CITY OF SPEAKER FORM
AMERICAN
САПУОП
To speak during the open public comment period or on a specific agenda item, please complete a speaker form and return it to the meeting clerk. Remarks are limited to 3 minutes.
Please select one option:
Public Comment (non-agenda item)
Agenda Item (number or title):
I would like to be contacted by: —
Please provide your name for the official record: Include contact information if you would like staff to follow up with you.
YVONNE BAbINSIL Meeting Date Sept 1
Name
(Please print)
Email Address Phone
Mailing Address (optional)
CITY OF SPEAKER FORM
AMERICAN
САЛУОЛ
To speak during the open public comment period or on a specific agenda item, please complete a speaker form and return it to the meeting clerk. Remarks are limited to 3 minutes.
Please select one option:
Public Comment (non-agenda item
9 Hess/Laird
Agenda Item (number or title):
I would like to be contacted by: -
Please provide your name for the official record: Include contact information if you would like staff to follow up with you.
Yvonne Baginski Meeting Date Sept l
Name
(Please print)
Email Address Phone
Mailing Address (optional)
CITY OF
SPEAKER FORM
AMERICAN
To speak during the open public comment period or on a specific agenda item, please complete a speaker form and return it to the meeting clerk. Remarks are limited to 3 minutes.
Please select one option:
Public Comment (non-agenda item)
9. Hess Laird Territory Speial Study
Agenda Item (number or title):
pre-Zoning
I would like to be contacted by: _
Please provide your name for the official record. Include contact information if you would like staff to follow up with you.
Leon Garna Meeting Date_ 09/01/2026
Name
(Please print)
Email Address Phone
Mailing Address (optional)
CITY OF
AMERICAN SPEAKER FORM
CANYON
To speak during the open public comment period or on a specific agenda item, please complete a speaker form and return it to the meeting clerk. Remarks are limited to 3 minutes.
Please select one option:
Public Comment (non-agenda item)
Agenda Item (number or title): _ #9 Hess aird
I would like to be contacted by: -
Please provide your name for the official record. Include contact information if you would like staff to follow up with you.
Name Jeanette Gonetu Meeting Date Sept 1, 2026
(Please print)
Email Address Phone
Mailing Address (optional)
CITY OF SPEAKER FORM
AMERICAN
САПУОП
nda item, please complete a
speaker form and return it to the meeting clerk. Remarks are limited to 3 minutes.
Please select one option:
Public Comment (non-agenda item)
NoPa olympia
Agenda Item (number or title):
Yes
I would like to be contacted by: —
Please provide your name for the official record. Include contact information if you would like staff to follow up with you.
K MUrraY Meeting Date 9/1/26
Name
L Facebook Instagram L Nextdoor_ YouTube
From: Yvonne Baginski
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 8:39 AM
To: Mark Joseph <[email protected]>; Pierre Washington <[email protected]>; David Oro <[email protected]>; Melissa Lamattina <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Pierre Washington <[email protected]>; Mark Joseph <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Brando Cruz <[email protected]>; Jason Holley <[email protected]>; Brent Cooper <[email protected]>; Brent Cooper < bcooper @americancanyon.gov>; William He <[email protected]>; William He <[email protected]> Subject: Endangered species map for American Canyon and South County Good morning.
Looking forward to the city council meeting tonight. I will be addressing the Hess property pre- zoning when it comes up on the agenda. In this regard, I've attached a map of endangered species in the area. This map was developed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Please note that the Hess development will directly impact whatever territory is left for the red- legged frog, as well as the tri-colored blackbird and other foraging bird habitat The Audubon Society and the Napa County Wildlife Habitat Conservation Coalition is asking for a carveout for wildlife habitat on this property. A conservation easement on the eastern portion, perhaps. Or, open space zoning for a portion.
See you all tonight.
Yvonne Baginski
Swainson's pallid bat
Amercan Mason's alkali E
has
badger lilaeopsis milk-vetch
lason s laeopsi ackbird legenere
icolored b
pallid c pallid bat Mason's lilaeopsis Swainson's
Mason's lilaeopsis
golden eagie Mason's lilaeopsis hawk saline clover
salt-marsh harvest mouse
Delta tule peat
Mason's Swainson'S hawk
lilaeopsis Swainson's dwart
hawk downingia
salt-marsh Delta Swainson's
harvest Mason's tule pea Swainson's hawk Swainson's
mouse lilacopsis hawk hawke
Swainson's
Mason's lilaeopsis Swainson's
Coastal hawk burrowing?
hawk
Brackish owl Swahson's
San Marsh
two-fork Chawk
Pablo song Suisun Marsh ferruginous
clover
sparrow Delta Marin aster hawk
Suisun SwainsonS hawke
knotweed
soft salty ule California tricolored blackbird
Marsh aster
bird's-beak Delta pea Ridgway's
tricolored sall-marsh rail Marin Swainson's
tule pea harvest mouse knotweed
blackbird hawk
soft salty Lyngbye's
bird's-beak sedge vernal pool
/salt-marsh harvest fairy
western: mouse shrimp
Delta tricolored
snowy California blackbird
plover tule longfin smelt - San
black rail California pea Francisco
Ridgway's rail
burrowing Bay-Delta DPS California
OWI northern
Coastal Brackish Marsh harrier red-legged frog
San Pablo northwestern pond foothill
song sparrow turtle yellow-legged frog
wester
Delta - north coast DPS
snowy
plover tule pea
green sturgeon.-
southern
California DPS steelhead centra
Ridgway's California coast California
Tail DPS
California red-legged frog
black rail
Tiburon paintbrush
saltmarsh common California red legged
steelhead - frog Serpentine
California Ridgway's yellowthroat
central California coast Bunchgrass
rail
DPS
saltmarsh common
saltmarsh yellowthroat San Joaquin spearscale
common yellowth pat San Joaquin alkali northwestern Califomia big-scale fornia w milk-vetch pond turtle red-legged balsamroot
spearscale.
Ridgway's rail ail-marsh Califomnia: Trog
California harvest saline clover
black;
saline clover
black rail mouse Delta smelt rall Northern: California salt-marsh burrowing owl salt-marsh harvest moust western:
Coastal Ridgway's rail harvest
Suisun shrew bumble bee
Salt Marsh mouse
Northern
Delta tule pl Sacramento splittail Coastal
soft salty saltmarsh common saltmarsh Salt Marsh
bird's-beak yellowthroat saltmarsh common
California Marin Maxar
Caspian tem common yellowthroat Suisun shrew
Ridgway's rail yellowthroat knotweed 4 sallmarsh
common yellowthroat
Legend
Green Island Vineyard Coastal Brackish Marsh San Pablo song sparrow foothill yellow-legged salt-marsh harvest Property frog - north coast DPS
Contra Costa goldfields Serpentine Bunchgrass mouse
3 mile buffer around golden eagle
Delta smelt Suisun Marsh aster saltmarsh common
Green Island Vineyard yellowthroat
Delta tule pea Suisun shrew green sturgeon -
CNDDB_GreenIslan southern DPS soft salty bird's-beak
Lyngbye's sedge Swainson's hawk
legenere steelhead - central
CNAME Marin knotweed Tiburon paintbrush
longfin smelt - San California coast DPS
American badger Mason's lilaeopsis alkali milk-vetch Francisco Bay-Delta DPS N tricolored blackbird
California Ridgway's rail Northern Coastal Salt big-scale balsamroot northern harrier two-fork clover
Califomia black rail Marsh
burrowing owl northwestern pond vernal pool fairy shrimp A Northern Vernal Pool
California red-legged dwarf downingia turtle
frog Sacramento splittail western bumble bee
ferruginous hawk pallid bat
Caspian tern San Joaquin spearscale western snowy plover saline clover
Miles
City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Honorable Chair and County Supervisors
County of Napa
1195 Third Street, Suite 310
Napa, CA 94559
Executive Director
Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission
1754 Second Street, Suite C
Napa, CA 94559
Re: Hess/Laird Property Pre-Zoning (File No. PL-26-16)
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, Honorable Board Chair and Supervisors, and LAFCO Executive Officer:
On behalf of American Canyon I, LLC ("AC-I"), we respectfully submit this "Exhaustion Letter" to the City of American Canyon ("City"), the County of Napa ("County"), and the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"), regarding not only the above-referenced Hess/Laird Property Pre-Zoning (File No. PL-26-16) ("Prezoning"), but also the related City/County "Urban Limit Line and Regional Housing Needs Allocation Agreement," related City/County Tax Share Agreement, related annexation of the 281-acre Hess-Laird Affected Territory ("HLAT") to the City, related subsequent General Plan and Rezoning that will be required for the HLAT property to develop once in the City, and related ultimate planning, mapping, development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the HLAT property with the residential housing needed to satisfy the County's Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") obligations under controlling Housing Law. The whole of these interconnected governmental actions between the City, the County, and LAFCO, are referred to in this Exhaustion Letter as the "Project" and the individual governmental actions as the "pieces" of the Project.
I. SUMMARY.
For the factual and legal reasons set forth below, we respectfully submit that the City, the County, and LAFCO are not following controlling law and are clearly putting the cart before the horse by focusing on the "pieces," such as the Prezoning, the Urban Limit Line and Regional Housing Needs Allocation Agreement, the Tax Share Agreement, and the annexation of the HLAT, instead of focusing on the "Project," the ultimate planning, mapping, development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the HLAT property with the residential housing needed to satisfy The Project is currently scheduled for consideration at the September 1, 2026, City Council meeting as Item 9. The recommended action on the agenda and in the accompanying staff report is "Waive first reading, read by title only, and adopt an Ordinance to approve Special Study Pre- Zoning for the Hess/Laird Territory consistent with the General Plan (American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50)." No mention is made of CEQA compliance in the agenda 1 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
description. In addition, the description notes that the ordinance will be adopted, not merely introduced.
First, we respectfully submit that the City's proposed finding that the Prezoning may be approved through the preparation of an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report certified for the 2040 General Plan Update ("2040 General Plan Update EIR") in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),' and that the Prezoning is part of a much larger campaign by the City, the County, and LAFCO to "chop" or "piecemeal" the larger Project (i.e., developing the HLAT Property with residential housing as part of the County's efforts to satisfy its RHNA obligations) into smaller, bite-sized, individual subparts (such as the related City/County Urban Limit Line and Regional Housing Needs Allocation Agreement, related City/County Tax Share Agreement, related Prezoning, related annexation, etc.) - with each subpart being viewed as an inconsequential environmental event - in order to avoid doing a full blown, comprehensive, and present-day environmental review under CEQA. CEQA defines a "project" as "the whole of the action" necessary for the build-out of a proposed action; it is the ultimate "big picture" of what the buildout of the Project will do to the environment, NOT each separate, individual governmental action (piece) needed to slowly but surely advance that ultimate Project.
In the instant case, the City's, the County's, and LAFCO's piecemealing approvals have been, and continue to be, orchestrated to make the overall environmental damage of the Project look minor on paper, to thus defer environmental impact analysis of the Project as a whole (including all reasonably foreseeable future phases or connected activities) to either a date subsequent to the Project's annexation into the City, or never at all!
That is not how CEQA works. CEQA requires full environmental review of the Project as a whole BEFORE any governmental actions are taken, not after, so that the environment is always considered and protected prior to determining to pursue a course of action.. In other words, CEQA requires the environmental alarm bell before governmental action is to be taken, not after. The proposed addendum buried as an exhibit to the proposed Prezoning ordinance and not included in the agenda description fail to provide notice to the public as required by law. Moreover, the addendum does not include the analytical roadmap from the evidence to the conclusion that the Project was covered by the 2040 General Plan Update EIR as set forth more fully below. (See, Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 (the decision must "bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order").) Second, we respectfully submit that the Prezoning - and other related pieces of governmental action regarding the Project - violates California Elections Law, including without limitation the rules governing the amendment of the existing Urban Limit Line measure adopted by the City in 2008, as set forth in the ULL Measure and Resolution 2008-105.
Third, we respectfully submit that the Prezoning of the HLAT to "Special Study Area" violates California Planning and Zoning Law by perpetuating a General Plan designation - "Future Study 1 The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute (Public Resources Code Section 21000 and following), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures. All future references to the CEOA Guidelines will be cited as "Guidelines, $ xx." 2 Cal. Const. Art II; Cal. Elec. Code $8 9200 et sq.
3 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seg.
2 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
Area" - that fails to provide basic population density and building intensity criteria. There simply is no "there" there. Additionally, not all of the HLAT property is included in the General Plan Land Use Element's Future Study Area designation - you cannot Prezone property that does not yet have a General Plan designation. Likewise, the "Special Study Area" Prezoning is not actually a zoning designation as it does not include any of the mandatory elements required by state law. (See, Gov. Code, § 65800 et seq.).
Fourth, we respectfully submit that the Prezoning violates the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of 20004 (Cortese-Knox") because the "Special Study Area" Prezoning is not a true zoning district sufficient to support annexation of the HLAT to the City, and in fact promotes the annexation of agricultural uses that Cortese-Knox disallows.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
The current HLAT Prezoning is not occurring in a vacuum. Instead, the City's, the County's, and LAFCO's current intentions regarding the Prezoning must be considered in light of their prior, current, and related future actions.
• On July 3, 2008, the City approved a Memorandum of Understanding ("2008 MOU") with the County that required the City to amend its General Plan to revise the City's urban limit line (ULL) consistent with the 2008 MOU no later than August 8, 2008. The 2008 MOU required that the amendment to the ULL be affirmed through an initiative no later than November 2008. In response, local residents circulated an initiative petition regarding the ULL ("ULL Measure").
• These local residents then presented the ULL Measure to the City, and the ULL Measure was enacted by the City Council on August 5, 2008, through its unanimous adoption of Resolution 2008-105, titled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, Adopting the City of American Canyon Urban Limit Line and Prezoning Act" ('Resolution 2008-105"). The most critical feature of the ULL Measure and Resolution 2008-105 was to prevent ANY expansion of the City's ULL until 2030, unless a subsequent vote of the electorate authorized a change to the ULL before that date. The HLAT was specifically excluded from the ULL Measure and Resolution 2008-105 and is located outside the ULL.
• In March 2025, the City adopted its 2040 General Plan Update (*2040 General Plan Update"). While a portion of the HLAT is still completely OUTSIDE the 2040 General Plan Update, a portion of the HLAT property is within the holding category described in the 2040 General Plan Update as "Future Study Area." (2040 General Plan Update Land Use Element, p. LU-9, Fig. 2; LU-13.) The Land Use Element of the General Plan describes this Future Study Area category this way:
As part of the General Plan update the City identified a future study area (Figure LU-3) that has the potential for additional growth. This future study area encompasses the Hess/Laird property which is currently located within the jurisdiction of Napa County and was recently general planned and 4 Cal. Gov. Code 88 56000 et seg.
City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
rezoned for industrial uses by the County. As a Future Study Area, the General Plan does not identify specific uses for the Hess/Laird property under CEQA at this time and it would be speculative to evaluate any specific uses at this time. When the City evaluates this Study Area for inclusion in the City's Urban Limit Line, the process will evaluate future uses as part of a subsequent CEQA analysis.
(2040 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, p. LU-13 (emphasis added).) • In support of the adoption of the 2040 General Plan Update, the City certified an environmental impact report ("2040 General Plan Update EIR"). The 2040 General Plan Update EIR is self-described as a program EIR (General Plan EIR pp. 1-2 - 1-3.) The portion of the HLAT included in the 2040 General Plan Update is included only as "Future Study Area." That designation describes that future CEQA analysis will be required, as quoted above..
• In April 2026, the City began to undertake a series of actions to change the ULL, either through an expansion of the existing ULL or by creating a new ULL that would include additional territory beyond that initially approved by the ULL Measure. At no time has the City complied with the ULL Measure and submitted the proposed expansions to the City voters for approval, as required by the ULL Measure, by Resolution 2008-105, and by the California Elections Code.
• On April 21, 2026, the City passed a resolution ("2026 Resolution") approving the "Urban Limit Line and Regional Housing Needs Allocation Agreement" (2026 ULL Agreement") with the County. The 2026 ULL Agreement specifically included the HLAT to be part of an expansion of the ULL. The 2026 ULL Agreement goes as far as to include the HLAT, with the City claiming that it has the present legal authority to enter into the 2026 ULL Agreement and to perform all actions necessary for the addition of the HLAT to the City's ULL. This 2026 ULL Agreement also included provisions for the City to accept a portion of the County's Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA").
Finally, the City approved the Hess-Laird Affected Territory Property Tax Sharing Agreement ("HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement"), which allocates property taxes and the American Canyon Fire Protection District tax increment between the City and the County pursuant to the proposed annexation of the HLAT to the City. The City did not include any limiting language in its approval of the 2026 ULL Agreement or the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement that indicated that the HLAT annexation could not be approved unless the City performed as required by the ULL Measure, Resolution 2008-105, or the California Elections Code (i.e.., first securing voter approval); the City failed to clarify that it lacked authority to expand the ULL prior to January 1, 2030 without a vote of the voters. The County subsequently also approved the 2026 ULL Agreement and the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement on May 5, 2026.
5 The 2040 General Plan Update designates the HLAT as "Future Study Area." The City's municipal code references a zoning designation known as "Special Study Area." This letter may use those terms interchangeably. 4 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
• Currently pending before LAFCO is a Landowner Petition from landowners within the HLAT seeking annexation of all of the HLAT property to the City, although, again, a portion of the HLAT property was not included in the General Plan's Future Study Area and the HLAT is not within either the City's sphere of influence (SOI) or its ULL. (Proposed Ordinance, Recital 3 (annexation will require an amendment of both the SOI and the ULL). The City has assumed "Lead Agency" status under CEQA regarding the Prezoning, and assumedly all actions related to the 2026 ULL Agreement the related HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement, the related annexation of the 281-acre HLAT to the City, the current September 1, 2026 City Council agenda item to Prezone the HLAT, and future related subsequent General Plan and Rezoning that will be required to provide the population density and building intensity criteria required by law for the HLAT property to develop once annexed into the City, and the related ultimate planning, mapping, development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the HLAT property with the residential housing needed to satisfy the County's RHNA obligations under controlling Housing Law once the HLAT is under City jurisdiction. (Proposed Ordinance, Recital 5.) • Following the City's adoption of the 2026 ULL Agreement and the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement, AC-1 sued the City and the County in Napa County Superior Court on June 15, 2026. Shortly thereafter, the City adopted a new resolution that sought to retroactively provide CEQA analysis for those distinct Project "pieces." As discussed herein, that subsequent City resolution sought to "tier" off of the City's 2040 General Plan Update EIR. This attempt highlighted the City's concession that CEQA review was required before approving the 2026 ULL Agreement and the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement. Again, the City's 2040 General Plan Update includes only a portion the HLAT property, only as "Future Study Area," and that designation describes that future CEQA analysis will be required. Necessarily, the City's 2040 General Plan Update EIR does not analyze the HLAT's future residential development.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
A. The Prezoning Violates CEQA.
(1) The General Plan EIR Does Not Apply to the HLAT as the HLAT is Outside the ULL, and the "Special Study Area" does not Provide any Density or Intensity of Use Sufficient to Analyze the Prezoning's (and larger Project's) Potential Environmental Impacts.
CEQA applies to "discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080 (a).) A "project" for purposes of CEQA is defined as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Pub. Res. Code § 21065.) Here, the City is asserting that the activities of the HLAT Prezoning were analyzed by the General Plan Update EIR and that an addendum is therefore appropriate environmental analysis for the Project..
This argument does not withstand scrutiny.
Most people are familiar with project EIRs. A project EIR allows the local agency to review the site-specific impacts of a proposed project. (Guidelines, § 15161.). 5 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
A program EIR (or PEIR), on the other hand, is oftentimes focused on broadly drawn objectives, not necessarily specific locations, or activities. A PEIR is a comprehensive environmental document prepared on a series of related activities that can be characterized as one large project and are related geographically or carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority. (Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (a).) The function of a program EIR is to streamline - but not to necessarily eliminate or avoid - subsequent environmental review of projects that are consistent with the program analyzed in the PEIR.
The 2040 General Plan Update EIR is a program EIR. (2040 General Plan Update EIR, pp. 1-1 - 1-2.) Therefore, before adopting a project that is consistent with the 2040 General Plan Update EIR, the City is required to consider whether the circumstances outlined in Public Resources Code section 21166 are present. That section requires additional environmental analysis where "substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; or new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available." (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21166.)
Here, while the 2040 General Plan Update EIR was certified, the description of the Future Study Area designation indicated that additional CEQA analysis would be required for the HLAT when it would be Prezoned and annexed to the City (again, not all of the HLAT is included in the General Plan Update, yet all of the HLAT is proposed for annexation). This exclusion was no doubt prompted by the legal impediments of the ULL Measure and Resolution 2008-105. Because of that, the City is obligated to determine whether additional environmental review is required prior to adopting the HLAT Prezoning and not merely rely on the program-level analysis found in the 2040 General Plan Update EIR. Indeed, the Land Use Element specifically foresees the need for future environmental review. Now that the generalities are crystallizing into formal action, the time for CEQA review is now. Again, the need for CEQA analysis at this time is underscored by the admission in the staff report for the September 1, 2026, City Council meeting that the proposed annexation includes parcels not identified in the bare discussion of the Future Study Area in the 2040 General Plan Update. (Staff Report, p. 2.). Thus, not only did the 2040 General Plan Update EIR state that it did not provide environmental analysis for the Future Study Area (at least part of which is the HLAT), it truly could not provide CEQA analysis for parcels not even considered as part of the Future Study Area.
The ordinance creating the Special Study Area designation is not found in the City's ordinance creating a zoning district with permitted uses. Those zoning designations are found in Title 19, Division 2. Instead, the Special Study Area designation is found in Chapter 19.50, which is described as an administrative action. That administrative action does not include population density or intensity of use, which is not only required to comply with Planning and Zoning Law (see, Government Code section 65850) but is also necessary to perform an adequate and accurate CEQA analysis.
Therefore, the City must conduct additional environmental review reflecting the real Project, which must include a proper General Plan designation for the HLAT that sets forth the building intensity and population density requirements of law, a Zoning District consistent with that proper 6 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
General Plan designation for the HLAT, and the related ultimate planning, mapping, development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the HLAT property with the residential housing needed to satisfy the County's RHNA obligations under controlling Housing Law. The 2040 General Plan Update does not include the development of the HLAT in its ambit nor does the 2040 General Plan Update EIR (from which the City appears to wish to tier) include any discussion of the Future Study Area 2040 General Plan Update designation, how the Special Study Area "zoning" is consistent with that general plan designation, and its reasonably foreseeable development impacts.
Finally, the agenda fails to highlight how the City intends to satisfy its CEQA obligations. Instead, the addendum it purports to use is merely an attachment to the proposed ordinance. (Defend Our Waterfront v. California State Lands Commission (2015). 240 Cal.App.4th 570, 583-584 (agenda should fairly apprise individuals of any CEQA determination being considered).) (2) The City is Guilty of Piecemealing the
Environmental Consideration of the Project,
the Residential Development of the HILAT.
As described above, the City has undertaken a series of actions in order to process the HLAT Prezoning, while ignoring its eventual annexation and development as residential housing needed to satisfy the County's RHNA obligations under California Housing Law. At each turn, instead of considering the environmental impacts of those actions and decisions, it has argued that the 2040 General Plan Update EIR provides the environmental analysis required by CEQA. As described above, the 2040 General Plan Update EIR, upon which the City seeks to rely, is inapplicable. The City has also violated CEQA by impermissibly piecemealing/segmenting the Project into component governmental approval "pieces," such as the Prezoning, instead of focusing on the "Project" as a whole, and the environmental consequences of that Project's residential development.
The CEQA Guidelines define a project under CEQA as "the whole of the action" that may result either directly or indirectly in physical changes to the environment. [Guidelines, § 15378] "The basic purpose of an EIR is to 'provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that| a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.'." (Golden Door Properties, LLC., v County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 504 (internal cits. om.)
Because CEQA is concerned with the "whole of the action," piecemealing (also referred to as segmenting) is not allowed. Agency action that approves or opens the way for future development triggers CEQA even if the action takes place prior to planning or approval of all specific features of the planned development. (Friends of the Sierra Railroad v. Tuolumne Park & Recreation Dist. (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 643, 654.) In other words, a local agency may not divide a project into two or more pieces and then evaluate each piece in a separate environmental document, rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document.
In this case, the City's actions have been even more egregious: the City pointed to the 2040 General Plan Update EIR as providing review of the environmental impacts of the Prezoning, the ULL City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
Resolution, and the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement. Each of those governmental actions are actually pieces of the larger residential Project that has yet to be environmentally reviewed: the ultimate planning, mapping, development, construction, operation, and maintenance of the HAT property with the residential housing needed to satisfy the County's RHNA obligations under controlling Housing Law. By focusing on the component pieces (e.g., ULL Resolution, HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement, Prezoning, annexation of the 281-acre HLAT to the City, etc.) and NOT the actual physical Project, the City, the County, and LAFCO are making decisions without a proper review of the environmental impacts of those decisions.
The City's failure to undertake any meaningful analysis of water supply for the HAT further demonstrates the inadequacy of its CEQA review. That omission is particularly striking given the City's recent litigation with the City of Vallejo concerning the adequacy and reliability of the City's water supply. The City prevailed in City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1112, not because water-supply analysis was unnecessary, but because the City had prepared an EIR and Water Supply Assessment addressing projected demand, available supplies, drought conditions, and the 1996 Water Service Agreement with Vallejo. Likewise, in connection with the nearby Paoli/Watson Lane annexation, the City prepared a separate EIR that expressly analyzed water supply and responded to Vallejo's concerns regarding the reliability and legal availability of those supplies. Here, however, the City proposes to annex approximately 281 additional acres for future urban development without any comparable analysis of the amount of water that development will require, the source and reliability of that water, or the effect of that demand on existing and planned supplies. Nor could the 2040 General Plan Update EIR have supplied that analysis, because the 2040 General Plan Update expressly deferred evaluation of specific uses within the HLAT to a later CEQA review. (See 2040 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, LU-13.) Water supply is therefore another environmental consequence of the Project as a whole that must be studied before annexation, not deferred until after the HLAT is brought within the City.
It pushes the limits of the imagination that actions for a portion of the HLAT land included in the 2040 General Plan Update only as "Future Study Area," which designation describes that future CEQA analysis will be required, and therefore was not analyzed as part of the 2040 General Plan Update EIR, are somehow nonetheless legally covered by the 2040 General Plan Update EIR for the purposes of CEQA compliance and that the HLAT land NOT included at all in the 2040 General Plan Update or General Plan Update EIR are likewise legally covered by the 2040 General Plan Update EIR. The lack of appropriate and lawful CEQA analysis is underscored for the parcels described by staff as having been excluded from the 2040 General Plan Update entirely. (Staff Report, p. 2).
(3) The City has Apparently Agreed that CEQA Compliance was Required for the Approval of the 2026 ULL Agreement and the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement.
As stated in the Facts above, following the City's adoption of the 2026 ULL Agreement and the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement, AC-1 sued the City and the County in Napa County Superior Court on June 15, 2026. Shortly thereafter, in June 2026, the City adopted a new resolution that tried to retroactively provide CEQA analysis for the approvals discussed above. Again, this resolution seeks to tier from the 2040 General Plan Update EIR. This attempt merely highlights 8 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
that CEQA review was required before approving the 2026 ULL Agreement and the HLAT Tax Sharing Agreement. Therefore, those actions are part of a larger Project - the ultimate development of the HLAT with residential uses needed to satisfy the County's RHNA housing obligations - that has been broken into smaller pieces without adequate environmental review.
B. The HLAT Prezoning Violates California Elections Law.
The HLAT lies outside the ULL adopted by Resolution 2008-105. The City approved the 2026 ULL Agreement6 - expanding the existing 2008 ULL - without a vote of the City's electorate, thus violating the express terms of the ULL Measure and Resolution 2008-105 and controlling California Elections law.
As the City, the County, and LAFCO are aware, the HLAT is outside the City's existing 2008 ULL and existing City corporate boundaries. The 2026 ULL Agreement and related adopting resolution provide that the City and County desire to expand the City's ULL to include the HLAT, that the City may expand its ULL to include those Properties, and that the City's planning for the County's future RHNA "can only be accomplished by expanding the 2008 Urban Limit Line to include the HLAT." However, the ULL does not allow such modification by the City. The controlling 2008 ULL reserves to the voters alone, not the City Council, the power to amend the 2008 Urban Limit Line.
This conclusion is consistent with California Elections Code sections 9215 and 9217. Section 9217 provides that an initiative ordinance adopted by the voters or adopted by the legislative body under the initiative statutes without submission to the voters, may not be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people unless the original ordinance provides otherwise. Here, as discussed above, both the ULL Measure and Resolution 2008-105 do NOT grant the City Council ANY amendment power; it reserves that right exclusively to the electorate through a subsequent vote. (See, AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 73, 89 ("Unlike laws enacted through the usual legislative process, laws enacted by voter initiative may be altered only in accord with the terms for amendment set forth in the initiative...").
The City, the County, and LAFCO, therefore, cannot do indirectly - through an intergovernmental agreement, a RHNA transfer arrangement, an annexation support document, a tax-sharing framework, or a Prezoning - that which the 2008 ULL absolutely forbids all such parties from doing directly: taking action to modify the ULL without voter consent.
Therefore, any and all preparatory efforts by the City, the County, and LAFCO to take actions, steps, and/or approvals introductory to, preliminary to, and/or laying the groundwork tor the annexation and development of Hess/Laird Property (HLAT) before the ULL is properly amended by the electorate is disallowed and in violation of controlling law. " Nothing in the administrative record supports why the HLAT is necessary to meet the RHNA or why other property already existing in the limits of the City is insufficient to meet the requirements for the RHNA. 9 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
C. The Prezoning Violates California Planning and Zoning Law. "Future Study Area" is Not a Valid General Plan Land Use Designation and the Consistent "Special Study Zone" is Likewise Legally Flawed; the Prezoning is Inconsistent with the City's Housing Element.
California Planning and Zoning Law requires every city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan containing the seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, plus an Environmental Justice (with certain qualifications).
Further, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the 2040 General Plan Update's Land Use Element and its land use designations must contain population density and building intensity planning standards that set forth the allowable concentration of uses for each such Land Use designation. Population density limits the number of people or homes, while building intensity measures the physical bulk of proposed buildings, like floor area ratios, to ensure the provision of adequate public agency infrastructure. (See, Gov. Code, § 65302 (a); Iwain Harte Homeowners Ass'n v. County of Tuolumne, 138 Cal. App. 3d 664, 696-97; Camp v. Bd. Of Supervisors, 123 Cal. App. 3d 334, 349 (1981); San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco, 229 Cal. App. 4th 498, 511 (2014).)
As the court in Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2013) 221.Cal.App.4th 192 (2013) underscored, the General Plan is a city's "constitution' for future development," is "located at the top of the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use," and therefore the "propriety" of virtually every local decision affecting land use and development depends upon that decision's consistency with the applicable General Plan. Id. at 196-197; see also, Lesher Commo'ns Inc. v.
City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal. 3d 531 (1990).
Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code § 65859) also generally allows the City to Prezone adjacent unincorporated territory, provided the Prezoning action is subject to the requirements applicable to all zoning in the City, including the requirement for consistency with the General Plan. However, the Prezoning of the HLAT must be considered in context to growth occurring in the City, and whether existing properties and existing opportunities for infill development can provide similar growth opportunities without requiring the annexation of HLAT.
These Planning and Zoning Law mandates, when taken together, are remarkably problematic for the City's adoption of the proposed Prezoning.
First, the City's 2040 General Plan Update Land Use Element designates the HLAT as "Future Study Area;" however, the "Future Study Area" designation contains neither population density nor building intensity standards. As such, "Future Study Area" is legally invalid as a General Plan Land Use designation under controlling law. Moreover, as set forth above, the current action seeks to add additional parcels not included in the 2040 General Plan Update. (Staff Report, p. 2.)
Second, the City tells us, through its Prezoning action, that the "Special Study Zone," the proposed zoning that comprises the Prezoning, is consistent with the City's 2040 General Plan Update Land Use Element designation (of the HLAT) as "Future Study Area": In the proposed ordinance attached to the September 1, 2026, City Council agenda item, "WHEREAS, the City 10 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
seeks to pre-zone the Affected Territory [the HLAT] as a "special study zone" ("SSZ") within the Special Study Zone District as described in American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.50, consistent with the 2040 General Plan Update and Government Code Section 65859[.J" The municipal code is not the 2040 General Plan Update.
Third, under the mandated General Plan consistency rule, if the Prezoning ("Special Study Zone") legally must be consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element (it must), and if that Land Use Element designates the HLAT as "Future Study Area" (it does), and if the Future Study Area designation contains neither population density nor building intensity standards (it does not), and if the Future Study Area designation is therefore legally invalid as a General Plan Land Use designation under controlling law (it is illegal), then the proposed Prezoning ("Special Study Zone") that is consistent with that illegal "Future Study Area" Land Use designation (as the City assets it is) is itself necessarily illegal. As made clear by the "Transitive Property of Equality Rule" - a core rule in math and logic - If A equals B, and B equals C, then A necessarily equals C. In other words, the "Special Study Zone" Prezoning, consistent with the illegal Land Use designation of "Future Study Area," is necessarily likewise illegal. This conclusion is even stronger for those parcels identified in the staff report that were not considered AT ALL during the preparation and adoption of the 2040 General Plan Update and the corresponding 2040 General Plan Update EIR.
Additionally, as discussed above, the Prezoning's "Special Study Area" zoning district is not found in the City's Municipal Code creating zoning districts with permitted uses. Those zoning districts are found in Title 19, Division 2, of the City's Municipal Code. Instead, "Special Study Area" is found in Chapter 19.50 of the City's Municipal Code, which is described as an "administrative action." Like the General Plan Land Use Element that designates the HLAT as "Future Study Area," that administrative action does not include any criteria regarding population density or building intensity of use. There are simply none of the zoning standards required by Planning and Zoning Law.
To constitute a zoning ordinance under state Planning and Zoning Law, such enactments contain "the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use of natural resources, and other purposes" and include other elements like height, bulk, and size of buildings and structures; the size and use of lots; and the intensity of land use. (Gov. Code, § 65850.) Moreover, common sense - and the City's own work - dictate that there is no "there" there. The Prezoning's "Special Study Area" zoning district is pure fluff, no substance, putting off to the future - after annexation - what the HLAT General Plan Land Use designation and Zoning might actually be:
WHEREAS, the purpose of the SSZ district is to: (a) allow properties to be zoned or Pre-Zoned until the City has completed appropriate planning studies to determine the types and intensities of land uses through an amendment of the City's general plan; and (b) allow agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses within the district as interim uses; ...."
(Proposed Ordinance, Recital 8 (emphasis added).)
11 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
A Prezoning that is consistent with an illegal Land Use designation and that clearly has no current idea of what it wants to be when it grows up cannot legally support the HILAT annexation as required by Planning and Zoning Law. This fatal flaw is even more evident because the staff report indicates that any change to the ULL to include the HLAT will require a General Plan amendment.
As such, the current action to support the HLAT annexation is violative of the adopted General Plan. The City is once again putting the cart before the horse in its compliance with the Planning and Zoning Law - compliance with that law is required before annexation can occur.
Additionally, the Prezoning is inconsistent with the Housing Element of the City's 2040 General Plan Update. As stressed by the court in San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City of San Francisco, 26 Cal.App.5th 596 (2018), the Housing Element must contain specific criteria:
The housing element of a general plan must contain specific components, analyses, goals and policies. (Gov. Code, § 65583.) The housing element must include, among other things, "[a]n assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs," including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as well as a program "to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element." (Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (a), (c).)
Id. at 609-610, emphasis added.
The City's Housing Element does NOT include the HLAT within its "inventory of land suitable for residential development." Id. As such, the Prezoning, by advancing the HLAT as new inventory of land suitable for residential development in contradiction to the Housing Element, is void ab initio. (Lesher Comme'ns Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal. 3d 531 (1990).) D. The Prezoning Violates LAFCO Law.
As the City, the County, and LAFCO know, Cortese-Knox created local agency formation commissions, such as LAFCO, to control changes in organization, including the annexation of territory to the corporate limits of the City, such as the proposed HLAT annexation. (Gov. Code. § 56021(c).)
And, as the City, the County, and LAFCO also know, for LAFCO to process the HLAT annexation, the area must first be prezoned by the City. (Gov. Code § 56375(a)(7).) However, what the City, the County, and LAFCO may not know is that LAFCO is precluded from the approval of HLAT annexation if it involves agricultural or open-space land, unless certain required findings are made:
In reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals which could reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate, or lead to the conversion of existing open-space lands to uses other than open- space uses, the commission shall consider all of the following policies and priorities:
(a) Development or use of land for other than open-space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in 12 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
open-space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.
(b) Development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction of a local agency or within the sphere of influence of a local agency should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open-space lands for non- open-space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency.
(Gov. Code, § 56377.)
As stated above, the City's action on the proposed Prezoning is "to pre-zone the Affected Territory [HLAT] as a 'special study zone' is to allow 'agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses within the district as interim uses[.] " Further, the HLAT is not within the City's Sphere of Influence - that Sphere amendment request is part of the Property Owner Petition.
Additionally, Napa County LAFCO's own policies strictly restrict the annexation of agricultural and open-space lands, like the proposed HILAT annexation, that are outside and contrary to the City's ULL:
D) Location of Urban Development:
The Commission will give great weight to urban growth
boundaries and guide urban development away from agricultural or open space lands until such times as urban development becomes an overriding consideration as determined by the Commission. The Commission encourages urban development be located within areas designated for urban use in the County General Plan and in close proximity to a city, town, or special district that can provide any needed public services. Urban development should be discouraged if it is apparent that any needed public services necessary for the proposed development cannot readily be provided by a city, town, or special district.
Again, the City's proposed Rezoning to the "Special Study Area" zoning district expressly allows "agricultural, grazing, open space and public uses within the district as interim uses" involving the HLAT which is outside the City's ULL, in direct contradiction to Napa County LAFCO's policies strictly restricting the annexation of such agricultural and open-space lands located outside of urban growth boundaries.
In other words, we have a City Prezoning of all of the HLAT, only a portion of which has been included in the operation general plan, the 2040 General Plan Update, to Future Study Area, none of which meets the requirements of Planning and Zoning Law, none of which has been properly reviewed pursuant to CEQA, none of which is within the City's existing Sphere of Influence, and none of which meets Napa County LAFCO's own policies.
13 City of American Canyon, County of Napa,
County of Napa LAFCO
September 1, 2026
The HLAT annexation cannot stand; the Prezoning is unlawful; and CEQA compliance has not yet been secured.
IV. CONCLUSION.
For the factual and legal reasons set forth herein, we respectfully submit that the City, the County, and LAFCO are not following controlling law, that the Prezoning cannot be adopted by the City, that the Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation cannot be approved by LAFCO, and that all of the pieces adopted by the City and County to date are flawed, as the Project has yet to undergo appropriate CEQA review, Planning and Zoning Law compliance, and/or Cortese-Knox compliance.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Burns Cochran
Susan Burns Cochran, Esq.
Cc: City Attorney
County Counsel
LAFCO Special Counsel
Carly Alameda, Esq.
14 EXHIBIT A
Hess/Laird Territory Annexation Project Pre-Zoning Map
S-Ke
APN 057
090-065
S. Kelley Rd
1 APN 057-
090-066
Highway 29
Green Island Rd
N
Legend
Special Study Zoning District
EXHIBIT A
Hess/Laird Territory Annexation Project Pre-Zoning Map
S-Ke
APN 057
090-0651
S. Kelley Rd
1 APN 057-
090-066
Highway 29
Green Island Rd
N
Legend
Special Study Zoning District
EXHIBIT A
Hess/Laird Territory Annexation Project Pre-Zoning Map
S-Ke
APN 057
090-065
S. Kelley Rd
1 APN 057-
090-066
Highway 29
Green Island Rd
N
Legend
Special Study Zoning District
EXHIBIT A
Hess/Laird Territory Annexation Project Pre-Zoning Map
S-Ke
APN 057
090-0651
S. Kelley Rd
1 APN 057-
090-066
Highway 29
Green Island Rd
N
Legend
Special Study Zoning District
EXHIBIT A
Hess/Laird Territory Annexation Project Pre-Zoning Map
S-Ke
APN 057
090-0651
S. Kelley Rd
APN 057-
090-066
Highway 29
Green Island Rd
N
Legend
Special Study Zoning District