are
that environment. vintners and growers, formed the Land Trust of Napa County in 1976.
They have placed their property in trust, some of which could have
Basing their argument on the Williamson Act that allowed lower valua- been used for vineyards, forever saving it from development. Now
tion, and hence lower taxes on land kept in agriculture, they mounted more than 50,000 acres of the county are in the Land Trust and will
a campaign to create an agricultural preserve. Opponents charged forever remain in agriculture or open space.
that the measure would destroy the value of their land, restricting it
to the low $2000 to $4000 per acre of farmland, not the far higher The success of establishing regulations to preserve Napa County for
amount that would be paid by developers. Carson notes that the agriculture in 1968 led to further protection. In 1980, county voters
county assessor, George Abate, kept telling people that land would adopted Measure A, which restricted growth via building permit limits,
be worth more in agriculture than in subdivisions, but many didn’t in the unincorporated areas of the county to 1 percent per year.
believe him. Ironically, later as the county’s viable vineyard property
approached its limit, land
As a result of the establish-
value skyrocketed. Scar-
ment of the Ag Preserve,
city combined with the
agriculture remains the lead- mounting reputation of
ing source of revenue in Napa Napa’s wines, and its
attractive lifestyle, had
County, unlike other Bay Area
created land prices 100
counties where farmland has
times what they were.
largely been displaced by It’s unlikely that even the
development. original supporters of the
preserve could have an-
ticipated such a benefit. “A lot of people believed that Napa Valley
was a good spot for agriculture, but I don’t think anyone expected
the rise we’ve seen,” says Carson.
Thus in 1968, encouraged by a small group of vintners and grow-
ers, Napa enacted changes in its county code that implemented an Again restating their approval of agricultural preservation, in 1990
agricultural preserve. This tough-won, forward-thinking act, the best- voters approved Measure J which requires a two-thirds vote of the
known part called the Napa Valley Agricultural Preserve (zoning AP) county’s citizens to rezone any ag land. Only a handful of these re-
lies primarily between the towns of Napa and Calistoga. It originally zoning attempts have passed, and all were very specific, such as
protected 26,000 acres of the valley floor and foothills and has since allowing the sale of pumpkins and produce in a rural site and allowing
grown to more than 38,000 acres. No land has ever been taken from a local restaurant to serve meals on its existing patio.
the preserve.
The resistance to rezoning attempts clearly reflected the residents’
Beyond the protection of the valley floor, the county also designated desire to maintain the integrity of the Ag Preserve. No one wants
a huge area as Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space (AW zoning), to let that camel’s nose in the tent, fearing that its body would soon
which is also protected, and in some ways, even more so. Together, follow. Though seemingly innocuous, the challenges to the measures
the two total 482,000 acres and represent 91 percent of the county’s have historically been condemned as the first steps to weakening the
505,859 acres. protection and have been soundly defeated.
According to the county general plan, the “…Agricultural Preserve Another contentious point was defining what is a “winery.” In other re-
classification is intended to be applied in the fertile valley and foothill gions, wineries are sometimes considered to be in the entertainment
areas of Napa County in which agriculture is and should continue to and hospitality businesses as much as winemaking. Some offer ex-
be the predominant land use…the Agricultural Watershed classifica- tensive gift shops, restaurants, inns and wedding chapels, and derive
tion is intended for areas of the county where the predominant use is much of their revenue from par-
In an analysis of
agriculturally oriented, where watershed areas, reservoirs and flood- ties, wedding receptions, corpo-
plain tributaries are located…” This latter designation covers most of rate dinners and non-wine retails agricultural resources,
the mountainous areas as well as developed and undeveloped farm sales. In Napa County, this issue approximately 45,000
and range land, forests and some very remote areas indeed. Only was resolved with a hard-fought acres, or about 9 per-
a fraction of Napa County is seen by most visitors. More than half battle that ended in 1990 with
of the county lies over the mountains to the east of the Vaca range the Winery Definition Ordinance cent of the county is
and another large portion is contained in the Mayacamas range to that prohibited new wineries from planted to vineyards,
the west. engaging in ancillary activities like with very limited
weddings, restaurants, inns and
opportunity for ex-
In these areas, the minimum new lot size is 160 acres, but that’s only gift shops, and required all visi-
the start of the obstacles to building the allowed single-family home tors to make appointments. Many pansion.
– 2 –
have severe restrictions on the number of visitors allowed, some not States in 1981. Auction Napa Valley has given nearly $78 million to
even allowing the public to visit. local healthcare, affordable housing and youth services, and it’s also
been the inspiration for every other charity wine auction in the U.S.
It seems as though 1990 was a watershed year for Napa County, for
Napa Valley vintners have also donated wines and experiences that
that year, the county also adopted a hillside erosion control ordinance.
have helped make these other charities successful.
Also adopted were rules regarding setbacks from streams designed
to protect the waters and wildlife. The stream setbacks were largely Napa Valley Vintners has also been at the forefront of wine education,
supported by the wine community even though the rules reduced including programs to teach consumers, educators, the media and
plantable acreage in many vineyards. the trade about the region’s wine through programs like Master Napa
Valley for advanced level MS and MW candidates, Napa Valley Wine
Again in 1998, Napa County voters followed the wine community’s
Educators Academy for professional educators, Napa Valley Rocks
lead and endorsed the common good by approving another mea-
for on- and off-premise trade and the Symposium for Professional
sure, a project to control the periodic flooding of the Napa River in a
Wine Writers for journalists. The NVV also supports the Rudd Center
forward-thinking plan that chose natural controls such as wide flood-
for Professional Wine Studies at the Culinary Institute of America in
plains and acceptance of occasional flooding of certain areas instead
Napa Valley through part of the proceeds from Premiere Napa Valley.
of the all or nothing approach of fighting nature that has historically
been favored by the Army Corps of Engineers. Sustainable agriculture applies to a sustainable work force as well,
and Napa County vintners and growers have been leaders in working
In this effort as in the others noted, vintners and growers were strong
conditions, pay, housing and opportunities for their workers. About
supporters even though any of these measures could potentially af-
6,000 farm workers and 7,000 winery workers are employed by Na-
fect their individual property rights.
pa’s wine industry. Wages are higher than average in the Napa Valley,
but housing costs are also higher, and Napa’s leaders initiated a local,
THE AG PRESERVE AS A FOUNDATION FOR CONTINUING
self-assessed tax whereby vineyard owners tax themselves nearly
LEADERSHIP
$10 an acre to subsidize the valley’s three farm worker housing cen-
Protecting the land is just one part of protecting Napa Valley. The
ters for seasonal workers. This tax along with a very affordable daily
success Napa has enjoyed by protecting its agricultural heritage,
rate for residents provides the funding for this work force’s housing.
restricting development and focusing on its wines has encouraged
Napa Valley Vintners to persist in their quest—and provided them The NVV is setting the standard with green programs such as Napa
with the resources to continue. The Napa Valley was the first rec- Green Certified Land. This program, begun in 2003, looks at all as-
ognized American Viticultural Area or appellation in California, and it pects of a grower’s property from vineyards to roads, buildings and
remains by far the best known here and abroad. non-farmed land to curtail erosion, reduce or eliminate pesticide
use and adopt practices that will ultimately enhance the Napa River
“Napa” means quality, so much so that consumers understand the
watershed and preserve or restore wildlife habitat through sustain-
value and rely on the reputation for quality when a label reads “Napa,”
able agriculture practices. Currently, 22,000 acres are enrolled in the
and outsiders have repeatedly tried to hijack the name. In 2000, a
program. Nearly 90 percent of the Napa River watershed is in private
state law prohibited the selling of wines labeled “Napa” or its geo-
ownership and this public/private partnership is vital to the long term
graphic subdivisions unless the wine contained at least 75 percent
viability of the Napa Valley winegrowing community.
Napa grapes. This was contested by Bronco Wine Company, which
had bought the Napa Ridge and other Napa place name brands As a complement to Napa Green Certified Land, the NVV de-
and produced and marketed wines made from grapes from outside veloped a companion program for winery production facilities.
Napa, leading consumers to believe the products to be from the Napa Green Certified Winery extends Napa Green through the
Napa Valley Appellation. The Napa Valley Vintners fought this prac- winemaking process into the winery. The program covers such is-
tice all the way to the US Supreme Court and after a six-year court sues as water and materials recycling and energy conservation
battle, Bronco lost. California state law SB25241 is now fully enacted to reduce the carbon footprint of wine production facilities. One
requiring brands with a Napa place name on the label to contain at example is the many Napa Valley wineries powered by the sun.
least 75 percent fruit from Napa County. Following Napa’s lead, last A winery’s solar power system can generate as much power as that
year, Sonoma County requested and received similar legislation from
the state.
Even the European Union has recognized Napa’s renowned role, and
granted Napa Valley status as a Geographic Indication in 2007. It
was the first wine region outside a member state of the EU to receive
this designation. Indeed, it’s the first American product of any kind
recognized with this status in Europe, and hence guaranteed protec-
tion from counterfeiting.
In the same way, Napa has also been a leader in protecting all wine
appellations. It was a founding member in the Joint Declaration to
Protect Wine Place and Origin signed by leading European and New
World wine regions.
The quality of the wine, and the leadership of Napa’s vintners, led
them to create the first consumer charity wine auction in the United
– 3 –
used by 20 to 30 homes, and will keep more than 7 million pounds of land understand they inhabit an agricultural area where the viability of
greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere. agriculture comes first. These policies also define all the components
of agriculture encompassed by the right to farm, and perpetuate the
Napa Green Certified Land and Winery go beyond compliance, meet-
county’s longstanding commitment to protections for agricultural land.
ing or exceeding environmental regulations to help the businesses
”The Plan also establishes agriculture and rural residences as the
become more sustainable through economically viable, environmen-
principal users of ground water aquifers and calls for data collection
tally sensitive and socially equitable practices.
and long-term monitoring to ensure adequate supplies remain in the
future and states that vineyard development is expected to continue,
As Napa looks ahead, one major concern is potential changes in cli-
and will become increasingly environmentally sensitive as business
mate that could affect grape growing. Some climate models suggest
practices and conservation priorities converge. The Napa River will
Napa Valley might be heavily affected as global temperatures rise,
increasingly run clean and healthy, supporting native fish, plants, and
therefore, the NVV created a Climate Study Task Force and hired two
animals and serving as an important part of the life of the county’s
of the state’s leading climate researchers from Scripps Institute and
people. The plan emphasizes, “Napa County in 2030 will retain its
Stanford University to investigate the situation, project climate models
rural character and outstanding quality of life.”
specific to Napa Valley and help prepare tools for the future.
The Napa Valley Agricultural Preserve, established forty years, ago
WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS
did more than protect the land and make Napa Valley a desirable
Napa Valley continues to maintain its commitment to agriculture
place to live and grow grapes. Long-time observer Carson believes
with leadership from the NVV. The county sets a very high prior-
the preserve has played a key role in helping create Napa’s reputation
ity on maintaining the agricultural preserve and its recent draft of a
as the top spot in the United States to make wine. “After it passed,
new general plan states clearly: “Napa County in 2030 will remain
growers could concentrate on what they do best, growing grapes,
a world-famous grape growing and winemaking region, with a vi-
not fending off the tax collector or worrying whether their neighbors
able and sustainable agricultural industry. Under this General Plan,
were going to sell out or develop their land.”
the amount of land designated for agriculture will increase, assum-
ing no further annexations of county land by incorporated cities and The experiment was a complete success. Carson concludes, “It was
towns. New non-agricultural development will continue to be focused the foundation for great winemaking in Napa Valley,” and the founda-
in the incorporated cities and already developed areas.” The report tion for other leadership efforts that followed.
continues, “Policies supporting agriculture include the long-standing
‘right to farm’ which ensures that new residents and new users of
Napa Valley Vintners
Now in our seventh decade, the Napa
Valley Vintners (NVV) non-profit trade asso-
ciation is the sole organization responsible
for promoting and protecting the Napa
Valley Appellation as a winegrowing region
second to none in the world. Respect for
our history reinforces our commitment to
the preservation and enhancement of the
Valley’s land, wine, and community for fu-
ture generations. We address the shared
interests of our more than 300 member
wineries and aspire to be the essential
organization for all Napa Valley vintners. To
learn more about our organization and our
Photos © Jason Tinacci programs, visit www.napavintners.com.
– 4 –