St. Helena City Council
April 25, 2023

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Aaron Hecock
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 8:04 AM
To: Maya DeRosa
Cc: Chantal Power; Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Water Use Analysis 2126 Madrona Ave.

AARON HECOCK, AICP

SENIOR PLANNER
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Ave. | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 968-2659 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: TOM BELT <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 5:09 PM
To: Aaron Hecock <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Dohring <[email protected]>; Eric Hall <[email protected]>; Anna Chouteau <[email protected]>; Lester Hardy <[email protected]>; Billy Summers <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Water Use Analysis 2126 Madrona Ave.

Dear Mr. Hecock,
I just read the Water Use Analysis plan for the proposed new residence to be constructed at 2126 Madrona Avenue. I find it difficult to believe ten occupants will use 72.9 gallons per day per occupant in a residence and ADU that has 10 toilets, 12 bathroom sinks, 6 showerheads, 3 kitchen bar sinks, 3 clothes washers, and only 1 dishwasher that will only be used once every four days. Please provide answers to the following questions:

1. The above project refers to the existing 2126 Madrona Ave. residence as having five bedrooms and in order to remain in compliance with St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy, a reasonable baseline existing demand is 150 gallons of water per bedroom per day. Please provide the St. Helena Planning Ordinance(s) that verifies where this past ratio for daily water use per bedroom is listed?

2. Walking by the home it appears the existing residence is a rather small home. Did someone from the City's Planning Department physically inspect the home and confirm there are five bedrooms in the existing house?

3. What water use reference/guideline was used by Madrone Engineering to project the residence and ADU will only use 729 gallons of water per day considering the development projects ten occupants will be living in the two spaces?

4. Has the above proposed water use reference/guideline for this future single family home and ADU been validated as being an accurate prediction for future water use in past developments within St.

Helena?

5. If so, which single family home developments in St. Helena? Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 6. If the answer to question #4 is no, why is the city permitting this water use reference/guideline to be used when the city has such a limited annual water supply?

7. When was the last time St. Helena updated its Water Neutral Policy for Development?

8. If the proposed development is ultimately approved by City Council, is there a procedure in St.

Helena's ordinances to allow the city to monitor/limit the future daily water use to 729 gallons per day as the project proposes?
Thank you,
Tom Belt

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mary Cunningham Agee <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Maya DeRosa; Public Comment
Cc: Jodie Morlet; Luc Morlet; Annette Smith; [email protected]; Sarah Gott; Nina And Adam Rotello; Adam Rotello; Margo Simons; Diane Darby; Frank & Laura Rodrigues; Laura Rodrigues; [email protected]; Kathy Herdell; Susan Krausz; Ron Krausz Subject: [External] Opposition to Berchtold Proposal: 3.3.23 Importance: High
To: [email protected], [email protected] From: Mary Cunningham Agee and Family
Ref: Berchtold Proposal
Date: March 3, 2023
Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission and City Council Members,

I have just read and re-read the request by Architect Sasha Janev to the Saint Helena Planning Commission on behalf of the Berchtold’s Trust for adoption of a resolution to approve construction of a new “single-family home” (!) and accessory dwelling unit on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the A-20 zoning district.

I am dismayed to discover that the request of three out of six City Commissioners to the applicant at the close of the last public meeting in late October “not to return until this project is reduced in scale to under 10K square feet” has not even partially been implemented-- but has been completely ignored.

Apparently, we are to find comfort in a slight reduction in size and location of the ADU -- with no substantive change in the scope or location of the main structures! The main residence and attendant structures remain unchanged -- with more bedrooms and bathrooms than any other non-resident “home” within this community -- let alone our neighborhood. Yes, this proposal is “unprecedented” and should be considered within that extreme context.

The fact is that the main structure of this project still remains at essentially the same square footage as originally proposed. The objections of many locals have never primarily been about the setbacks, design or even the view-blocking height of the main structure when the sheer mass alone is way beyond the norms of everything else in this neighborhood.

Add to this affront to the aesthetic and cultural norms of this private, peaceful and quaint neighborhood, an imposing cement wall that would surround this “residence” and the objections to this compound or fortress become even more intense and obvious.

Despite the architectural commentary that attempts to segment the massive overall square footage of this proposed new structure, there is no obscuring that fact that the overall footprint of the main buildings and landscape still remain at 20K square feet.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Before stating my specific objections, I must emphasize -- yet again -- that these concerns are not personal.

I am by nature not someone who enjoys confrontation of any kind. I would far prefer to be part of a welcoming committee inviting new members into our community and neighborhood. But the gravity of this clear and present threat to our neighborhood and quality of life is severe enough to require an honest and reasonable confrontation.

My objections include but are not limited to the following:
• Agricultural: The Berchtold proposal is in clear contradiction to existing A-20 regulations designed precisely to protect agricultural land from developments like this. If those regulations mean nothing at times like these – then when do they count? • Environmental: 6K square feet “below ground level” does not prevent environmental damage; it just pushes it underground. Water, natural habitat and agricultural impacts remain very real.

Alleviating an utterly discretionary offence to the environment does not amount to preventing it all together.
• Social: Disruption during and after the construction of this compound/fortress cannot begin to take into account the loss of peace, safety and privacy to this neighborhood -- belovedly known as “the walking path” of Saint Helena - to many residents of this town. • Cultural Norms: Even the existing ordinances insist that the scale and style of any new construction be "consistent with existing norms of the neighborhood." The proposed construction’s basement (!) alone-- is larger than any existing structure on this street! The aggressive original proposal with not one -- but two -- driveway entrances onto Fir Hill Drive from this "residence" - reveals a lack of awareness respect for existing norms. • Common Sense: The proposed “residence” is more than three times the size of any home in this neighborhood! How can that reality possibly withstand the scrutiny of reasonable “fit” within neighborhood norms or cultural conformity? There is no home in this neighborhood -- or even within city limits -- even close to this size! That doesn't even begin to consider the proposed cement wall surrounding this “residence” (aka "fortress")! How can this proposal even approach the "common sense" norms of what a reasonable person in our community would consider to be fair or appropriate?
Have we not all seen enough harm done to our society when respected norms are compromised and shared values are sold to the highest bidder? Just because something “can be done” doesn’t mean that it “should be.”

I wouldn't have taken the time to write this letter if I didn't firmly believe that our community -- and those leaders placed in a position of responsibility to protect us -- would not take this duty seriously. This is ultimately not only about us and our quality of life- but about those of many future generations to come. We simply must make decisions today that will benefit those who will someday hold us accountable.

Just imagine how we would each feel -- three to five years from now (after months and years of construction noise and disruption – not to mention the consumption of vast amounts of scarce natural local resources) -- when new restrictions within our city limits will have been prudently implemented.

The new ordinances -- that you are fully aware of and are currently reviewing -- will presumably have been voted into law. And these ordinances will properly limit the size, scope and environmental impact of all new residences. Try to envision explaining how this white elephant -- amounting to four times the scale of anything currently exiting in our neighborhood – was allowed to slip by under our watch!

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

3 I can assure you this will not happen quietly. This neighborhood is not about to "go quietly into the night" as we watch everything our neighborhood stands for be compromised because of a slip up in timing of a new ordinance.

Our neighborhood and this City Planning Commission - as well as the City Council -- should not be forced to pay the price for past inconsistencies or ambiguities in building codes or ordinances! You know better – and the new proposed ordinances prove this to be true. This is precisely why you are about to vote into law ordinances that would preclude such a behemoth from destroying the beauty and environmental integrity of a much beloved local neighborhood.

Thankfully, there is a solution. And this is readily available if the Planning Commission and City Council choose to do what is right. And the applicant -- and those advising -- will consider the unpleasant and expensive outcome of assured protracted efforts to oppose this affront to this community and neighborhood.

The applicant’s reasonable choice: Either pursue this project substantially reduced in scale or relocate it exactly as it is designed to a more appropriate location where the legitimate objections raised will no longer be of concern.

As a resident of Fir Hill for thirty years, I am deeply saddened that our neighborhood has been placed in such an unpleasant position where we are forced to publicly oppose such a serious threat to our safety, security and privacy. My preference will always be to welcome newcomers -- but not at all costs. This is especially true when the environmental, agricultural, social, cultural, and economic costs of a proposed project would compromise my values.

Having known and respected each of you for many years, I believe that the members of this Planning Commission and City Council would also have preferred that this proposal not have arisen in the narrow window of “opportunity” before new ordinances would prevent this project from consideration. I ask that you please have the foresight and courage to implement those protections you are well aware of now - just a few months before these positive changes will be recognized for the collective wisdom they represent.

I thank you for your thoughtful consideration and request that you find this project to be inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3.

On behalf of the many concerned residents of this town, I further ask that you insist – yet again – that the applicant revise the plans to retain all the existing historic vineyards and redesign the project’s scope and style to be consistent with the environmental concerns of and norms of the existing neighborhood.

Most respectfully,

Mary Cunningham Agee and Family

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 4:06 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] 2126 Madrona
Dear Maya,
I am very opposed to the proposed project at 2126 Madrona. It has no place in our town and certainly not there. It is completely out of scale and out of character.

Thank you,
Linda Rose
St. Helena
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Leslie Stanton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 4:57 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] 2126 Madrona
Hi Maya - The "dream home" that the super rich couple wants to build on the Rossi property is out of scale for this community and meant for another purpose, and should not be called a home. Any building with that many bathrooms is to be some kind of an entertainment center. It needs to be scaled back.

Sincerely, Leslie Stanton
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Kimberly Phinney <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:24 AM
To: John Ponte <[email protected]>; Autumn Anderson <[email protected]>; Rosaura Segura <[email protected]>; Marika Rothfeld <[email protected]>; Christopher Warner <[email protected]> Cc: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; Chantal Power <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Tuesday's Meeting
March 3, 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners, Ms. DeRosa, and Ms. Powers, I am writing on behalf of the 2126 Madrona Avenue project up for a demolition permit and design review for the Tuesday, March 7th Planning Commission meeting.

I am writing to express my support of this project because it falls within the ‘laws’ of what a private property owner is allowed to do and can do on this particular property in St. Helena. I support the Staff Recommendations and hope that Option 1 is the direction you choose.

When we all buy property here, we know that the space that surrounds us, whether vacant or already constructed, has the chance to be redone or developed. This is just a fact of living in any neighborhood, town, city, outside of a cave. Our feelings and our emotions, as well as our opinions, should not supersede what is legal and allowed.

A property owners taste or style should not be questioned or unique projects challenged simply because it is not your taste or style. What is allowable, again within the law, should prevail.

Personal habits and use of every day, taxed and billed utilities, should not even come into question for anyone other than the person paying for them. How many toilets does someone need is often opinionated in regards to this project and that is absolutely an absurd (and disgusting) abuse of privacy. How big does a house really need to be? That depends on the property owner building the home and if the general plan allows for it, not the like or dislike of the neighbors and what they are used to ‘seeing’ around our town. Allowing these opinions to become factors in whether a project is passed, instead of what is allowed within the law, sets a precedent unlike any other and will cost the city, not only in potential lawsuits, but tax revenue.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Having recently listened to the City Council meeting on Tuesday night about the financial crisis our city is in, I could only go back to the countless and endless ‘no’s’ of projects, businesses, buildings, repairs, chain store support, on and on, because people ‘didn’t want to see’, or ‘want to maintain our charm’, ‘or we don’t think this is an appropriate size’, even ‘they don’t live here full time’. Those opinions and mentality, time and time again, got us to the deficit we are in now and will be for some time. Feelings are fine, allowed to be heard and part of this process, but feelings should not get in the way of what is legal and allowed, not to mention turning down projects that will benefit the city with revenue.

Thank you for your time not only serving on the Commission, but taking into consideration what is right, just, and allowed.

Ciao,
Kim Phinney
St. Helena
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
BN 75574762v1
707.200.9414 Direct March 3, 2023 [email protected]

VIA E-MAIL
St. Helena Planning Commission
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
John Ponte (Chair) - [email protected]
Autumn Anderson (Vice-Chair) - [email protected] Christopher Warner – [email protected]
Rosaura Segura – [email protected]
Marika Rothfeld- [email protected]
Re: PL 21-044 - 2126 Madrona Ave. Single-Family Home Development Project Dear Chair Ponte and Members of the St. Helena Planning Commission:

Thank you for the time spent on the recent staff report. We understand our presentation next week will be limited in time. With that time constraint in mind, we have set forth the major points to illustrate how this project comports with the General Plan. The staff report notes that consistency with applicable General Plan policies is a required finding for a Design Review approval, but the staff report suggests the project may be found inconsistent with two General Plan policies. The applicant respectfully disagrees that the project could be found inconsistent with the above policies for the reasons outlined below. At issue are the following two General Plan policies:

LU5.1 Discourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. (General Pan, page 2-42.)
LU5.3 Strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan that are designated as agricultural land. (General Plan, page 2-42.)
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

In determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Planning Commission should consider whether it is compatible with the general land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. In order to satisfy this objective, a proposal should meet the overall intent of the General Plan.

It is important to note that very little of the property’s agricultural land is being converted to a nonagricultural use with only .53 acres of a 5.78 acre parcel is being converted. The property’s agriculture and rural residential use is noted in the current General Plan. (GPU 2040 Figure 1.3.) The property’s mainly agricultural use will continue under a contract with Spottswoode Winery. The staff report’s view of these policies seems to be that “zero vine loss” could be required to be consistent the above policies. However, this interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the General Plan or its environmental document. The words “discourage” in LU 5.1 and “strictly limit” in LU 5.3 cannot be interpreted to mean “prohibit”.

To be sure, the certified EIR for the General Plan states that agricultural lands could be converted even with the above polices in place. [General Plan EIR, page 3.2-14] Therefore, the General Plan policies were acknowledged to not “prohibit” the conversion of agricultural lands, and an interpretation that the policy equals zero vine loss would be inconsistent with the impact analysis certified by City Council.

Second, the project complies with applicable zoning limitations on non-agricultural uses.

Current A20 zoning limits non-agricultural uses to one acre as identified on the project plans.

While current zoning was adopted before the current General Plan, the two policies at issue are not new. The 1993 General Plan contained the following two substantially identical policies:

Policy 2.6.58 Promote the continuation of agricultural activities within and adjacent to the City. (1993 General Plan, page 2-27.)
Policy 2.6.61 Limit residential development on properties existing at the time of adoption of the [1993] General Plan which are designated Agriculture and are outside the Urban Limit Line in accordance with [the below defined specific standards]… (1993 General Plan, page 2-28 (bracketed material supplied).) Comparing the 1993 General Plan language to the current General Plan, the policies are the same in substance. Under the above policy language, the Planning Commission previously issued design review approval for an estate home on lands zoned A20 at 601 Fulton Lane in application Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

number P18-058, and that project also involved a limited conversion of agricultural to rural residential use.1
Further, this current project meets the overall goals, policies and objectives by:
• Increasing tonnage production resulting from farm investments and modifications of farming techniques;
• Continuation of dry farming;
• Planting of olive trees; and
• Enhancements to regional storm retention systems.

Not only is the limited conversion of certain low producing vines mitigated, but the project remains within the maximum area of land (1 acre) permitted to be developed in the A20 zone.

Lastly, a denial based on a zero vine loss interpretation of these policies is not compliant with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for design review. A city is not required to adopt a design review ordinance. Where a city sets forth limitations in its design review criteria, it is bound by those criteria. Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1014.

Here, the City has provided the following limitation:

C. Only the proponent’s failure to take reasonable account of the items discussed in Sections 17.164.010 through 17.164.030 shall justify the commission’s disapproving a proposal solely on the basis of design.

St. Helena Municipal Code §17.164.040
Certainly, the applicant has taken reasonable account of continued agricultural use on the property as evidenced by the letter from Spottswoode Winery and investments in improving the property’s vineyard presented to the Planning Commission in past hearings. Denying the project on a zero vine loss interpretation is equivalent to denial on a non-design matter. Denial on a non-design matter is not permitted under the City’s ordinance. McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, 92-93. 1 Details of P18-058 are available online at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/project/pl18-058-601-fultonln-pohlen-residence-and-agricultural-barn. The applicant incorporates by reference that past design review approval into the administrative record of this project.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

Because the proposed project satisfies the existing General Plan land use designation and policies protecting agricultural lands, we ask that the Planning Commission approve the design review application.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
KATHARINE H. FALACE
cc:

Ethan Walsh ([email protected])
Maya DeRosa ([email protected])
Chantal Power ([email protected])
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
BN 75553327v1
707.200.9414 Direct March 3, 2023 [email protected]

VIA E-MAIL
St. Helena Planning Commission
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
John Ponte (Chair) - [email protected]
Autumn Anderson (Vice-Chair) - [email protected] Christopher Warner – [email protected]
Rosaura Segura – [email protected]
Marika Rothfeld- [email protected]
Re: PL 21-044 - 2126 Madrona Ave. Single-Family Home Development Project Dear Chair Ponte and Members of the St. Helena Planning Commission:

We held a third neighborhood meeting on March 1, 2023. The following neighbors attended:

Hank and Patty Di Tomaso
Kathleen Herdell
Ron & Susan Krausz
Adam Rotello
Margo Simons
Annette Smith
During the meeting, we went over plans and discussed the revisions included in the most recent submission. The neighbors also asked about the mechanical room, the vines, the agricultural well (which falls outside the scope of this application), the oak tree, and the rain/runoff mitigation. We further discussed the septic lines proposed on the plans and the public sewer system if allowed by the City.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

On March 2, 2023, we met with Annabel and Stephen Siri and Kate and Justin Osler. The concerns raised by the neighbors focused on the eastern elevation of the house. A further call is currently being scheduled to address same.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
KATHARINE H. FALACE
cc:

Ethan Walsh ([email protected])
Maya DeRosa ([email protected])
Chantal Power ([email protected])
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 8:37 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: 2126 Madrona, Vote Approval
Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: John Zimmerman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 8:17 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: Aaron Hecock <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] 2126 Madrona, Vote Approval
St Helena Planning Commission
The home proposed for 2126 Madrona will be a handsome addition to the neighborhood where I live. I urge the Planning Commission to approve the project. Additionally, approving the project will provide a significant infrastructure improvement by extending the sewer line further along Madrona to the project site. This will provide nearby residents the option for eliminating their septic systems. Another significant community benefit is the enormous financial infusion this home will provide annually in the form of property tax. Assuming a $40,000,000 project valuation, this equates to an approximate annual tax bill of $500,000. Per the Napa County Tax Collector's Office, 18% of the $500,000 will go to the City of St Helena, and 50% will go to our local schools. The final 30% will stay with Napa County.

This project has been the subject of much controversy, some of which continues to be mean-spirited and inaccurate. For example, there are some who have vilified the applicant because they are financially successful. Another instance was the demand of the Fir Street neighbors for a noise study. Any of us familiar with the project site could tell you the result of the study would identify two sources of noise -- the sheep in the Spottswoode Vineyard and the rooster across the street! Regarding the complaint about the size of the home, this is not unusual for sought-after communities. Lake Tahoe, Carmel, and the suburbs of San Francisco (Pacific Heights, Atherton and Woodside) have homes of this scale, and they blend well, as will the home proposed for 2126 Madrona Ave.

This project has been debated tirelessly, and the applicant has made numerous concessions. It's time to approve the project. I look forward to seeing the home built, as I believe it to be an excellent addition to the neighborhood where I live.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 Thank you for the attention you have given this project. I am aware that the Planning Commission has a difficult role. It strives to balance demands of those opposed to this project with the fact the application meets the intent of established standards. Adding to this challenge is that some of those against the project are acquaintances or even friends of commission members. St Helena owes the Planning Commission members and staff its gratitude and respect for all that they endure.

Sincerely,
John Zimmerman
Spring Street
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:11 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] Berchtold project on Madrona/Fir HIll Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Margo Simons <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 4:39 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Berchtold project on Madrona/Fir HIll Hello Maya,
I hope you are well. We (Fir Hill ) met on the Berchtold property this week to discuss the changes that had been made. Very little had been changed, including the size of the home. I am surprised that in this day and age (with water issues, flood plane consideration) that someone could even consider it, especially because this size has never been considered before in our town. With the proposed future code saying no house larger than 4700sq ft. can be built in town, this will end up being a white elephant. It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood. This project is perfect for an out of town, on a street without the foot, bike and car traffic.

I spoke to a former head of planning (commissioner) and they said even though they (or whomever) may technically be allowed to build to code something of this size(20k), does not mean that it has to be approved. There is a fact in the code says something to the effect ~that if it doesn’t look, smell or taste right for the neighborhood, you don’t have to allow it. It’s the classic just because they can does not mean they should.

Thank you for your consideration,
Margo Simons
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:37 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] House proposed for Madrona & Fir Hill Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Barbara Shurtz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:26 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] House proposed for Madrona & Fir Hill I feel that this house is entirely too large for the neighborhood and should not be allowed to be built on this property within the city limits.

Barbara Shurtz 1600 Dean York Lane, St Helena
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

CARMEN A. POLICY
GAIL M. POLICY
2170 Palmer Drive
St. Helena, CALIFORNIA 94574
[email protected]
March 3, 2023
In Re: Comment upon 2126 Madrona Avenue project up for a Demolition Permit and Design Review for the Tuesday March 7th Planning Commission hearing Dear Planning Commissioners, Director DeRosa and Ms. Powers.

We are submitting this written comment in support of the project seeking the above permit and review. My wife Gail and I are full-time residents of the City of St. Helena, and we are part of the same neighborhood as the property in question and only 1 ½ blocks away. We express our support for the project located at 2126 Madrona Avenue and we believe that “Staff Recommendation”, Option one (1) should be followed and approved.

Based on the findings in the staff report it appears that the proposed project follows all current city zoning laws. Further, applicants are not seeking any exceptions or variances for their project. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission has approved similar projects in the past, therefore it seems not approving this project would be inappropriate and would also set a dangerous precedent with no legal basis.

My direct inquiries into this matter indicate that the proposed project is in keeping with the architectural and design elements seen throughout the town and it will be a substantive contribution to a diversity of styles in our community.

My wife and I have further appreciation for the effort on the part of the owners/applicants to preserve the existing agricultural nature of the property while balancing their needs and desires. Needless to say, the financial benefits and the tax revenue this project will bring to our community will be a major benefit at a time when our town needs it the most.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

As a final and personal point, it is our opinion that the owners/applicants will be wonderful neighbors who will have a very personal attachment to this home and the region as a whole. They have very close friends already attached to St.

Helena and we believe that list will grow exponentially. We are certain that they are the type of people who will lend their support to projects that need the help and contributions of individual citizens. Furthermore, we are looking forward to having this couple and their family in our neighborhood for many years to come.

Thank you for your time, consideration and opportunity to weigh in on this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
Carmen A. Policy
Gail M. Policy
2170 Palmer Drive
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] Proposed build at Madrona and Fir Hill meeting Mar 7 Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | hƩp://cityofsthelena.org/planning -----Original Message-----
From: ELLEN SHIFFLETT <ellenshiffleƩ@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 8:34 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Proposed build at Madrona and Fir Hill meeƟng Mar 7 As a neighbor and property owner in St Helena I am opposed to the proposed build of an oversized structure on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill. I find the proposed out of proporƟon to the neighborhood. Please consider the environment.

Thank you
Ellen ShiffleƩ
1701 Madrona Ave
St Helena
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

March 5, 2023
City of St. Helena, Planning Commission
1572 Railroad Ave. | St. Helena, CA 94574
John Ponte | Chair, Planning Commission | [email protected] Autumn Anderson | Vice-Chair, Planning Commission | [email protected] Marika Rothfeld | Planning Commissioner | [email protected] Rosaura Segura | Planning Commissioner | [email protected] Christopher Warner | Planning Commissioner | [email protected] Re: Continued Concerns Regarding 2126 Madrona Ave. Development Project Dear Chair Ponte, Vice-Chair Anderson, Commissioner Rothfeld, Commissioner Segura and Commissioner Warner,
We are writing to express our continued concerns regarding the project as it is currently proposed by Sasha Janev on behalf of Lorraine and Joe Berchtold to accommodate the construction of a new “single-family home and accessory dwelling unit” on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue.

As previously noted, we would be very pleased to welcome Joe and Lorraine to the neighborhood and are grateful that their team agreed early on to remove plans for two driveways on our private, single-lane road.

Yet, we are quite perplexed as to why the overall size and scope of this project has not changed. The team was directed to meet with neighbors and to return with a plan encompassing less square footage (e.g., less than 10,000 square feet - the maximum size allowed for a commercial building within the City limits).

To date, while there have been a few meetings with neighbors and story poles were erected, the changes that we have observed include lowering the ceiling height of the ADU (pool house) and a slight relocation of that structure to try to lesson the obstruction of views for those residents directly impacted. However, no concerns expressed by neighbors have resulted in any reduction in the overall size of the proposed residence.

During the second meeting with neighbors, a question was asked as to how the water use calculation was made.

Mr. Janev explained that it was based upon the number of bedrooms. He was then asked how many bedrooms are in the current plan. Mr. Janev and Mr. Berchtold proceeded to point in the air, circling around and counting: “1 -2 -3 -4 -5.” They then agreed aloud with each other, “Yes, 5.” This led many residents who were present to conclude that more bedrooms are in fact planned, but only five rooms are being designated as such on the proposed plans.

We would have hoped for more transparency with regard to water usage and the manner in which the corner of Fir Hill Drive and Madrona Avenue may be impacted.

We respectfully request that you carefully evaluate whether the size of this residence is reasonable for the surrounding neighborhood, as we trust that you would do for any project in our beautiful city.

Sincerely,
Luc & Jodie Morlet
Fir Hill Drive Residents
Cc:

City of St. Helena, Planning Division
Maya DeRosa | Planning & Building Director | [email protected] | 707-967-2783 x 530 Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Via email March 6, 2023
RE File Number PL 21-044, 2126 Madrona Avenue, Berchtold Project Dear Planning Commission Chair Ponte and Planning Commissioners, My property located at 1775 Fir Hill Dr. has been in our family since 1972 when it was a cow pasture and Madrona Ave. was a narrow road without a middle line. Our connection to St. Helena is multigenerational; my great grandfather Robert Graham operated a saloon and pool hall on Main Street and my grandfather attended St. Helena Elementary School; my great uncle Thomas Street served as principal of St. Helena Elementary School for a while and his wife ran the florist shop. I feel connected to St. Helena and support my Fir Hill Dr. neighbors in opposition to this project as currently proposed.

I was unable to attend the March 1, 2023 community meeting for the project because of weather conditions and Hwy 101 closure, and unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the March 7 Planning Commission meeting. I have the following questions and concerns.

Water
The water analysis for “water neutrality” is based on the approximation of Dennis Rossi, the sole occupant, using 750 gallons per day because the house has 5 bedrooms. How is this reasoning consistent with the water department phase II water restrictions of 65 gallons per person per day and 2,500 gallons per month for landscaping from April 1 through October? For these 7 months the water use would be 4,450 gallons per month for a period of time when Dennis Rossi was living in the residence. Compare 22,500 gallons per month based on 750 gallons per day with 4,450 gallons per month based on reality. A single resident in a household can use only one toilet at a time and uses about 2.56 gal/flush if not low flow. Even10 flushes/day leaves about 125 gallons for other household water usage assuming 150 gallons per the bedroom used by the single resident. The system of assigning 150 gallons of water per bedroom per day does not give a “reasonable estimate of baseline existing demand” in this case and is used to make it appear that an almost 20,000 sq ft house with 3 bedrooms, possibly 2 more and more bedroom possibilities in the enormous basement, 10 toilets, 16 faucets, 6 shower heads, 2 baths, 3 clothes washers and 1 dishwasher, plus an ADU with 1 bedroom, 1 toilet, 3 faucets, 1 shower head, 1 clothes washer and 1 dishwasher will use less water than the existing use. This defies common sense. I urge the Planning Commission to seek answers, and share them with the public, to questions raised by Tom Belt in his letter dated 2/23/2023. I request that the water analysis of existing use be redone to match reality. Although the current water analysis does not require a water offset due to the inaccurate estimate of existing water usage, offsets do not create more water. With the climate models predicting increasing temperatures and more evapotranspiration, the practice of using offsets to be “water neutral” may not meet the future needs and should be reconsidered. There is a significant probability that all the existing old vines will need to be replaced and new vines watered to be profitable in a warming climate. How will the project be “water neutral” without adding another well to the area? Although the building project does not require CEQA, the well permit should require CEQA in order to study the cumulative impacts of wells in the area in relation to a drying, warming climate, hydrologic flow underground, geology of underground aquafers (probability of collapse, capacity to refill). Wells that functioned in the 1970s at 125 ft depth are dry, and now a depth of about 500 ft is required for reliable water; this water may have collected thousands of years ago. This project is downslope of residential and vineyard wells in the vicinity of Fir Hill Dr. and Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Dean York Lane and creates the risk of water loss for these residents. Protection of the water supply for these residents is a Planning Commission responsibility.

Historic Oak Tree Protection and Storm Water Control Plan Madrona Avenue has been widened since the 1970s and covers more of the tree’s root area along this east side. The asphalt impedes oxygen flow, so the tree may be more dependent on it shallow feeder roots in the remaining root area that is within the project area. The largest bio retention basin is located just outside the root area indicated for the oak tree which serves as a mother tree and has mycorrhizal networks extending beyond the root area to other existing plants. Grading and excavating a 2 ft deep bio retention basin will initially damage the shallow feeder root/mycorrhizal association with other plants on the property. How will this be mitigated? The Storm Water Control Plan states the proposed impervious surface is 24,810 sq ft and the existing impervious surface is 9,840 sq ft. Instead of using pervious pavement for the driveway and motor court parking area which would decrease the impact on the oak tree, the project proposes no pervious pavement. The existing driveway and parking is gravel that allows water and dissolved oxygen into the soil and helps shallow feeder root/mycorrhizal connections to survive. The existing structures have an area of 3,893 sq ft according to the staff report; what accounts for the additional almost 6,000 sq ft of existing impervious surface? A 20,000 sq ft increase in impervious surface reduces the area available for cooperative mycorrhizal connections to other plants and soil areas that currently benefit the oak tree. Will an ethical arborist sign a statement that this massive increase in impervious surface will not decrease the health and longevity of the oak tree? Design Review
To justify loss of agricultural land as consistent with LU 5.1 and LU 5.3, staff uses the rationale that surrounding parcels have not maintained agricultural uses. One resident on Dean York Lane has consistently grown row crops and offered surplus for free to the community; the residence on the NE side of the project has a vineyard; two residences at the west end of Fir Hill Dr. have vineyards and another maintains pasture for livestock; two additional residences on Fir Hill Dr. grow organic fruits and vegetables for their own use and to supply others (over the past decade I have grown and transported hundreds of pounds of lemons, persimmons, figs, guavas to Food for People in Humboldt County). What benefit comes from a narrow interpretation of agricultural use of land? Breaking up the façade of the project structure fronting on Fir Hill Dr. does not preserve the vineyard and mountain views for neighbors or local residents and tourists who enjoy walking and cycling on Fir Hill Dr. and Madrona. The mass of a two story, 29ft tall house is still overwhelming and detracting unless one is an aficionado of excessive wealth display.

I urge the Planning Commission to find that this project is not consistent with General Plan policies LU

5.1 and LU 5.3, and approve a decision that this project not return for consideration “until this project is reduced in scale to under 10K square feet.”
Thank you for serving on the Planning Commission and considering my comments.

Respectfully,
Alice Diane Ryerson
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

March 5, 2023
To Maya DeRosa and the Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing this letter to voice my opposition and concern about the proposed building project for 2126 Madrona Ave. I have attended the 2 previous Planning Commission meetings where the applicant was instructed to make adjustments, scale down this project and talk to the neighbors. I also attended the 3 “neighborhood meetings” and voiced my concerns. I was quite surprised at the most recent meeting that no changes were made to the main residence. Only the ADU was moved a few feet. Several of us expressed our disappointment that the main residence remained the same size but our comments were not taken into consideration nor mentioned in their summary report.

Many of my neighbors have already written detailed letters addressing specific concerns so I won’t repeat those issues in my letter but I want you to know that I support their concerns. I also want to be sure that the future of the heritage Oak will not be in jeopardy or impacted by the drastic change in the underground system and that the water use will be thoroughly investigated and monitored.

This proposed residence is beyond the scope and size of any other residence in St. Helena. It is not in keeping with the characteristics of our town and this neighborhood. It will forever change the view along Madrona Avenue and adjacent properties. It will not only impact this specific neighborhood but the community at large and set a precedent for other oversized projects. We will all have to live with the environmental impact of this project for years to come.

I urge you to vote for Option 2 and find this project inconsistent with the General Plan polices LU5.1 and LU5.3 and recommend a scaled down version.

Thank you for seriously considering the issues that will impact our entire community.

Respectfully,
Annette Smith
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: Berchtold's Project
Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Beth Milliken <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 11:28 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Cc: Joe Berchtold <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Berchtold's Project
Dear Maya,
I have had the opportunity to review the Planning Commission Report related to Joe & Lorraine Berchtold’s home project at 2126 Madrona Avenue, and I am very happy to see that the Berchtolds have been responsive to the input of the Planning Commission and of their neighbors in making adaptations to the plans that address the concerns raised. With all of this, I write to express my support of this modified project. As an aside, we here at Spottswoode are thrilled with the opportunity to rehabilitate this amazing vineyard in the heart of St. Helena.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you so much! Very sincerely,
Beth
Beth Novak Milliken
President & CEO

S P O T T S W O O D E E S T A T E V I N E Y A R D & W I N E R Y 1902 Madrona Avenue • St. Helena CA 94574
707/963-0134, x116 • spottswoode.com
Please paws before printing. – Riley
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Patricia (Herdell) DiTomaso & Henry DiTomaso
Kathleen Herdell Christina Herdell
1615 Fir Hill Drive
St. Helena, CA 94574
March 6, 2023
Commissioner John Ponte, Chair ([email protected]) Commissioner Autumn Anderson, Vice Chair ([email protected]) Commissioner Christopher Warner ([email protected]) Commissioner Rosaura Segura ([email protected]) Commissioner Marika Rothfield ([email protected]) Ms. Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director ([email protected]) Ms. Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Application for Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009-470-010) filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff:

Pursuant to a request of the Commissioners at its hearing on December 6, 2022, we submitted a status report on December 19, 2023 of issues resolved and outstanding between the applicants and the Fir Hill Drive neighbors as we understood them at that date. Because applicants had not submitted revised plans at that point, we were unable to report that any issues were resolved. After review of applicants’ recently submitted revised plans and a short meeting at the property with applicants’ representatives, we continue to oppose the project and request the Planning Commission deny the application on the same grounds as we have stated in previous letters of opposition from us and other neighbors.

Although each reason for our opposition alone justifies your denial, collectively they overwhelmingly do.

1. Project massing. No changes were made to the overall 19,515 sq. ft. development.

House massing remains a consistent objection to every Fir Hill neighbor and other members of the community who love the area as we do. Although Planning Commissioners suggested to applicants at each hearing they reconsider reducing the square footage of the project, applicants continued to believe they had the right to their proposed project as submitted. In meetings with us, they actually stated they were “entitled” to them. Ms. Berchtold in particular threatened even more development when we told her we opposed the size and stated to us she would not reduce “one square foot.” This project is far too large for the area and is in noncompliance with multiple General Plan requirements. Even with minimizing the design and materials selected, a residential development of this size neither fits the character of the neighborhood and town nor the scale and scope of the other residential structures in either the Fir Hill neighborhood, the valley floor or St. Helena in general. Approval of this application will set a terrible precedence for the City of St.

Helena.
a. The ADUs. First, let us address issues regarding the ADU. Specifically, applicants DO NOT propose only one ADU; they actually request TWO composed of 2 structures measuring about 425 sq. ft. each. When combined with the 300 sq. ft. covered breezeway between the 2 structures, the total size equals 1,150 sq. ft. City Staff point out that review of the ADU is a staff ministerial function such that the Planning Commission should have no decision-making authority. In this project plan, however, it is material to the objections of the neighbors and the project massing because its total sq. ft. is at least 1,150. Whether staff or the Planning Commission make the ultimate decision, it should be denied. We question how many ADU’s of 1,150 square feet have been approved in St. Helena making this ADU different and inconsistent from all the other ADU’s approved in the past.

Although applicants frame the ADU request as a kitchen, living area and bedroom, each building can easily be modified clandestinely after construction and final inspection to make 2 fully functional apartments each with kitchens Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

and bedrooms. This hidden motive makes sense when you consider that applicants have stated they will employ a full time caretaker to live in a kitchen-less unit in the main house. This makes no sense when one considers their planting of tall olive trees, construction cement walls and other significant efforts to protect their “privacy.” What kind of wealthy people want a caretaker to come and go into their main house at any time without notice who claim to seek maximum privacy? Their solution: put the caretaker into one of the guest ADUs. When one considers the caretaker unit in the main residence and the 2 ADUs, this project actually has 4 single family residences being proposed. Moreover, the current configuration makes no sense to separate the kitchen from the bedroom unit which would force a tenant or guest to go out into inclement weather to get a glass of water in the night. There is no doubt post-construction changes will be made.

Second, we thank applicants for changes made to the location of the proposed “pool room” ADU as an attempted compromise to reduce the project’s impact on certain neighbors’ view; however, moving the two ADU structures only 15’ to the west and 5’ to the south as well as lowering the roofline “about 2 feet” have minimal impact. Applicants made no change to the size of the ADUs to minimize impact on the neighbors’ views. Thus, it remains the size of numerous single family homes in St. Helena. If, for example, there is only 1 ADU being proposed, they could have removed the breezeway between the 2 structures and made the ADU one building. Likewise, applicants could then have rotated the ADU so that its length ran east and west instead of north and south along Fir Hill; this would thusly reduce the length of the structure running along Fir Hill and further minimized the distance in front of the 1615 property. As it sits now, even with the new setbacks, the ADU blocks our view to the vineyard and eastern hills. Such a turn would significantly reduce the number of vines and rows needed to be torn out to accommodate the current version.

We have owned and lived in 1615 Fir Hill Drive for 65 years. We have made financial improvements to the property based on the view of the vineyard and eastern hills. Applicants should not be able to interfere with these investments because of an ADU that could be smaller, lower in height and positioned differently that would allow them an ADU but also protect their neighbors.
b. The Residence.

The basement: it is immaterial substantial square footage of this project is a basement which would be invisible to the neighbors and overall massing. That size of a buried cement box will impact the local area regardless in multiple ways including impact on the oak tree and groundwater and topside water flow. Furthermore, while there are homes with basements in St. Helena, NONE are anywhere close to the 6,457 sq. ft. size proposed here. Although staff report the HVAC will be located in the basement, it is impossible. Certainly the mechanical requirements for the elevator needed to get from the basement to the 3rd floor will be there. While the laundry machines could be located there, who would want them to be so far away from where the laundry lives? Purportedly there will be a game room. It will certainly be big enough to house almost 7 pickle ball courts, 7 badminton courts, 3.5 volleyball courts, and 2 tennis courts. It is nonsensical to put mechanical and other equipment in a high ground water location where all neighbors who have basements and flooding protections have ALL flooded at one time or another. Some flood every year notwithstanding engineered flooding protection. Building a 10 foot tall, 6,457 sq. ft. cement box might be good for an indoor swimming pool, but not for much else. Denial of the basement is essential to prevent environmental and other long term impact on the neighborhood. Nature will find a way to mitigate all that happens now below the surface of the ground if this basement is constructed and the consequences could be devastating to our aquifers that feed our wells and neighboring vineyards, to the heritage oak tree and its complicated root system, to the City’s drainage system among the few notable issues.

The first and second floors. Even if the basement is denied, the remaining size of the main residence is larger than any other residence in St. Helena and should be denied. It does not fit into the neighborhood and rural character of this particular location. In short, this project remains far too large in scope for the City limits and valley floor. It would be fine if it were located against the base of the foothills or location where it is not seen from the narrow roads and footpaths. Again, we object that this project will serve as precedence for future projects. The Planning Commission and City Council are here to protect our way of life and our cultural heritage. Denial of this application is the only protection our legacy has. Applicants and many of us won’t be here in 50 years, but this local behemoth will be. It’s not what we want to occupy our valley floor.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

When the Rossi family sold the property, we did not doubt someone would rebuild, but we expected it would be in keeping with the current structure size and the sizes of the homes rebuilt along the adjacent Madrona corridor. We did not expect an almost 20,000 sq. ft. project. Please deny this application.

2. Visibility on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill will remain a problem.

Without living in this neighborhood for the length of time all the Fir Hill neighbors have, applicants’ cannot truly understand how dangerous the visibility problem is on the corner of Fir Hill Drive and Madrona where both autos and pedestrians enter and exit the roadway on a regular basis. As drivers, when we drive south on Fir Hill towards Madrona, we are look through the Rossi property as best we can past the house so we can get a glimpse of what is happening on Madrona: can we see children, people, and animals taking their walks or riding bikes; can we see a hint of a moving car, truck, tractor, vineyard hauling; is there a car trying to turn onto Fir Hill Drive and we need to pull over to allow it to pass, and generally looking for any other condition that requires us to slow down or stop for safety. Likewise, going west on Madrona, we begin to look for Fir Hill Drive conditions through the vineyard adjacent to 2126 Madrona and at the yard adjacent to Fir Hill. No matter where the olive trees are planted, they will restrict our visibility onto Madrona from Fir Hill Drive and from Madrona onto Fir Hill Drive. Likewise, the size of the residence (which removes all but 1 of the rows between 2126 and the adjacent home) block drivers’ views of Fir Hill from Madrona and from Fir Hill to Madrona. The visibility is unsafely impacted.

3. Storm Water Runoff.

We continue to have concerns about runoff. Applicants are making efforts to mitigate the runoff with some cysterns, but water must go somewhere. A large cement coffin and increased surface cement walls and structures will simply reroute the water, making existing controls useless. The City has a large drainage pipe that will be overwhelmed by the rerouted water. We again question whether the rerouted water and proposed dry ponds will affect the historical oak and create other environmental messes in the area.

4. Water usage.

No resolution is possible on this issue because applicants are using a City of St. Helena plan-review formula vs. actual water usage limits to get around water-usage issues for a home of this size as well as its agricultural/landscaping needs. The original plans call for a large pool, 2 homes (actually 3 with the split ADUs,) 11 toilets, 14 lavatory faucets, 4 kitchen faucets, 2 baths, 1 laundry faucet, 7 shower heads, 4 washing machines and 2 dishwashers. Finally, we continue to ask what the Rossi historical water use for the property was so we can compare historical data with proposed use data. No St. Helena resident or business owner who has lived through several droughts believes low flow water fixtures of a project this size will be less than water usage of the Rossi family and its small humble home. No one.

5. Well for Agricultural use.

Granting of a well permit is purely speculative and with our historical experience with well permits, is unlikely to be granted. Regardless, we still see no permit condition that applicants will use no City of St. Helena water for agriculture or landscaping. Finally, the houses on Fir Hill use well water as their only water source. There are no permit conditions that restrict the use of applicants’ well (if granted) when it affects the viability of any existing well on Fir Hill.

6. Backyard layout and ADUs location.

Again, we continue to question whether the ADU 2 buildings are really only one ADU. Applicants’ proposal to move the ADU five feet closer to the house, shifting it 15 feet east and lowering ceiling heights is progress in helping resolve the view shed issues but in reality will have minimal impact. At the recent applicant meeting with the neighbors, applicants confirmed that substantial vineyard will be removed along Fir Hill Drive to accommodate the ADUs, the pool and bocce court. Even though the ADUs could be designed so as to reduce the further impact on the neighbors’ view sheds, (see the comments above, such as combining the ADU into one building with no breezeway, rotating it so the length of the structure does not run along Fir Hill, etc.) applicants continue to hold onto their original design and size.

Nonetheless, applicants' still propose removing most of the vineyard along Fir Hill drive to about the oak tree in front of the Rodrigues property.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

The reason we were given for why it can’t be relocated (or even removed completely) is because it provides pool privacy. Pool privacy does not require 2 buildings totaling 850 square ft. and a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit with an 864 square foot covered terrace. We continue to object to an ADU along Fir Hill. It requires removal of substantial vineyard rows and obliterates the views of many neighbors.

7. Noise Study.

Not only the HVAC systems for a project of this scale but any pumps being run to help mitigate the underground water and possible septic systems, pool pumps, all the mechanical noise, etc. need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.

8. Drainage.

The 6,457 square feet cement building that will be below grade will displace and divert current water flows from this area. Displacing this water will be an issue with how the water drains around the property. While the applicants believe the dry ponds will handle it, it cannot handle the kind of atmospheric river storms we have had the last few years where substantial amounts of rainwater fall within short periods of time causing serious flooding. This must be addressed. We see no permit conditions concerning this issue and what will happen if additional runoff onto Fir Hill ditches and culverts as well as City drainage ditches cause further flooding.

9. Arbor Study. In both neighbor meetings the impact to the historic heritage oak tree was discussed, especially in relation to the drainage concerns. Because the tree is on City of St. Helena property, the City must require a tree impact study to be provided and approved by the tree committee. That tree is so old and large it is protected. In addition, because of environmental factors, it is seemingly fragile. There should be an official city arborist to assess the environmental impact issues for this tree. Moreover, we see no permit conditions to address what applicants will have to do if, after construction, the tree is damaged from the unforeseen environmental damages as a result.

10. Septic and leach lines.

Unfortunately, applicants cannot address septic and leach lines unless they have an approved permit which is necessary before applicants can apply for tying into city septic lines. Therefore, we cannot address consequences of potential septic and leach lines which could, in turn, affect the design of some structures and plans. We see no permit conditions that address this foreseeable event, especially as it might affect the neighbors and wells.

11. Elevation and composite drawings.

Renderings for affected properties on Fir Hill still do not look accurate to indicate how the views are actually affected. They do not include full size olive trees, the structures appear too small for the structures in reality. In other words, they look skewed and biased in applicants’ favor and not the property owners’ perspectives.

12. Grape Yields:

Staff state that because the Rossi vineyard is not on a historical register it is not historical. We wholeheartedly disagree with that conclusion. This vineyard was planted in an historical manner. They are not all one variety. If the applicants pull out any of the existing historical vineyard, we would like applicants to be required to have the University of California at Davis study the vines first and get a DNA report on the vines since they are historical and should be preserved.

Regarding the vineyard yields, the Rossi family have stated their yields have been 5 tons each year. We will continue to get a declaration under penalty of perjury from a member of the family for the record, but they have told us there are some underperforming vines, but they are NOT near the house and should not be the ones removed. The underperforming vines are further up Fir Hill towards the Agee property where there is a natural swell. The Rossi family replaced some vines with younger vines that aren’t yet fully performing in the rows nearest to the propose residence, but in a couple of years, they would be fully performing. Some are in the area proposed to be removed. It appears there are Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

about 119 vines proposed to be removed. The Rossi family believes the vineyard has not been properly maintained since they sold it which could account for lower yields.

13. If not CEQA, then what else?
We continue to believe a CEQA environmental study should be completed since this project is almost 2 times the size of a commercial building in St. Helena. If not CEQA, what other analysis can be performed to protect us from this development when it is larger than many commercial buildings in St. Helena? Please protect us.

SUMMARY:

We continue to oppose this project. There are many other issues remaining to be resolved, but given the applicants’ contention they are entitled to build a project of this size, it is unlikely this project is not going to happen without the applicants willing to make serious and substantial modifications. In the end, this may be a square peg into a round hole situation and the project should be denied as unsuitable for a City of St. Helena home.

Respectfully submitted,
Patty (Herdell) DiTomaso and Hank DiTomaso
Christina Herdell
Kathleen Herdell
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:49 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] 2126 Madrona
Please post to agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Megan Long <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:36 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] 2126 Madrona
I’m writing to oppose the massive residential project planned for 2126 Madrona. The proposed 20K square foot size is not in keeping with the neighborhood — it’s even larger than Spottswoode winery a few doors down! It would be a shame for this McMansion to be built in such a beautiful area that many use for recreation and for a significant number of old grapevines be torn out to make room for the monstrosity.

Best,
Megan
[email protected]
415.420.9054
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Laura Andersen and Frank Rodrigues
1693 Fir Hill Dr
St Helena, Ca 94574
UPDATE March 7, 2023
RE: 2126 MADRONA AVE ST Helena, ca 94574
After months of silence on this project, on February 16th we received a request for a Fir Hill neighbor meeting on Feb 23rd, with Berchtold’s representatives, a 6-day notice. As with us, most of the neighbors could not attend the meeting with such short notice, so the meeting was rescheduled to March 1st. Unfortunately, we were unable to make the rescheduled date due to prior commitments.

To our dismay, there were no changes made in the overall size and scope of the project. The changes revolved around the ADU location, and direction of the pool and Bocce court.

The questions we have today are the same questions we’ve had since on day 1 of this project, with no real answers to such an unrealistic project within the city limits of St Helena.

We’re not sure how the planning commission can consider this project with so many of the below concerns unanswered, and appearance of deception in the description vs what is proposed to be constructed. This request does not represent a 5-bedroom, 1-bedroom ADU residential property proposal.

SEWER
Are they going to be on septic or city sewer? If septic, bedroom count comes into play, are they bedrooms or offices, one document lists 4 bedrooms, another lists 5 bedrooms, but there are a total of 12-toilets and 16-bathroom sinks? The size and location of the leach fields needs to be laid out on the property. If there is city sewer, the street will have to be torn up so it can be rerouted to the property. This will be a major inconvenience for all that use Madrona Ave on a regular basis.

WATER
City or well? The water usage report shows this project proposes the construction of a 5- bedroom residence, 1-bedroom ADU, and a pool at 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA. The application on file lists 4 Bedrooms, this is why from the beginning we believed there is deception in the real bedroom count? The new residence and ADU will consist of 12 toilets, Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

WATER
City or well? The water usage report shows this project proposes the construction of a 5- bedroom residence, 1-bedroom ADU, and a pool at 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA. The application on file lists 4 Bedrooms, this is why from the beginning we believed there is deception in the real bedroom count? The new residence and ADU will consist of 12 toilets, 16-bathroom sinks, 8 shower Heads, 2 Bathtubs, 5 kitchen sinks, 5 Dishwashers, 4 clothes washers and 2 Utility sinks. The number of fixtures is not consistent with a 5 bedroom, 1 ADU residential property. Water use in a project this size is an educated guess at best. There is no evaporation rate of the pool accounted for. What else is not accounted for?

BASEMENT
The sheer size of the basement, 6457 square ft! The amount of dirt that would need to be removed is upward of 2,370 cubic yds at 2000 lbs. per yd, the average dump truck holds 12-14 yards, that’s approximately 180 truckloads/trips up and down Madrona. This doesn’t include any overage for the foundation, or the dirt to be removed for the swimming pool.

TIMELINE
What is the timeline? We were told by the representatives that it would take somewhere between 3 to 4 years to complete. This does not seem to be a timeline for a 5-bedroom residential project.

CONCUSION
Our concerns are many and need answers.

The Bechtold’s have repeatedly said that they what to build their “Dream Home”, which they deserve. But when their Dream Home has such a negative affect on the surrounding properties, maybe their dream home is in the wrong location. There is no other home in the City of St Helena anywhere near in size and scope.

As stated in our previous letter we strongly oppose this project and hope that the planning commission will take our concerns into consideration, as well as the other residents in the community, before making any decision.

This effects the whole town and sets a president for future projects as well.

Respectfully,
Laura Andersen
Frank Rodrigues
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Laura Andersen and Frank Rodrigues
1693 Fir Hill Dr
St Helena, Ca 94574
December 19, 2022
Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Application for Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009-470-010) filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold In response to the December 6, 2022, Planning Commission requesting a recap on the neighborhood meetings. I was only able to attend the second of the two.

At that time, it seemed to be “ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies”, there was not a lot of information forthcoming. I came away from the meeting with more questions than answers.

The story poles helped very little, the effort was made, but it still doesn’t show the mass of the structures. The overall size of this project is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

They keep talking about “their dream home” which they say they are “entitled” to. But when the size and scope of their dream home affects the dream homes of the surrounding neighbors, some of which have been here their entire life, we need to take a second and maybe even a third look.

This project will have a long-lasting effect on our town, and in our opinion not in a positive way.

There is a list of things that we hope the City Planning Commission will address before even considering this project.

1. Size and scope

2. Water usage domestic and well. Water neutrality? (Can you even get a well permit? Why can nobody answer that?

3. Bedrooms or offices? -still the same amount of bathrooms

4. Sewer or septic?

5. Storm water run-off and drainage

6. Noise pollution (hvac, well pumps, septic, pool, etc.)

7. Loss of historic vineyard

8. Madrona and Fir Hill corner loss of visibility

9. Lack of transparency and notification to the surrounding neighbors even within the 300’ radius

10.CEQA, with the size of the project CEQA study should be required Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

11.The very large old Historical Oak tree

12.Length of time this project will take and the effect that will have (noise, traffic, dust) Conclusion
We are not in support of this project as presented.

This is not the right location for a project of this size, it has the potential of doing more harm than good to our neighborhood.

We would like the council, and all involved to get all the facts from more than one source before making any kind of decision.

Respectfully,
Laura Andersen
Frank Rodrigues
Agenda Item #5.2.

Agenda Item #10.1.

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2023
FILE NUMBER: N/A
SUBJECT: Nomination and election of a new Planning Commission Vice Chair.

PREPARED BY: Xinia Gamero, Permit Technician III
REVIEWED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPLICATION FILED:

BACKGROUND
Rule 1 of the Commission By-Laws identifies that the Planning Commission, by majority vote, may choose to elect a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at a different meeting to address a resignation.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Nomination and election of the Vice-Chairperson for the Commission.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission nominate and vote to elect a new ViceChairperson as identified in Rule 1 of the Planning Commission By-Laws.

ATTACHMENTS
PC BY-LAWS 2018-Final(Votes)
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Planning Commission By-Laws
July 17, 2018
1 of 5
ST. HELENA PLANNING COMMISSION

BY-LAWS
The following rules shall be applicable to the organization of the St. Helena Planning Commission, to the convening or calling of meetings, and to the transaction of business when the Commission has convened and acts or serves in an official capacity, pursuant to law.

ORGANIZATION AND ELECTION

AND DUTES OF OFFICERS
RULE 1. The Commission shall elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and designate a Secretary at the first regular meeting of the Planning Commission in July to serve for a period of one year from the date of their election. However, the Planning Commission, by majority vote, may choose to elect a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at a different meeting to address a resignation. In the case of a resignation of the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall become the interim Chair until formal election of a new Chairperson occurs.

RULE 2. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order. The Vice Chairperson shall preside in the absence of the Chairperson.

RULE 3. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission may second any motion and present and discuss any matter as a member of the Commission without having to step down from the Chair and shall be entitled to vote on all matters before the Planning Commission.

RULE 4. The Secretary shall be a City Employee, normally the Planning Director.

RULE 5. The Secretary shall be responsible for the preparation of the Planning Commission minutes and shall assure that all official actions or decisions by the Commission shall be recorded within the minutes. Consistent with Municipal Code section 2.60.030, the Commission shall keep a public record of its resolutions, transactions, findings and determinations. Those records are kept as minutes that summarize Commission action, in the same manner as City Council minutes.

RULE 6. The City Attorney of the City of St. Helena shall be the legal counsel to the Planning Commission.

RULE 7. The video recordings of each meeting are designated as the official record of the Planning Commission agenda and action and are to be made available on the City of St Helena website.

SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
RULE 8. The Planning Commission shall hold at least two Regular Meetings per month, which shall be held on the first and third Tuesdays of the month. In the event the first or third Tuesday is a holiday, an alternate meeting may be held. An additional Adjourned Meeting may be held, if Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Planning Commission By-Laws
July 17, 2018
2 of 5
necessary. Such regular meetings may be canceled by a vote of the majority of Commission members present at a regular or special meeting or when a quorum is not available. Meetings shall be held in the same locale used by the City Council or at City Hall or the Fire Department starting at 6:00 P.M. Adjourned Meetings, Special Meetings, meeting relocation, or revised starting time shall be by a three-fifths vote of the Planning Commission. Notice of such meeting shall be given in accordance with State law.

RULE 9. Emergency or special meetings may be called as provided in Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California.

RULE 10. In the absence of a quorum all items on the agenda shall be continued to the next scheduled meeting.

AGENDA
RULE 11. An agenda shall be prepared by the Secretary of the Planning Commission for each meeting of the Planning Commission.

RULE 12. All matters to be considered by the Commission shall be properly filed with the City in compliance with the provisions, standards, and procedures established by adopted City Ordinances. The Secretary shall not accept for presentation to the Commission any matter unless it is properly made on the prescribed forms properly filled out with all data attached.

RULE 13. Any matter that comes before the Commission orally under Public Forum shall not be discussed or acted upon by the Commission unless and until it is heard as a scheduled agenda item at a Regular, Adjourned, or Special meeting of the Commission.

RULE 14. Request for informal or advance decisions concerning potential future developments or plans will not be considered by the Planning Commission.

RULE 15. The regular order of business of the Commission shall be:

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & ROLLCALL

3. MINUTES APPROVAL

4. PUBLIC FORUM

5. COMMUNICATIONS & PETITIONS

6. RECOMMENDED CONSENTCALENDAR

7. CONTINUED ITEMS

8. SIGN PERMIT/ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION IS FINAL (DR/UP/VAR/LLA/TPM)

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS – PUBLIC HEARINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY

COUNCIL (TSM/ZOTA/GPA/REZONE)

11. NAPA COUNTY REFERRALS

12. SCHEDULED MATTERS

13. REPORTS BY STAFF AND PLANNINGCOMMISSION

14. AGENDA FORECAST

15. ADJOURNMENT
RULE 16. The Chairperson may revise the order of the agenda for a particular meeting in order to expedite business for the convenience of the public or for improved continuity.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Planning Commission By-Laws
July 17, 2018
3 of 5
RULE 17. Commission meetings may remain in session up to, but no later than 10:00 P.M.

However, the Commission may, by a unanimous vote, extend the meeting if the Commission deems such extension necessary. Otherwise, the meeting shall be adjourned to another day acceptable to the Commission, or unfinished business may be continued to the next Regular Meeting.

CONDUCT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
RULE 18. Letters, petitions, or other written material pertaining to any item on the agenda may be filed with the secretary of the Commission prior to the time of the public hearing or may be presented to the Commission at the time of the public hearing. The Commission shall consider such material in deciding any issue before it. All written material shall become part of the Commission’s file on the agenda item.

RULE 19. Items submitted after packet distribution: Materials related to any item on the Agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for inspection in the Secretary of the Commission’s office at 1480 Main Street, St.

Helena, CA during normal business hours. All such materials will be brought to the meeting and will be available for public inspection at the meeting site. Either City Staff or the Chairperson at the hearing shall give public notice of any such materials. If copies are not available in sufficient quantity for interested parties or members of the public at the hearing, the Chairperson shall take reasonable steps to afford all such persons the opportunity to inspect the materials before the start of the hearing on a scheduled matter. The purpose of the foregoing is to avoid the interruption of testimony with requests for inspection ofmaterials.

RULE 20. Any person desiring to address the Planning Commission may, when recognized by the Chairperson, give his or her name and address. A person appearing in a representative capacity shall provide the name and address of each represented party.

RULE 21. Testimony and argument relative to any item scheduled on the agenda as a Public Hearing shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Chairperson, be presented in the following order and within the time limitsspecified.
a. The Chairperson shall declare the Public Hearing to be open. b. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication*
c. Staff Report, including acknowledgement and/or reading of written testimony. d. Presentation of the project by applicants, and/or agents/consultants directly associated with the project. (10 minutes)
e. Commission questions to staff and the applicant for purposes of clarification of staff report and proposed project.
f. Public Testimony in support or opposition of the project. (4 minutes per person) g. Applicant and/or staff response to new information or questions raised by public testimony. h. Chairperson declares public hearingto be closed.
i. Planning Commission debate, and motion.
j. Roll Call Vote.

Note: At the option of the Chairperson the public or applicant may give further testimony on the question, provided it is directly related to the motion. * Ex Parte Communication is hereby defined as any additional factual information obtained by commissioners that pertains to an individual decision, including visiting a project site, meeting with a project applicant and/or meeting with interested citizens.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Planning Commission By-Laws
July 17, 2018
4 of 5
RULE 22. The Chairperson may, in the interest of facilitating the business of the Planning Commission, limit the amount of time that a person may use in addressing the Planning Commission. Opponents and proponents shall be given equal opportunity for presentation. A project applicant should always be given the right, reasonable opportunity and time, to respond fully to evidence and arguments presented after the applicant has made his/her opening presentation.

RULE 23. The applicant or his or her appointed representative may, with the permission of the Planning Commission, withdraw, or request a continuance on any matter pending before the Commission at any time prior to the Commission acting on such matter.

VOTING
RULE 24. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Unless otherwise required by federal, state or local regulation, the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum is necessary to take action. If a majority is unable to be assembled on any motion (including a motion to continue a matter to a specific time) relating to a specific project for which the Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council, the project shall be referred to Council with a divided recommendation which reflects the individual votes of the Commissioners. If a majority is unable to be assembled on any motion (including a motion to continue a matter to a specific time) relating to a specific project for which the Commission has final authority, the matter before the Commission shall be deemed denied and the applicant may appeal such decision in accordance with the applicable rules. A tie vote, or deadlock, constitutes a denial unless the applicant requests a continuance of the item to a subsequent meeting at which a quorum is present, prior to a vote to deny the item.

RULE 25. On matters of procedure or order of business the Chairperson may make a motion and without a second and after calling for objection and hearing none, so order. In the event of objection, the Chairperson shall call for a second and a roll call vote.

MISCELLANEOUS
RULE 26. The Commission shall conduct their duties in keeping with the governing standards as provided by the Planning Commission Standards of Conduct document, maintaining the highest level of professionalism during their tenure serving the residents of the City of St. Helena.

RULE 27. Unless otherwise provided by these Rules, all proceedings before the Commission shall be conducted in accordance with and pursuant to the parliamentary rules of procedure as prescribed in “Rosenbergs’s Rules ofOrder.”
RULE 28. Testimony and argument relative to any other item on the agenda shall generally follow the procedure for a Public Hearing as may be modified at the discretion of the Chairperson.

RULE 29. Any rule of these By-Laws may be altered, amended, or repealed by majority vote of the Commission (subject to approval by the City Council), except that such alteration, amendment, or repeal shall not affect any pending matter.

RULE 30. Any rule of these By-Laws may be temporarily suspended by unanimous consent of the Commission.

RULE 31. A Resolution of the Planning Commission may be adopted conditionally and referred to the Secretary of the Commission for drafting in proper form.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Planning Commission By-Laws
July 17, 2018
5 of 5
RULE 32. Commission members shall decide for themselves whether they have a conflict of interest on any matter before the Commission. Such determination shall be made in accordance with State law and the City of St Helena Protocol for Committee, Commissions and Boards or any amendment thereto. When a member has disqualified himself/herself, he/she shall remove himself/herself from the dais stating their reasons for conflict of interest. The member shall also remove himself/herself from the meeting room, unless they are permitted to remain for a qualified interest as set forth in State law.

RULE 33. Failure to adhere to any of these rules does not result in the invalidation of any decision or action of the PlanningCommission.

RULE 34. Any violation of these rules does not result in a cause of action against the City of St.

Helena.

RULE 35. Subject to compliance with all established laws and regulations, any violation of these rules shall not impact the outcome of a vote or action on a specific project.

Amended, Approved and Adopted at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on July 17, 2018, by the following roll call vote:

MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:

AYES: Commissioners Ponte, Monnette and Hardy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Knudsen
ABSTAIN: None
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

83578.00008\41078443.1 1
CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.

DENYING DEMOLITION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO 2126 MADRONA AVENUE (File No. PL21-044)
PROPERTY OWNER: Lorraine and Joe Berchtold APN: 009-470-010 Recitals

1. The property owner requests adoption of a resolution approving a demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate the construction of a single-family home, garage, and accessory dwelling unit, and a design review approval for the proposed single-family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) zoning district; and

2. A public notice was published in the Napa Valley Register and mailed to residents and occupants within 300 feet of the project site in compliance with state and local law; and

3. The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered the project, staff report, and all testimony, written and spoken, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2023; and

4. Now, therefore let it be found that the Planning Commission denies the demolition permit and design review based on the findings below.

Resolution
A. In making the findings in this Resolution, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all of the documents referenced in this Resolution and the associated staff reports, City files for this matter, correspondence, presentations, and other materials.

B. With respect to the design review criteria identified in SHMC Section 17.164.030, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:

1. Consistency and compatibility with applicable elements of the general plan.

The project is not consistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 or LU5.3 due to the removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses. At the beginning of the application process, the applicant was advised of the need to preserve the amount of existing acreage that is used for active agriculture. But the applicant instead proposes to remove 0.66 acre of existing vineyard to accommodate recreational amenities, with the addition of a mere 0.13 acre of new olive grove as a partial offset — leaving a net loss of 0.53 acre of agricultural use. This does not “Discourage the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses” as General Plan goal LU5.1 requires, nor is it consistent with our mandate in General Plan goal LU5.3 to “Strictly limit development on properties … that are designated as agricultural land.” (Emphasis added.)
Agenda Item #10.1.

83578.00008\41078443.1 2
The applicant has stated that the portion of existing vineyard proposed for removal to accommodate the project is the least viable for rehabilitation, but viability for rehabilitation is not the General Plan standard. Loss of agricultural use is. Regardless of the viability of the 0.53-acre area for continued vineyard use, the project could comply with the General Plan’s requirements by planting another crop in that same location or by putting another 0.53 acres to agricultural use somewhere else on the 5.7+-acre lot. The applicant declines to do so.

The applicant argues instead that the City must allow this loss of farmland because the City made a similar allowance for another project in the past. That other project is irrelevant: It was governed by another general plan. This project is governed by the current General Plan, adopted in 2019, which includes the two policies referenced above, LU5.1 and 5.3. These policies govern the Commission here and support denial of the project.

Because the project removes a net 0.53 acres of existing farmland for nonagricultural uses, and the applicant declines to dedicate another 0.53 acres to agricultural uses to offset this loss, the project does not comply with the current General Plan, and the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary finding of General Plan compliance.

C. In accordance with St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.164.050, the Planning Commission makes the following finding to support of its denial of the demolition permit: The design review of the proposed replacement structure is not approved.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing demolition permit and design review application were duly and regularly denied by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on March 7, 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

John Ponte Maya DeRosa, AICP
Chair, Planning Commission Planning and Building Director Agenda Item #10.1.

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, March 7, 2023 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 967-2792. The Planning Commission video is the official record of the Planning Commission meeting.

Present: Chair John Ponte, Vice-Chair Autumn Anderson, Commissioner Rosaura Segura, and Commissioner Christopher Warner.

Absent: Commissioner Marika Rothfeld
Staff Present: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director, Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner, Chantel Power, Contract Planner, Joe Leach, Public Works Director and Xinia Gamero, Permit Technician III

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC FORUM:

Chair Ponte opened public comment.

Suzanne James and Elizabeth Green addressed the Planning Commission.

Chair Ponte closed public comment.

4. CONSENT ITEMS

4.1 Approval of Minutes: February 7, 2023
Commissioner Christopher Warner moved to approve the minutes on the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Autumn Anderson and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Autumn Anderson, Rosaura Segura, John Ponte, and Christopher Warner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Marika Rothfeld
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Agenda Item #10.1.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Request by Josephine Arader for adoption of a resolution approving a use permit in order to permanently establish a gallery and retail store featuring historical maps, art and books in an existing tenant space in the Menegon Building located at 1380 Main Street #103 in the Central Business zoning district.

Prepared By: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
Chair Ponte opened public hearing.

No ex-parte communication was disclosed by the Planning Commission.

Senior Planner Aaron Hecock showed a presentation and reported on the item.

No public comment was received.

Commissioner Christopher Warner moved to determine that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301; and accept the required findings and adopt the attached resolution granting use permit approval to establish a gallery and retail store featuring historical maps, art and books in the existing tenant space located at 1380 Main Street #103. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Autumn Anderson and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Autumn Anderson, Rosaura Segura, John Ponte, and Christopher Warner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Marika Rothfeld
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

5.2 Request by Sasha Janev on behalf of Lorraine and Joe Berchtold for adoption of a resolution approving a demolition permit to demolish an existing residence and accessory structures to accommodate the construction of a new singlefamily home and accessory dwelling unit and design review of the proposed new single family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the A-20 zoning district.

Prepared By: Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa addressed the Planning Commission.

Chair Ponte opened the public hearing.

No ex-parte communication was disclosed by the Planning Commission.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Contract Planner Chantal Power showed a presentation and reported on the item.

Public Works Director Joe Leach addressed the Planning Commission.

Joe Berchtold, property owner, and Sasha Janev, project architect, addressed the Public Commission.

Char Ponte opened public comment.

Patty DiTomaso, Frank Rodrigues, Marty Hintz, Chris Herdell, Kathleen Herdell, Laura Andersen, Sandra McCorkle, Maria Villegas, Mary Cunningham Agee all provided public testimony.

Chair Ponte invited the applicant to speak.

Katherine Falace, property owner representative, Joe Berchtold, property owner, and Sasha Janev, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission.

Chair Ponte closed the public hearing.

Chair Ponte called for a straw vote to indicate potential approval or denial of the project. Commissioner Segura and Anderson voted to deny the project.

Chair Ponte expressed concerns on the project as presented and expressed his vote to also deny the project.

Chair Ponte called for a break at 7:47 pm.

Chair Ponte reconvened the meeting at 8:00 pm.

Chair Ponte opened the public hearing.

Joe Berchtold addressed the Planning Commission.

Kathleen Herdell addressed the Planning Commission.

Chair Ponte closed public hearing.

Chair Anderson made a motion to deny the project. Commissioner Segura seconded the motion.

Commissioner Warner called for a replacement motion to conditionally approve the project and provide the applicant the opportunity to make the necessary changes which would be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval at a future meeting date. This motion failed for lack of a second vote.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Vice-Chair Autumn Anderson moved to deny the project based on the findings the project is not consistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 or LU5.3 due to the removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses. At the beginning of the application process, the applicant was advised of the need to preserve the amount of existing acreage that is used for active agriculture. But the applicant instead proposes to remove 0.66 acre of existing vineyard to accommodate recreational amenities, with the addition of a mere 0.13 acre of new olive grove as a partial offset — leaving a net loss of 0.53 acre of agricultural use. This does not “Discourage the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses” as General Plan goal LU5.1 requires, nor is it consistent with our mandate in General Plan goal LU5.3 to “Strictly limit development on properties … that are designated as agricultural land.” (Emphasis added.) The applicant has stated that the portion of existing vineyard proposed for removal to accommodate the project is the least viable for rehabilitation, but viability for rehabilitation is not the General Plan standard. Loss of agricultural use is. Regardless of the viability of the 0.53-acre area for continued vineyard use, the project could comply with the General Plan’s requirements by planting another crop in that same location or by putting another 0.53 acres to agricultural use somewhere else on the 5.7+-acre lot. The applicant declines to do so.

The applicant argues instead that the City must allow this loss of farmland because the City made a similar allowance for another project in the past. That other project is irrelevant: It was governed by another general plan. This project is governed by the current General Plan, adopted in 2019, which includes the two policies referenced above, LU5.1 and 5.3. These policies govern the Commission here and support denial of the project.

Because the project removes a net 0.53 acres of existing farmland for nonagricultural uses, and the applicant declines to dedicate another 0.53 acres to agricultural uses to offset this loss, the project does not comply with the current General Plan, and the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary finding of General Plan compliance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rosaura Segura and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Autumn Anderson, Rosaura Segura, and John Ponte
NOES: Christopher Warner
ABSENT: Marika Rothfeld
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
At 9:05 p.m. Chair Ponte called for a motion to extend the meeting.

Commissioner Christopher Warner moved to extend the Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Autumn Anderson and on roll call carried by the following vote:

Agenda Item #10.1.

AYES: Autumn Anderson, Rosaura Segura, John Ponte, and Christopher Warner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Marika Rothfeld
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

6. SCHEDULED MATTERS

6.1 Nomination and election of a new Planning Commission Vice Chair.

Prepared By: Xinia Gamero, Permit Technician III
Vice-Chair Autumn Anderson moved to nominate Commissioner Warner as the new Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rosaura Segura and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Autumn Anderson, Rosaura Segura, and John Ponte
NOES: None
ABSENT: Marika Rothfeld
ABSTAIN: Christopher Warner
RECUSE: None

7. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa reported on the following:
• Thanked the Planning Commission for working together through the meeting by coming to a final decision on the previous project.
• Regular Planning Commission meeting on March 21, 2023 Vice-Chair Warner also thanked the Planning Commission for working together despite differences in opinion.

8. AGENDA FORCAST

9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Ponte adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m.

The March 7, 2023 minutes were approved at the April 18, 2023 Planning Commission meeting.

APPROVED:
______________________________
John Ponte, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda Item #10.1.

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax

707.200.9414 Direct March 20, 2023 [email protected] Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
City of St. Helena
Appeal of Planning Commission Action
Name and Address
of Permitee:
2021 Joseph K. Berchtold GST, Joseph Berchtold (beneficiary) 2126 Madrona Ave.

Name and Address
of Appellant:

Katharine H. Falace, Buchalter,
on behalf of Joe and Lorraine Berchtold
1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707-200-9414
[email protected]
Action Being
Appealed:

Planning Commission Denial of a Demolition Permit and Design Review Approval for 2126 Madrona Ave.

Action Being
Requested:

Acceptance of this appeal, approval of the Demolition Permit, and approval of Design Review for Application No. PL21-044 at 2126 Madrona Ave.

Date of Decision: March 7, 2023
Application No.: PL21-044
Exhibit List: Exhibit A – K. Falace 3/3/2023 Letter to Planning Commission Exhibit B – Resolution adopted by Planning Commission
Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

Dear Mayor Dohring and Members of the St. Helena City Council:

This letter provides the required information for the appeal of the above-referenced action of the St. Helena Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), pursuant to Section

17.08.180 of the St. Helena Municipal Code (“S.H.M.C.”). My name is Katharine Falace, I am an attorney at Buchalter, and Buchalter represents Joe and Lorraine Berchtold (the “Berchtolds”) who own the property at 2126 Madrona Avenue and on which they are seeking to construct a single-family home. For the reasons provided herein, we request that the City Council of the City of St. Helena (the “City Council”) grant this appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the Demolition Permit and Design Review Approval for Application No. PL21-044 and approve the Demolition Permit and Design Review Approval. The entire administrative record for this matter is incorporated herein by reference.

I. Factual Background
The Berchtolds purchased the property located at 2126 Madrona Ave. (APN: 009-470- 010) (the “Property”) in the City of St. Helena (the “City”) in March 2021. The Property is rectangular-shaped and approximately 5.78 acres in size. The Property contains an existing single-family home, two accessory structures, an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and 5.08 acres of vineyard with diminishing production. While the existing single-family home on the Property was constructed in 1883, an historic resource evaluation determined it to have no historic or architectural value. The General Plan and zoning designate the Property Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20). The A-20 designation allows “agricultural and winery uses” with single family residential uses. (City General Plan, p. 2-15; S.H.M.C., § 17.20.020(A)-(B).) Thus, both the proposed single-family residence and the agricultural uses are permissible on the Property.

On or about November 5, 2021, the Berchtolds applied for a Demolition Permit and Design Review Approval for the demolition of the existing residence and construction of a twostory single-family home with ADU and covered terrace (the “Project”). On or about December 29, 2021, Ms. Chantal Powers informed the Berchtolds the application was deemed complete and set a hearing date of January 18, 2022. Weeks before the hearing date, the Berchtolds began receiving questions and comments about the project, triggering four rounds of design review before the fifth package was submitted and presented to the Planning Commission in October 2022.

The residence will be approximately 7,950 square feet above grade -- nearly 45% of the residence will be located in the basement below ground—and only 28 feet in height. The Project would involve removal of 0.66 acres of existing vineyard to accommodate the new residence.

Approximately 0.13 acres of fruit and olive trees for personal and commercial production will be added to an existing orchard. Approximately 4.42 acres of existing vineyard will be preserved Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

and rehabilitated for wine production in a partnership with Spottswoode Winery. Olives grown on the Property will be used to manufacture and market olive oil. Accordingly, the Project will only result in a net loss of 0.53 acres of agricultural land, while the remaining agricultural uses will be rehabilitated and supplemented from their current poor state in order to accommodate commercial production of wine and olive oil. This will result in a significant increase in agricultural productivity on the Property, notwithstanding the marginal decrease in land reserved for agricultural uses.

The Berchtolds accommodated requests by both the City and the neighbors to clarify the Project scope and to address community concerns. For example, the Berchtolds have hosted three neighborhood meetings to answer neighbor questions. The Berchtolds installed story poles to aid neighbors with visualizing the size of the home, which at 28 feet, is no taller than the neighboring two-story residences. The Berchtolds incorporated community feedback into the Project and have made the following changes, based on the City’s and neighbors’ concerns:
 Relocation, reorientation, and reduction of the size of the proposed pool and bocce court to respect neighbors’ views;
 Relocation of the ADU to move 5 feet closer to the residence and reduction in height of 2 feet;
 Elimination of the driveways on Fir Hill Drive;
 Revision of the landscape plan to ensure a net reduction in water consumption;  Installation of hydrological features, including bioretention basins and a bio-swale;  Reduction in total area proposed for vineyard removal;  Adjustment of orchard layout to increase visibility from roadways.

The Berchtolds have spent countless hours and resources in a good faith effort to accommodate the City’s and neighbors’ concerns with respect to their proposed two-story residence and the revitalization of agricultural production on the Property. My clients’ proposal complies with all state and local laws and, to that end, my clients only seek to utilize their Property as allowed by the City’s regulations, and in the exact same manner as each of their neighbors.

Unfortunately, despite all of the aforementioned accommodations, the City Planning Commission exceeded its authority and abused its discretion by misapplying the City’s land use policies and ordinances, or even seemingly unlawfully adopting its own ordinance. The Planning Commission’s March 7, 2023, decision was both inconsistent with City policy and the City’s prior precedent for approving other similar projects.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

II. Procedural Background
The Berchtolds filed their applications for a Demolition Permit and Design Review on November 5, 2021. A Historic Resource Evaluation (“HRE”) was prepared by Kara Brunzell on November 12, 2021, and found the existing single-family home on the Property was not an historic resource. (HRE, p. 1.) The Planning Commission first considered the Project at a meeting held on October 18, 2022. There, the Planning Commission encouraged the Berchtolds to engage with the Project neighbors to assuage their concerns.

Subsequent to that, the Berchtolds hosted neighborhood meetings on November 6 and November 19, intentionally setting the meetings two weeks apart and on different days of the week to and ensure various members of the community could attend. Letters were sent to neighbors and City Staff prior to and following each meeting. As detailed above, and following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Berchtolds installed story poles to aid the neighbors with visualizing the 28-foot tall two-story residence.

The Planning Commission received a Project status update at its December 6, 2022, meeting. There, Spottswoode Winery provided an expected vineyard production assessment to the Commission. The Planning Commission requested that the Project applicant have all final revisions completed in a timely manner, and set March 7, 2023, as the date to bring the Project back to the Commission for review.

On or about February 23, 2023, the City Staff published its draft staff report for the March 7 Planning Commission meeting. On March 3, 2023, I submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, attached to this appeal letter as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, disagreeing with the Planning Commission’s application of General Plan policies to the Project.

We agree with City Staff’s conclusion that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the “CEQA Guidelines”) sections 15301 and 15301. We additionally agree with City Staff’s conclusion that the Project meets all development standards, including the maximum one-acre non-agricultural coverage limitation.

The S.H.M.C. allows for any applicant dissatisfied with any action taken by the Planning Commission under the Zoning Title of the Municipal Code, to appeal that action to the City Council. (S.H.M.C., § 17.08.180(A).) The City Council will then consider the Project de novo and may affirm, reverse, or modify the appealed decision at a noticed public hearing. (S.H.M.C., §§ 17.08.180(H), -070.)
Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

III. Argument
A. The Planning Commission abused its discretion by applying an incorrect definition of “agriculture” to the proposed uses.

At the March 7 hearing, the Planning Commission erroneously applied to the Project a definition of “agriculture” that is inconsistent with the General Plan and S.H.M.C. This occurred in the context of whether citrus trees planted on the Property for personal consumption could validly count toward replacement of some of the existing vines. Specifically, Chair Ponte claimed that “not everything that you can eat is ag,” that “there is no definition in [the S.H.M.C.] of what ‘ag’ is,” and that accordingly, defining “agriculture” “is up to the Commission.” Later, Chair Ponte again stressed that “the definition of ‘ag’ is up to the Commission, not up to you.” Chair Ponte improperly relied on this incorrect interpretation of the City’s rules to conclude that the total area of the Property reserved for non-agricultural uses would exceed the maximum oneacre coverage imposed by S.H.M.C. section 17.20.060(C)1 .

This belies the plain language of the General Plan and the S.H.M.C. The General Plan explains that the Agriculture (AG) land use category allows “agricultural and winery uses with restricted single-family residential.” (General Plan, pp. 2-8, 2-15.) The S.H.M.C. defines “agriculture” for the purposes of the zoning ordinance, as “the use of the land for agriculture purposes, including farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, horticulture (including Christmas trees), floriculture, viticulture, apiaries and animal farms . . . .” (S.H.M.C., § 17.04.160(B).) Nothing in these definitions, in the zoning ordinance, or in the chapter governing the A-20 zoning district requires agricultural products be grown onsite for commercial purposes. In fact, General Plan policy LU5.4 embraces the broad definition of “agriculture” that Chair Ponte rejected. Policy LU5.4 calls for the City to “support community-based agricultural uses within the city, including community gardens, orchards, and parks.” (General Plan, p. 2-42 (emphasis added).) The corollary of this being that agricultural uses in the City are not solely for private commercial production, but allow community and personal consumption (as is the case with community gardens). Therefore, the Planning Commission’s purported adoption of Chair Ponte’s definition of “agriculture” conflicts with the City’s own General Plan and zoning.

Adopting such a new definition and applying it to the Berchtolds’ proposed use of some of their agricultural products for personal consumption, exceeded the authority of the Planning Commission and constituted an abuse of discretion. The City is required to “interpret and administer the zoning ordinance in a reasonable fashion consistent with the public interest of the residents of the city.” (S.H.M.C., § 17.04.060.) The Planning Director and the Planning Commission are allowed to determine the appropriateness of a novel use only when such a use is 1 Likewise, commissioner Segura’s comments that the house was “too big” were improper conclusions as the St.

Helena Municipal Code does not limit massing in the A-20 zone.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

“proposed [but] not specifically listed as permitted, permitted with a use permit or permitted as an accessory use” in the zoning ordinance. (S.H.M.C., § 17.08.030.) “In making a determination that a proposed use is or is not similar to those listed, the planning director and planning commission shall consider the character of the proposed use, those listed in the appropriate category, the purposes of the zoning district in which it is proposed and the general plan.” (S.H.M.C., § 17.08.030(B).)
Here, there is no doubt that the Berchtolds’ proposed agricultural use is consistent with the uses permissible in the A-20 zone. City Staff concluded that the “[P]roject as proposed meets the development standards prescribed by” the S.H.M.C., including meeting the one-acre maximum non-agricultural coverage. (Staff Report for March 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting, p. 6.) Moreover, the Berchtolds’ proposed use of their land to cultivate fruit for both personal and commercial use is entirely consistent with the S.H.M.C.’s straightforward and general definition of “agriculture.” (See S.H.M.C., § 17.04.160(B).) Nothing about this Project would have suggested an alternative use “not specifically listed” in the zoning code per Section

17.08.030. Thus, the Planning Commission abused its discretion in attempting to craft and apply to the Project a new zoning provision requiring all agricultural uses to be for commercial sale.

B. The Planning Commission’s inflexible application of the City’s General Plan is internally inconsistent and vertically inconsistent with the City’s zoning ordinance.

The Planning Commission rested its denial of the Project on alleged inconsistencies with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3. Specifically, the Planning Commission claims that Policy LU5.1, which calls for the City to “discourage” the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and Policy LU5.3, which “strictly limit[s]” development on properties designated as agricultural land, as prohibiting the development of the Berchtolds’ single-family home on their Property. However, this inflexible interpretation of those policies is neither supported in the General Plan nor furthered by the zoning ordinance. If these are indeed the policies, the General Plan presents both horizontal and vertical inconsistencies, which are unlawful under State Planning and Zoning Law.

State law requires a general plan to be an “internally consistent and compatible statement of policies” (i.e. horizontal consistency). (Gov. Code, § 65300.5(a).) “The general plan is required to be consistent within itself.” (Sierra Club v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 703.) A general plan’s parts and elements must “comprise an integrated internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” (Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Calaveras County Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90, 97.) This consistency requirement is especially true for the general plan policies (as opposed to just the maps which depict policies), since “it is the policies which must be integrated, internally Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

consistent and compatible” (emphasis in original). (Garat v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 259, 300.)
A city’s zoning ordinance must also be consistent with the adopted general plan (i.e. vertical consistency). (Gov. Code, § 65860(A).) To be “consistent” means the zoning ordinance must be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan.” (Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 151, 536.) “The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) To that end, the S.H.M.C. states that the City’s zoning ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and is intended to implement the General Plan. (S.H.M.C., § 17.04.090(A)-(B).) While the General Plan policies seem straightforward to the Berchtolds, the Planning Commission crafted its own interpretation of these policies which are unlawfully inconsistent with the City’s General Plan policies and its zoning ordinance.

First, the General Plan expressly permits the development of not only a single-family residence, but also “affordable employee housing,” on parcels designated Agriculture (AG). (General Plan, pp. 2-8, 2-15.) The Planning Commission’s narrow interpretation of Policy LU5.3 to prohibit the development of a single-family home on AG designated parcels, is inconsistent with the express definition of AG use in the General Plan, which otherwise allows for both single-family homes and worker housing. If let stand, this presents a horizontal inconsistency between General Plan policies. Meanwhile, the compatible A-20 zone applicable here permits the development of a single-family residence of up to one-acre in lot coverage. (S.H.M.C., §

17.20.060(C).) This A-20 zone also permits: agricultural employee housing of up to 36 beds, supportive housing, and transitional housing. (S.H.M.C., § 17.20.020(G)-(I).) The Planning Commission’s strict application of Policy LU5.3 would prohibit uses otherwise permissible under the zoning ordinance, presenting an additional vertical inconsistency between the General Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance.

Second, Policy LU5.1 only “discourage[s]” the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. (General Plan, p. 2-42.) However, here the Planning Commission has interpreted this to prohibit any conversion whatsoever—even a minimal conversion that is consistent with General Plan and zoning provisions. The Planning Commission’s interpretation functions as a de facto farmland preservation requirement, which is not envisioned by Policy LU5.1.2 As detailed above, the A-20 zone allows for the development of up to one-acre of nonagricultural uses (e.g. a single-family home). (S.H.M.C., § 17.20.060(C).) In fact, this 2 Compare Policy LU5.1 to Implementing Action LU5.G, which expressly requires “long-term preservation” of farmland through the creation of easements or other similar mechanisms, in certain circumstances. (General Plan, p. 2-44.) “Discourage,” as the term is used in Policy LU5.1, is not synonymous with “long-term preservation.” Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

development standard states that up to “one acre of any one parcel shall be removed from active agricultural use” (emphasis added) to accommodate a permissible non-agricultural A-20 use— here, a single-family home. (S.H.M.C., § 17.20.060(C), fn. 1.) If, as the Planning Commission concludes, that Policy LU5.1 is intended to preserve all existing farmland, this policy would be in direct contravention with Section 17.20.060(C) of the S.H.M.C. Accordingly, this would result in a vertical inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning ordinance, in violation of Government Code section 65860(a). This policy would additionally run afoul of the City’s own requirements that the zoning ordinance be consistent with the General Plan. (See S.H.M.C., §

17.04.090(A).) Moreover, this de facto prohibition on the development of the Berchtolds’ residence denies them their right to develop a single-family home of up to one acre of lot coverage, pursuant to the City zoning ordinance.

Surely the City did not intend to approve the General Plan with such inconsistencies when it did so in 2019. By rehabilitating the existing vineyards, by introducing new crops to the site, and by producing new products including wine and olive oil, the Project proposes to markedly increase the Property’s overall agricultural productivity despite the minimal loss to overall agricultural acreage. This proposed use furthers General Plan policies more so than allowing the atrophied vineyards to exist onsite. Moreover, this proposed use is consistent with both the General Plan and zoning ordinance.

If the City Council denies this appeal and accepts the Planning Commission’s new interpretation, the City Council will essentially adopt these unlawful horizontal and vertical inconsistencies. Therefore, the only lawful solution here is for the City Council to apply the City’s adopted rules, and accept the appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, and approve both the Project Demolition Permit and Design Review.

C. The City’s prior approval of a similar project in the A-20 zone provides precedent for approval of this Project.

As explained previously, in its denial of the Project, the Planning Commission cited the Project’s incompatibility with General Plan Policy LU5.3, which calls for the City to “strictly limit development” on properties with an Agriculture land use designation. (General Plan, p. 2-42.) Without explaining the meaning of this policy, the Planning Commission simply appeared to conclude that the Project is allegedly inconsistent with Policy LU5.3 for the exact same reason that it is allegedly inconsistent with Policy LU5.1: because the Project will remove existing farmland for non-agricultural uses. (Planning Commission Resolution No. ___, § B.1.) The Planning Commission further states: “[a]t the beginning of the application process, the applicant was advised of the need to preserve the amount of existing acreage that is used for active agriculture.” In fact, staff made no written representations to this effect. In the Staff Report for Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

the March 7 hearing, City Staff similarly conflated both Policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 and failed to explain how the Project was inconsistent with each individual policy—namely, Policy LU5.3.

Recent precedent shows that the City failed to analyze a similar project’s consistency with Policy LU5.3. Specifically, the single-family residence approved for 777 Pratt Avenue (the “777 Pratt Project”) was not subject to the same General Plan policy analysis. An application was filed for 777 Pratt Project on November 10, 2020—a full 18 months after the City adopted its current General Plan on May 14, 2019. Thus, the 777 Pratt Project was subject to the same General Plan policies as the Berchtolds’ Project (contrary to staff’s comments). As with their Project, the 777 Pratt Project was located in an Agriculture General Plan land use designation and the A-20 zone. Despite this, the City never actually analyzed whether that project was consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.3, which otherwise would apply to any development on land designated in the General Plan as Agriculture. (See File No. PL20-046 Staff Report, April 6, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting.) Given this precedent, Policy LU5.3 cannot function to prohibit the Project. Moreover, this demonstrates that the City has recently approved construction of a single-family home in other A-20 zones.

As noted by staff, the Berchtolds’ property is the only property on Fir Hill that has retained agricultural uses on site. To be sure, staff found: “the property is completely surrounded by A-20 lands developed with primarily residential uses that have not retained on-site agricultural uses.” As staff further noted, the project proposes a .08 FAR that is less than the average of the .10 FAR of the surrounding neighborhood.

D. The Planning Commission abused its discretion by failing to share the final resolution with the Berchtolds prior to the March 7 hearing.

At its March 7, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission considered and ultimately adopted a resolution denying the Demolition Permit and Design Review for the Project.

However, this resolution was not included in the agenda packet for the Project’s consideration at the hearing. The only draft resolution included in the agenda packet was a resolution that would have granted Project approval. The Planning Commission never read its findings aloud for its decision into the record, so the public did not actually hear what the findings stated. While the City Attorney suggested that the Planning Commission would “read the [findings] into the record together,” the Planning Commission never read those findings audibly. Thus, the Berchtolds were never noticed or informed of the findings for denial of the Project and were never provided an opportunity to comment on such findings.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

The Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq.) requires a public agency holding a public meeting to post its agenda packet online at least 72 hours prior to the regular meeting. (Gov. Code, § 54954.2(a)(1).) Prejudicial violations of the Brown Act can require invalidation of the local agency’s decision. (Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 556.)
Here, the Planning Commission failed to provide a draft of denial resolution prior to the hearing, and because the Planning Commission failed to read into the record its findings for Project denial the Commission did not notify the public of the reasons for its denial. Because of this the Planning Commission failed to properly notice the Berchtolds of this decision and the Berchtolds were denied their right to comment and address the Planning Commission’s assertions. Because of this, the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project unlawfully prejudiced the Berchtolds. Accordingly, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the Project for violation of our client’s rights of due process.

IV. Conclusion
The Berchtolds have consistently worked in good faith with the City and their neighbors to reach a satisfactory solution to the most pressing concerns. To that end, the Berchtolds have expended significant resources holding community meetings, as well as redesigning the Project, including reorienting significant aspects of the residence and eliminating Project elements.

Nevertheless, the Planning Commission repeatedly moved the goalposts, including by purportedly adopting and applying to the Project its own definition of what “agriculture” is and changing the rules.

The Project will result in a net positive for the community and the broader City. The Berchtolds plan to rejuvenate withering and neglected vines on the Property, as well as to introduce new crops to the Property. The Berchtolds have committed to working with a local winery and olive oil manufacturer to produce new products that will proudly denote “St. Helena” on their labels. Despite this modest 0.53-net acre reduction in overall agricultural uses onsite, the overall agricultural productivity will increase markedly above current levels—especially considering the neglected and atrophying vines on the Property. This will emphatically promote new and existing agricultural uses in the City. (See General Plan Policy LU5.2, p. 2-42.) Given this increased agricultural efficiency and the Berchtolds’ rights under the General Plan and zoning to construct a single-family residence covering up to one acre on their Property, the Project is consistent with all General Plan policies and zoning ordinance provisions.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
March 20, 2023

Accordingly, the City Council should accept this appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the Demolition Permit and Design Review, which constituted an abuse of discretion. The City Council should then approve both the Demolition Permit and Design Review, as the Project is consistent with all General Plan policies and the zoning ordinance.

Finally, the Berchtolds expressly reserve the right to add additional argument, including responding to staff or public.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Katharine H. Falace
KHF:jg
Enclosures
cc: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
[email protected]
Maya DeRosa
[email protected]
Chantal Power
[email protected]
Ethan Walsh, Esq.

[email protected]
Agenda Item #10.1.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item #10.1.

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
BN 75574762v1
707.200.9414 Direct March 3, 2023 [email protected]

VIA E-MAIL
St. Helena Planning Commission
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
John Ponte (Chair) - [email protected]
Autumn Anderson (Vice-Chair) - [email protected] Christopher Warner – [email protected]
Rosaura Segura – [email protected]
Marika Rothfeld- [email protected]
Re: PL 21-044 - 2126 Madrona Ave. Single-Family Home Development Project Dear Chair Ponte and Members of the St. Helena Planning Commission:

Thank you for the time spent on the recent staff report. We understand our presentation next week will be limited in time. With that time constraint in mind, we have set forth the major points to illustrate how this project comports with the General Plan. The staff report notes that consistency with applicable General Plan policies is a required finding for a Design Review approval, but the staff report suggests the project may be found inconsistent with two General Plan policies. The applicant respectfully disagrees that the project could be found inconsistent with the above policies for the reasons outlined below. At issue are the following two General Plan policies:

LU5.1 Discourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. (General Pan, page 2-42.)
LU5.3 Strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan that are designated as agricultural land. (General Plan, page 2-42.)
Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

In determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Planning Commission should consider whether it is compatible with the general land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. In order to satisfy this objective, a proposal should meet the overall intent of the General Plan.

It is important to note that very little of the property’s agricultural land is being converted to a nonagricultural use with only .53 acres of a 5.78 acre parcel is being converted. The property’s agriculture and rural residential use is noted in the current General Plan. (GPU 2040 Figure 1.3.) The property’s mainly agricultural use will continue under a contract with Spottswoode Winery. The staff report’s view of these policies seems to be that “zero vine loss” could be required to be consistent the above policies. However, this interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the General Plan or its environmental document. The words “discourage” in LU 5.1 and “strictly limit” in LU 5.3 cannot be interpreted to mean “prohibit”.

To be sure, the certified EIR for the General Plan states that agricultural lands could be converted even with the above polices in place. [General Plan EIR, page 3.2-14] Therefore, the General Plan policies were acknowledged to not “prohibit” the conversion of agricultural lands, and an interpretation that the policy equals zero vine loss would be inconsistent with the impact analysis certified by City Council.

Second, the project complies with applicable zoning limitations on non-agricultural uses.

Current A20 zoning limits non-agricultural uses to one acre as identified on the project plans.

While current zoning was adopted before the current General Plan, the two policies at issue are not new. The 1993 General Plan contained the following two substantially identical policies:

Policy 2.6.58 Promote the continuation of agricultural activities within and adjacent to the City. (1993 General Plan, page 2-27.)
Policy 2.6.61 Limit residential development on properties existing at the time of adoption of the [1993] General Plan which are designated Agriculture and are outside the Urban Limit Line in accordance with [the below defined specific standards]… (1993 General Plan, page 2-28 (bracketed material supplied).) Comparing the 1993 General Plan language to the current General Plan, the policies are the same in substance. Under the above policy language, the Planning Commission previously issued design review approval for an estate home on lands zoned A20 at 601 Fulton Lane in application Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

number P18-058, and that project also involved a limited conversion of agricultural to rural residential use.1
Further, this current project meets the overall goals, policies and objectives by:
• Increasing tonnage production resulting from farm investments and modifications of farming techniques;
• Continuation of dry farming;
• Planting of olive trees; and
• Enhancements to regional storm retention systems.

Not only is the limited conversion of certain low producing vines mitigated, but the project remains within the maximum area of land (1 acre) permitted to be developed in the A20 zone.

Lastly, a denial based on a zero vine loss interpretation of these policies is not compliant with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for design review. A city is not required to adopt a design review ordinance. Where a city sets forth limitations in its design review criteria, it is bound by those criteria. Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1014.

Here, the City has provided the following limitation:

C. Only the proponent’s failure to take reasonable account of the items discussed in Sections 17.164.010 through 17.164.030 shall justify the commission’s disapproving a proposal solely on the basis of design.

St. Helena Municipal Code §17.164.040
Certainly, the applicant has taken reasonable account of continued agricultural use on the property as evidenced by the letter from Spottswoode Winery and investments in improving the property’s vineyard presented to the Planning Commission in past hearings. Denying the project on a zero vine loss interpretation is equivalent to denial on a non-design matter. Denial on a non-design matter is not permitted under the City’s ordinance. McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, 92-93. 1 Details of P18-058 are available online at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/project/pl18-058-601-fultonln-pohlen-residence-and-agricultural-barn. The applicant incorporates by reference that past design review approval into the administrative record of this project.

Agenda Item #10.1.

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

Because the proposed project satisfies the existing General Plan land use designation and policies protecting agricultural lands, we ask that the Planning Commission approve the design review application.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
KATHARINE H. FALACE
cc:

Ethan Walsh ([email protected])
Maya DeRosa ([email protected])
Chantal Power ([email protected])
Agenda Item #10.1.

EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item #10.1.

83578.00008\41078443.1 1
CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.

DENYING DEMOLITION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO 2126 MADRONA AVENUE (File No. PL21-044)
PROPERTY OWNER: Lorraine and Joe Berchtold APN: 009-470-010 Recitals

1. The property owner requests adoption of a resolution approving a demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate the construction of a single-family home, garage, and accessory dwelling unit, and a design review approval for the proposed single-family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) zoning district; and

2. A public notice was published in the Napa Valley Register and mailed to residents and occupants within 300 feet of the project site in compliance with state and local law; and

3. The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered the project, staff report, and all testimony, written and spoken, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2023; and

4. Now, therefore let it be found that the Planning Commission denies the demolition permit and design review based on the findings below.

Resolution
A. In making the findings in this Resolution, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all of the documents referenced in this Resolution and the associated staff reports, City files for this matter, correspondence, presentations, and other materials.

B. With respect to the design review criteria identified in SHMC Section 17.164.030, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:

1. Consistency and compatibility with applicable elements of the general plan.

The project is not consistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 or LU5.3 due to the removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses. At the beginning of the application process, the applicant was advised of the need to preserve the amount of existing acreage that is used for active agriculture. But the applicant instead proposes to remove 0.66 acre of existing vineyard to accommodate recreational amenities, with the addition of a mere 0.13 acre of new olive grove as a partial offset — leaving a net loss of 0.53 acre of agricultural use. This does not “Discourage the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses” as General Plan goal LU5.1 requires, nor is it consistent with our mandate in General Plan goal LU5.3 to “Strictly limit development on properties … that are designated as agricultural land.” (Emphasis added.)
Agenda Item #10.1.

83578.00008\41078443.1 2
The applicant has stated that the portion of existing vineyard proposed for removal to accommodate the project is the least viable for rehabilitation, but viability for rehabilitation is not the General Plan standard. Loss of agricultural use is. Regardless of the viability of the 0.53-acre area for continued vineyard use, the project could comply with the General Plan’s requirements by planting another crop in that same location or by putting another 0.53 acres to agricultural use somewhere else on the 5.7+-acre lot. The applicant declines to do so.

The applicant argues instead that the City must allow this loss of farmland because the City made a similar allowance for another project in the past. That other project is irrelevant: It was governed by another general plan. This project is governed by the current General Plan, adopted in 2019, which includes the two policies referenced above, LU5.1 and 5.3. These policies govern the Commission here and support denial of the project.

Because the project removes a net 0.53 acres of existing farmland for nonagricultural uses, and the applicant declines to dedicate another 0.53 acres to agricultural uses to offset this loss, the project does not comply with the current General Plan, and the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary finding of General Plan compliance.

C. In accordance with St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.164.050, the Planning Commission makes the following finding to support of its denial of the demolition permit: The design review of the proposed replacement structure is not approved.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing demolition permit and design review application were duly and regularly denied by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on March 7, 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

John Ponte Maya DeRosa, AICP
Chair, Planning Commission Planning and Building Director Agenda Item #10.1.

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 13, 2023
TO: Sasha Janev (Via Email)
FROM: Chantal Power, Contract Planner
RE: Confirmation of Planning Commission Action – Demolition Permit and Design Review, PL 21-044, 2126 Madrona Avenue
This correspondence is to affirm that the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena took the following action at its meeting on March 7, 2023:

1. Resolution denying a Demolition Permit and Design Review for the project at 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena;

APPEALS
The Planning Commission’s decision is subject to a 14-day appeal period. Anyone interested in appealing this Determination shall file an appeal with the Planning Director within 14-days of the date of the Planning Commission action.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,
Chantal Power, AICP
Contract Planner
City of St Helena, CA
Agenda Item #10.1.

Image date April 2018
Image date August 2020
Active Agriculture
No Active Agriculture Present
Agenda Item #10.1.

Image date February 2022
No Active Agriculture Present
Agenda Item #10.1.

City of St. Helena
Planning Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
February 7, 2022
Sasha Janev
1432 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Identification of Outstanding Issues – 2126 Madrona Avenue (File #PL21-044) Mr. Janev,
The City received the above-referenced demolition and design review permit applications on November 5, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65943, development review staff has completed its review of the proposed project and has concluded that the application as submitted is complete, but the project design requires revisions. The requested revisions are as follows:

Planning Department Comments:

1. The project is within the A-20 zoning district and the intent of this zoning district is as follows:

The purpose of the A-20 district is to promote and implement the policies of the general plan to preserve agricultural land uses and provide for future orderly development as the urban limit line is adjusted to accommodate urban growth. This district restricts the density of residential use and stipulates the location and area of residential development to promote preservation of agricultural land use and reduce impacts to the provision of infrastructure as the urban area of the city expands.

Section 17.20.060 (C) of the SHMC allows for a maximum nonagricultural coverage of 1 acre. The total proposed developed area of the site is 1.58 acres and needs to be reduced to 1 acre or less to meet this requirement. The new site design should endeavor to preserve the existing vineyard and utilize the non-vineyard areas for the new construction and outdoor amenity areas.

2. As currently designed this project is not consistent with the General Plan policies below:
▪ LU2.2: Encourage new residential development that is consistent in design, size, color, and floor area ratio (FAR) with the older residences in the neighborhood. ▪ LU5.1: Discourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. ▪ LU5.3: Strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan.

Agenda Item #10.1.

In order to recommend approval of a Design Review application, findings of consistency with the General Plan must be made. Addressing the issue identified in number 1 above and also number 3 below should bring the project into consistency with the General Plan.

3. This site currently allows for expansive views of the surrounding hills and vineyards.

Any new development will be highly visible. With the reduced building area noted in number 1 above, the City desires to see the scale and square footage of the proposed house proportionally reduced so the visual impact of the new home is minimized within the A-20 zone.

4. Though not subject to discretionary review, the City would like to encourage the relocation of the proposed ADU to the interior of the site in order to avoid an imposing façade along Fir Hill Drive. In addition, a rendering of the view from the closest property of Fir Hill Drive is requested.

5. As this project is proposing to use more water than the property currently uses, prior to issuance of a building permit, in accordance with the City’s ADU Policy and Water Neutrality requirements (Policy 9.2.1), the applicant shall obtain approvals through the City Council for increased water use and specific projects that will be done to offset the increased use prior to issuance of a building permit following a Planning Commission approval.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Prior to resubmittal, please contact me so a virtual meeting can be arranged with the Planning and Building Director to discuss these comments and your approach to addressing the issues.

Upon submittal of revised plans and corresponding information, please provide a letter stating how each of the above-noted items has been addressed. Revised plans and other required information will be routed to all City Departments for review and evaluation of conformance with each comment listed above. If every item has been addressed to the satisfaction of each Department, the project will be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission meeting.

If you have any further questions you can contact me at [email protected] or (909) 754- 1653.

Sincerely,
Chantal Power, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Maya DeRosa, Planning and Building Director
Xinia Gamero, Planning Technician
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Mary Cunningham Agee
To: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Billy Summers Cc: John Ponte; Christopher Warner; Rosaura Segura; Marika Rothfeld; Autumn Anderson; Maya DeRosa Subject: [External] The Berchtold proposal
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:00:59 AM
Importance: High
Sunday morning
March 19, 2023
Dear City Council Members,
Let me begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for your service. Your dedication to preserving and protecting this City’s safety, stability, and economic viability is an example of civic responsibility that is widely appreciated and admired. It is why each of you won an election to serve on this Council. We are looking to you today to fulfill that awesome responsibility when the stakes couldn’t be higher.

My purpose in writing this letter is to bring to your full attention the breadth and depth of opposition to the Berchtold project. By now, an Appeal to the Planning Commission’s recent decision to Deny this project will most likely have been placed on your desk. I hope that my comments will be of some benefit as you evaluate the optimal outcome of this proposal.

Untold hours have been spent addressing the many serious issues raised by this unprecedented proposal to build a 20,000 square foot “residence” on the Valley floor in a historic neighborhood where vineyard land has been protected for hundreds of years.

Despite multiple lengthy Planning Commission meetings and an adamant request that the applicant “not return for further review until the proposal is reduced to under 10,000 square feet,” the Applicant has refused to decrease the size of the proposed residence -- by even one square foot.

I respectfully submit that such a response exposes a defiant indifference that does little to promote the well-being of Saint Helena and its residents. Yes, a structure of this magnitude could provide much-needed tax revenues – but at what cost? This is the ultimate question.

I will not reiterate all of the reasons for opposing this project, but ask that we focus on the most important concerns:

Agricultural: The Berchtold proposal is in clear contradiction to existing A-20 regulations designed to protect agricultural land from “residential” developments. If this regulation can be thwarted simply by labeling historic vines “unproductive,” then where does this slippery slope end? Just this past week, a frontpage article in the Agenda Item #10.1.

Napa Register underscored the significance of protecting Napa Valley’s agricultural land and vineyard properties from opportunists with short-term interests. Existing restrictions are designed to protect the environmental health and economic viability of our unique community.

Environmental: No amount of wishful thinking or mitigating promises will prevent catastrophic environmental harm from happening on our Valley floor if a 6,000+ square foot basement is permitted to be dug on this historic vineyard that produced awardwinning wines for decades. To put this issue in perspective, the scale of the proposed basement alone is larger than any existing home in the neighborhood. “Below ground level” offers no comfort when considering the irreparable damage that will be done to the underground water and root systems. This harm will impact the entire neighborhood as wells will run dry and disruption to the natural habitat will be replaced by a cement wall-encircled compound.

Water: We have all learned to accept how fragile the water supply is for this community. We have accepted moratoriums on new well-digging and penalties for overuse of this scarce natural resource. How can a residence designed for between 5 and 10 bathrooms (a moving target of design changes that assures many more bathrooms than existed on this property before) and an open-ended admission to potentially irrigate a dry-farmed vineyard should this later be deemed financially beneficial -- be interpreted as “water neutral?” The impact of permitting a project of this magnitude on the Valley floor will cause irreparable harm to the water supply not only on the 5-acre parcel of land, but on neighboring properties as well.

Safety: Many years of heavy traffic and noise would be the inevitable consequence of a compound of this magnitude being built in this residential neighborhood. The loss of safety, privacy and tranquility along Saint Helena’s “walking path” would represent more than just an “inconvenience,” as it would endanger hundreds of residents who enjoy the freedom to safely walk along Madrona and Fir Hill. Traffic is not just a “nuisance,” but a serious safety concern when neighborhood children on bikes, elderly taking a stroll, and families enjoying a peaceful walk would now be endangered by heavy trucks moving tons of earth and carrying massive loads of construction materials at a pace designed to meet deadlines.

Cultural Norms: Existing ordinances state that the scale and style of new construction should be "consistent with existing norms of the neighborhood." The proposed “residence” is more than three times the size of the largest home anywhere in this neighborhood. Not only would construction of this “residence” in this location be “precedent setting,” it would defy any reasonable interpretation of conformity to the norms for this historic neighborhood.

Agenda Item #10.1.

As I have expressed on many occasions and from the outset, I would much rather organize a welcome party for new members of our community. I remain hopeful that the Berchtold’s might someday become neighbors - but in a home that reflects more than just their dreams and is respectful of everyone else’s too.

There are two obvious options available for the Applicant to resolve this crisis while showing respect for existing ordinances and current residents of this neighborhood and City : 1) Design and build a scaled-back version of your dream house on the current lot; 2) Relocate this project with no design changes in the hills above the Valley floor where precedents have been established.

We have all witnessed the demise of great communities when financial might, legal maneuvering, and political power are allowed to corrupt cohesive values that promote fairness, decency, and respect. The very real and immediate financial concerns of our City cannot be permitted to hijack regulations and community norms that have earned Saint Helena the respect of residents and visitors alike.

Your decision on this precedent-setting proposal must send a clear message that Saint Helena is not for sale to the highest bidder. There are more constructive and less expedient ways to raise much-needed funds.

I am confident that you would not have chosen to devote your time to serving as a member of this City Council if you did not care deeply about the fiscal issues facing our City – as well as the longer-term social and environmental health of our community. I believe that your decision is about much more than just one applicant with the legal and financial means to disrupt the wellbeing of an entire neighborhood.

We are all aware that more restrictive ordinances are currently under serious consideration for the reasons mentioned in this letter. If this "white elephant" is permitted just before these new restrictions are put into effect, the members of this Council will forever be associated with this errant decision.

You have an opportunity to exercise leadership by making a choice that benefits the longterm good of many -- as opposed to the short-term desires of a few. I ask that you please exercise this responsibility entrusted to you by protecting and preserving this community we call home.

Respectfully submitted,
Mary Cunningham Agee and Family
Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

City Council
April 25, 2023
Appeal File #PL23-010
Appeal of March 7, 2023 Planning Commission denial of
demolition permit and design review file #21-044 for a property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue within the A-20 zone.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Background and Project Meetings
• October 18, 2022 - 1st Planning Commission meeting, continued for project revisions and neighborhood outreach
• November 6, 2022 – 1st Neighborhood meeting conducted at project site • November 19, 2022 – 2nd Neighborhood meeting conducted at project site • December 6, 2022 – 2nd Planning Commission meeting to present project revision and outreach status update
• March 1, 2023 – 3rd Neighborhood meeting conducted at project site • March 7, 2023 – 3rd Planning Commission hearing resulted in a denial of project
• March 22, 2023 – The applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission denial to the Planning Department
Agenda Item #10.1.

Site Plan Proposed at October
Planning Commission
Lot Size: 5.78 Acres
Existing Calculations
Vineyard: 5.08 acre
Orchard: 0.20 acre
Non-Ag: 0.50 acre
Change Resulting from
Proposal
Removal of 0.75 acre from
vineyard = 4.33 acre
Addition of 0.21 acre
orchard = 0.41 acre
Addition of 0.50 acre NonAg = 1.00 acre
Net loss of 0.54 acre active
agriculture
Proposed Structures: 14,407 SF Home + 1,754 SF Garage + 1,640 SF Terrace + 850 SF ADU + 864 SF Terrace = 19,515 SF Bocce Court
Pool and Spa
Primary Dwelling
ADU 5’ wall screening motor court
Agenda Item #10.1.

Site Plan Proposed at March
Planning Commission
Changes to Site Plan since October
• Removal of driveways along Fir Hill
• ADU moved and massing revised
• Pool size reduced
• Pool and bocce court reoriented
• Area of proposed vineyard removal
reduced
• Area of proposed olive orchard
reduced and moved away from street
intersection to increase visibility
• Bioswale proposed around area of
development and two retention
basins proposed
• Landscape plan revised to reduce
water usage and water use analysis
revised to reflect change
• Net loss of 0.53 acre active
agriculture
No change in size of structures
Bocce Court Primary Dwelling
Pool
and Spa
ADU
5’ wall screening
motor court
Bioswale and
retention
basins
Agenda Item #10.1.

Removal of Active Agriculture
Existing Site Approximate area of active
agriculture proposed for
removal (0.66-acre)
Proposal Approximate area of
proposed olive orchard
(0.13-acre)
Total active
vineyard loss =

0.66-acre
Olive orchard
addition =

0.13-acre
Total net loss
of 0.53-acre
agriculture
Agenda Item #10.1.

Active Agriculture
Approximate
rear line of area
proposed for
development of
structures and
amenities
Agenda Item #10.1.

Reason for Planning
Commission Denial
General Plan Inconsistency
Staff and the Planning Commission determined that the project is not fully consistent with General Plan Policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 and Design Review Finding #1, due to the removal of existing agriculture as part of the project proposal.
• General Plan Policy LU5.1 - Discourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.
• General Plan Policy LU5.3 - Strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan that are designated as agricultural land.

Design Review Finding Number 1
• Consistency and compatibility with the applicable elements of the general plan
Agenda Item #10.1.

Appellant Grounds for Appeal
Argument A – The Planning Commission abused its discretion by applying an incorrect definition of “agriculture” to the proposed uses. • Section 2.28.020(F) of the SHMC grants the Director of Planning to “interpret planning documents and planning related ordinances and advise interested citizens.”
• The Director of Planning interpreted the meaning of agriculture as it is used in the Development Code to mean the “commercial production of plants and/or animals.”
• The Planning Commission concurred with the Director’s interpretation.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Appellant Grounds for Appeal
Argument B – The Planning Commission’s inflexible application of the City’s General Plan is internally inconsistent and vertically inconsistent with the City’s zoning ordinance.
• The appellant further asserts that the Planning Commission denied the project because the proposal includes the construction of a single-family home on land designated for agricultural purposes.
• The staff report acknowledges that single-family homes are a permitted use in the A-20 zone.
• The denial action was not a “de facto prohibition on development” as the appellant claims, but rather an acknowledgement that the applicant chose not to fully make up the net loss of agriculture at another location onsite, while the A-20 zone, and General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 emphasize the importance of preserving agricultural uses.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Appellant Grounds for Appeal
Argument C – The City’s prior approval of a similar project in the A-20 zone provides precedent for approval of this project.
• The appellant states that staff did not provide written direction to the applicant that the proposed removal of a portion of the vineyard is inconsistent with the General Plan.
• Staff provided policy direction regarding the General Plan inconsistencies proposed by the project in a letter dated February 7, 2022. • The project at 777 Pratt Avenue mentioned by the appellant did not establish precedence as the property in question did not contain active agriculture at the time the design review application was submitted to the City.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Appellant Grounds for Appeal
Argument D – The Planning Commission abused its discretion by failing to share the final resolution with the Berchtold’s prior to the March 7 hearing. • The appellant argues that the Planning Commission violated the Brown Act by not posting the denial resolution 72 hours in advance of the hearing and did not read the denial findings into the record.
• Changes to the project resolution are frequently made at hearings, and the City Attorney did in fact read the denial findings into the record at the March 7 hearing. • The applicant does not have a separate right under the Brown Act or otherwise to separately comment on the Planning Commission’s final findings or action. Those are generally made after the public hearing and/or public hearing are closed.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve a resolution denying the appeal thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of an application for demolition permit and design review for the proposed demolition and new construction on the property located at 2126 Madrona.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Olive Trees Citrus Trees
Chinese Pistacia Trees
Pineapple Guava Shrubs
Bay Laurel Hedge
Historic Oak
Low Water Perennials & Grasses
Proposed
Landscape
Plan
Agenda Item #10.1.

• Required front setback:
50 feet from the centerline
of the road
• Centerline to property line:
22 feet
• Centerline to screen wall:
70 feet
• Centerline to primary
dwelling:
94 feet
Centerline
22’ from
c.l. to p.l.
70’ from
c.l. to
screenwall
94’ from
c.l. to
primary
dwelling
Required front setback, 50’ from c.l.

Agenda Item #10.1.

From: margot ainsworth
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Fir Hill and Madrona
Date: Friday, April 21, 2023 9:54:39 AM
As a 40+ year resident of St. Helena (largely spent on Madrona), I’m constantly dismayed at the direction the community has taken. Or perhaps I should say, lack of community. This neighborhood used to consist of families and people who worked locally. That’s pretty much disappeared. I’m surrounded by part-timers. Things change…I understand that. However, the city doesn’t have to expedite the process for the mega-rich while dragging its feet on “low income housing”. The time has come to reset priorities. There has to be a maximum square footage allowance and I would suggest less than half of this proposal.

Thank you,
Margot Ainsworth
1838 Madrona
Sent from my iPad
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Sandra Barros
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] huge house on fir hill/Madrona
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 3:32:27 PM
Hello City.

I have lived in St. Helena for over 20 years, and walked the town. One of my favorite walks from my house is up Madrona to Fir Hill and around to Spring Mountain Road to home. I know the older house with a vineyard on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill sold and there are plans to build a very large house on the property.

From what I know about the plans, this will be a huge eyesore to the neighborhood, and change the feeling of the neighborhood, use tremendous amounts of water, and I object to the project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Sandra Barros 260 Nemo Ct. St. Helena
Sandra Barros, CSW,CSS | Wine and Spirits Educator
Trinchero Family Estates
Office: 1-707-603-6424 | Ext. 4132 | Mobile: 1-707-299-8275 [email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, is the property of Trinchero Family Estates or its affiliates. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading or saving them to disk or other storage medium. Thank you.

Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Susan Michul
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Proposed house at Fir Hill and Madrona Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 6:06:57 PM
I would like to register my opposition to the mansion proposed at the corner of Fir Hill Road and Madrona in St. Helena. This is my neighborhood and there are no other residences in the area that are anywhere near the size of this proposed giant building. Please do not let something so out of character for the neighborhood be approved.

Susan Michul
1743 Hillview Place
St. Helena
Sent from Mail for Windows
Agenda Item #10.1.

dennis rossi
April 20, 2023
ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Email: [email protected]
Re: Appeal from Planning Commission applica�on denial of Joe and Lorraine Berchtold 2126 Madrona, St. Helena (File No. PL 21-044) set for April 25, 2023 agenda Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall and
Councilmembers Chouteau, Hardy and Summers:

I was one of the four heirs to 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena a�er our parents passed which we sold to Joe and Lorraine Berchtold. Un�l the sale in 2020, I had maintained the vineyard with my father un�l his passing in July 2006 and then by myself un�l the sale. I have specific informa�on about all aspects of farming that parcel.

In the Planning Commission hearings, the produc�vity of the vineyard and its grape yields were misrepresented by the applicant and by Beth Novak. I’d like to set the record straight. The vineyard was in existence when my grandmother and grandfather, Mr. and Mrs. Giacomini, purchased the property in 1938. It is dry farmed, is not irrigated and is not trellised. It is one of a handful remaining in the Napa Valley. It is planted in mul�ple varie�es to produce a well-rounded wine. There are very few like it le� in St. Helena.

Over the years, we would replant individual vines as needed, but the lowest producing vines were typically the ones in the low swail between the Rodrigues and Agee proper�es. The vines are strong producers of grapes and if managed properly will con�nue to produce grapes like it had in the past ten years. The grape produc�ons when I managed the vineyard before the sale were the following:
2011: 5 Tons 2016: 4.75 Tons
2012: 6 Tons 2017: 6.4 Tons
2013: 7.8 Tons 2018: 7.8 Tons
2014: 5.8 Tons 2019: 9.4 Tons
2015: 3.5 Tons 2020: 4.672 Tons.

I’d also like to comment on the exis�ng well on the property. The well does not produce much water at all. At its deepest, the well was only about 30 feet deep. It would only get a few buckets of water at a �me and could not be used to irrigate any of the vineyard or landscaping. It hasn’t been a func�oning well for over a decade.

It is impossible to irrigate either the vineyard or proposed olive trees with the exis�ng well.

Sincerely,
Dennis Rossi
Dennis Rossi
Agenda Item #10.1.

dennis rossi
April 20, 2023
ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Email: [email protected]
Re: Appeal from Planning Commission applica�on denial of Joe and Lorraine Berchtold 2126 Madrona, St. Helena (File No. PL 21-044) set for April 25, 2023 agenda Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall and
Councilmembers Chouteau, Hardy and Summers:

I was one of the four heirs to 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena a�er our parents passed which we sold to Joe and Lorraine Berchtold. Un�l the sale in 2020, I had maintained the vineyard with my father un�l his passing in July 2006 and then by myself un�l the sale. I have specific informa�on about all aspects of farming that parcel.

In the Planning Commission hearings, the produc�vity of the vineyard and its grape yields were misrepresented by the applicant and by Beth Novak. I’d like to set the record straight. The vineyard was in existence when my grandmother and grandfather, Mr. and Mrs. Giacomini, purchased the property in 1938. It is dry farmed, is not irrigated and is not trellised. It is one of a handful remaining in the Napa Valley. It is planted in mul�ple varie�es to produce a well-rounded wine. There are very few like it le� in St. Helena.

Over the years, we would replant individual vines as needed, but the lowest producing vines were typically the ones in the low swail between the Rodrigues and Agee proper�es. The vines are strong producers of grapes and if managed properly will con�nue to produce grapes like it had in the past ten years. The grape produc�ons when I managed the vineyard before the sale were the following:
2011: 5 Tons 2016: 4.75 Tons
2012: 6 Tons 2017: 6.4 Tons
2013: 7.8 Tons 2018: 7.8 Tons
2014: 5.8 Tons 2019: 9.4 Tons
2015: 3.5 Tons 2020: 4.672 Tons.

I’d also like to comment on the exis�ng well on the property. The well does not produce much water at all. At its deepest, the well was only about 30 feet deep. It would only get a few buckets of water at a �me and could not be used to irrigate any of the vineyard or landscaping. It hasn’t been a func�oning well for over a decade.

It is impossible to irrigate either the vineyard or proposed olive trees with the exis�ng well.

Sincerely,
Dennis Rossi
Dennis Rossi
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: christopher chgallery.com
To: cityclerk
Subject: Re: [External] Fir Hill / Madrona Residence Project - Letter to City Council Date: Friday, April 21, 2023 2:08:32 PM
Dear St. Helena City Council,
I am writing to express my opinion on the proposed development of the lot on Fir Hill and Madrona Avenue. Although I no longer reside within the city limits of St Helena, my business is in its 21st year on Main Street, and I remain a local with my current residence now being on Howell Mtn. Indeed, one of the motivating reasons to move to Howell Mtn was to "escape" the McMansion phenomenon and loss of "small character" that is plaguing this city. Primarily led by prospective new residents who want to move here, but aren't content with the current housing inventory, or speculative investors, many a perfectly fine and accommodating home, which served its intended function for decades, has been torn down, and replaced by an intrusive scale and/or design not in harmony with its surroundings.

This proposed project is yet another example of the above, but in even more egregious terms.

In this case, not only is a physical monstrosity being proposed, but a collateral damage to the community is being proposed, resulting in the following:

1. The physical loss of a historic vineyard and the greenbelt and production of product it offers.

2. Permanent loss and pollution of a cherished viewshed

3. An imbalance in scale to the setting and ambience of the entire neighborhood, not just the lot in question.

4. Permanent loss of the rural vibe of the neighborhood

5. Further dilutes the term "charming" when referring to St. Helena.

6. Forces someone's oversized trophy into every neighbor's and citizen's daily life. (I am not against trophies in settings where neighbors aren't affected, this is not one of those instances.)
In the 22 years I have lived in St Helena, raised a daughter through the school system, coached in youth leagues, and stewarded my business, it has been my observation that the overwhelming majority of new construction and loss of historical appearance of this town has been initiated by spec home investors and often newcomer property owners, who have very sadly never intended to Agenda Item #10.1.

have the home as a full time residence. The city has been culpable in this historical trend by not addressing the second, third, fourth home reality and its consequences sooner. BUT it is never too late to make a stand and with a stand, develop a firmly defined image for how you want this town to appear to resident and tourist alike, not just today, but in ten and twenty and beyond years. By doing so, you are representing the masses who live here now, and in the future, versus the singular.

No one, except the applicant, would wish such a project be approved, unless they have a monetary or relations benefit to the project. And were the applicant residing next door to this proposed project and enjoyed the generations old viewshed and neighborhood ambience and charm, surely applicant would prefer the project be located elsewhere... there within, lies the answer.

I respectfully ask you to stand in unison with the present and future community, Planning Commission, and threatened charm of this town, and deny the applicant's appeal. It is the wrong project for the place.

Sincerely Yours,
Christopher Hill
The Christopher Hill Gallery - Celebrating Our 21st Year! 1235 Main Street
Saint Helena, CA 94574
707 963 0272
The Christopher Hill Gallery is also at:

Frank Family Vineyards Brian Arden Winery
1091 Larkmead Lane 331 Silverado Trail
Calistoga, CA 94515 Calistoga, CA 94515
707.942.0859 707.942.4767
Merryvale Winery
1000 Main Street
Saint Helena, CA 94574
707.963.7777
10:30ish to 5ish - 6 Days A Week
Closed Tuesdays
www.chgallery.com - [email protected]
Agenda Item #10.1.

To Members of the St. Helena City Council,
I am wri�ng this leter to encourage you to support and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the Berchtold’s project at 2126 Madrona Ave. A�er 3 Planning Commission mee�ngs, the Planning Commission correctly implemented the General Plan in their decision to deny this project. The applicants were given mul�ple opportuni�es to revisit and revise their plans to address the concerns of the Commission, neighbors and community members. However, the concerns were not adequately addressed.

The environmental impact of this project is substan�al. I will point out just a few of my concerns below:
• This property is designated as Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conserva�on.

Even a small loss of agricultural land in our city has a serious environmental impact on our en�re community.
• All ci�zens of our community would be impacted by the increased use of city water for such a large home. Addi�onally, the increased pumping of a private well has poten�al impacts – most especially to those neighbors who rely solely on their well for their water source. • Also of great concern is the increased amount of impervious area contribu�ng to storm water runoff and the displacement of ground water cause by the 7,000 sq. �. underground room preven�ng adequate water absorp�on.
• There is a majes�c Heritage Oak on Madrona Ave. that may be in danger because of the extensive root system and the massive amount of soil that will be removed to build the previously men�oned underground room.

I urge you to protect and preserve the rural character of our community by upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and the recommenda�on of the Staff Report to deny this appeal. I thank you for considering my input.

Sincerely,
Annete Smith
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Clay Timon
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Building Projects
Date: Saturday, April 22, 2023 7:31:39 AM
I'm very supportive of the Hunter Street project as it will being housing and an increased tax base to the city, which the city desperately needs.

I'm totaly opposed to the mega mansion on Fir Hill. A compound that size has no place in our city and the threat of a lawsuit should not cause the council to cave. Principle is on the side of the city on this one.

Thank you,
Clay Timon
1103 Brittany Lane
St. Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Connie Wilson
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] April 25 City Council Meeting - Appeal of 2126 Madrona Avenue Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 10:31:38 AM
Dear City Council Members,
Please uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the demolition permit and design review for 2126 Madrona Avenue. I agree with this decision and stand in support of the neighbors near this property.

This is the wrong project for not only this site, but for our entire small town and its character.

Thank you for your consideration.

Connie Wilson
St. Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

April 23, 2023
City of St. Helena | City Council | 1088 College Ave. | St. Helena, CA 94574 | 707-968-2742 Mayor Paul Dohring | [email protected]
Vice Mayor Eric Hall | [email protected]
Council Member Anna Chouteau | [email protected] Council Member Lester Hardy | [email protected] Council Member Billy Summers | [email protected] Re: Opposition to Proposed 2126 Madrona Ave. Development Project Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, Council Member Chouteau, Council Member Hardy, and Council Member Summers,
I am writing to express my agreement with the Planning Commission’s denial of the application for a demolition permit and design review for the proposed demolition and new construction on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue. As I previously stated in communications to the Planning Commission, I would be very pleased to welcome Joe and Lorraine Berchtold to the St. Helena community yet believe that the design, as it has been proposed, continues to be a cause for concern.

My initial opposition included two proposed driveways accessing the new residence from the private, onelane Fir Hill Drive. During the first Planning Commission meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Berchtold’s team agreed to remove these driveways so that all access points would be limited to Madrona Avenue. However, other concerns expressed by neighbors during meetings with Mr. Berchtold and members of his team were not sufficiently addressed.
 Although the placement of the 850 square-foot ADU (pool house) and its adjoining 864 squarefoot covered terrace was slightly relocated and the roofline of the ADU was lowered, no modification to the overall square footage of the entire project occurred. Thus, adequate compromises were not made with regard to reducing the size of the construction project to preserve more of the vineyard or to lessen the obstruction of views of those neighbors directly impacted.
• Above ground: 10,554 square feet of building structures & 2,504 square feet of covered terraces
• Below ground: 6,457 square feet of living space
 It is illogicalthat the immense size of this proposed projectshould be deemed to be “water neutral” as it relates to the existing home’s historic City of St. Helena water usage.  A new well for agricultural purposes could jeopardize the existing wells of surrounding neighbors who rely on wells as their only source of water.
 Residents of Fir Hill Drive (who must each pay for the maintenance of our private road) expressed concerns that the massive scope of the above- and below-ground structures, coupled with the netreduction in agricultural land, could prevent water from seeping into the ground and cause significant runoff issues on Fir Hill Drive. The subsequently proposed dry pond may not be sufficient to combat these issues.

I understand Joe and Lorraine Berchtold’s desire to build a “vacation/entertainment” home in our charming town. Unfortunately, although multiple opportunities were given to modify the proposed project to be in line with the City’s General Plan, these were not taken. I trust that you will objectively evaluate this situation, just as you would for any other project, and respectfully request that you uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the current plan by following the Staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jodie Morlet
Fir Hill Drive Resident
Cc: [email protected]
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Rita Hellewell
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Madrona/Fir Hill Project
Date: Sunday, April 23, 2023 11:18:05 PM
I see that this Tuesday, you will be considering the appeal of the project to construct a 14.407 square foot "single family home" on the Madrona/Fir Hill site. I plan to try to attend the meeting, but I want to let the city know that as a full time resident in that section of town, I had and continue to have major reservations about this project.

My concern is that the size of the property indicates that something much more than a single family dwelling may be in play here. The permit was previously denied, and the applicant is unwilling to make changes (based on taking out vineyard). What assurances does the city have that this is not a hotel or other commercial business in disguise? If nothing has changed, I don't see why we would grant the permil. I hear that the applicant may threaten to sue. I presume the applicant has money to fight this.....not exactly a great start to fitting into the neighborhood.

I hope that the council upholds that previous decision, and also ensures that any property built adheres to the land use and character of the area. Lower Madrona and Fir Hill are two of the last parts of the town that still maintain the character of our vineyard heritage. It would be a travesty if some monstrosity were built on this corner. I'm not against progress, but this home seems gigantic, and I can't help feeling that something else is going on here.

Thanks
Rita Hellewell
Agenda Item #10.1.

From: Ross@
To: Public Comment; cityclerk
Subject: [External] Fir Hill and Madrona Megamansion
Date: Friday, April 21, 2023 4:41:47 PM
I am unable to attend the City Council meeting on the 25th to hear arguments about the 19,000 sqft “mega mansion” proposed for the corner of Fir Hill and Madrona. I attended a planning Commission meeting a few months ago when this project was rejected by the PC and sent back for redesign for a smaller home (4500 sqft).

I wish to express my absolute opposition to this project as being totally out of character for our small town. The owner’s lawyers and clueless architect* have been disingenuous in the number of bedrooms, use of water (14 bathrooms for two people?), landscaping, and the impact on the vineyard (and run-off).

The owners have not shown good faith in complying with the Planning Commission's decisions and now appeal to the City Council rather than working with the PC? This shows exactly what we are dealing with. Don’t expect any assertions by the owners/lawyers/architect to be upheld.

Approving this project sends the clear message that one of St. Helena’s core values is that “when money talks, we'll listen, and you'll get whatever you want”.

In addition, I request that City Council members who have taken any contributions from the owners of this property recuse themselves.

Thank you,
- Ross Allen
643 Pratt Avenue
* The architect showed breathtaking ignorance of building codes, run-off from the vineyard, sewer hookup, and other relevant issues. He was clearly deceptive about which rooms could be converted to bedrooms after plan approval and final inspection.

Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 10:42 AM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Cc: Ethan Walsh; Chantal Power
Subject: FW: Berchtold Project Appeal of 2126 Madrona Ave Project Denial Hi Cindy, please post to agenda if you did not receive already.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: F Ron Krausz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 12:56 AM
To: Paul Dohring <[email protected]>; Eric Hall <[email protected]>; Anna Chouteau <[email protected]>; Lester Hardy <[email protected]>; Billy Summers <[email protected]>
Cc: John Ponte <[email protected]>; Christopher Warner <[email protected]>; Rosaura Segura <[email protected]>; Marika Rothfeld <[email protected]>; Autumn Anderson <[email protected]>; Maya DeRosa <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Berchtold Project Appeal of 2126 Madrona Ave Project Denial Dear City Council Members,
We own the home at 2212 Madrona Avenue directly across Fir Hill from the proposed project.

We aƩended all of the Planning Commission hearings as well as the on‐site, neighborhood meeƟngs. At these meeƟngs many of us expressed our concerns about the impact to those of us on Fir Hill, as well as the St. Helena community at large, of a development of this scale. In parƟcular, there was persistent expressed concern with the view obstrucƟon resulƟng from placing the ADU building in its proposed locaƟon, and also from the garden walls and planƟngs that are planned.

We appreciate the acƟons the Berchtold’s have taken to accommodate those concerns by moving the ADU 5 Ō. closer to the house and 15 Ō to the east and lowering the roof approximately 2 Ō. (reconfiguring the swimming pool and bocce court area to do so).  However, the structures have remained the same size as in prior iteraƟons, and the large masses of the structures leave liƩle room, on the proposed building pad, for meaningful relief of view corridor obstrucƟon (especially from our home), or the community impact of such a large project.

We are truly excited to welcome our new neighbors to St. Helena. Regreƞully, we are wriƟng to oppose the approval of the appeal of the Planning Commission acƟon, as the project now stands.  We hope that there will be some compromise on the overall size of the project, and a reducƟon of the view obstrucƟon along Fir Hill Drive that will be caused by taking out the exisƟng vineyards and puƫng the ADU, wall and planƟngs where they are currently planned.

Agenda Item #10.1.

2 We expect that there will be meaningful consideraƟon, when deciding the outcome of the permiƫng for this property, of all the many concerns regarding the size and locaƟon of the project elements, and the disproporƟonate scope of the project for our St. Helena community.  If nevertheless the decision is made to approve the project, we think it essenƟal that the views across the property from Fir Hill, Dean York and Madrona be protected from addiƟonal impacts by condiƟoning approval on the requirement that any new or replacement fences, planƟngs, or other potenƟal obstrucƟons, be such that they will not affect the views into or across the remaining agricultural land area.

Thank you,
Susan and Ron Krausz
2212 Madrona Ave., St Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.
















































=?69



<;<?./92
#.F<?
&.B9
<5?6;4
=1<5?6;406AF<3@A5292;.<?4

<;<?./92
,602
#.F<?
?60

.99
25.9906AF<3@A5292;.<?4

<;<?./92
<B;069
#2:/2?
"2@A2?

.?1F
95.?1F06AF<3@A5292;.<?4

<;<?./92
<B;069
#2:/2?
;;.
5<BA2.B
.05<BA2.B06AF<3@A5292;.<?4

<;<?./92
<B;069
#2:/2?
69962
)B::2?@
/@B::2?@06AF<3@A5292;.<?4
)A

292;.
6AF
92?8
=B/9600<::2;A06AF<3@A5292;.<?4

(2
6AF
<3
)A

292;.

692
$<
&"



==2.9
3?<:
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
2;6.9
<3
.

2:<96A6<;
&2?:6A
.;1
2@64;
(2C62D
==960.A6<;
3<?


#.1?<;.
)A

292;.


36921
/F
"<??.6;2
.;1
<2
2?05A<91

2.?
#.F<?
<5?6;4
.;1
<B;069
#2:/2?@


-2
A52
<D;2?@
<3




6?

699
?6C2
)A

292;.

?2@=20A3B99F
@B/:6A
<B?
<==<@6A6<;
A<

A56@
.==2.9
/F
#?
.;1
#@
2?05A<91
3?<:
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;L@
12;6.9
<3
A526?
==960.A6<;
A<
/B691
.;
.9:<@A



@>
3A
5<:2
0<:=92E
.;1
+
.A


#.1?<;.
)A

292;.


-2
.4?22
D6A5
A52
?20<::2;1.A6<;
<3
A52
)A.33
(2=<?A
.;1
/2962C2
A52
6AF
<B;069
@5<B91
36;1
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
161
;<A
2??
6;
12;F6;4
A52
==960.A6<;
<?
./B@2
6A@
16@0?2A6<;
6;
1<6;4
@<

*52
2?05A<91
=.?029
6@
G<;21


D5605
96:6A@
;<;.4?60B9AB?.9
B@2
<3
A52

.0?2
=.?029
A<
<;2
.0?2

;
<?12?
A<
/B691<BA
A56@
2;<?:<B@
0<:=92E
6;
.
?B?.9
.?2.
<3
)A
292;.
A52

==960.;A@
D699
12:<96@5
.;
2E6@A6;4
<91
3.?:
5<B@2
.;1

/.?;9682
@A?B0AB?2@
=?2C6<B@9F
B@21

3<?
AD<
0.?@
.;1
.
A?.0A<?

*52
2?05A<91@
@A.A21
=B/9609F
A52F
6;A2;1
A<
B@2
A52
5<:2
<;9F
.
32D
A6:2@
.
F2.?
.@
<;2
<3
A526?
:.;F
5<:2@
.?<B;1
A52
D<?91

C2;
D52;
A52F
.?2
52?2
C6@6A6;4
A52F
6;A2;1
A52
5<:2
A<
/2
B@21
/F
<;9F


=2<=92
;
<?12?
A<
.00<::<1.A2
A526?

9.;1@0.=6;4
.
=<<9
/<002
0<B?A
.
AD<
/B6916;4
=<<9
5<B@2
16@4B6@21
.@
<;2
+
A52F
:B@A
?2:<C2
<C2?
<;25.93
.0?2
<3
<914?<DA5
.;1
1?F3.?:21
C6;2F.?1

)=206360.99F
A52F
D699
?2:<C2
.==?<E6:.A29F


C6;2@

@
A526?
.AA2:=A
A<
:6;6:6G2
A52
9<@@
<3
9.;1
12160.A21
A<
.4?60B9AB?2
A52F
<332?
A<
=9.;A
./<BA


<96C2
A?22@
;
.
=?6C.A2
@612/.?
/23<?2
A52
=9.;;6;4
0<::6@@6<;
A52F
.4?221
A52F
D<B91
@299
A52
<96C2
<69
=?<1B021
3?<:
A52
A?22@
@<
.@
A<
:.82
A52
A?22@
122:21
.;
.4?60B9AB?.9
0<::<16AF
6;
0<:=96.;02
D6A5
A52
2;2?.9
&9.;




*52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
5291


=B/960
52.?6;4@
/23<?2
C<A6;4
A<
12;F
A52
==960.A6<;
-2
.9<;4
D6A5
;B:2?<B@
<A52?
06A6G2;@
<3
)A

292;.
D2?2
=?2@2;A
.@
D299
.@
<332?21
@=206360

D?6AA2;
</720A6<;@
A<
A52
=?<720A

-2
5.C2
.AA.0521
.99
D?6AA2;
92AA2?@
<3
<==<@6A6<;
D2
8;<D
./<BA
6;
E56/6A
%;2
52?2A<
.;1
6;0<?=<?.A2
A52:
/F
?232?2;02
.@
63
@2A
3<?A5
3B99F
52?26;

;
.116A6<;
A<
<B?
92AA2?@
F<B
D699
36;1
A5.A
D2
0<:=9621
D6A5
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;L@
?2>B2@A
A<
=?<C612
.
D?6AA2;
@A.AB@
?2=<?A
<3
<B?
</720A6<;@
A<
A52
=?<720A
/F
202:/2?




AL@

4<.9
6;
5.C6;4
A52
2?05A<91@
.;1
A52
;2645/<?@
:<@A
.3320A21
/F
A52
=?<720A
?232??21
A<
52?26;












 



 





 




  











 
























   


 



Agenda Item #10.1.

.@
A52
I
6?

699
;2645/<?@J
=?2=.?2
@B05
.
?2=<?A
D.@
A<
.@@6@A
A52
2?05A<91@
6;
36;16;4
:<16360.A6<;@
A5.A
0<B91
</C6.A2
.;1
@.A6@3F
A52

6?

699
;2645/<?@L
</720A6<;@

$<
0<:=?<:6@2

:<16360.A6<;@
D2?2
:.12



;@A2.1
<3
[email protected];4
.99
<3
<B?
</720A6<;@
A<
A52
=?<720A
D2
D699
3<0B@
<;
.
32D
D2
3229
A52
6AF
<B;069
@5<B91
/2
.D.?2
;
1<6;4
@<
D2
1<
;<A
D.6C2
<B?
?645A
A<
?.6@2
</720A6<;@
;<A
@=206360.99F
56459645A21
52?2
.A
.
9.A2?
A6:2
63
;202@@.?F


$!
'
))%)#

*((%--%*)
%
)*.

/-!
%.-
%-,!.%*)
%)
!)2%)#
.$!

!,$.*'

++'%
.%*)

!
/-!
%.
*""!,!
.$!

++'%
).-
"/''
/!
+,*!--
%)
*)-% !,%)#
.$!

++'%
.%*)

)
+,*+!,'2
%).!,+,!.!
.$!
.
!'!)

!)!,
'
'
)
*.$!,
-.
.!

)

*((*)
'
1-

)
.
!'!)

+*'%%!-

)
*, %)
)!-

-
.$!

-%-
"*,
%.-
!)%
'

$!
'
))%)#

*((%--%*)
*""!,!
.$!

++'%
).-
"/''
/!
+,*!--

99
=?<02216;4@
6;
A56@
:.AA2?
.?2
3<B;1
6;
A52
)A

292;.
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;L@
D?6AA2;

=B/960
?20<?1

#<?2<C2?
2.05
52.?6;4
D.@
369:21

@
6;160.A21
./<C2
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
:2A
<;
%0A</2?




202:/2?


.;1
#.?05


3<?
.
0<9920A6C2

;B:/2?
<3
.A
92.@A

5<B?@

;
.116A6<;
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
.@821
3<?
.;1
?2026C21
D?6AA2;
@A.AB@
?2=<?A@
3?<:
A52
==960.;A@
.;1
<A52?

6?

699
;2645/<?@
<;
202:/2?






.05
52.?6;4
D.@
0<;1B0A21
.00<?16;4
A<
.99
=?<A<0<9@
3<?
<C2?;:2;A
:22A6;4@
6;09B16;4

=B/9609F;<A6021
.42;1.@



*52
==960.;A@
=?<C6121
D?6AA2;
6;3<?:.A6<;
A<
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
3<?
2.05
52.?6;4
.@
D299
.@
A526?
202:/2?



@A.AB@
?2=<?A

#?
2?05A<91
=2?@<;.99F
.AA2;121
.A
92.@A

<3

A52


:22A6;4@
/BA
56@
9.DF2?@
.;1
.?056A20A
.@
D299
.@
<A52?
2E=2?A@
.AA2;121
.99
A5?22
:22A6;4@

*52
==960.;A@
D52;
=?2@2;A
.;1
A526?
2E=2?A@
4.C2
=B/960
0<::2;A@
.;1
3629121
>B2@A6<;@
3?<:
A52
<::6@@6<;2?@

==960.;A@
<332?21
6;3<?:.A6<;
<;
A526?
=?<=<@21
=9.;@
.;1
?2026C21
@=206360
3221/.08
3?<:
A52
<::6@@6<;2?@

)2C2?.9
A6:2@
2C2;
.3A2?
A52
=B/960
0<::2;A
=2?6<1
D.@
09<@21
A52
<::6@@6<;
D52;
;202@@.?F
<=2;21
A52
09<@21
@2@@6<;
A<
.@8
A52
==960.;A@
<?
A526?
2E=2?A@
.
0?6A60.9
>B2@A6<;
<?
</A.6;
3B?A52?
6;3<?:.A6<;
A<
.@@6@A
A526?
1296/2?.A6<;@


*52
=B/960
D.@
.9@<
<332?21
A52
<==<?AB;6AF
A<
.11?2@@
A52
<::6@@6<;
.;1
A52
==960.;A@
D2?2
46C2;
A6:2
A<
?2@=<;1

*52
==960.;A@
D2?2
<332?21
3B99
1B2
=?<02@@
A<
.?4B2
<A52?D6@2
6@
;<A
A?B2


$!
'
))%)#

*((%--%*)
+,*+!,'2
%).!,+,!.!
,!'!0
).
.
!'!)

!)!,
'
'
)

+,*0%-%*)-

-

-%-
"*,
!)2%)#
.$!

++'%
.%*)

*52
==960.;A@
.?4B2
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
161;LA
8;<D
D5.A
A52F
D2?2
A.986;4
./<BA
D52;
A52F
6;A2?=?2A21
A52
)A

292;.

2;2?.9
&9.;
.;1
3<B;1
A52
.==960.A6<;
D.@
;<;0<:=96.;A

?<:
A52

6?

699
;2645/<?@L
=2?@=20A6C2
A5.A
6@
B;A?B2

@
9.F
=2<=92
D2
3<B;1
A52
<::6@@6<;2?@L
>B2@A6<;@
6;@645A3B9
.;1
=?</.A6C2

*52F
5.C2
?2026C21
A?.6;6;4
<;
A52

2;2?.9
&9.;
A52F
2C.9B.A2
.==960.A6<;@
3<?
=?<720A@
A5?<B45<BA
A52
F2.?
.;1
.==9F
A52
@A.;1.?1@
B;63<?:9F
.@
42;2?.99F
6;A2?=?2A21
/F
A52
6AF

*52F
.?2
.@@6@A21
/F
)A
292;.

&9.;;6;4
.;1
&B/960
-<?8@
12=.?A:2;A
@=206.96@A@
6;
A526?
36291
.;1
?2C62D
A52
)A.33
?2=<?A
6;3<?:.A6<;
D6A5
.
822;
2F2
A<D.?1@
0<:=96.;02



*52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
6@
.9@<
05.?421
D6A5
2E.:6;6;4
2.05
=?<720A
A<
12A2?:6;2
;<A
<;9F
63
.
=?<=<@21
=?<720A
6@
6;
0<:=96.;02
D6A5
G<;6;4
?2>B6?2:2;A@
/BA
.9@<
D52A52?
6A
6@
0<;@6@A2;A
D6A5
A52
;.AB?2
.;1
05.?.0A2?
<3
.;
2E6@A6;4
;2645/<?5<<1

*52F
8;<D
A52
6AF
.;1
.?2
Agenda Item #10.1.

05.?421
D6A5
A52
?2@=<;@6/696AF
A<
2;@B?2
.99
.@=20A@
A5.A
0.;
.3320A
.
;2645/<?5<<1
6;
A52
3BAB?2
.?2
.11?2@@21
.@
/2@A
.@
=<@@6/92

9A5<B45
C<9B;A22?@
A52
<::6@@6<;2?@
.?2
.==<6;A21
/F
A52
6AF
<B;069
/.@21
<;
A526?
>B.96360.A6<;@
.;1
@=2;1
2EA?.<?16;.?F
A6:2
?2.16;4
A52
3692
@A.33
?2=<?A
@2286;4
4B61.;02
3?<:
<A52?
@A.33
D52;
;202@@.?F
.;1
1<6;4
6;12=2;12;A
?2@2.?05
9A5<B45
==960.;A@
.?2
B;12?@A.;1./9F
B=@2A
/F
A52
0B??2;A
1206@6<;
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
6@
6;
A52
/2@A
=<@@6/92
=<@6A6<;
A<
2C.9B.A2
.
=?<=<@21
=?<720A
.;1
:.82
36;16;4@
<;2
D.F
<?
A52
<A52?

*52
6AF
<B;069
=?<=2?9F
@5<B91
46C2
4?2.A
1232?2;02
A<
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;2?L@
D<?8
<;
6A@
/25.93



;
.116A6<;
)A

292;.L@

2;2?.9
&9.;L@
5.C2
9<;4
2:=5.@6G21
.
6AF
4<.9
A5.A
.4?60B9AB?2
6@
.;
2@@2;A6.9
292:2;A
6;
:.6;A.6;6;4
A52
05.?.0A2?
.;1
20<;<:F
<3
)A
292;.
.@
D299
.@
A52
6AFL@

0<::6A:2;A
A<
:.6;A.6;6;4
.4?60B9AB?2
D6A56;
A52
6;0<?=<?.A21
6AF
96:6A@
3<?
A52
9<;4
A2?:

<?
2E.:=92
@20A6<;



<3
A52




2;2?.9
&9.;
2E=?2@@2@
A52
4<.9
<3
:6;6:6G6;4
;2D

?2@612;A6.9
12C29<=:2;A
A5.A
/9<08@
A52
=B/960
C62D
<3
C6;2F.?1@

*56@
=?<720A
=?<=<@2@
7B@A
A5.A
/F
=9.;A6;4
A.99
A?22@
A<
/9<08
A52
C62D
<3
A52
C6;2F.?1@
.;1
2.@A2?;
5699@
/F
A52
=B/960
.9<;4

6?

699
?6C2
.
=<=B9.?
=212@A?6.;
.;1
D.986;4
?<BA2
6;
A<D;

<?
.
:<?2
0B??2;A
C62D

A52
0B??2;A

2;2?.9
&9.;
=<96062@
"+

I6@0<B?.42
0<;C2?@6<;
<3
2E6@A6;4
3.?:9.;1
A<
;<;
.4?60B9AB?.9
B@2@J
.;1
"+

I)A?60A9F
96:6A
12C29<=:2;A
<;
=?<=2?A62@
2E6@A6;4
.A
A52
A6:2
<3
A52
.1<=A6<;
<3
A56@

2;2?.9
&9.;
A5.A
.?2
12@64;.A21
.@
.4?60B9AB?.9
9.;1J
?2>B6?2
==960.;A@
A<
?2A.6;
.99
<3
A52
2E6@A6;4
C6;2F.?1@
D5605
6@
0<;@6@A2;A
D6A5
A52



2;2?.9
&9.;
4<.9@



;
A56@
6;@A.;02
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
3<B;1
?2:<C.9
<3
<C2?

.0?2
<3
<91
4?<DA5
C6;2@
D.@
6;0<;@6@A2;A
D6A5
A52

2;2?.9
&9.;

9A5<B45
A52?2
:.F
5.C2
/22;
<A52?
3.0A<?@
.3320A6;4
A526?
1206@6<;
@B05
.@
A52
@6G2
.;1
:.@@6;4
<3
A52
=?<720A
.@
<BA
<3
05.?.0A2?
D6A5
A52
;2645/<?5<<1
A5.A
36;16;4
.9<;2
7B@A6362@
12;6.9


$!


3*)%)#
!-%#)
.%*)

,!
%(+*,.
).
+
,.-
*"
.$!

#,%/'./,
'
'
)
4
#



) 5
+,!-!,0
.%*)
,!#/'
.*,2
,!#%(!)

++'%

'!
.*
.$%-
+,*&!.
-5692
.
/?<.1
.??.F
<3
=B/960
6;A2?2@A@
.?2
@2?C21
/F
4
".;1
=?2@2?C.A6<;
6;
)A
292;.
A52

:<@A
@64;6360.;A
=B/960
/2;236A@
0?2.A21
/F
A52@2
?B92@
.?2
A52
=?2@2?C.A6<;
<3
@02;60
C62D@
.;1
A52
:.6;A2;.;02
<3
A52
0<::B;6AFL@
?B?.9
05.?.0A2?
.;1
=.?A60B9.?
.4?.?6.;
52?6A.42

;
2C.9B.A6<;
<3
.
=?<720AL@
0<:=96.;02
D6A5
A52
6AFL@
4
".;1
?24B9.A<?F
3?.:2D<?8
0.;;<A
/2
/.@21
<;9F
<;
.;
.@@2@@:2;A
<3
.4?60B9AB?.9
=?<1B0A6C6AF
<?
:2.@B?2:2;A
<3
9.;1
.?2.
9<@A
3?<:
<?
0<;C2?A21
A<
.4?60B9AB?.9
=?<1B0A6<;

)B05
.;
.==?<.05
3.69@
A<
.11?2@@
.12>B.A29F
A52
=?<720AL@
6:=.0A
<;
A52@2
6:=<?A.;A
=B/960
/2;236A@
<3
A52
4
".;1

:=<?A.;A
6;>B6?62@
@5<B91
.9@<
2C.9B.A2
A52
23320A
<;
A52@2
/2;236A@
<3
A52
@6A6;4
<3
=?<=<@21
;2D
@A?B0AB?2@
.;1
<A52?
6:=?<C2:2;A@
.;1
0<;@612?
A52
:.6;A2;.;02
<?
9<@@
<3
C62D
0<??61<?@
A52
:.6;A2;.;02
<?
124?.1.A6<;
<3
A52
=B/960L@
2E=2?62;02
<3
A52
0<::B;6AFL@
?B?.9
05.?.0A2?
/F
?2.@<;
<3
A526?
6;A2?.0A6<;
D6A5
A52
@6A2
/23<?2
.;1
.3A2?
A52
?2>B2@A21
05.;42@
.?2
:.12
#.;F
<3
A52
</720A6<;@
A<
A56@
=?<720A
?23920A
A52
3.0A
A5.A
A56@
=?<720A
1<2@
B;[email protected]
C6<92;02
A<
A52
=B/960
6;A2?2@A@
:2.;A
A<
/2
@2?C21
/F
A52
?2@A?60A6C2
G<;6;4
.;1
2;2?.9
&9.;
=<96062@

*52

==960.;A@
.@8
A52
6AF
<B;069
A<
3<0B@
<;9F
<;
A52
.:<B;A
<3
9.;1
.?2.
?2:<C21
.;1
A52
.116A6<;
<?
@B/A?.0A6<;
<3
3?B6A
=?<1B0A6<;
.;
.==?<.05
A5.A
2;A6?29F
:6@@2@
A52
=<6;A
<3
A52
4
".;1
=?2@2?C.A6<;
=<96062@

*52
=?<=<@.9
A<
?2=9.02
A52
?B?.9
@612
F.?1
.17.02;A
A<
A52
@6:=92

3.?:5<B@2
@A?B0AB?2@
@<:2
1.A6;4
/.08
D299
<C2?

F2.?@
D6A5
<96C2
A?22@
3?<;A6;4
<;
.
D.99

.;1
0.99
6A
.;
I<?05.?1
2E=.;@6<;J
9<<8@
:<?2
9682
.;
.AA2:=A
A<
4.:2
.
@A.A6@A60
=2?026C21
A<
/2
6:=<?A.;A
?.A52?
A5.;
.
:6A64.A6<;

A
6@
D6A5
4<<1
?2.@<;
A5.A
A52
.?2.
./BAA6;4
A52
==960.A6<;
6@
2;7<F21
/F
A52
6AF
<3
)A
292;.

.@
A52F
26A52?
D.98
1?6C2
<?
?612
/F
A52
#.1?<;.
6?

699
.?2.

*52
:.;F
?2@612;A@
.;1
C6@6A<?@

Agenda Item #10.1.

2E=2?62;02
/?<.1
<=2;
C6@A.@
A5.A
/246;
D6A5
6;A6:.A2
0<;;20A6<;@
A<
A52
C6;2F.?1@
7B@A
322A
.D.F
C62D
A5?<B45
A?.;@=.?2;A
32;02@

*52
0B??2;A
=?<720A
1.:.42@
A5.A
2E=2?62;02
3.?
:<?2
A5.;
6@
?2.@<;./9F
;202@@.?F
A<
<?
6;52?2;A9F
?2>B6?21
3<?
A52
12C29<=:2;A
<3
.

.0?2
@6;492

3.:69F
?2@612;A6.9
@6A2
D6A56;
A52
=.?029



3
A52
=?<720A
6@
.99<D21
A<
4<
3<?D.?1
6A
6@
6:=<?A.;A
A5.A
A52
6AF
6:=<@2
0<;16A6<;@
<3
.==?<C.9
?2@A?60A6<;@
A<
:6;6:6G2
3BAB?2
1.:.46;4
6:=.0A@

)=206360.99F
A52@2
@5<B91
6;09B12
?2>B6?2:2;A@
A5.A
;<
3B?A52?
</@A?B0A6<;@
A<
C6@6/696AF
6;A<
A52
C6;2F.?1
.?2.
.;1
A<
A52
C6;2F.?1@
.;1
:<B;A.6;@
/2F<;1
/2
.99<D21
D52A52?
/F
05.;46;4
32;06;4
:.A2?6.9@
<?
/F
?2.@<;
<3
;2D
=9.;A6;4@


$!
.,
%.%*)
'



)
'2-%-
"*,(/'

-$*/'

!
%-,!#
, !
"*,
.$!


3*)!


+
,!'-

(
?24B9.A6<;@
.AA2:=A
A<
612;A63F
A52
12;@6AF
<3
.
5<:2
A<
A52
@6G2
<3
A52
=.?029
6A
@6A@
<;

<?
2E.:=92
6;
06A62@
D52?2
9<A@
.?2
@:.99
/BA
A52
/B691<BA
<;
6A
6@
.

<?


@A<?F
/B6916;4
A52

(
;B:/2?
D<B91
/2
9.?42

BA
D52?2
.@
52?2
A52
=.?029
6@
@2C2?.9
.0?2@
2C2;
D6A5
.
:.@@6C2
/B6916;4
<;
6A
0<B91
?2@B9A
6;
.
@:.99

(
364B?2



*52
3?2>B2;A
?232?2;02@
A<
A52
@:.99

(
?2@B9A6;4
/F
B@6;4
A52
2;A6?2
.?2.
<3
.;


=.?029
.@

A52
12;<:6;.A<?
6;
A52
:.A5
2>B.A6<;
?23920A@
.
3B;1.:2;A.9
2??<?
6;
A52
.==?<.05
A<
(

?24B9.A6<;
A<
?2@612;A6.9
12C29<=:2;A

%;
.
36C2
.0?2
=.?029
92A
.9<;2
.

.0?2
=.?029
.;F

/B6916;4
12@64;21
A<
:22A
A52
96:6A@
<3
A52

(
?2@A?60A6<;@
D<B91
/2
B;3.A5<:./9F
.;1

./@B?19F
9.?42

3
A52

(
96:6A.A6<;
.?2
:2.;A
A<
4B612
2C.9B.A6<;
<3
.
=?<720A
6;
A52


G<;2
A52
<;9F
?.A6<;.9
.==?<.05
D<B91
/2
A<
B@2
.
<;2
.0?2
.?2.
=2?:6AA21
3<?
;<;.4?60B9AB?.9
12C29<=:2;A
.@
A52
12;<:6;.A<?

A
D<B91
.99<D
.
:<?2
.00B?.A2
=60AB?2
<3
.
12C29<=:2;AL@
12;@6AF
.@
6A
.99<D@
.;
.==92A<.==92
0<:=.?6@<;

C2;
A5<B45
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
161
;<A
2:=9<F
A56@
86;1
<3
(
.;.9F@6@
6A
6@
</C6<B@

A<
.;F<;2
A5.A
A52
3B99
/B691<BA
<3
.


.0?2
=.?029
D6A5
.;
.9:<@A



@>
3A
=?<720A
0?2.A2@

.;
6:=.0A21
12;@6AF
A5.A
6@
;<A
0<:=.A6/92
D6A5
A52
05.?.0A2?
<?
;.AB?2
<3
A52
;2645/<?5<<1

99
/BA


<?


<3
A52
=.?029@
<;

6?

699
.?2
<;2
A<



.0?2@

*52
9.?42@A
?2@612;02
6@
<;9F

./<BA


@>
3A
?2@B9A6;4
6;
./<BA
.

92@@
12;@6AF
=2?
.0?2
A5.;
A52
2?05A<91
=?<720A

*56@
.9<;2
@5<B91
/2
.
@[email protected]<?F
?2.@<;
.9<;2
3<?
A52
6AF
<B;069
A<
B=5<91
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;L@
12;6.9
<3
A52
2?05A<91
==960.A6<;


0!)
.$*/#$
.$!
'
))%)#

*((%--%*)
%
)*.
%.!
*.$!,
,!
-*)-

-

-%-
"*,

!)%
'
.$!
+,*&!.6-
*0!,
''
(
--%)#
1*/'
$
0!

!!)

-%-
"*,
!)%
'

*52
=?<720AL@
<C2?.99
:.@@6;4
5.@
/22;
.
0<;@6@A2;A
</720A6<;
.;1
5645
92C29
<3
0<;02?;



$!

-!(!).





@>
3A
/B?621
02:2;A
/<E
D699
6:=.0A
4?<B;1D.A2?
39<D
A<=@612
D.A2?
39<D
.;1
A52
%.8
A?22
<;
#.1?<;.

<;@2>B2;02@
<3
?2?<BA6;4
4?<B;1D.A2?
.?<B;1
A56@
@6G2
/.@2:2;A
0<B91
/2
[email protected];4
A<
A52
.>B632?@
A5.A
3221
<B?
D299@
.;1
;2645/<?6;4
C6;2F.?1@
A<
A52
52?6A.42
<.8
A?22
.;1
6A@
0<:=960.A21
?<<A
@F@A2:
.;1
A<
A52
6AFL@
1?.6;.42
@F@A2:


"6A2?.99F
A52
2?05A<91
/.@2:2;A
D<B91
36A
*
(
<3
<B?




6?

699
5<:2@




$!

%)
!-% !)!



Agenda Item #10.1.

*52
@6G2
<3
A52
=?<=<@21
@6;492
3.:69F
?2@612;02
6@
<C2?


@>
3A

A
D699
/2
9.?42?
A5.;
.;F

<A52?
?2@612;02
6;
)A

292;.
.;1
9.?42?
A5.;
:<@A
0<::2?06.9
/B6916;4@

A
1<2@
;<A
36A
D6A5
A52
?B?.9
05.?.0A2?
<3
A56@
=.?A60B9.?
9<0.A6<;

A
6@
3.?
A<<
9.?42
6;
@0<=2
3<?
A52
6AF
96:6A@
.;1
C.992F
39<<?


;
.116A6<;
==960.;A@L
=9.;@
0.99
3<?
:.@@6C2
@612@
<3
A52
5<:2
.;1
D.99@
3<?
=?6C.0F

*52
2;C6?<;:2;A.9
6:=.0A
D699
/2
@B/@A.;A6.9


6;.99F
6;
<?12?
A<
.00<::<1.A2
.
0.?2A.82?
B;6A
.@

=.?A
<3
A52
:.6;
?2@612;02
==960.;A@
D699
?2:<C2
.
@6G2./92
;B:/2?
<3
52?6A.42
C6;2@
<;
A52

2.@A
<3
A52
2E6@A6;4
3.?:
5<B@2
D5605
A52
&9.;;6;4
<::6@@6<;
3<B;1
6@
;<A
/26;4
?20<C2?21
D6A5
@B336062;A
.4?60B9AB?2
6;
2E05.;42
A52
/.@6@
3<?
6A@
==960.A6<;
12;6.9




$!
+,*+*-!


%-

./
''2
.1*

6-

)
-$*/'

!
!)%!

'.*#!.$!,




==960.;A@L
=?<=<@21
+
6@
.0AB.99F
.
AD</B6916;4
=<<9
?<<:

-52;
0<:/6;21
A52

@>

3A
0<C2?21
/?22G2D.F
A52
AD<
@A?B0AB?2@
2>B.9




@>
3A

;
A56@
=?<720A
=9.;
A52
+
6@

:.A2?6.9
A<
A52
</720A6<;@
<3
A52
;2645/<?@
.;1
A52
=?<720A
:.@@6;4
/20.B@2
A52
+
9<0.A6<;
6@
A52
?2.@<;
==960.;A@
D699
?2:<C2
:<@A
<3
A52
52?6A.42
C6;2F.?1
A5.A
?B;@
6;
3?<;A
<3



6?

699

*56@
C6<9.A2@
A52
6AFL@
+
=<96062@

-2
0<;A6;B2
A<
</720A
A<
.;
+
.9<;4
6?

699

/20.B@2
6A
?2>B6?2@
?2:<C.9
<3
@B/@A.;A6.9
52?6A.42
C6;2F.?1



.!,
%--/!-

,!
,!
'

)
1*/'

!
-/""%%!).
.*
!)2
.$!

++'%
.%*)




.*,(

.!,
/)*""


-2
0<;A6;B2
A<
5.C2
0<;02?;@
./<BA
D.A2?
?B;<33

==960.;A@
.?2
:.86;4
233<?A@
A<
:6A64.A2
A52
?B;<33
D6A5
.
K1?F
=<;1L
/BA
.@
D2
8;<D
D.A2?
?B;@
1<D;5699
.;1
.;F
D.A2?
39<D6;4
1<D;
3?<:
A52
A<=
<3

6?

699
:B@A
4<
@<:2D52?2

-6A5
A52
.116A6<;
<3
A52
9.?42
02:2;A
/.@2:2;A
.;1
6;0?2.@21
@B?3.02
02:2;A
D.99@
@A?B0AB?2@
.;1
=.A5D.F@
A52?2
D699
;<A
<;9F
/2
?B;<33
3?<:
?.6;
/BA
A52
B;12?4?<B;1
D.A2?
D699
36;1
.
D.F
A<
?2?<BA2
6A@293
:.86;4
2E6@A6;4
=9.;@
B@292@@

*52
D.A2?
?B;<33
<;

6?

699
6@
A5?<B45
16A052@
.;1
0B9C2?A@
.;1
.;F
.116A6<;.9
?B;<33
D699
<C2?D529:
A5<@2
@F@A2:@

*52
6AF
5.@
.
9.?42
1?.6;.42
=6=2
<;
#.1?<;.
A5.A
D699
.9@<
/2
<C2?D529:21
/F
.99
A56@
?2?<BA21
D.A2?


A
6@
B;092.?
5<D
.99
A56@
D.A2?
D699
.3320A
A52
56@A<?60.9
<.8
<;
A52
0<?;2?
<3
#.1?<;.



.!,
/-
#!


*52
==960.;A@
.?2
B@6;4
.
6AF
<3
)A

292;.
=9.;?2C62D
3<?:B9.
C@
.0AB.9
D.A2?
[email protected]
96:6A@
A<
42A
.?<B;1
D.A2?[email protected]
6@@B2@
3<?
.
5<:2
A56@
@6G2
.;1
.4?60B9AB?.9 9.;1@0.=6;4
;221@
*52
<?646;.9
=9.;@
0.99
3<?
A52


@A?B0AB?2@
H

A<692A@


9.C.A<?F
3.B02A@

86A052;
3.B02A@



/.A5@


9.B;1?F
3.B02A

@5<D2?
52.1@

D.@56;4
:.056;2@
.;1

16@5D.@52?@
$<
)A

292;.

?2@612;A
<?
/B@6;2@@
<D;2?
D5<
5.@
96C21
A5?<B45
A52
9.@A

F2.?@
<3
1?<B45A
/2962C2@
9<D
39<D
D.A2?
36EAB?2@
<3
.
=?<720A
A56@
@6G2
0?2.A2
.
D.A2?;2BA?.9
=?<720A



,
%)
#!


*52

@>B.?2
322A
A5.A
D699
/2
/29<D
4?.12
D699
16@=9.02
.;1
16C2?A
0B??2;A
D.A2?
39<D
6@=9.06;4
A56@
D.A2?
.3320A@
5<D
A52
D.A2?
1?.6;@
.?<B;1
.;1
<33
A52
=?<=2?AF
==960.;A@
=?<=<@21
1?F
=<;1
0.;;<A
5.;192
A52
C<9B:2
<3
D.A2?
D2
0.;
42A
6;
A56@
.?2.

*56@
:B@A
/2
.11?2@@21
.;1
:.12
.
=2?:6A
0<;16A6<;
A5.A
A52?2
0.;
/2
;<
.116A6<;.9
?B;<33
<;A<
6?

699

16A052@
.;1
0B9C2?A@


Agenda Item #10.1.


!''
"*,

#,%/'./,
'
/-!


99
5<:2@
<;

6?

699
B@2
.;1
12=2;1
<;
A526?
D299@
3<?

A526?
D.A2?
A52
D299
6@
A52
<;9F
@<B?02
<3
D.A2?
3<?
@<:2

A
6@
96829F
.;F
.116A6<;.9
D299
6;
A52
.?2.
D699
6:=.0A
D299
D.A2?
.C.69./696AF
3<?

6?

699
?6C2
?2@612;A@

*56@
=.@A
3.99
<;2
<3
A52

.4?60B9AB?.9
D299@
6;
A52
.?2.
?2=<?A21
42AA6;4
16?A
.;1
@.;1
:2.;6;4
A52
.>B632?
A52
D299
D.@
9<0.A21
D.@
=<@@6/9F
1?F6;4
B=


=2?:6A
0<;16A6<;
@5<B91
/2
:.12
A5.A
D<B91
?2>B6?2
A52
==960.;A@L
D299
A<
/2
0.==21
63
6A
.3320A21
A52

6?

699
D299@
6;
.;F
D.F





!
*).%)/!
.*

!'%!0!




++'%!-
.*
.$%-
+,*&!.



*52
@6G2
<3
A56@
=?<720A
.9<;2
@5<B91
?2>B6?2
'
?2=<?A

*52
?2=<?A
D<B91
.11?2@@
6:=<?A.;A
6@@B2@
<3
@.32AF
<3
A52
#.1?<;.
6?

699
6;A2?@20A6<;
/20.B@2
C6@6/696AF
3?<:
A52
;2D
<96C2
A?22@
.;1
<A52?
02:2;A
D.99@
3<?
=?6C.0F

"682D6@2
A52
@6G2
<3
A52
?2@612;02
.9<;2
D699
/9<08
1?6C2?@L
36291
<3
C62D
D52;
.==?<.056;4
A5.A
0<?;2?


'
?2=<?A
D<B91
.9@<
.11?2@@
A52
;<6@2
?2@B9A6;4
3?<:
A52
:.@@6C2
2>B6=:2;A
;22121
3<?
.
5<:2
<3
A56@
@6G2
.;1
6A@
:B9A6=92

,
@F@A2:@
@B:=
=B:=@
.;1
=<@@6/92
@2=A60
@F@A2:@
=<<9
=B:=@
.;1
292C.A<?
:<A<?@
A<
;.:2
.
32D

A
D<B91
.9@<
.11?2@@
A52
6:=.0A
A52
=?<720A
5.@
<;
A52
56@A<?60
52?6A.42
<.8
A?22
.A
A5.A
6;A2?@20A6<;







-2
.==?206.A2
A52
A6:2
.;1
233<?A
2.05
<B;069:2:/2?
5.@
A.82;
A<
B;12?@A.;1
A52
6@@B2@
6;
A56@
.==2.9

*52
=?<720A
6@
<==<@21
/F
:<@A
2C2?F
)A
292;.
?2@612;A
A5.A
8;<D@
./<BA
A56@

=?<720A

-2
.?2
.C.69./92
A<
16@0B@@
A52
=?</92:@
3B?A52?
63
A52
6AF
<B;069
D<B91
36;1
6A
529=3B9



(2@=20A3B99F

&.AAF
.;1

.;8
6*<:.@<

5?6@

2?1299

!.A5922;

2?1299

Agenda Item #10.1.

April 25, 2023
City Council Meeting
Exhibit 1
Opposition Letters Previously Submitted
Agenda Item #10.1.

March 7, 2023
Planning Commission Meeting
Public Comment
Opposition Letters Submitted
Agenda Item #10.1.


;LQLD*DPHUR
)URP
$DURQ+HFRFN
6HQW
)ULGD\)HEUXDU\
$0
7R
0D\D'H5RVD
&F
&KDQWDO3RZHU
;LQLD*DPHUR
6XEMHFW
):
>([WHUQDO@:DWHU8VH$QDO\VLV0DGURQD$YH

AARON HECOCK, AICP

SENIOR PLANNER
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Ave. | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 968-2659 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning &ƌŽŵ͗dKD
>dфƚŵďĞůƚΛĐŽŵĐĂƐƚ͘ŶĞƚх
^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂLJ͕&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϮϯ͕ϮϬϮϯϱ͗ϬϵWD
dŽ͗ĂƌŽŶ,ĞĐŽĐŬфĂŚĞĐŽĐŬΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐƚŚĞůĞŶĂ͘ŽƌŐх
Đ͗WĂƵůŽŚƌŝŶŐфWŽŚƌŝŶŐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐƚŚĞůĞŶĂ͘ŽƌŐх͖
ƌŝĐ,Ăůůф
,ĂůůΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐƚŚĞůĞŶĂ͘ŽƌŐх͖ŶŶĂŚŽƵƚĞĂƵ
фŚŽƵƚĞĂƵΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐƚŚĞůĞŶĂ͘ŽƌŐх͖>ĞƐƚĞƌ,ĂƌĚLJф>,ĂƌĚLJΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐƚŚĞůĞŶĂ͘ŽƌŐх͖ŝůůLJ^ƵŵŵĞƌƐ ф^ƵŵŵĞƌƐΛĐŝƚLJŽĨƐƚŚĞůĞŶĂ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀
džƚĞƌŶĂů΁tĂƚĞƌhƐĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐϮϭϮϲDĂĚƌŽŶĂǀĞ͘
'HDU0U+HFRFN
,MXVWUHDGWKH:DWHU8VH$QDO\VLVSODQIRUWKHSURSRVHGQHZUHVLGHQFHWREHFRQVWUXFWHGDW 0DGURQD$YHQXH,ILQGLWGLIILFXOWWREHOLHYHWHQRFFXSDQWVZLOOXVH JDOORQVSHUGD\SHURFFXSDQW
LQDUHVLGHQFHDQG$'8WKDWKDVWRLOHWVEDWKURRPVLQNVVKRZHUKHDGVNLWFKHQEDUVLQNV FORWKHVZDVKHUVDQGRQO\GLVKZDVKHUWKDWZLOORQO\EHXVHGRQFHHYHU\IRXUGD\V3OHDVHSURYLGH DQVZHUVWRWKHIROORZLQJTXHVWLRQV

7KHDERYHSURMHFWUHIHUVWRWKHH[LVWLQJ0DGURQD$YHUHVLGHQFHDVKDYLQJILYHEHGURRPV DQGLQRUGHUWRUHPDLQLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWK6W+HOHQD
V:DWHU1HXWUDO3ROLF\DUHDVRQDEOHEDVHOLQH
H[LVWLQJGHPDQGLVJDOORQVRIZDWHUSHUEHGURRPSHUGD\3OHDVHSURYLGHWKH6W+HOHQD 3ODQQLQJ2UGLQDQFH
V
WKDWYHULILHVZKHUHWKLVSDVWUDWLRIRUGDLO\ZDWHUXVHSHUEHGURRPLVOLVWHG" :DONLQJE\WKHKRPHLWDSSHDUVWKHH[LVWLQJUHVLGHQFHLVDUDWKHUVPDOOKRPH'LGVRPHRQHIURP WKH&LW\
V3ODQQLQJ'HSDUWPHQWSK\VLFDOO\LQVSHFWWKHKRPHDQGFRQILUPWKHUHDUHILYHEHGURRPVLQ WKHH[LVWLQJKRXVH"
:KDWZDWHUXVHUHIHUHQFHJXLGHOLQHZDVXVHGE\0DGURQH(QJLQHHULQJWRSURMHFWWKHUHVLGHQFH DQG$'8ZLOORQO\XVH
JDOORQVRIZDWHUSHUGD\FRQVLGHULQJWKHGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWVWHQ RFFXSDQWVZLOOEHOLYLQJLQWKHWZRVSDFHV"
+DVWKHDERYHSURSRVHGZDWHUXVHUHIHUHQFHJXLGHOLQHIRUWKLVIXWXUHVLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHDQG$'8 EHHQYDOLGDWHGDVEHLQJDQDFFXUDWHSUHGLFWLRQIRUIXWXUHZDWHUXVHLQSDVWGHYHORSPHQWVZLWKLQ6W +HOHQD"
,IVRZKLFKVLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHGHYHORSPHQWVLQ6W+HOHQD" Agenda Item #10.1.


,IWKHDQVZHUWRTXHVWLRQLVQRZK\LVWKHFLW\SHUPLWWLQJWKLVZDWHUXVHUHIHUHQFHJXLGHOLQHWR EHXVHGZKHQWKHFLW\KDVVXFKDOLPLWHGDQQXDOZDWHUVXSSO\" :KHQZDVWKHODVWWLPH6W+HOHQDXSGDWHGLWV:DWHU1HXWUDO3ROLF\IRU'HYHORSPHQW" ,IWKHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLVXOWLPDWHO\DSSURYHGE\&LW\&RXQFLOLVWKHUHDSURFHGXUHLQ6W +HOHQD
VRUGLQDQFHVWRDOORZWKHFLW\WRPRQLWRUOLPLWWKHIXWXUHGDLO\ZDWHUXVHWR JDOORQVSHUGD\
DVWKHSURMHFWSURSRVHV"
7KDQN\RX
7RP%HOW

Agenda Item #10.1.


;LQLD*DPHUR
)URP
0DU\&XQQLQJKDP$JHHPFDJHH#PVQFRP!
6HQW
7KXUVGD\0DUFK
30
7R
0D\D'H5RVD
3XEOLF&RPPHQW
&F
-RGLH0RUOHW
/XF0RUOHW
$QQHWWH6PLWK
MRHO#JRWWZLQHVFRP
6DUDK*RWW
1LQD$QG$GDP5RWHOOR

$GDP5RWHOOR
0DUJR6LPRQV
'LDQH'DUE\
)UDQN /DXUD5RGULJXHV
/DXUD5RGULJXHV

SDWW\GLWRPDVR#FRPFDVWQHW
.DWK\+HUGHOO
6XVDQ.UDXV]
5RQ.UDXV]
6XEMHFW
>([WHUQDO@2SSRVLWLRQWR%HUFKWROG3URSRVDO

,PSRUWDQFH
+LJK
‘ǣ








,!&
 !
)
'

"

!,!&
 !
)
 
”‘ǣƒ”›—‹‰Šƒ‰‡‡ƒ† ƒ‹Ž›
‡ˆǣ‡”
Š–‘Ž†”‘’‘•ƒŽ
ƒ–‡ǣƒ”
Š͵ǡʹͲʹ͵
‡ƒ”ƒ‹–
‡Ž‡ƒŽƒ‹‰‘‹••‹‘ƒ†‹–›‘—
‹Ž‡„‡”•ǡ


Šƒ˜‡Œ—•–”‡ƒ†ƒ†”‡Ǧ”‡ƒ†–Š‡”‡“—‡•–„›”
Š‹–‡
–ƒ•Šƒ
ƒ‡˜–‘–Š‡ƒ‹–
‡Ž‡ƒŽƒ‹‰
‘‹••‹‘‘„‡ŠƒŽˆ‘ˆ–Š‡‡”
Š–‘Ž†ǯ•”—•–ˆ‘”ƒ†‘’–‹‘‘ˆƒ”‡•‘Ž—–‹‘–‘ƒ’’”‘˜‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘ˆƒ
‡™Dz•‹‰Ž‡Ǧˆƒ‹Ž›Š‘‡dzȋǨȌƒ†ƒ

‡••‘”›†™‡ŽŽ‹‰—‹–‘–Š‡’”‘’‡”–›Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ƒ–ʹͳʹ͸ƒ†”‘ƒ
˜‡—‡‹–Š‡ǦʹͲœ‘‹‰†‹•–”‹
–Ǥ 


ƒ†‹•ƒ›‡†–‘†‹•
‘˜‡”–Šƒ––Š‡”‡“—‡•–‘ˆ–Š”‡‡‘—–‘ˆ•‹š‹–›‘‹••‹‘‡”•–‘–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–ƒ––Š‡

Ž‘•‡‘ˆ–Š‡Žƒ•–’—„Ž‹
‡‡–‹‰‹Žƒ–‡
–‘„‡”
*




























.-





+
Šƒ•‘–‡˜‡’ƒ”–‹ƒŽŽ›„‡‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†ǦǦ„—–Šƒ•„‡‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡Ž›‹‰‘”‡†Ǥ

’’ƒ”‡–Ž›ǡ™‡ƒ”‡–‘ˆ‹†
‘ˆ‘”–‹ƒ•Ž‹‰Š–”‡†—
–‹‘‹•‹œ‡ƒ†Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ǦǦ™‹–Š‘
•—„•–ƒ–‹˜‡
Šƒ‰‡‹–Š‡•
‘’‡‘”Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ‹•–”—
–—”‡•ǨŠ‡ƒ‹”‡•‹†‡
‡ƒ†ƒ––‡†ƒ–
•–”—
–—”‡•”‡ƒ‹—
Šƒ‰‡†ǦǦ™‹–Š‘”‡„‡†”‘‘•ƒ†„ƒ–Š”‘‘•–Šƒƒ›‘–Š‡”‘Ǧ”‡•‹†‡–DzŠ‘‡dz ™‹–Š‹–Š‹•
‘—‹–›ǦǦŽ‡–ƒŽ‘‡‘—”‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†Ǥ
‡•ǡ







*




+ƒ†•Š‘—Ž†„‡

‘•‹†‡”‡†™‹–Š‹–Šƒ–‡š–”‡‡
‘–‡š–Ǥ






























"













"


&Š‡‘„Œ‡
–‹‘•‘ˆƒ›Ž‘
ƒŽ•Šƒ˜‡‡˜‡”’”‹ƒ”‹Ž›„‡‡ƒ„‘—––Š‡•‡–„ƒ
•ǡ†‡•‹‰
‘”‡˜‡–Š‡˜‹‡™Ǧ„Ž‘
‹‰Š‡‹‰Š–‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ‹•–”—
–—”‡™Š‡









"

"







"


 





Ǥ
††–‘–Š‹•ƒˆˆ”‘––‘–Š‡ƒ‡•–Š‡–‹
ƒ†
—Ž–—”ƒŽ‘”•‘ˆ–Š‹•’”‹˜ƒ–‡ǡ’‡ƒ
‡ˆ—Žƒ†“—ƒ‹–‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǡ
ƒ‹’‘•‹‰
‡‡–™ƒŽŽ–Šƒ–™‘—Ž†•—””‘—†–Š‹•Dz”‡•‹†‡
‡dzƒ†–Š‡‘„Œ‡
–‹‘•–‘–Š‹•
‘’‘—†‘”
ˆ‘”–”‡••„‡
‘‡‡˜‡‘”‡‹–‡•‡ƒ†‘„˜‹‘—•Ǥ
‡•’‹–‡–Š‡ƒ”
Š‹–‡
–—”ƒŽ
‘‡–ƒ”›–Šƒ–ƒ––‡’–•–‘•‡‰‡––Š‡ƒ••‹˜‡‘˜‡”ƒŽŽ•“—ƒ”‡ˆ‘‘–ƒ‰‡‘ˆ–Š‹• ’”‘’‘•‡†‡™•–”—
–—”‡ǡ











































/-





Ǥ

Agenda Item #10.1.


‡ˆ‘”‡•–ƒ–‹‰›•’‡
‹ˆ‹
‘„Œ‡
–‹‘•$





#
''
"




''














Ǥ

ƒ„›ƒ–—”‡‘–•‘‡‘‡™Š‘‡Œ‘›•
‘ˆ”‘–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒ›‹†Ǥ
™‘—Ž†ˆƒ”’”‡ˆ‡”–‘„‡’ƒ”–‘ˆƒ
™‡Ž
‘‹‰
‘‹––‡‡‹˜‹–‹‰‡™‡„‡”•‹–‘‘—”
‘—‹–›ƒ†‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†Ǥ—––Š‡‰”ƒ˜‹–›‘ˆ
–Š‹•
Ž‡ƒ”ƒ†’”‡•‡––Š”‡ƒ––‘‘—”‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ƒ†“—ƒŽ‹–›‘ˆŽ‹ˆ‡‹••‡˜‡”‡‡‘—‰Š–‘”‡“—‹”‡ƒ Š‘‡•–ƒ†”‡ƒ•‘ƒ„Ž‡
‘ˆ”‘–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ

&

!


"
"!


!
!
!

!


$
(

• "!"(Š‡‡”
Š–‘Ž†’”‘’‘•ƒŽ‹•‹
Ž‡ƒ”
‘–”ƒ†‹
–‹‘–‘‡š‹•–‹‰ǦʹͲ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•
†‡•‹‰‡†’”‡
‹•‡Ž›–‘’”‘–‡
–ƒ‰”‹
—Ž–—”ƒŽŽƒ†ˆ”‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–•Ž‹‡–Š‹•Ǥ
ˆ–Š‘•‡”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•
‡ƒ‘–Š‹‰ƒ––‹‡•Ž‹‡–Š‡•‡Ȃ–Š‡™Š‡†‘–Š‡›
‘—–ǫ
• 
#


!(͸•“—ƒ”‡ˆ‡‡–Dz„‡Ž‘™‰”‘—†Ž‡˜‡Ždz†‘‡•‘–’”‡˜‡–‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ†ƒƒ‰‡Ǣ‹– Œ—•–’—•Š‡•‹–—†‡”‰”‘—†Ǥƒ–‡”ǡƒ–—”ƒŽŠƒ„‹–ƒ–ƒ†ƒ‰”‹ —Ž–—”ƒŽ‹’ƒ
–•”‡ƒ‹˜‡”›”‡ƒŽǤ
ŽŽ‡˜‹ƒ–‹‰ƒ—––‡”Ž›†‹•
”‡–‹‘ƒ”›‘ˆˆ‡
‡–‘–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–†‘‡•‘–ƒ‘—––‘’”‡˜‡–‹‰‹–
ƒŽŽ–‘‰‡–Š‡”Ǥ
•

(‹•”—’–‹‘†—”‹‰ƒ†ƒˆ–‡”–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‹•
‘’‘—†Ȁˆ‘”–”‡••
ƒ‘–„‡‰‹–‘
–ƒ‡‹–‘ƒ

‘—––Š‡Ž‘••‘ˆ’‡ƒ
‡ǡ•ƒˆ‡–›ƒ†’”‹˜ƒ
›–‘–Š‹•‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǦǦ„‡Ž‘˜‡†Ž›‘™ƒ•
Dz–Š‡™ƒŽ‹‰’ƒ–Šdz‘ˆƒ‹–
‡Ž‡ƒǦ–‘ƒ›”‡•‹†‡–•‘ˆ–Š‹•–‘™Ǥ
• "!"

 (˜‡–Š‡‡š‹•–‹‰‘”†‹ƒ
‡•‹•‹•––Šƒ––Š‡•
ƒŽ‡ƒ†•–›Ž‡‘ˆƒ›‡™

‘•–”—
–‹‘„‡̶
‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Š‡š‹•–‹‰‘”•‘ˆ–Š‡‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†Ǥ̶Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†

‘•–”—
–‹‘ǯ•„ƒ•‡‡–ȋǨȌƒŽ‘‡ǦǦ‹•Žƒ”‰‡”–Šƒƒ›‡š‹•–‹‰•–”— –—”‡‘–Š‹••–”‡‡–ǨŠ‡
ƒ‰‰”‡••‹˜‡‘”‹‰‹ƒŽ’”‘’‘•ƒŽ™‹–Š‘–‘‡ǦǦ„—––™‘ǦǦ†”‹˜‡™ƒ›‡–”ƒ ‡•‘–‘ ‹”
‹ŽŽ”‹˜‡ˆ”‘
–Š‹•̶”‡•‹†‡
‡̶Ǧ”‡˜‡ƒŽ•ƒŽƒ
‘ˆƒ™ƒ”‡‡••”‡•’‡
–ˆ‘”‡š‹•–‹‰‘”•Ǥ
• 



ǣŠ‡’”‘’‘•‡†Dz”‡•‹†‡
‡dz‹•











#


"








(
‘™
ƒ–Šƒ–”‡ƒŽ‹–›’‘••‹„Ž›™‹–Š•–ƒ†–Š‡•
”—–‹›‘ˆ”‡ƒ•‘ƒ„Ž‡Dzˆ‹–dz™‹–Š‹
‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†‘”•‘”
—Ž–—”ƒŽ
‘ˆ‘”‹–›ǫŠ‡”‡‹•‘Š‘‡‹–Š‹•‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǦǦ‘”‡˜‡ ™‹–Š‹
‹–›Ž‹‹–•ǦǦ‡˜‡
Ž‘•‡–‘–Š‹••‹œ‡ǨŠƒ–†‘‡•̵–‡˜‡„‡‰‹–‘
‘•‹†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†

‡‡–™ƒŽŽ•—””‘—†‹‰–Š‹•Dz”‡•‹†‡
‡dzȋƒƒ̶ˆ‘”–”‡••̶ȌǨ
‘™
ƒ–Š‹•’”‘’‘•ƒŽ‡˜‡ƒ’’”‘ƒ
Š
–Š‡̶
‘‘•‡•‡̶‘”•‘ˆ™Šƒ–ƒ”‡ƒ•‘ƒ„Ž‡’‡”•‘‹‘—”
‘—‹–›™‘—Ž†
‘•‹†‡”–‘„‡
ˆƒ‹”‘”ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ǫ

ƒ˜‡™‡‘–ƒŽŽ•‡‡‡‘—‰ŠŠƒ”†‘‡–‘‘—”•‘
‹‡–›™Š‡”‡•’‡
–‡†‘”•ƒ”‡
‘’”‘‹•‡†ƒ†
•Šƒ”‡†˜ƒŽ—‡•ƒ”‡•‘Ž†–‘–Š‡Š‹‰Š‡•–„‹††‡”ǫ
—•–„‡
ƒ—•‡•‘‡–Š‹‰Dz

„‡†‘‡dz†‘‡•ǯ–‡ƒ–Šƒ–‹–
Dz



„‡Ǥdz


™‘—Ž†̵–Šƒ˜‡–ƒ‡–Š‡–‹‡–‘™”‹–‡–Š‹•Ž‡––‡”‹ˆ
†‹†̵–ˆ‹”Ž›„‡Ž‹‡˜‡–Šƒ–‘—”
‘—‹–›ǦǦƒ†
–Š‘•‡Ž‡ƒ†‡”•’Žƒ
‡†‹ƒ’‘•‹–‹‘‘ˆ”‡•’‘•‹„‹Ž‹–›–‘’”‘–‡
–—•ǦǦ™‘—Ž†‘––ƒ‡–Š‹•†—–›•‡”‹‘—•Ž›ǤŠ‹•
‹•—Ž–‹ƒ–‡Ž›‘–‘Ž›ƒ„‘—–—•ƒ†‘—”“—ƒŽ‹–›‘ˆŽ‹ˆ‡Ǧ„—–ƒ„‘—––Š‘•‡‘ˆƒ›ˆ—–—”‡‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘•–‘

‘‡Ǥ 

"











"














"





& 


—•–‹ƒ‰‹‡Š‘™™‡™‘—Ž†‡ƒ
Šˆ‡‡ŽǦǦ–Š”‡‡–‘ˆ‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•ˆ”‘‘™ȋƒˆ–‡”‘–Š•ƒ†›‡ƒ”•‘ˆ

‘•–”—
–‹‘‘‹•‡ƒ††‹•”—’–‹‘Ȃ‘––‘‡–‹‘–Š‡
‘•—’–‹‘‘ˆ˜ƒ•–ƒ‘—–•‘ˆ•
ƒ”
‡ƒ–—”ƒŽ
Ž‘
ƒŽ”‡•‘—”
‡•ȌǦǦ™Š‡‡™”‡•–”‹
–‹‘•™‹–Š‹‘—”
‹–›Ž‹‹–•™‹ŽŽŠƒ˜‡„‡‡’”—†‡–Ž›‹’Ž‡‡–‡†Ǥ
Š‡‡™‘”†‹ƒ
‡•ǦǦ–Šƒ–›‘—ƒ”‡ˆ—ŽŽ›ƒ™ƒ”‡‘ˆƒ†ƒ”‡
—””‡–Ž›”‡˜‹‡™‹‰ǦǦ™‹ŽŽ’”‡•—ƒ„Ž›Šƒ˜‡
„‡‡˜‘–‡†‹–‘Žƒ™Ǥ










"





#$


















&
"




!










''

















"



"
!







,

 






"






(



Agenda Item #10.1.




ƒƒ••—”‡›‘—–Š‹•™‹ŽŽ‘–Šƒ’’‡“—‹‡–Ž›Ǥ





































 























 




















































 




 


‘—
‘™„‡––‡”Ȃƒ†–Š‡‡™’”‘’‘•‡†‘”†‹ƒ
‡•’”‘˜‡–Š‹•–‘„‡–”—‡ǤŠ‹•‹•’”‡
‹•‡Ž›™Š››‘—ƒ”‡ƒ„‘—–
–‘˜‘–‡‹–‘Žƒ™‘”†‹ƒ
‡•–Šƒ–™‘—Ž†’”‡
Ž—†‡•—
Šƒ„‡Š‡‘–Šˆ”‘†‡•–”‘›‹‰–Š‡„‡ƒ—–›ƒ†
‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‹–‡‰”‹–›‘ˆƒ—
Š„‡Ž‘˜‡†Ž‘
ƒŽ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†Ǥ



"&'
!



"!

)†–Š‹•‹•”‡ƒ†‹Ž›ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡‹ˆ–Š‡Žƒ‹‰‘‹••‹‘ƒ†‹–›‘— ‹Ž

Š‘‘•‡–‘†‘™Šƒ–‹•”‹‰Š–Ǥ†–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–ǦǦƒ†–Š‘•‡ƒ†˜‹•‹‰ǦǦ™‹ŽŽ
‘•‹†‡”–Š‡—’Ž‡ƒ•ƒ–ƒ†
‡š’‡•‹˜‡‘—–
‘‡‘ˆƒ••—”‡†’”‘–”ƒ
–‡†‡ˆˆ‘”–•–‘‘’’‘•‡–Š‹•ƒˆˆ”‘––‘–Š‹•
‘—‹–›ƒ†
‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†Ǥ






)








%













"














!

"














































&

















"
"

$




"











































"
















"$




"





"&
›’”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡™‹ŽŽƒŽ™ƒ›•„‡–‘™‡Ž
‘‡‡™
‘‡”•ǦǦ„—–‘–ƒ–ƒŽŽ
‘•–•ǤŠ‹•‹•‡•’‡
‹ƒŽŽ›
–”—‡™Š‡–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽǡƒ‰”‹
—Ž–—”ƒŽǡ•‘
‹ƒŽǡ
—Ž–—”ƒŽǡƒ†‡
‘‘‹

‘•–•‘ˆƒ’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡
–
™‘—Ž†
‘’”‘‹•‡›˜ƒŽ—‡•Ǥ


ƒ˜‹‰‘™ƒ†”‡•’‡
–‡†‡ƒ
Š‘ˆ›‘—ˆ‘”ƒ››‡ƒ”•ǡ
„‡Ž‹‡˜‡–Šƒ––Š‡‡„‡”•‘ˆ–Š‹•Žƒ‹‰
‘‹••‹‘ƒ†‹–›‘—
‹Ž™‘—Ž†ƒŽ•‘Šƒ˜‡’”‡ˆ‡””‡†–Šƒ––Š‹•’”‘’‘•ƒŽ‘–Šƒ˜‡ƒ”‹•‡‹–Š‡ƒ””‘™ ™‹†‘™‘ˆDz‘’’‘”–—‹–›dz„‡ˆ‘”‡‡™‘”†‹ƒ
‡•™‘—Ž†’”‡˜‡––Š‹•’”‘Œ‡
–ˆ”‘
‘•‹†‡”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ





"






























"








'






















#












"


& 


–Šƒ›‘—ˆ‘”›‘—”–Š‘—‰Š–ˆ—Ž
‘•‹†‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒ†”‡“—‡•––Šƒ–›‘—

!

!
!





 !
!

$!






/)-


/).)



„‡ŠƒŽˆ‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ›
‘
‡”‡†”‡•‹†‡–•‘ˆ–Š‹•–‘™ǡ
ˆ—”–Š‡”ƒ•–Šƒ–›‘—
 !
+
&!


+
!!

!



!
# 
!



!

!


!
% !

 !

#
&


 

!

!*





!&
!




 !
!
$!
!

#


!












!

% !





)



‘•–”‡•’‡
–ˆ—ŽŽ›ǡ

ƒ”›—‹‰Šƒ‰‡‡ƒ† ƒ‹Ž›

Agenda Item #10.1.

)))))

)))))



'



4,

(
5

 '

!
%&


0&
0.01
2'.3



'
%



4

, %
 (

5

! '
*$ 
+
0/03






%&



"
%










0/03


(









!

#


%



(





 %

!





!



 
(


%
!&





(


Agenda Item #10.1.







4


*
%5








"#



.#
.,./
0$13





"




4


*
"


%
5




'!


(
.-.2







"

&


)


)


























"














"













#












%
"







"
























%











%


"#






Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:11 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] Berchtold project on Madrona/Fir HIll Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Margo Simons <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 4:39 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Berchtold project on Madrona/Fir HIll Hello Maya,
I hope you are well. We (Fir Hill ) met on the Berchtold property this week to discuss the changes that had been made. Very little had been changed, including the size of the home. I am surprised that in this day and age (with water issues, flood plane consideration) that someone could even consider it, especially because this size has never been considered before in our town. With the proposed future code saying no house larger than 4700sq ft. can be built in town, this will end up being a white elephant. It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood. This project is perfect for an out of town, on a street without the foot, bike and car traffic.

I spoke to a former head of planning (commissioner) and they said even though they (or whomever) may technically be allowed to build to code something of this size(20k), does not mean that it has to be approved. There is a fact in the code says something to the effect ~that if it doesn’t look, smell or taste right for the neighborhood, you don’t have to allow it. It’s the classic just because they can does not mean they should.

Thank you for your consideration,
Margo Simons
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:37 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] House proposed for Madrona & Fir Hill Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Barbara Shurtz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:26 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] House proposed for Madrona & Fir Hill I feel that this house is entirely too large for the neighborhood and should not be allowed to be built on this property within the city limits.

Barbara Shurtz 1600 Dean York Lane, St Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] Proposed build at Madrona and Fir Hill meeting Mar 7 Please post to the 3/7 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | hƩp://cityofsthelena.org/planning -----Original Message-----
From: ELLEN SHIFFLETT <ellenshiffleƩ@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 8:34 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Proposed build at Madrona and Fir Hill meeƟng Mar 7 As a neighbor and property owner in St Helena I am opposed to the proposed build of an oversized structure on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill. I find the proposed out of proporƟon to the neighborhood. Please consider the environment.

Thank you
Ellen ShiffleƩ
1701 Madrona Ave
St Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.

#4%*




+6;
1(

6
'.'0#
.#00+0)
1//+55+10





#+.41#&
8'
=

6
'.'0#




1*0
106'
=
*#+4
.#00+0)
1//+55+10
=
,2106'%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)
767/0
0&'4510
=
+%'*#+4
.#00+0)
1//+55+10
=
##0&'4510%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)
#4+-#

16*('.&
=
.#00+0)
1//+55+10'4
=
/416*('.&%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)

15#74#

')74#
=
.#00+0)
1//+55+10'4
=
45')74#%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)
*4+5612*'4
!#40'4
=
.#00+0)
1//+55+10'4
=
%9#40'4%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)


"
#


!
 






$

$


"

"

'#4
*#+4
106'
+%'*#+4
0&'4510
1//+55+10'4
16*('.&
1//+55+10'4

')74#
#0&
1//+55+10'4

!#40'4


 
% "

"

& !!

#


"
#



!
 

"

"
!
"
!
# 
"'

!
$;

#5*#

#0'8
10
$'*#.(
1(
144#+0'
#0&
1'
'4%*61.&
61
#%%1//1&#6'
6*'
%105647%6+10
1(
#
0'9
>5+0).'(#/+.;
*1/'
#0&
#%%'5514;
&9'..+0)
70+6?
10
6*'
2412'46;
.1%#6'&
#6




$
#

5
24'8+175.;
016'&
9'
917.&
$'
8'4;
2.'#5'&
61
9'.%1/'
1'
#0&
144#+0'
61
6*'
0'+)*$14*11&
#0&
#4'
)4#6'(7.
6*#6
6*'+4
6'#/
#)4''&
'#4.;
10
61
4'/18'
2.#05
(14
691
&4+8'9#;5
10
174
24+8#6'
5+0).'.#0'
41#&
"'6
9'
#4'
37+6'
2'42.':'&
#5
61
9*;
"

$ 
!(


!



"!

"
!

"




*'
6'#/
9#5

&+4'%6'&
61
/''6
9+6*
0'+)*$145
#0&
61
4'6740
9+6*
#
2.#0
'0%1/2#55+0)
.'55
537#4'
(116#)'











# 

%
"





 
"

$



1
&#6'
9*+.'
6*'4'
*#8'
$''0
#
('9
/''6+0)5
9+6*
0'+)*$145
#0&
5614;
21.'5
9'4'
'4'%6'&
6*'
%*#0)'5
6*#6
9'
*#8'
1$5'48'&
+0%.7&'
.19'4+0)
6*'
%'+.+0)
*'+)*6
1(
6*'


 
#0&
#
5.+)*6
4'.1%#6+10
1(
6*#6
5647%674'

61
64;
61
.'5510
6*'
1$5647%6+10
1(
8+'95
(14
6*15'
4'5+&'065
&+4'%6.;
+/2#%6'&

19'8'4




!
& !!

'


!
$
!#"



'
#"



"

$ 
!(


"

!
!


74+0)
6*'
5'%10&
/''6+0)
9+6*
0'+)*$145
#
37'56+10
9#5
#5-'&
#5
61
*19
6*'
9#6'4
75'
%#.%7.#6+10
9#5
/#&'

4
#0'8
':2.#+0'&
6*#6
+6
9#5
$#5'&
7210
6*'
07/$'4
1(
$'&411/5

'
9#5
6*'0
#5-'&
*19
/#0;
$'&411/5
#4'
+0
6*'
%744'06
2.#0

4
#0'8
#0&
4
'4%*61.&
241%''&'&
61
21+06
+0
6*'
#+4
%+4%.+0)
#4170&
#0&
%1706+0)
>





?


*';
6*'0
#)4''&
#.17&
9+6*
'#%*
16*'4
>"'5

?


*+5
.'&
/#0;
4'5+&'065
9*1
9'4'
24'5'06
61
%10%.7&'

6*#6
/14'
$'&411/5
#4'
+0
(#%6
2.#00'&
$76
10.;
(+8'
411/5
#4'
$'+0)
&'5+)0#6'&
#5
57%*
10
6*'
241215'&
2.#05

!'
917.&
*#8'
*12'&
(14
/14'
64#052#4'0%;
9+6*
4')#4&
61
9#6'4
75#)'
#0&
6*'
/#00'4
+0
9*+%*
6*'
%140'4
1(
+4
+..
4+8'
#0&
#&410#
8'07'
/#;
$'
+/2#%6'&

!'
4'52'%6(7..;
4'37'56
6*#6
;17
%#4'(7..;
'8#.7#6'
9*'6*'4
6*'
5+<'
1(
6*+5
4'5+&'0%'
+5
4'#510#$.'
(14
6*'
5744170&+0)
0'+)*$14*11&
#5
9'
64756
6*#6
;17
917.&
&1
(14
#0;
241,'%6
+0
174
$'#76+(7.
%+6;

+0%'4'.;

7%

1&+'
14.'6






!





%

"'


"









$!

#;#
'
15#
=
.#00+0)

7+.&+0)
+4'%614
=
/&'415#%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)
=





:



Agenda Item #10.1.

Via email March 6, 2023
RE File Number PL 21-044, 2126 Madrona Avenue, Berchtold Project Dear Planning Commission Chair Ponte and Planning Commissioners, My property located at 1775 Fir Hill Dr. has been in our family since 1972 when it was a cow pasture and Madrona Ave. was a narrow road without a middle line. Our connection to St. Helena is multigenerational; my great grandfather Robert Graham operated a saloon and pool hall on Main Street and my grandfather attended St. Helena Elementary School; my great uncle Thomas Street served as principal of St. Helena Elementary School for a while and his wife ran the florist shop. I feel connected to St. Helena and support my Fir Hill Dr. neighbors in opposition to this project as currently proposed.

I was unable to attend the March 1, 2023 community meeting for the project because of weather conditions and Hwy 101 closure, and unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the March 7 Planning Commission meeting. I have the following questions and concerns.

Water
The water analysis for “water neutrality” is based on the approximation of Dennis Rossi, the sole occupant, using 750 gallons per day because the house has 5 bedrooms. How is this reasoning consistent with the water department phase II water restrictions of 65 gallons per person per day and 2,500 gallons per month for landscaping from April 1 through October? For these 7 months the water use would be 4,450 gallons per month for a period of time when Dennis Rossi was living in the residence. Compare 22,500 gallons per month based on 750 gallons per day with 4,450 gallons per month based on reality. A single resident in a household can use only one toilet at a time and uses about 2.56 gal/flush if not low flow. Even10 flushes/day leaves about 125 gallons for other household water usage assuming 150 gallons per the bedroom used by the single resident. The system of assigning 150 gallons of water per bedroom per day does not give a “reasonable estimate of baseline existing demand” in this case and is used to make it appear that an almost 20,000 sq ft house with 3 bedrooms, possibly 2 more and more bedroom possibilities in the enormous basement, 10 toilets, 16 faucets, 6 shower heads, 2 baths, 3 clothes washers and 1 dishwasher, plus an ADU with 1 bedroom, 1 toilet, 3 faucets, 1 shower head, 1 clothes washer and 1 dishwasher will use less water than the existing use. This defies common sense. I urge the Planning Commission to seek answers, and share them with the public, to questions raised by Tom Belt in his letter dated 2/23/2023. I request that the water analysis of existing use be redone to match reality. Although the current water analysis does not require a water offset due to the inaccurate estimate of existing water usage, offsets do not create more water. With the climate models predicting increasing temperatures and more evapotranspiration, the practice of using offsets to be “water neutral” may not meet the future needs and should be reconsidered. There is a significant probability that all the existing old vines will need to be replaced and new vines watered to be profitable in a warming climate. How will the project be “water neutral” without adding another well to the area? Although the building project does not require CEQA, the well permit should require CEQA in order to study the cumulative impacts of wells in the area in relation to a drying, warming climate, hydrologic flow underground, geology of underground aquafers (probability of collapse, capacity to refill). Wells that functioned in the 1970s at 125 ft depth are dry, and now a depth of about 500 ft is required for reliable water; this water may have collected thousands of years ago. This project is downslope of residential and vineyard wells in the vicinity of Fir Hill Dr. and Agenda Item #10.1.

Dean York Lane and creates the risk of water loss for these residents. Protection of the water supply for these residents is a Planning Commission responsibility.

Historic Oak Tree Protection and Storm Water Control Plan Madrona Avenue has been widened since the 1970s and covers more of the tree’s root area along this east side. The asphalt impedes oxygen flow, so the tree may be more dependent on it shallow feeder roots in the remaining root area that is within the project area. The largest bio retention basin is located just outside the root area indicated for the oak tree which serves as a mother tree and has mycorrhizal networks extending beyond the root area to other existing plants. Grading and excavating a 2 ft deep bio retention basin will initially damage the shallow feeder root/mycorrhizal association with other plants on the property. How will this be mitigated? The Storm Water Control Plan states the proposed impervious surface is 24,810 sq ft and the existing impervious surface is 9,840 sq ft. Instead of using pervious pavement for the driveway and motor court parking area which would decrease the impact on the oak tree, the project proposes no pervious pavement. The existing driveway and parking is gravel that allows water and dissolved oxygen into the soil and helps shallow feeder root/mycorrhizal connections to survive. The existing structures have an area of 3,893 sq ft according to the staff report; what accounts for the additional almost 6,000 sq ft of existing impervious surface? A 20,000 sq ft increase in impervious surface reduces the area available for cooperative mycorrhizal connections to other plants and soil areas that currently benefit the oak tree. Will an ethical arborist sign a statement that this massive increase in impervious surface will not decrease the health and longevity of the oak tree? Design Review
To justify loss of agricultural land as consistent with LU 5.1 and LU 5.3, staff uses the rationale that surrounding parcels have not maintained agricultural uses. One resident on Dean York Lane has consistently grown row crops and offered surplus for free to the community; the residence on the NE side of the project has a vineyard; two residences at the west end of Fir Hill Dr. have vineyards and another maintains pasture for livestock; two additional residences on Fir Hill Dr. grow organic fruits and vegetables for their own use and to supply others (over the past decade I have grown and transported hundreds of pounds of lemons, persimmons, figs, guavas to Food for People in Humboldt County). What benefit comes from a narrow interpretation of agricultural use of land? Breaking up the façade of the project structure fronting on Fir Hill Dr. does not preserve the vineyard and mountain views for neighbors or local residents and tourists who enjoy walking and cycling on Fir Hill Dr. and Madrona. The mass of a two story, 29ft tall house is still overwhelming and detracting unless one is an aficionado of excessive wealth display.

I urge the Planning Commission to find that this project is not consistent with General Plan policies LU

5.1 and LU 5.3, and approve a decision that this project not return for consideration “until this project is reduced in scale to under 10K square feet.”
Thank you for serving on the Planning Commission and considering my comments.

Respectfully,
Alice Diane Ryerson
Agenda Item #10.1.

"
2+
0.01


)

#


$

"#

$







##
+




'"$

$#

$$"
$
&

)
 #$




"

%$
$
" #
%


"$
"
0/03

"

&,

&
$$

$
0
"&%#







##


$
#
'"
$


$
'#


#$"%$
$


%#$

$#+
#

'

$#
"$


$

$
$

"#,


#
$$

$
1

“neighborhood meetings” 

&

)

"
#,

'#
!%$
#%" "#
$
$

#$
"
$

$


$$



#

'"


$
$



"#
,

)
$

'#

&

'
$,

&"


%#

( "##
%"
# 
$

$
$$
$



"#

"


$
#

#*
%$
%"



$#
'"

$
$


$

#"$


"


$



$"
#%

")
" "$,




)


)

"#
&

")
'"$$

$


$$"#
"##

# 

"
#
so I won’t
" $
$#
##%#



)

$$"
%$

'
$
)%
$

'
$$

#% "$
$"

"
#,


#
'
$
$


#%"
$$
$
%$%"

$
"$


'

$



 ")
"

$
)
$
"#$




$

%
""%

#)#$



$$
$
'$"
%#
'


$"%
)

&#$$



$",

#
" #
"#

#
)

$
# 


#*


)
$"
"#




$,


,
$
#

$



 

'$
$
"$"#$#

%"
$'



$#

",
$
'

"&"


$
&'




"

&
%



$
" "$#,
$
'

$

)

$
$#
# 

"
%$

$


%
$)
$

"


#$

"
$
"
$"
&"#*
"$#,

'



&
$

&
'$
$


&"


$


$

$#
"$
"
)"#
$

,


%"
)%
$
&$
"

$

0




$#
"$


##$
$
'$
$

"




#
2,/



2,1


"




#

'

&"#
,



)%
"
#"%#
)

#"

$
##%#
$$
'


$
%"

$"


%
$),

# $%

)+



$$

$

Agenda Item #10.1.



































# "








%!"$!






Commissioner John Ponte, Chair ([email protected]) Commissioner Autumn Anderson, Vice Chair ([email protected]) Commissioner Christopher Warner ([email protected]) Commissioner Rosaura Segura ([email protected]) Commissioner Marika Rothfield ([email protected]) Ms. Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director ([email protected]) Ms. Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Application for Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009-470-010) filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff:

Pursuant to a request of the Commissioners at its hearing on December 6, 2022, we submitted a status report on December 19, 2023 of issues resolved and outstanding between the applicants and the Fir Hill Drive neighbors as we understood them at that date. Because applicants had not submitted revised plans at that point, we were unable to report that any issues were resolved. After review of applicants’ recently submitted revised plans and a short meeting at the property with applicants’ representatives, we continue to oppose the project and request the Planning Commission deny the application on the same grounds as we have stated in previous letters of opposition from us and other neighbors.

Although each reason for our opposition alone justifies your denial, collectively they overwhelmingly do.

1. Project massing.
o changes were made to the overall 19,515 sq. ft. development.

House massing remains a consistent objection to every Fir Hill neighbor and other members of the community who love the area as we do. Although Planning Commissioners suggested to applicants at each hearing they reconsider reducing the square footage of the project, applicants continued to believe they had the right to their proposed project as submitted. In meetings with us, they actually stated they were “entitled” to them. Ms. Berchtold in particular threatened even more development when we told her we opposed the size and stated to us she would not reduce “one square foot.” This project is far too large for the area and is in noncompliance with multiple General Plan requirements. Even with minimizing the design and materials selected, a residential development of this size neither fits the character of the neighborhood and town nor the scale and scope of the other residential structures in either the Fir Hill neighborhood, the valley floor or St. Helena in general. Approval of this application will set a terrible precedence for the City of St.

Helena.
a. The ADUs. First, let us address issues regarding the ADU. Specifically, applicants DO NOT propose only one ADU; they actually request TWO composed of 2 structures measuring about 425 sq. ft. each. When combined with the 300 sq. ft. covered breezeway between the 2 structures, the total size equals 1,150 sq. ft. City Staff point out that review of the ADU is a staff ministerial function such that the Planning Commission should have no decision-making authority. In this project plan, however, it is material to the objections of the neighbors and the project massing because its total sq. ft. is at least 1,150. Whether staff or the Planning Commission make the ultimate decision, it should be denied. We question how many ADU’s of 1,150 square feet have been approved in St. Helena making this ADU different and inconsistent from all the other ADU’s approved in the past.

Although applicants frame the ADU request as a kitchen, living area and bedroom, each building can easily be modified clandestinely after construction and final inspection to make 2 fully functional apartments each with kitchens Agenda Item #10.1.

and bedrooms. This hidden motive makes sense when you consider that applicants have stated they will employ a full time caretaker to live in a kitchen-less unit in the main house. This makes no sense when one considers their planting of tall olive trees, construction cement walls and other significant efforts to protect their “privacy.” What kind of wealthy people want a caretaker to come and go into their main house at any time without notice who claim to seek maximum privacy? Their solution: put the caretaker into one of the guest ADUs. When one considers the caretaker unit in the main residence and the 2 ADUs, this project actually has 4 single family residences being proposed. Moreover, the current configuration makes no sense to separate the kitchen from the bedroom unit which would force a tenant or guest to go out into inclement weather to get a glass of water in the night. There is no doubt post-construction changes will be made.

Second, we thank applicants for changes made to the location of the proposed “pool room” ADU as an attempted compromise to reduce the project’s impact on certain neighbors’ view; however, moving the two ADU structures only 15’ to the west and 5’ to the south as well as lowering the roofline “about 2 feet” have minimal impact. Applicants made no change to the size of the ADUs to minimize impact on the neighbors’ views. Thus, it remains the size of numerous single family homes in St. Helena. If, for example, there is only 1 ADU being proposed, they could have removed the breezeway between the 2 structures and made the ADU one building. Likewise, applicants could then have rotated the ADU so that its length ran east and west instead of north and south along Fir Hill; this would thusly reduce the length of the structure running along Fir Hill and further minimized the distance in front of the 1615 property. As it sits now, even with the new setbacks, the ADU blocks our view to the vineyard and eastern hills. Such a turn would significantly reduce the number of vines and rows needed to be torn out to accommodate the current version.

We have owned and lived in 1615 Fir Hill Drive for 65 years. We have made financial improvements to the property based on the view of the vineyard and eastern hills. Applicants should not be able to interfere with these investments because of an ADU that could be smaller, lower in height and positioned differently that would allow them an ADU but also protect their neighbors.
b. The Residence.

The basement: it is immaterial substantial square footage of this project is a basement which would be invisible to the neighbors and overall massing. That size of a buried cement box will impact the local area regardless in multiple ways including impact on the oak tree and groundwater and topside water flow. Furthermore, while there are homes with basements in St. Helena, NONE are anywhere close to the 6,457 sq. ft. size proposed here. Although staff report the HVAC will be located in the basement, it is impossible. Certainly the mechanical requirements for the elevator needed to get from the basement to the 3rd floor will be there. While the laundry machines could be located there, who would want them to be so far away from where the laundry lives? Purportedly there will be a game room. It will certainly be big enough to house almost 7 pickle ball courts, 7 badminton courts, 3.5 volleyball courts, and 2 tennis courts. It is nonsensical to put mechanical and other equipment in a high ground water location where all neighbors who have basements and flooding protections have ALL flooded at one time or another. Some flood every year notwithstanding engineered flooding protection. Building a 10 foot tall, 6,457 sq. ft. cement box might be good for an indoor swimming pool, but not for much else. Denial of the basement is essential to prevent environmental and other long term impact on the neighborhood. Nature will find a way to mitigate all that happens now below the surface of the ground if this basement is constructed and the consequences could be devastating to our aquifers that feed our wells and neighboring vineyards, to the heritage oak tree and its complicated root system, to the City’s drainage system among the few notable issues.

The first and second floors. Even if the basement is denied, the remaining size of the main residence is larger than any other residence in St. Helena and should be denied. It does not fit into the neighborhood and rural character of this particular location. In short, this project remains far too large in scope for the City limits and valley floor. It would be fine if it were located against the base of the foothills or location where it is not seen from the narrow roads and footpaths. Again, we object that this project will serve as precedence for future projects. The Planning Commission and City Council are here to protect our way of life and our cultural heritage. Denial of this application is the only protection our legacy has. Applicants and many of us won’t be here in 50 years, but this local behemoth will be. It’s not what we want to occupy our valley floor.

Agenda Item #10.1.

When the Rossi family sold the property, we did not doubt someone would rebuild, but we expected it would be in keeping with the current structure size and the sizes of the homes rebuilt along the adjacent Madrona corridor. We did not expect an almost 20,000 sq. ft. project. Please deny this application.

2. Visibility on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill will remain a problem.

Without living in this neighborhood for the length of time all the Fir Hill neighbors have, applicants’ cannot truly understand how dangerous the visibility problem is on the corner of Fir Hill Drive and Madrona where both autos and pedestrians enter and exit the roadway on a regular basis. As drivers, when we drive south on Fir Hill towards Madrona, we are look through the Rossi property as best we can past the house so we can get a glimpse of what is happening on Madrona: can we see children, people, and animals taking their walks or riding bikes; can we see a hint of a moving car, truck, tractor, vineyard hauling; is there a car trying to turn onto Fir Hill Drive and we need to pull over to allow it to pass, and generally looking for any other condition that requires us to slow down or stop for safety. Likewise, going west on Madrona, we begin to look for Fir Hill Drive conditions through the vineyard adjacent to 2126 Madrona and at the yard adjacent to Fir Hill. No matter where the olive trees are planted, they will restrict our visibility onto Madrona from Fir Hill Drive and from Madrona onto Fir Hill Drive. Likewise, the size of the residence (which removes all but 1 of the rows between 2126 and the adjacent home) block drivers’ views of Fir Hill from Madrona and from Fir Hill to Madrona. The visibility is unsafely impacted.

3. Storm Water Runoff.

We continue to have concerns about runoff. Applicants are making efforts to mitigate the runoff with some cysterns, but water must go somewhere. A large cement coffin and increased surface cement walls and structures will simply reroute the water, making existing controls useless. The City has a large drainage pipe that will be overwhelmed by the rerouted water. We again question whether the rerouted water and proposed dry ponds will affect the historical oak and create other environmental messes in the area.

4. Water usage.

No resolution is possible on this issue because applicants are using a City of St. Helena plan-review formula vs. actual water usage limits to get around water-usage issues for a home of this size as well as its agricultural/landscaping needs. The original plans call for a large pool, 2 homes (actually 3 with the split ADUs,) 11 toilets, 14 lavatory faucets, 4 kitchen faucets, 2 baths, 1 laundry faucet, 7 shower heads, 4 washing machines and 2 dishwashers. Finally, we continue to ask what the Rossi historical water use for the property was so we can compare historical data with proposed use data. No St. Helena resident or business owner who has lived through several droughts believes low flow water fixtures of a project this size will be less than water usage of the Rossi family and its small humble home. No one.

5. Well for Agricultural use.

Granting of a well permit is purely speculative and with our historical experience with well permits, is unlikely to be granted. Regardless, we still see no permit condition that applicants will use no City of St. Helena water for agriculture or landscaping. Finally, the houses on Fir Hill use well water as their only water source. There are no permit conditions that restrict the use of applicants’ well (if granted) when it affects the viability of any existing well on Fir Hill.

6. Backyard layout and ADUs location.

Again, we continue to question whether the ADU 2 buildings are really only one ADU. Applicants’ proposal to move the ADU five feet closer to the house, shifting it 15 feet east and lowering ceiling heights is progress in helping resolve the view shed issues but in reality will have minimal impact. At the recent applicant meeting with the neighbors, applicants confirmed that substantial vineyard will be removed along Fir Hill Drive to accommodate the ADUs, the pool and bocce court. Even though the ADUs could be designed so as to reduce the further impact on the neighbors’ view sheds, (see the comments above, such as combining the ADU into one building with no breezeway, rotating it so the length of the structure does not run along Fir Hill, etc.) applicants continue to hold onto their original design and size.

Nonetheless, applicants' still propose removing most of the vineyard along Fir Hill drive to about the oak tree in front of the Rodrigues property.

Agenda Item #10.1.

The reason we were given for why it can’t be relocated (or even removed completely) is because it provides pool privacy. Pool privacy does not require 2 buildings totaling 850 square ft. and a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit with an 864 square foot covered terrace. We continue to object to an ADU along Fir Hill. It requires removal of substantial vineyard rows and obliterates the views of many neighbors.

7.
oise Study.

Not only the HVAC systems for a project of this scale but any pumps being run to help mitigate the underground water and possible septic systems, pool pumps, all the mechanical noise, etc. need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.

8. Drainage.

The 6,457 square feet cement building that will be below grade will displace and divert current water flows from this area. Displacing this water will be an issue with how the water drains around the property. While the applicants believe the dry ponds will handle it, it cannot handle the kind of atmospheric river storms we have had the last few years where substantial amounts of rainwater fall within short periods of time causing serious flooding. This must be addressed. We see no permit conditions concerning this issue and what will happen if additional runoff onto Fir Hill ditches and culverts as well as City drainage ditches cause further flooding.

9. Arbor Study. In both neighbor meetings the impact to the historic heritage oak tree was discussed, especially in relation to the drainage concerns. Because the tree is on City of St. Helena property, the City must require a tree impact study to be provided and approved by the tree committee. That tree is so old and large it is protected. In addition, because of environmental factors, it is seemingly fragile. There should be an official city arborist to assess the environmental impact issues for this tree. Moreover, we see no permit conditions to address what applicants will have to do if, after construction, the tree is damaged from the unforeseen environmental damages as a result.

10. Septic and leach lines.

Unfortunately, applicants cannot address septic and leach lines unless they have an approved permit which is necessary before applicants can apply for tying into city septic lines. Therefore, we cannot address consequences of potential septic and leach lines which could, in turn, affect the design of some structures and plans. We see no permit conditions that address this foreseeable event, especially as it might affect the neighbors and wells.

11. Elevation and composite drawings.

Renderings for affected properties on Fir Hill still do not look accurate to indicate how the views are actually affected. They do not include full size olive trees, the structures appear too small for the structures in reality. In other words, they look skewed and biased in applicants’ favor and not the property owners’ perspectives.

12. Grape Yields:

Staff state that because the Rossi vineyard is not on a historical register it is not historical. We wholeheartedly disagree with that conclusion. This vineyard was planted in an historical manner. They are not all one variety. If the applicants pull out any of the existing historical vineyard, we would like applicants to be required to have the University of California at Davis study the vines first and get a DNA report on the vines since they are historical and should be preserved.

Regarding the vineyard yields, the Rossi family have stated their yields have been 5 tons each year. We will continue to get a declaration under penalty of perjury from a member of the family for the record, but they have told us there are some underperforming vines, but they are NOT near the house and should not be the ones removed. The underperforming vines are further up Fir Hill towards the Agee property where there is a natural swell. The Rossi family replaced some vines with younger vines that aren’t yet fully performing in the rows nearest to the propose residence, but in a couple of years, they would be fully performing. Some are in the area proposed to be removed. It appears there are Agenda Item #10.1.

about 119 vines proposed to be removed. The Rossi family believes the vineyard has not been properly maintained since they sold it which could account for lower yields.

13. If not CEQA, then what else?
We continue to believe a CEQA environmental study should be completed since this project is almost 2 times the size of a commercial building in St. Helena. If not CEQA, what other analysis can be performed to protect us from this development when it is larger than many commercial buildings in St. Helena? Please protect us.

SUMMARY:

We continue to oppose this project. There are many other issues remaining to be resolved, but given the applicants’ contention they are entitled to build a project of this size, it is unlikely this project is not going to happen without the applicants willing to make serious and substantial modifications. In the end, this may be a square peg into a round hole situation and the project should be denied as unsuitable for a City of St. Helena home.

Respectfully submitted,
Patty (Herdell) DiTomaso and Hank DiTomaso
Christina Herdell
Kathleen Herdell
Agenda Item #10.1.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:49 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] 2126 Madrona
Please post to agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Megan Long <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:36 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] 2126 Madrona
I’m writing to oppose the massive residential project planned for 2126 Madrona. The proposed 20K square foot size is not in keeping with the neighborhood — it’s even larger than Spottswoode winery a few doors down! It would be a shame for this McMansion to be built in such a beautiful area that many use for recreation and for a significant number of old grapevines be torn out to make room for the monstrosity.

Best,
Megan
[email protected]
415.420.9054
Agenda Item #10.1.

%"

"#



"


"%#

49<6
"


"

$


-

<78:7




 
0&
+)+,

'
+*+/








&

1-.0-

$"

$#

#




$#
"$-


"%")
49$
'
"&

"!%#$
"

"


"

$




56"-
'$
Berchtold’s representatives-

90)

$.
#
'$
%#-

#$

$

"#
%


$
$$

$

$

'$
#%
#"$

$-
#
$

$


'#
"#%

$

"
4#$.


"$%
$
)-
'
'"
%


$


$
"#%

$

%
$
""


$

$#.



%"
#
)-
$"
'"



#




$
&"

#*


# 

$
"$.



#
"&
&
"%

$


$
-


"$


$





%"$.


!%#$
#
'
&
$)
"
$
#

!%#$
#
'’ve

#



)
4

$#
"$-

'$


"


#'"#
$
#%


%
"
#$
"$
'$

$
$)


$#


$


.

We’re not sure how the planning commission can consider $#
"$
'$
#

)

$


'

"
#
%

#'"-


 "


 $



$
#" $

&#
'$
#

" #
$


#$"%$.
#
"!%#$
#

$
" "#
$

80"
-
40"



"#
$

" "$)
" #
.



"
$)


$



# $
"
$)
#'",

# $-
"

%
$

#

$

)-
"

$)
"
#
"
#-


%

$

#$#
7
"
#-

$"

#$#
8
"
#-
%$
$"

"

$$


450$
$#


490$"

#
#,

#*



$


$



#

#

$



%$


$
" "$).

$"
#
$)
#'"-
$
#$"$
'

&
$

$"

%
#
$




""%$
$
$
" "$).
#
'




"


&


"


$$
%#

"

&


"%
"
##.



$)
"
'

,

'$"
%#
" "$
#'#
$#
"$
" ##
$
 #$"%$



80
"

"#
-
40"

-





$
5459

"

&
%-

$.


-
.



$






#$#
7
"
#-
$#
#
')
"

$




'

&
$"
#

 $



$
"

"

%
$,


'
"#




'


##$

45
$
$#-


Agenda Item #10.1.



$)
"
'

,

'$"
%#
" "$
#'#
$#
"$
" ##
$
 #$"%$



80
"

"#
-
40"

-





$
5459

"

&
%-

$.


-
.



$






#$#
7
"
#-
$#
#
')
"

$




'

&
$"
#

 $



$
"

"

%
$,


'
"#




'


##$

45
$
$#-

490$"

#
#-
;
#'"
#-
5
$$%#-
8
$

#
#-
8
#'#"#-
7

$#

'#"#


5
$
$)
#
#.


%
"

($%"#
#

$

##$
$
'$

8
"
-
4


"#
$

" "$).
$"
%#



"$
$#
#*
#


%$
%##
$
#$.
"
#



& "$

"$

$


%
$
".
$

#
#

$
%
$
",






#"
#*

$
#

$-
978:
#!%"
$+


%
$

"$
$$
'%



$


"
&
#
% '"

5-6:3
%
)#
$
5333

#.
"
)-
$
&"
%

$"%

#
45047

)"#-
that’s  "(
$
)
4;3
$"%
#/$" #
%


'


"
.
#
sn’t 

%


)
&"
"
$
%
$
-
"
$
"$
$

"
&
"
$
#'




.



 


$
#
$
$


,

'"
$

)
$
" "#
$$&#
$$
$
'%

$
#
'"

$'

6
$
7
)"#
$


$.
#
#

$
#

$


$



"

80"


"#
$

"$.






%"

"
#
"


)





#'"#.


$
d’s have repeatedly said that they what to build $"
“"

”-
'
$)

#"&.
%$
'

$"
"



#
#%


$&
$


$
#%""%



" "$#-

)
$"
"



#


$
'"


$
.
"
#


$"




$

$)


$




)'"

"


#*


# .


#
#$$


%"
"&%#

$$"
$
!"


%

!
"!

"


 
$$
$








##

'

$
%"

"
#

$

#"$
-
#
'

#
$
$"
"#
$#


$



%
$)-
"




)
#
.


#
$#
$
'

$'



#$#

"#
$
"
%$%"
"$#
#
'

.

!"#

%&

%"

"#


"


"%#

Agenda Item #10.1.

December 19, 2022
Status Update to the Planning Commission
Public Comment
Opposition Letters Submitted
Agenda Item #10.1.



































# "








%!"$!

December 19, 2022
Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Application for Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009-470-010) filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold The Planning Commission asked for a summary of outstanding issues at its December 6, 2022 meeting. As we stated during the meeting, no issue we raised at the October 18, 2022 hearing has been resolved except for the applicants agreeing to eliminate driveway access onto Fir Hill Drive and agreement to put up story poles. We also reported we cannot make a full assessment of issues until we see revised plans, especially as we reported Ms. Berchtold threatened us with full development of the parcel because we opposed their project application. We have since learned, she made a similar threat to another Fir Hill neighbor.

The Berchtolds had 2 neighbor meetings at the property; they walked through the building outlines and story poles.

During the first gathering, Ms. Berchtold said to a few neighbors that she and her husband were “ENTITLED” to build a house of this size and they were not going to reduce the project by "one square foot." She said many other unfortunate things to us. As would be understandable, this lead some neighbors to believe the meetings were not being held in good faith to discuss our concerns and possible alternatives. Ms. Berchtold was so upset after the first gathering she did not attend the second one. At least one neighbor left in tears.

Ms. Falace’s letter to the Planning Commission is misleading on several points which we address below along with continued problems we have with the current project.

House massing. House massing is absolutely still a high level concern. Story poles were helpful to see location and potential view shed issues. They do not in any way resolve the issue that this project is too large for the area and is in noncompliance with multiple General Plan requirements. Even with minimizing the design and materials selected, a residential development of this size does not fit into the scale and scope of the other residential structures in the Fir Hill neighborhood and a 19,515 sq. ft. development does not belong on the valley floor.

First, Ms. Falace states all issues related to the massing of the project have been resolved.
othing is further from the truth. We continue to oppose a project that is almost 20,000 square feet in total. It is completely out of character with the neighborhood and town as well as sets a terrible precedence for homes in the City of St. Helena. Second, it is clear from the plans that the applicants are including a family home, a caretaker unit and an ADU. They try to disguise the caretaker unit as part of the family home stating it is attached to the home and does not have a separate kitchen; this makes no sense for people who have stressed privacy concerns over and over. For example, they claim their olive trees are intended to protect their privacy. If they need to block the views of long-term neighbors by planting olive trees for privacy, surely the family does not want a caretaker to intrude on their lives by using their kitchen when they are in town.

Moreover, the size of the caretaker unit is the size of a single family home in St. Helena. Third, and likewise, applicants' try to disguise a 'poolroom' as an ADU; however, that unit is over 800 square feet. It is the size of a single family residence in St. Helena. In short, applicants are trying to have 3 single family homes built in this project. The massing of the ADU and olive trees on Fir Hill obliterate the views of the Eastern hills and vineyard. Fourth, it is immaterial one floor is a basement. That size of a cement box will have impact on the local area including the oak tree and water flow.

Visibility on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill. It is very difficult to say something has been resolved until we see the updated plans. Moreover, although Ms. Falace claims the applicants' motor court screening is within city street standards for visibility, it fails to address visibility problems on a corner with both autos and pedestrians in the roadway on a regular basis. Her further argument that shifting some of the olive trees closer to the corner along Fir Hill Drive only worsens the visibility obstructions.

Agenda Item #10.1.