St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023

4 awarded partially as a reflection of the proposed mitigation measures. If the conservation easement approved by the state in 2016 was not approved, then it is possible that the basis for the grant application approval would no longer be supported and all funds would have to be returned. In order to close out that grant it would be necessary to approve the road-restricted conservation easement and record it.

The staff report goes on to explain that if the City decided to return the grant money to the DWR, it would still be necessary to work with DFW before any consideration could be given to extending Adams Street. An alignment study would be necessary to satisfy the original Endangers Species Incidental Take Permit to look at what portion would be taken out of the conservation easement to make room for the street extension. After this is done the City would have to submit a request describing the proposed area to be removed from the deed restriction for the road. DFW would then review the proposal and, either recommend alternative-mitigation measures to satisfy the original permit or to deny it. The staff report concluded that if alternative mitigation measures were approved, they would be significantly more expensive and any alternative mitigation within the existing permit area would likely cause higher mitigation requirements on other projects when future permits are issued. If DFW denies the request, then there could be some significant financial consequences ($173,000) and the complete conservation easement would be required.

At the City Council meeting in May 2016 there was much discussion of the effect of the conservation easement discussed with DWR, DFW and the Land Trust on the extension of Adams Street to the Silverado Trail. The conclusion at the City Council meeting was clear, namely the approval of the conservation easement that the state was seeking would foreclose the extension of Adams Street to the Trail. The City Council approved the proposal.

Three months after the City Council approved the conservation easement that would foreclose the extension of Adams Street to the Silverado Trail, the Land Trust Board of Trustees approved the project on July 28, 2016 at their Board meeting.

Nearly two years after the City Council approved the conservation easement that would not allow the extension of Adams Street to the Silverado Trail, the issue again was raised at the March 13, 2018 City Council meeting. At Agenda Item #5.10.

5 that meeting the Council approved a contract with ‘the Land Trust of Napa County for a conservation easement as required by the terms of the Department of Water Resources grant contract No. 4600009016 for an amount not to exceed $65,000.” The staff report explains that staff would work with both the Land Trust and DWR on the deed restriction. Nowhere in the staff report does it mention any of the following: (1) the prior City Council’s approval on May 24, 2016 of a conservation easement, which would effectively restrict a roadway through the 10-acre site; (2) the prior conversations in 2016 on the conservation easement with both the Land Trust, DWR and DFW; and (3) the conservation easement into perpetuity requirement resulting from the granting of the Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit.

On October 23, 2018 (or two and a half years after the City Council approved the conservation easement, which effectively restricted the extension of Adams Street to the Trail), the City Council approved a second conservation easement giving the City the ability to approve a roadway through the 10-acre site required for a conservation easement. Once again, the staff report does not mention the May 24, 2016 City Council approval of a conservation easement effectively foreclosing the extension of Adams Street to the Trail, nor does it mention the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s requirement for the very same restricted conservation easement because of the ITP granted to the City when it built the Flood Control Project. Also, of some importance, is the statement in the staff report that the City had been working with the Land Trust since March 2018, when, in fact, the staff had worked with the Trust well before May 2016. By not including the information about the prior City Council approval of the road-restricted conservation easement and the information about City’s prior conversations with DWR, DFW and the Land Trust, it might call into question the appropriateness of the October 23, 2018 conservation easement approved by the Council. Both the City Council and the public were not furnished accurate or complete information before the Council took action.

It is unknown if the City has recorded any easement as required by the ITP and DWR grant. Also unknown is, whether or not, the second conservation easement approved by the City Council was prefaced by any conversation with any state agency confirming the change in the previously approved deed restriction concept. It is also unknown how the City closed out the DWR grant without proof of the conservation easement being passed and recorded, which was the key item preventing the grant close out. The Agenda Item #5.10.

6 conservation easement was also the final item preventing the City from getting the final $237,000 for eligible project costs. If the grant has not been closed out, both DWR and DFW would have the ability to further audit the project, including the appropriate maintenance of the project and all required mitigation measures. A logical assumption is that the DWR grant has not been paid off because there has been no appropriation by the City Council for that amount of money.

If the City attempts to extend Adams Street to the Trail, it will again be necessary to get an Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit from DFW for that project. Unfortunately, this will put the City in the position of asking for approval of a new permit just after the City finished ignoring the mitigation measures agreed to by the City’s in its prior ITP for the Flood Project. The likelihood of getting a second ITP would not be strong after ignoring the mitigation measures required in the first ITP.

It is also unclear what position DWR would take, if the City elects to extend Adams Street. Apparently, they were adamant they would not approve it the first time the City asked DWR about it in 2016. It has been nearly a decade since the flood control project was funded and completed and it is now approaching four years since the prior City staff conversations with both DWR and DFW on the issue of the conservation easement and the ability of the City to build a road through it. It probably would be prudent to acknowledge those prior conversation to both DWR and DFW in any of the City’s current round of discussions. If the City doesn’t do that and the state later finds out about those conversations, then the City may well jeopardize future grants or permits from these same agencies.

There is also another significant potential conservation easement issue. The DWR grant requires a conservation easement into perpetuity basically on any city-owned property on which DWR funds were used for the Flood Control Project. The only area the City originally determined to be included in any easement is 10-acre site of the city-owned land nearest the river. The expense payment reimbursement requests by the City to the DWR under the grant during the construction of the Flood Control Project, however, also appear to include costs used on the project’s access road and pedestrian path.

This area is also city-owned land and is not included in the 10-acre conservation easement. This is the city-owned property furthest from the river and which connects the access road and pedestrian path adjacent to the current terminus of Adams St to the original 10-acre conservation easement Agenda Item #5.10.

7 site closest to the river. If that is correct, then the part of the project closest to the current Adams Street terminus would also have to be placed into the conservation easement into perpetuity in order to satisfy the grant agreement. Even a cursory look at some obvious items appearing on and/or making up the pedestrian path and the access road were itemized by the City as having been reimbursed under the DWR grant. This issue has been previously raised with the city a couple of times, but the staff has chosen to ignore it.

3. Shortly after Measure A was passed by the voters in 1998, St Helena began working on a Comprehensive Flood Control Project. In the original design was a levee, which cut the historic flood plain in half. The reason for the location of the levee became apparent, when the City proposed to combine the placement of the levee (to be paid for with Measure A funds) with an allweather extension of Adams Street to the Silverado Trail, which was called the Adams Street Causeway and Bridge. Glossy brochures were produced by the City and distributed to residents in order to gather public support for the project that specific alignment of the levee to help provide a roadway.

The 2004 EIR showed the Adams Street extension as a discretionary addition to the Flood Control Project (requiring a separate environmental review) using the levee as the primary vehicle to extend Adams Street to the Trail. On June 23, 2005 the Napa County Flood Protection and Conservation District notified St Helena that the Napa County Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Authority had made inquiries regarding the levee because any portion of the levee used for a component of a future transportation facility would thereby be ineligible to be constructed using Measure A funds.

As a result, Jonathon Goldman, the Director of Public Works and City Engineer for St Helena, wrote a letter to Robert J. Peterson, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Engineer, answering the question as to whether the levee is, in fact, intended to support a road rather than simply to provide flood protection. Goldman’s July 12, 2005 letter says the “levee element serves two functions in the Project, (1) provide a barrier against inundation, and (2) provide an onsite location for disposition of soils to be removed from the planned terraces. The planned levee is wider than what would be necessary if only inundation-prevention were the objective.

The levee is wider in order to accommodate the disposition of soils to be removed from the terraces. If the soils to be excavated were to be trucked to Agenda Item #5.10.

8 offsite disposition, traffic and other potential impacts, as well as the cost of the Project, would increase.”
The rest of Goldman’s letter to Peterson goes on at great length to try to convince him that the real reason for the wider levee is the volume of soils to be replaced and not the placement of a road on the levee. Assuming that Goldman’s information is correct, then there is no assurance that the levee can now sufficiently serve as the foundation for an all-weather road to the Trail, since the only requirement for the wider levee was not to support a transportation facility, but simply to provide a dumpsite for extra soil.

Goldman makes clear the levee is wider than necessary to provide inundation-prevention only because it was needed as a dumpsite. The implication here is that the dumpsite was not engineered to support a roadway, because that would have foreclosed Measure A funding. To now claim that additional costs were, in fact, incurred to widen the levee to provide an appropriately engineered infrastructure for a roadway, could put our Measure A funding in jeopardy.

In the 2005 and 2006 Addendums to the 2004-approved EIR, any mention of the Adam Street extension was limited to the fact that it said there was no change from the 2004 EIR because the City was not considering approval of the Adams Street Causeway/Bridge and this issue required no further consideration or analysis.

After the 2005 and 2006 Addendums to the prior-approved 2004 Flood Control Project FEIR, no Flood Control funding applications, permits, etc. likely could go forward with an Adams Street extension to the Silverado Trail as part of it because there was no EIR done on that specific project.

4. Whether the extension of Adams Street is on, adjacent to or near the levee, the levee itself would not be benefited and likely the viability of the levee and Flood Control Project would be negatively impacted. The levee itself has not been maintained appropriately and the City has already told the County that the levee was not constructed in a manor to build a future road, but rather just a “dumping” point for excess soil removed from the project terraces. The levee operational and maintenance manual already requires that a gate be placed on the access to the levee to limit the use of cars on the levee. This only supports the concept that building a public road on the levee was not anticipated in the construction of the levee.

Agenda Item #5.10.

9 If the roadway is built alongside the levee, then any actual construction of the extended roadway and the bridge to the Trail and any ongoing use of the roadway would not be helpful in maintaining the viability of the levee. The safety and financial risks from a levee failure far outweigh any benefit from an extension of Adams Street to the Trail. Vineyard Valley and Hunts Grove residents are the most vulnerable of our population if the levee fails or its viability is threatened. If the levee fails, particularly because the City failed to maintain it adequately or because the City threatened the viability of it because of building a roadway on top of or adjacent to the levee, then the City would likely bare the financial liability for any damages resulting from the failure. The City assumed that liability once it accepted money from the State as explained in AB 1898 and CA Water Code §12748.3, which basically indemnified the state.

5. The St Helena Comprehensive Flood Control Project was a financial disaster for the City. Not only was the project way over the projected costs, but FEMA clawed-back $1.9M for disallowed expenses (such as the cost of crushing Merlot grapes in Mendocino County). DWR also required the repayment of $2.1M for disallowed expenses and double billing the same expenses to two different state funding sources. It is unclear if that repayment has been completed. As a result of the completely inadequate handling of the financial activities involved in the project, the City hired a forensic accountant. After months of review, the forensic accountant basically gave up. If the City decides to extend Adams St to the Silverado Trail, issues related to the repayment of grants, etc. will once again raise issues concerning the mishandling of the financial accounting of the monies spent on the project. The fact the City has not been able to close out a state grant on a project that was completed in 2010 will not help the City’s case.

6. If the City elects to extend Adams Street to the Silverado Trail they will likely need the approval of both DWR and DFW for the reasons explained above. In addition, the City may also need the approval of the Napa County Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Authority (Measure A authority) since the City previously said the design of the levee was not to facilitate a future transportation facility. Other approvals would possibly need to come from the Army Corp of Engineers, who approved its permit without information pertaining to a potential future roadway on or near the levee. The Army Corp of Engineers would also likely review the maintenance of the levee if their approval is necessary. FEMA, who approved funding for two grants based on flood control needs and then Agenda Item #5.10.

10 approved the revised the flood zone after the project was built without any information pertinent to a roadway on or near the levee and its potential impact on the viability of the levee would also likely seek review.

Less problematic options for any additional access to the Silverado Trail from Highway 29 would be Mills Avenue to the south or Fulton Avenue just to the north of Adams Street. Neither of these options would run into any of the financial, administrative or safety problems that as Adams Street extension poses for the City.

Agenda Item #5.10.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 12:16 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [External] Resubmission of 11/2/2021 Public Comment on Hunter Project DEIR for Agenda Item 5.1 to Preserve Legal Rights to Raise Issues in Court
John Milliken ([email protected])
Mobile/Text: 7074864266
1256 Hudson Ave., St. Helena, CA 94574
_____________________________________________
From: John Milliken <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 2:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: PC Meeting 11/2/2021 Public Comment on Hunter Project DEIR from John Milliken First of all, I would like to provide a link to an article written by Professor Nicholas Printer of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Science that I think should be mandatory reading for each Planning Commissioner and the City Staff involved in preparing the DEIR.
https://californiawaterblog.com/2016/07/17/st-helena-california-dealing-with-a-field-of-dreams-levee-residual-riskand-a-flood-of-controversy/ None of the issues covered in this article were mentioned in this DEIR.

Second, I would like to express my dismay at what an unprofessional, non-comprehensive, and shallow effort this latest DEIR effort represents. It is absolutely mind boggling that this DEIR could only identify two significant impacts (both traffic related) for a major development project of this size after an almost four-year effort at a cost of over $450,000.

The DEIR reads like an infomercial the applicant. I intend to submit separate comments on the many deficiencies and missed impacts either completely ignored or glossed over by this so-called DEIR. I do not know who was in charge of this effort, but I think the City Council and Planning Commission should seriously consider an inquiry into how this happened and there should be consequences for those responsible. This community (whose environment is being impacted!) deserves much better than this and this DEIR effort crosses the line of professional negligence. I am not asking for a DEIR that supports the grievances of the many members of the community who are opposed to this mammoth 87-unit development, rather, I was expecting a balanced DEIR that fairly identified ALL the environmental impacts presented by this development and was prepared to lawful CEQA standards. This DEIR does neither of those things. How can a DEIR propose meaningful mitigations if it cannot properly identify environmental impacts? Agenda Item #5.10.

2 I do not know if this substandard DEIR effort was by intent or the result of a lack of oversight by the Lead Agency, the City of St. Helena, but the end product is seriously flawed. As you can probably see by all the public comments submitted to date and an avalanche of comments to be submitted by the November 8th deadline, I am not the only one to have noticed this. Thankfully, many members of our community have taken on the responsibility of correcting this wrong and will be submitting comments that identify way more impacts than were identified in this DEIR. And, they are not being paid $450,00 to do this and were only given 45 days to prepare comments instead of four years.

Oh,..one more thing. When several members of the community (whose environment is being impacted!) politely asked if the comment period could be extended so that they could have more time to prepare researched, cogent comments on the lengthy 28 Mb download and 633 page DEIR document, they were quickly rebuffed and simply told no. This seems a little harsh considering that this second DEIR effort is heading into its fifth year after a failed first seven-year effort. FYI:

The comment period for the first failed EIR effort in 2012 was extended to 90 days. I guess this contempt for the community (whose environment is being impacted!) is the new norm and this is what we will be dealing with for the remainder of the process. It is my hope that Planning Commissioners will ask staff some questions about this DEIR process when they are afforded the opportunity after the Public Hearing closes. The ability to ask questions was not afforded community members.

John Milliken
[email protected]
707-963-8134 (Office) 707-486-4266 (Mobile\Text)
1256 Hudson Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #5.10.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Laurel Krsek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Hunter Project Comment
To: City of St. Helena
This note is to express my strong objection to the proposed Hunter project development.

As a long-time resident of St. Helena, 22 years of which I have resided on the east side of town on Peppertree Circle, I have serious concerns about the construction of 87 additional homes in the Hunter location.

Regarding traffic circulation and emergency access, Pope Street is already severely impacted with traffic to and from Main Street and the Silverado Trail. As you know, the Pope Street bridge is inadequate to accommodate a large volume of traffic, and remains the single outlet through town to the Silverado Trail. The addition of more population in this isolated pocket of land without first addressing the traffic, community safety and emergency vehicle access is extremely poor, irresponsible planning.

Regarding the need for housing, I understand we need housing for families, but the isolated location of this development makes these homes the furthest in town from our public schools and transportation. This is an immediate hardship for families. We should instead build in locations that are not along the river and have walkable, safe access for children and families to our schools, businesses and public transportation.

Regarding adequate infrastructure, the city water supply and sewers are already stressed. These capacity issues should be addressed before allowing this development to proceed.

Laurel Krsek
St. Helena
Agenda Item #5.10.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: Hunter Project FEIR/Public Comment/Request for Extension Public comment
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Monique Olivier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; cityclerk <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Hunter Project FEIR/Public Comment/Request for Extension Dear Planning Staff:

I am writing to request an extension to review and provide public comment to the FEIR and this proposed project. The FEIR document is over 2,000 pages in length. The mere days to review the FEIR, coupled with such a lengthy document, denies the community appropriate notice and opportunity to comment on such a major project that will absolutely impact the City of St. Helena and its residents. The community needs additional time to review and also to, for example, request public information that the FEIR refers to but does not provide. In addition, the fact that the name of the project has been changed and is no longer be referenced in public materials as the Hunter Project has deprived the community of appropriate notice. It is imperative that an extension be granted to permit adequate community review and response to this proposed project.

Thank you.

Monique Olivier
708 Hunt Avenue
St. Helena
Agenda Item #5.10.

2 Agenda Item #5.10.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: fj <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] The Hunter Project
To the Saint Helena Planning Commission

11.1.2022
Re:The Hunter Project
The Hunter Project is like Rasputin. It refuses to die.

The City of Saint Helena never should have originally approved consideration of this project, but seems to have been scammed or otherwise influenced to start the process long ago.

The project is extremely dense, not in character with the surrounding area.

It will use a huge amount of water, no matter what the developers try to say.

Simply look at the thing. Will it really have as little impact as the developers claim? Do we have enough water for Saint Helena now, even without the water suck
the Hunter Project will cause? Of course not.

Will the Hunter Project pave over or otherwise cover ground that now absorbs water into the aquifer? Yes, it will.

Will it displace and affect wildlife? Of course.

Is the Hunter Project in a flood zone, even though taxpayers were scammed into providing it with its own, private levee? Yes, it is.

California and the Napa Valley alternate between drought and flood. It has always been that way, and it is getting worse, as we all can see. The droughts are getting worse, and the floods, when they come, which they will, will be worse.

The Hunter Project will add more cars and traffic noise to a formerly quiet part of town. No matter how the developers claim it won't,
anyone with a brain knows it will.

Traffic; noise; air pollution; increased waste and sewage; increased use of water; increased runoff; decreased charging of the aquifer;
sitting in a flood zone; ...

How many more excuses and meetings are there going to be to try to justify a monstrosity project that never should have been considered
in the first place?
It is time to end the Hunter Project once and for all. Show that you actually care more about the quality of life in Saint Helena than you care
about making the owners of the Hunter Project rich.

Agenda Item #5.10.

2 Thank you.

Frank Jonelis, Saint Helena
Agenda Item #5.10.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 1:46 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Eric Norris
Subject: FW: [External] public comment on Hunter EIR certification Public comment for 11/1 agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1572 Railroad Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Sherri Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 12:51 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] public comment on Hunter EIR certification As a matter of context, I want to begin with a reminder that page 13 of the October 2022 Public Review Draft, City of St. Helena Zoning Code Update states “The purpose of this Zoning Code is to:
“Protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; Encourage orderly, compatible and beneficial uses of land; Minimize conflicts which might result from incompatible and inappropriate land uses….” The purpose of the CEOA EIR development process is to further those land use goals. However, based on examples such as the ones I bring below, it seems the core intent of the Hunter EIR development CEQA process is being improperly manipulated to further the financial goals of the Hunter Project developers, while completely discounting the safety of current and future residents in proximity to the Hunter Project, as proposed.

It should be also noted that Page 9 of the Planning Commision Report for November 1, 2022 on file number PL10-040 and TM 2022-001 regarding the Hunter Subdivision Map cites Government Code Section 65589.5 (j)(1) in providing that …the City may only deny the project if it finds, based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record that both of the following conditions exist:

1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct,
safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

There are historic, significant, direct and quantifiable traffic and congestion issues in the neighborhoods proximate to the proposed Hunter Project. The Hunter EIR findings are inadequate Agenda Item #5.10.

2 and unrealistically dismissive to negative impacts on public safety in St. Helena should the project be built as proposed. The dismissive response to the public safety needs of the community and the inadequacy of this EIR is substantiated by the fact that no revisions were made in EIR Section 3.1 Transportation and Circulation, in spite of numerous traffic and evacuation safety concerns posted by community members during the public comment period on the Hunter DEIR.

Section 3.14-5 of the EIR states “Under Cumulative conditions, would the proposed project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)? This is considered a significant impact. No mitigation measures available.” My understanding is that CEQA section 15064.3(b) pertains to potential negative traffic impacts. On page 3.15-5 the authors of the EIR thus acknowledge the project will exacerbate traffic problems in the immediate vicinity and there are no mitigating actions possible.

The developers of the EIR document have completely dismissed the existing traffic issues in the developed areas adjacent to the proposed Hunter project -- Hunt Avenue/Hunt’s Grove/Meadowcreek Circle/Starr Avenue. Simply saying there is nothing that can be done to mitigate a problem doesn’t make it go away, or make it better. Observational evidence of conditions in the area around the proposed Hunter Project indicate that adding 80+ households to the area, without developing paths of emergency egress in addition to the roadways proposed by Hunter, will create immediate and negative impacts on public safety.

Section 3.14-4, page of the EIR states “Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? This is a less than-significant impact.” The facts of current and past traffic problems and past traffic studies in the immediate area of the proposed Hunter Project do not support this finding.

The one marginally successful August 2021 emergency evacuation drill in Vineyard Valley cited in Master Response 1 (Planning Commision Report page 1446) is not an accurate model of an emergency evacuation of the entire St. Helena area east of Main Street. This is another example of flawed and dismissive analysis in the Hunter EIR development process.

According to the EIR section 2-23, “Development of the Project site would require the extension of Adams Street and Starr Avenue onto the Project site to provide two points of ingress and egress….” In addition to aggravating the impacted neighborhood traffic situation, further increasing the density of the adjacent neighborhood housing will directly endanger current residents, well as any future residents of the proposed Hunter project, if a sudden emergency evacuation is necessary, given the few points of exit (Pope Street bridge, Main Street) from the area. Responsible addition of 80+ households to this area must require development of several additional entry and exit points; the two cited in the EIR are not sufficient to safely evacuate the planned Hunter development. In addition, due to prior land use agreements made by the City of St. Helena, it is highly questionable whether there will ever be a bridge built crossing the river at the intersection of Adams Street and Silverado Trail.

The EIR cites the historic frequency of local natural disasters in the form of floods “...1973, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2005 (page 3.9-5)” and wildfires “August 2020 there were a number of wildfires including the LNU Lightning Complex Fire and the Glass Fire that burned large areas of Napa County including a small portion of the Project site (page ES-4).” The fragile and limited points of egress on the east side of St. Helena have had a history of creating crisis situations as a result of our frequent natural disasters, such as the recent landslide blockage of Silverado Trail in October 2021. The findings of the Hunter EIR indicate a dismissive and inadequate assessment of existing emergency evaluation problems in the area surrounding the proposed development. Another example of the inadequacy of the EIR is that the recommendations of the California State Department Agenda Item #5.10.

3 of Transportation on the development of safe evacuation routes (Evacuation Route Guidance, Design Information Bulletin 93, dated 12/23/20) are not being followed in the plans for the Hunter Project.

Sherri Kelly
1192 Meadowcreek Circle
Agenda Item #5.10.

From: Lou Lavigne & Nancy Rothman
Fulton Lane, St. Helena
Subject:Hunter Project EIR
Dear Planning Commission:

Reviewing this giant proposal with little time for citizens to study should be immediately delayed to allow an appropriate longer review period.

That said in the meantime the consultant and the applicant should address the issues raised previously about this proposal..they have not gone away and on rapid review are not solved in the latest proposal. -Flood risk-it is difficult to see how building inside the levee on the floor of the basin is a safe proposition…who is going to assume the liability..the City or FEMA? Then there is the question of flood risk to the surrounding area starting in particular with Vineyard Valley ….?
We are also concerned that if the levee is compromised the two major drainage ditches from Fulton Lane will be overwhelmed and flood water will back up toward Fulton Lane as well. This already occurs in heavy rains to some extent near the outside base of the levee due to the congested connection of the Fulton drainage ditches and poor maintenance of the ditches which apparently is a City responsibility. -Water Supply & Sewage -how any proposal to add 20 acre feet of water use (or 6.5 million gallons…more graphic) to St. Helena’s already constrained water supply could be justified based on the ludicrous idea of retrofitting 333 offsite homes or paying ~$597,000 in lieu fees just doesn’t compute without an identified plan.. Where is the water going to come from? St. Helena already has constraints on obtaining more water supply? Then there is the proposed use of abandoned wells being activated for the landscaping..where are these wells and is that practical without jeopardizing the other wells of vineyards and residents in this area.

Then there is the other side of the new water usage….Sewage..how the City’s sewage system and plant could be made to handle even an additional 6.5 million gallons of waste water is a major challenge considering current City finances and sewage needs.
-Traffic-St Helena recently had a good taste of incremental traffic on Pope Street and surrounding streets with the rain caused closure of Silverado Trail; not a pleasant experience.

The proposed project adds traffic issues on at least two fronts:

If as the developer proposes Starr Ave. were extended to an extended Adams Street the resultant short-cut speedway from Pope Street to Main street via Starr and Adams will further the traffic jam at Railroad and ultimately Main Street. Any proposal to add stop lights on this route would risk increasing speeds in a residential area with drivers attempting to make the light/s. Then there is the added traffic resulting from the residents and their visitors and vendors of the proposed development which will also feed into the extensions of Adams and Starr….plus the incremental intersections added by the proposed project would further add traffic hazards and congestion potential.

The intersections of Pope and Starr, the extended Starr and Hunt, Starr and the new street in the proposed development and the intersection of the extended Adams and Starr plus a new proposed street in the development linking with Adams at that same proposed intersection are all going to add congestion and pollution in a residential and agricultural neighborhood.
-Parking-while the project allows for parking it is hard to see based on other areas of the City where development has occurred that the proposed project doesn’t add additional cars parking on-street further adding to congestion and adding more hazards for traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. -Hiking Trail—everyday we see many people hiking on the City Trail alongside and the one on top of the levee literally all the way to the Napa River…a beautiful walk in surrounded by vineyards and much nature as it is also a natural habitat in places. To systematically destroy the rural charm of St. Helena including jeopardizing this hiking trail plus replacing vineyards with houses and streets is short sighted in our view. -Affordable Housing-we recognize and support the need for additional affordable housing, however, to build it in a flood risk area and to add a major residential development with all the issues raised here and by others seems like an inefficient way to get there. The City should fully explore other more development efficient alternatives. -Financial strength of the developer—while this isn’t a topic for the EIR per se it becomes one that needs to be carefully evaluated and monitored due the disruptive nature of the proposed project to the current site and neighboring areas and the estimated long six year duration of the project. Were this ill advised project to be attempted without the City having financial assurance from the developer (perhaps in the form of a bond) that it would be completed would add an additional risk as an interruption in construction, drainage etc. could result in incremental flood and other risks…plus an eyesore of a partially completed project.

Agenda Item #5.10.

We built our home on Fulton Lane (on the former Napa Valley Oriental Nursery site) after investigating the prior history of rejection of development on the Hunter site and the resultant preservation of the levee. We also explored the flood risk in this immediate area and concluded that the levee and existing drainage ditches/swales on Fulton Lane provided a reasonable level of protection. This new Hunter project proposal (which is literally in our backyard) is a significant concern to us for a number of reasons enumerated above and we strongly recommend its permanent rejection.

In conclusion we have been unable to find the benefit to St. Helena and its residents of this proposed development. It all seems like a major step toward impairing the character of St. Helena which makes it a wonderful place to live and turning it into another congested suburb with strained municipal resources. We are totally against the proposed Hunter project.

Thank you, Lou Lavigne and Nancy Rothman 11/1/22

Agenda Item #5.10.

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org November 1, 2022
City of St. Helena Planning Commission
Vintage Hall Board Room – Second Floor
465 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Public Comment Re: Item 5.1: Hunter Subdivision Project EIR Dear Chair Ponte and Commissioners,
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) represents over 2,000 members and supporters throughout Napa County in advocating to make riding a bicycle in our communities safe, convenient, and accessible for riders of all ages and abilities. For over 12 years, the Napa County Bicycle Coalition has worked with local organizations, businesses, elected officials, and the public to align our transportation infrastructure with the needs of cyclists and other active transportation users.

The proposed Hunter Subdivision development, located just a few blocks away from downtown St. Helena and community destinations would provide much-needed market rate and affordable housing. Residents would be well within reasonable walking (<1 mile) or biking (<5 miles) distance of grocery stores, pharmacies, parks, schools, as well as St. Helena City Hall and the St. Helena Public Library. With implementation of adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, this development could help accelerate the City’s progress toward the target active transportation mode share of 20% of trips by 2035 established in these active transportation plans.

The Hunter Subdivision Draft EIR states that the project will induce roughly 800 vehicle trips per day, a “potentially significant” increase in VMT, and claims that there are “no feasible mitigation measures,” making it a “significant and unavoidable” impact. The claim that there are no feasible actions to reduce this project’s VMT impact is untrue given the development’s close vicinity to several destinations that create regular travel (downtown, schools, grocery stores, etc.). One of the most powerful actions to reduce VMT is to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are safe and comfortable for users of all ages and abilities in order to allow people to opt for walking or biking instead of driving – an option which is easy for developers to include, given that the developer has a clean slate to work with when creating new roads.

In order to address the VMT impact and to better align this significant development with City goals around climate, public health and safety, and active transportation, we urge Agenda Item #5.10.

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org the Planning Commission to recommend that the City direct the Hunter Subdivision developers to upgrade the planned active transportation facilities for Starr Avenue and Adams Street. While we appreciate that the City has included Class II bicycle lanes on Starr and Adams as a condition of approval, we believe that additional measures must be taken.

In addition to contributing towards City Goals 1, 5, and 6, NCBC's recommendations outlined below act as mitigation measures for the project’s significant projected VMT increase.

Adams Street
The City’s adopted 2019 Bike Plan proposes a Class I shared-use path on Adams Street east of SR 29, including along a future extension of Adams Street that connects to Starr Avenue. As Adams Street is one of the most significant east-west connections in the City of St. Helena, leading to St. Helena Public Library, Safeway, downtown St. Helena, and St. Helena Elementary School, it is crucial that all modes are provided adequate safety and access along this road. This section of Adams Street will also provide an important connection to the future Vine Trail shared-use path according to current proposed alignments.

We request that the project developers implement the planned Class I along the north side of the Adams Street extension and continue the Class I to at least Library Lane. This option is easily feasible with the 60 feet of Right of Way. We propose that the Class I be constructed by removing the parking lane from the north side of Adams Street, as the north side of Adams along this section (Library Lane to future Starr Avenue) is adjacent only to vineyards and is nonessential. Removing north side parking on Adams Street would free up 8 feet of space. We recommend that with this space, the south sidewalk be widened to at least 6 feet and the remaining space be used to contribute to a Class I on the north side.

The existing businesses on the south side of this corridor segment all have parking lots with adequate parking in addition to on-street parking on the south side. Since no proposed homes will be built on Adams Street, and all of the proposed housing has sufficient parking (3.5 spaces/unit in Lot 52 and two on-site spaces, covered guest parking, and street parking for the rest of the project), abundant parking is provided for residents in the areas around their homes. The proposed parking on the north side of Adams Street bordering the vineyard is superfluous, and the space would better serve the community and help reduce VMT by contributing towards an improved and connected active transportation network.

Agenda Item #5.10.

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org Starr Avenue
Although the City’s adopted 2019 Bike Plan proposes a Class I shared-use path along Starr Avenue, we support the City’s condition to install Class II bicycle lanes on Starr Avenue from Hunt Avenue to Adams Street. Class II bicycle lanes on the new segment will continue the existing Class II network on Starr to create a cohesive and understandable bike network along the corridor.

Additionally, we recommend that the sidewalks in the Starr extension be widened from four feet to at least five feet by narrowing the vegetation strips, in order to provide more valuable public space to pedestrians. Four-foot sidewalks are barely large enough to allow two able-bodied people to walk side-by-side. These simply do not provide sufficient space for families to walk together or for pedestrians in wheelchairs or with strollers to navigate other pedestrian traffic. This also reduces access to the social aspect of walking, a significant community health benefit the importance of which the Covid-19 pandemic has only emphasized.
-
Finally, on both Adams Street and Starr Avenue, the City should direct the project developers to implement appropriate traffic-calming measures to reduce vehicle speeding and improve road safety for all road users.

Speeding is already a significant traffic safety concern in St. Helena. As reported by resident comments listed in the DEIR Appendices, Starr Avenue is already used as a cutthrough street to avoid SR 29 and Silverado Trail traffic and experiences high volumes of speeding motorists. More broadly in St. Helena, a group of citizens concerned with speeding on existing City streets has already formed and began meeting with the City Police Department to identify actions to reduce speeding. The City approved a contract with GHD to address traffic safety on Madrona and Spring after citizen reports of unsafe motorist behaviors on those streets, namely speeding. Through our Safe Routes to School safety evaluation efforts and several separate conversations with community members, parents in St. Helena have expressed their fear of allowing their children to walk and bike to school due to motorist behaviors such as speeding.

As the street designs are presented in the DEIR, vehicle travel lanes will be 12 feet wide, the same width as the California standard for highways. These streets will be wide, long, and straight, with minimum traffic control and no traffic-calming – similar to Madrona and Spring. We know that such design facilitates motorist speeding and we urge the City Agenda Item #5.10.

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org to be proactive on traffic safety by directing the developers to include appropriate traffic-calming on Starr and Adams.

We implore the Commission to recommend that the City ensures that the above recommendations are included in the Hunter Subdivision Project as it moves forward.

This project is early enough in the design stages to implement these reasonable changes that will help reduce the significant VMT impact and help St. Helena become more bikeable and walkable.

Should you have any questions about any of the above recommendations, please contact Carlotta Sainato at (707) 258-6317 or [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Carlotta Sainato
Program Manager
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Agenda Item #5.10.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mariam Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 4:56 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Hunter Project
Hello Ms DeRosa,
Since the planning department is/was ready to schedule a public hearing for the Hunter/Van Phutzen project isn’t it time to add it to the planning projects map? I have requested this previously and it is still not on there.

Best,
Mariam Hansen
Agenda Item #5.10.

From: fj <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 5:25 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [External] Correction to "Comments for the February 7, 2023 meeting about the Hunter Subdivision Project"
See bold and underlined area below.

This should read,
"The area should remain open, NOT, built and paved."
rather than,
"The area should remain open, built and paved."
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: fj <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 5:13 PM
Subject: Comments for the February 7, 2023 meeting about the Hunter Subdivision Project To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> The Hunter Project should be referred to as The Rasputin Project. It refuses to die.

Rasputin influenced the former Romanov rulers of pre Soviet Russia. Many people did not like it, and tried to get rid of Rasputin, but he was remarkably hard to get rid of.

He was finally eliminated, but it was too late. As we all know, things ended badly for the Romanovs, for the Russian people, their descendents, and for millions of people unlucky enough to live nearby.

The Hunter Project was somehow "approved" years ago. Aside from the developers of the Hunter Project, who plan to make amazing amounts of money from it, we wonder who benefited back then from approving the project. With all the forensic tools now available, it should be easy to find out.

The Hunter Project, like Rasputin, refuses to die. The issues relating to the project are well known, and the Hunter Project pushers claim they can be mitigated.

I doubt they can really be mitigated.
-The project is in a flood zone.
-Somehow, governments and thereby taxpayers built a levee, which is essentially a personal flood protection levee for the project. The project did not pay for it.

Agenda Item #5.11.

How was this possible? Forensics will tell, but we can all guess. -Despite the levee, California is a land of droughts alternating with floods. We all know this. We all know that many California levees fail. When they do, whatever was supposed
to be protected by the levees will flood. Who will suffer? The people living there, not the developer, who has taken the money and left.
-Despite the recent rains, we are in the grip of an epic drought. Everybody knows this. Saint Helena put restrictions on water use. We are told that the massive Hunter Project will not adversely Impact water use and supply. Does anyone seriously believe that? Is it possible to add that many living units and not have a major impact on water supply. It is not possible.

Oh, the Hunter Project pushers tell us, it will only use groundwater! Really? Groundwater is also being depleted, from overuse and because people like the Hunter pushers are paving over the land and preventing the aquifer from being recharged with rainwater.
-When the Hunter Project inevitably uses more water than the pushers claim it will, and its needs cannot be met with groundwater, will the project be allowed to die of thirst? Or will Saint Helena be expected to come up with the water to save it? That's not hard to answer.
-Now, the Hunter Project land is beautiful open space, fresh air, vegetation, animals, land to recharge the aquifer. People benefit every day from being able to walk there and enjoy nature, not pavement and buildings. Open space is good for mental and physical health. In its place, the Hunter people want to build a high density, paved over area. The area should remain open, not built and paved. Napa County does not
need more high density development which destroys a lot of why people live in Napa County to begin with. Furthermore, there is net population migration out of Napa County. The Agenda Item #5.11.

population decreased 1.3% from 2020 to 2022. Why do we
need more high density housing for fewer people?
-There are already apartments and high density living areas on the East Side of Saint Helena. It is unfair to build ever more high density projects in the same area. Can Saint Helena not find somewhere
on the West Side to build? Or would that somehow adversely affect the property values on the expensive side of town?
-It will be impossible to mitigate the traffic problems that the Hunter Project will cause.
-There will be increased noise, pollution, paved over land, destroyed plant and animal habitat, flood danger, excessive water demands and destruction of open space. The idea that all of that can be mitigated is absurd. But traffic is the clearest problem that cannot be mitigated. If you look at the areas of relatively high density that already exist on the East Side, cars from those areas end up parked all over the streets not just in front of the living units, but they end up parked on streets away from there. It will be even worse. with the Hunter Project. Cars will be streaming in and out of the Project day and night, impacting the safety, tranquility and health of surrounding areas. -There is absolutely no way to mitigate the traffic which will permanently and badly affect the quality of life and infrastructure in the neighborhoods surrounding the Project.

The Vanzklutphens want this project approved. It is obvious why. They don't live in Saint Helena. They will make a lot of money if the project is built.

The actual residents of Saint Helena have submitted many comments saying they do not want the project approved. Do Saint Helena residents have no say about this? Do only the Project pushers who will make money from the project have a say? It was a mistake to have approved this Rasputin Project back when it happened. At some point it will be clear who benefited from approving it, in addition to the Project developers.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Do not repeat that mistake now. There are many problems with the Rasputin Hunter Project. It is unlikely that the purported mitigation of most of them is possible. It is impossible to mitigate the major traffic problems. That alone should kill the project, once and for all.

Rasputin was a disaster for the Russian people, and the problems resulting from his influence continue to this day.

The Hunter Project will be an ongoing disaster for the people of Saint Helena who will be forced to live near it, and for the entire city, because of traffic, water and infrastructure issues mentioned above.

Do you really want to harm Saint Helena with this Rasputin project? Don't approve it.

It should have been killed off long ago. Kill it now.

Frank Jonelis
Agenda Item #5.11.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:29 AM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Comments for the Hunter Project FEIR meeting of the Planning Commission Please provide these comments and attachments to the Planning Commission, City Manager, Planning Department and City Council.

Thank you Cindy for your dedicated service to St Helena.

Ann Nevero
The Hunter project FEIR includes incorrect statements and missing information that must be corrected/updated to continue forward. Specifically, this EIR does not correctly state or reflect FEMA’s accreditation of the St Helena levee, nor does it present the levee valuation correctly.

Further, St Helena has the clear responsibility and the right to control development on the floodplain as stated by FEMA. FEMA encourages local communities to re-evaluate flood conditions and changes upstream and make alterations to floodplain development to ensure public safety. With numerous wildfires and loss of hillside vegetation, climate change and increasingly severe “atmospheric rivers” in Napa Valley and surrounding areas, as well as increased development and hardscape upstream, the City should follow FEMA’s stated advice and re-evaluate the floodrisks to the floodplain that proposes to house hundreds of people, including children.

Background and FEMA Regulations
The Hunter project proposes to build an entire subdivision of new houses with hundreds of individuals on a floodplain. To be clear, floodplains are large, low-lying areas adjacent to rivers that are the natural “collection basins” for overflow floodwaters along rivers. An analogy is the low spots along streets that collect large pools of water during heavy rains – we have all driven through these many times. The floodplain next to the napa River where the Hunter project is proposed is much lower in elevation than surrounding areas and has flooded repeatedly over the last few decades. In fact, FEMA called that floodplain as “the most repeated flood area in California”. See the Hunter plan showing the 100 year floodplain line – see dashed line that cuts across the proposed area.

It is important to note that the existing properties located next to the floodplain are also on low lying lands and have flooded catastrophically numerous times. In fact, years of planning to physically move the properties was undertaken because engineers were fully aware that not being on the floodplain was the only safe solution, but the property owners were mostly opposed, and the effort failed.

Project proponents claim that in 2009, St Helena chose to build a levee that makes the area “safe” from flooding. However, as stated by ALL governmental agencies, levees are built in order to reduce the flood risk – NOT to remove the risk, as no levee can ever claim that.

See Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA and National Committee on Levee Safety for numerous papers warning of living behind a levee.
1) The EIR consultants claim the levee is built to the 200 year flood, but there is NO FEMA or governmental documentation that validates that claim. Attached is the FEMA issued LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) which clearly states that the St Helena Levee is accredited to the 100 Agenda Item #5.11.

year flood. Incorrect statements of this sort that are accepted in the EIR by City Officials will expose St Helena taxpayers to liability for any issues with flooding. Imagine homeowners in a newly approved subdivision incurring flooding, and finding that the EIR consultants did not reflect FEMA official documentation, yet the city government approved it. It MUST be corrected in the EIR, as the risk is much higher for properties flooding in that location. And the City should weigh the public risk of a much reduced levee system level of flood risk reduction. 2) Local communities have the responsibility and the right to regulate floodplain development as they see fit. FEMA not only approves this, but encourages it. See the FEMA Letter of Map Revision issued to St Helena. Please see the attached LOMR for St Helena’s responsibilities- • FEMA’s LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) states that communities must regulate all proposed floodplain development and in the interest of public safety, may set higher standards for construction or limit development in floodplain areas.
• FEMA states that if you community has adopted higher or more restrictive floodplain criteria, those restrictions take precedence over these minimum FEMA standards.

St Helena has the responsibility and the right to re-assess floodplain development, as well as require the EIR reflect the accurate FEMA 100 year flood accreditation and will/could likely face extensive liability for any and all flood issues.

Thank you for your service to St Helena, and for putting public safety as the first priority for St Helena residents depending on your protection.

Ann Nevero
Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

From: Kelly Wheaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 4:47 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Hunter Project Comment to be shared with Planning Commission Ms DeRosa, Chairman Ponte et al,
I'll be honest I have not read all 3496 pages of the report. And even when I skipped to the parts about water and flooding where my peak interest lies---I was disappointed. But like every other EIR I have ever examined you get exactly what you pay for. The client pays for a favorable outcome, and generally that is what they get. That said the remarks regarding water and flooding were not reassuring. I realize that the City of St Helena is heavily vested in pushing this project to completion for a variety of reasons from tax revenue to housing quotas and probably nothing I or any number of concerned citizens will make a dent in what is already being recommended by staff for approval.

However, I will bring up a few salient points that you can ignore, but they will be part of the public record.

HYDROLOGY
Pg 5-59 HYDROLOGY
"The City’s 2011 Water Neutral Policy for Development requires all new development to be waterneutral, through a combination of onsite water conservation measures, off-site retrofitting and use of well water, as allowed. Future development in the City is not expected to result in an increase in total water demand because new development is required to offset new demand with water conservation retrofits of existing facilities, or in-lieu payments to the City to carry out any retrofit projects." As stated by Councilman Lester Hardy at the joint Planning Commission CIty Council Meeting the Water Neutral policy is inadequate and needs addressing. It is not a priority because no one seems to want to face reality. And although we have just been relieved of the Phase II Water emergency the long term Water Emergency is not over. We are living on borrowed time with crumbling infrastructure and inadequate water supply at exorbitant prices and yet the City makes this statement??? It is based on, as I stated at the hearing, outdated and unworkable and unenforceable Water Neutral Policies. See my comments at the hearing. The St Helena Water Neutral Policy is a joke so its not hard for any project to pretend to be water neutral!

LEVEE / FLOODING
Pg 19-20 LEVEE / FLOODING
"Levee/Flooding Many commenters expressed concern about various issues associated with the City constructed levee adjacent to the project site."
"·The levee was designed and built by the City to meet US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) standards.

Numerous levees throughout the US are built by local agencies in the same; not all levees are built by the USACOE."
Let us see what FEMA said:
pg 226
Agenda Item #5.11.

"The Project site is now designated Zone X, which FEMA identifies as an area with a moderate to low risk of flooding due to a levee failure and is considered protected from a 100-year flood event (FEMA 2018)."
So the risk of flooding due to LEVEE FAILURE is MODERATE to Low Risk.

Pg 549
"However, because there remains residual risk of flooding from catastrophically large floods (such as a 500-year flood) or levee failures, residents in flood-prone areas, even if outside of a regulatory flood zone, have the option to purchase optional flood insurance (i.e., FEMA preferred risk policy)." What this doesn't say is the risk the city incurs should the levee fail and the potential lawsuits, cleanup and disaster relief the City could incur.

The CITY acts as if the Levee is not an issue.

From The Army Corps of Engineers website: https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Flood-RiskManagement/Levees/ Principles of the levee safety program:
▪ Levees do not eliminate flood risk, but can provide critical time for local emergency management officials to evacuate residents safely.
"“There are two kinds of levees: Those that have failed, and those that will fail,” said [ Jeffrey ]Mount.

Mount is a geomorphologist and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-05/can-aging-california-levees-copewith-exterme-weather#:

The area behind the levee is the natural floodplain of the Napa River. It is reckless to put more housing in this area, when many alternatives exist in St Helena. With St Helena's EXCEEDINGLY POOR record of Maintenance and Capital Improvements who is guaranteeing that the Levee will be adequately maintained?

WHO YOU ARE PARTNERING WITH
Finally, I hope that the Commission does due diligence in looking into their partnership with Ygrene’s Executive Chairman Dennis Hunter. Back in October the Federal Trade Commission and California Department of Justice reached a proposed settlement against Novato-based Ygrene Energy Fund Inc. over allegations that the home improvement financing company deceived consumers about the potential impact of its financing. The BBC rating for Ygrene is 2.15/ out of 5!!! Yelp gives a 2.5 What makes St Helena think that they will have any better luck? I am concerned that not only is this developer of questionable ethics---that market rate housing will be built and they will run out of money before the Affordable housing is built. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND should you go forward with this that the City of St Helena REQUIRE a BOND to insure completion of the whole project.

Sincerely
Kelly Wheaton
Inglewood Ave
St Helena
Agenda Item #5.11.

50 California Street, Suite 2800 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Daniel R. Golub
415-743-6900
[email protected]
February 2, 2023
Via Email and First-Class Mail
John Ponte, Chair, Planning Commission
Autumn Anderson, Vice Chair, Planning Commission
Rosaura Segura, Planning Commissioner
Marika Rothfeld, Planning Commissioner
Christopher Warner, Planning Commissioner
CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING COMMISSION
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: City of St. Helena, Unlawful Conditions on Hunter Subdivision Project Dear Chair Ponte, Vice-Chair Anderson, and Commissioners:

Holland & Knight LLP has been engaged to represent Dennis Hunter, Kelly and Ben Vanzutphen, and White Fang Properties, LLC in connection with the Hunter Subdivision project located north of Hunt Avenue (APN 009-030-057) (the “Project”). Our West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law practice group focuses specifically on enforcing recently reformed provisions of state housing law, in particular Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act.

We write to address the hundred-plus conditions that City staff has recommended imposing upon the Project as prerequisites for Tentative Map approval. Planning Commission Report, 140-157 (attached hereto for reference as Attachment A).

I. The City’s imposition of conditions related to storm water drainage violates its commitments in the 2009 Purchase and Sale Agreement.

First and most critically, we wish to address the following “Public Works Drainage Improvements Conditions”:
 87.1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all City-required improvements related to storm water for the project shall be installed by the project developer at its

1 For avoidance of confusion, please note that staff’s discussion of “Conditions Not Revised As Requested by the Applicant” (Planning Commission Report, pages 25-26), appears to mis-number the applicable conditions. Thus, Agenda Item #5.11.

St. Helena Planning Commission
February 2, 2023

expense. Drainage improvements shall be designed and funded by the developer in accordance with the Design Criteria utilizing the rationale method and any applicable adopted City drainage plans.
 89. Post-development flows leaving the site shall not exceed pre-development flows.  90. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide to the City an analysis of the capacity and condition of existing drainage facilities downstream of the development (including any detention/retention ponds), including recommendations for off-site drainage improvements, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Site grading and drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans.

As you know, in January of 2009, Mr. Hunter and the City entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”) with respect to the City’s purchase of property in connection with its control project. In the Agreement, the City committed “to build certain retention and drainage facilities,” including a new detention basin and drainage ditches, and modifications to the then-existing detention basin inlet. Agreement, § 1.7. Per the Agreement, the City was obligated to construct this infrastructure “based upon the projected build-out of [the Project].” Agreement, § 1.7(c).

The demands expressed in Conditions of Approval 87, 89, and 90 are wholly inconsistent with the City’s contractual promise to develop storm water infrastructure based on the projected build-out of the Project. Condition 87, requiring the development team to install “all Cityrequired improvements related to storm water” at their own expense, suggests that the City developed storm water infrastructure that fell below its own requirements. Likewise, Condition 90 requires the development team to undertake a detailed and expensive analysis of “existing drainage facilities” (i.e., those built by the City pursuant to its contractual obligations), recommend improvements, and then make those improvements. In other words, the City demands that the development team analyze the City’s own work, suggest improvements, and pay for them. And while the “requirement to provide detailed hydrological analysis of proposed stormwater systems” may be “a standard requirement for all development projects,” as the Planning Commission Report (p. 26) asserts, it is certainly not a “standard requirement” in the context of storm water systems that the City has already built, pursuant to a legal obligation.

Condition 89 likewise seek to shift the City’s responsibility for developing adequate storm water infrastructure onto the development team.

Put simply, the Agreement obligated the City to develop storm water infrastructure adequate to serve the needs of the Project as built out. To now insist that its own efforts were inadequate, and demand that the development team pick up the slack, is unlawful. See, e.g., Harm v.

Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405, 417 (1960) (“There is implied in every contract a covenant by each party not to do anything which will deprive the other parties thereto of the benefits of the

the comment for “COA 88” appears to apply to Condition 87, the comment for “COA 90” appears to apply to Condition 89, and the comment for “COA 91” appears to apply to Condition 90.

Agenda Item #5.11.

St. Helena Planning Commission
February 2, 2023

contract. This covenant not only imposes upon each contracting party the duty to refrain from doing anything which would render performance of the contract impossible by any act of his own, but also the duty to do everything that the contract presupposes that he will do to accomplish its purpose.”); Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1230, 1244 (2013) (“The covenant is read into contracts and functions as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the express covenants) frustrates the other party’s rights to the benefits of the contract.”) (internal citations omitted).

We understand that the City has taken the position that a subsequent settlement agreement, executed in 2012 (the “Settlement Agreement”), releases the City from its obligations under the Agreement. To the contrary, the Settlement Agreement released only those claims existing at the time it was executed. See Settlement Agreement, § 5(1)-(2) (releasing claims “which Hunter has had or claims to have had or now has or claims to now have in connection with the Contract, Project and Action.”). Needless to say, nothing in the Settlement Agreement can reasonably be read as Mr. Hunter’s agreement to allow the City to violate the Agreement in the future. See Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., No. 08CV1462-IEG-RBB, 2009 WL 186194, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2009) (“As a general rule, contractual limitations on liability for future conduct must be clearly set forth.”). The Settlement Agreement in no sense absolves the City of its continuing obligations to perform under the Agreement, including its obligation “to build certain retention and drainage facilities” “based upon the projected build-out of [the Project].” Agreement, §

1.7(c). Those obligations persist, and the City must act in good faith to uphold them.

II. Numerous conditions violate the Housing Accountability Act.

Second, and independently of the foregoing, many of the conditions that the City purports to require violate the Housing Accountability Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 (the “HAA”). HAA subdivision (j) prohibits local governments from disapproving or reducing the density of any project that “complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete,” unless certain narrow findings can be made. “A standard that cannot be applied without personal interpretation or subjective judgment is not ‘objective’ under the HAA.” Cal. Renters Legal Advoc. & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo, 68 Cal. App. 5th 820, 840, (2021). Thus, the HAA prohibits local governments from imposing subjective conditions as prerequisites to project approval.2
Yet, despite its acknowledgement that the Project is protected by the HAA (Draft Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations at 70), the City now purports to condition Project approval on numerous subjective conditions. Many of the City’s conditions, for instance, afford impermissible discretion to City officials. See Conditions of Approval 33, 44, 47, 55, 72, 97,

2 HAA subdivision (h)(6)(A) clarifies that disapproval encompasses the denial of “any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.” Agenda Item #5.11.

St. Helena Planning Commission
February 2, 2023

100, 101, 105, 108, 110, 116. Other conditions simply require the applicant team to perform “to the City’s satisfaction” or otherwise leave the determination to “the discretion of the City.” See Conditions of Approval 40, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113. See also Conditions of Approval 35 (“the Final Map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director”), 118 (fire hydrants must be installed “to the satisfaction of the Fire Department”). These conditions are not objective, and the City may not impose them as prerequisites to Project approval without violating the HAA. Indeed, the City’s insistence on conditions preserving its discretion at every step is particularly improper in view of the City’s decades-long abuse of that discretion with respect to this Project – abuses which the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) repeatedly referenced in rejecting the City’s draft Housing Element. Post-entitlement approvals such as grading and building permits must issue on a “ministerial” basis,3in which the permitting “agency merely determines whether applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or other fixed standards have been satisfied,” but can exercise “no discretionary authority to deny or shape the project.” Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus (2020) 10 Cal.5th 479, 489, 494. Failure to comply with these new requirements is itself an HAA violation.4 As such, the City is forbidden from exercising the type of broad discretion that determining compliance with these conditions would require.

The HAA likewise prohibits local governments from imposing conditions on HAA-protected projects that would require the Project to be developed at a lower density, or even any conditions that would “have the same effect” as a density reduction, unless certain narrow findings can be made. HAA subd. (h)(7), (j)(1). The City’s conditions are unlawful because they would have the same effect as a density reduction, both individually and in the aggregate. Individually, several conditions would in practice require reductions in the density of the Project. Condition of Approval 90, for instance, requires an analysis of the capacity of existing drainage facilities, and a commitment to construct any improvements that the City deems necessary. That condition seems to contemplate expansion of the existing drainage pond, which could not feasibly be accomplished without reducing the number of units to be developed. This would be a condition imposing a density reduction – a result that the HAA forbids. The City’s numerous onerous conditions also are tantamount to density reductions in the aggregate, in that they jeopardize the feasibility of the Project altogether. For this reason as well, the City’s purported imposition of these conditions violates the HAA.

3 Cal. Gov. Code 65913.3(j)(3)(A) (defining “postentitlement phase permit” as including “building permits, and all inter-departmental review required for the issuance of a building permit; permits for minor or standard off-site improvements; permits for demolition; and permits for minor or standard excavation or grading.”). 4 Cal. Gov. Code 65913.3(f) (“If a local agency fails to meet the time limits in this section, it shall be in violation of Section 65589.5.”).

Agenda Item #5.11.

St. Helena Planning Commission
February 2, 2023

III. The City’s ongoing conduct with respect to the Project, including but not limited to the proposed imposition of these conditions, jeopardizes its ability to comply with Housing Element Law.

The deadline for the City to adopt a Housing Element that substantially complies with State Housing Law was two days ago, January 31, 2023. As you know, the City has failed to adopt a legally compliant Housing Element, is now out of compliance with Housing Element Law, and is now subject to the Builder’s Remedy among other penalties.5 As you also know, the City’s initial draft Housing Element was rejected by HCD. That rejection was due in no small part to the City’s conduct with respect to the Project, which consists primarily of delay tactics stretching back more than a decade.

The Project’s 87 units represent roughly one-third of the City’s total RHNA allocation of 254 units. Put simply, the City cannot demonstrate zoned capacity to meet its RHNA allocation without the Project’s units. And the City cannot receive credit for the Project’s 87 units unless it can demonstrate to HCD’s satisfaction that those units will be constructed during the 6th Cycle.

Central to HCD’s rejection of the City’s Housing Element was its failure to adequately disclose and address governmental constraints to the development of housing in the City. Specifically, HCD explained: “The element briefly discusses the required permits for a typical single family, subdivision, and multifamily project. This is not a complete analysis and does not address the requirements. The element must describe and analyze the City’s permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type …. The analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single-family and multifamily developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings and any discretionary approval procedures. The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on approval certainty, feasibility, and housing supply and affordability.” 6 Moreover, HCD stated
that “the element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.” 7 The
conditions that the City seeks to impose on this Project are “governmental constraints to the development of housing in the City” that must be analyzed, addressed, and where appropriate removed pursuant to the City’s Housing Element update. That the City persists in maintaining these conditions – even requirements to develop infrastructure that the City is contractually

5 See “Nearly 4,000 Units Coming to Santa Monica as City’s Housing Element Falls Out of Compliance,” Santa Monica Mirror (Oct. 14, 2022) (https://smmirror.com/2022/10/nearly-4000-units-coming-to-santa-monica-as-cityshousing-element-falls-out-of-compliance/). 6 Dep’t of Housing & Comm. Dev., “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), App’x at 6. See also Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3) (Housing Element must set forth program to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.”).
7 Dep’t of Housing & Comm. Dev., “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), App’x at 6.

Agenda Item #5.11.

St. Helena Planning Commission
February 2, 2023

obligated to develop itself – is inconsistent with the City’s obligation to bring itself into compliance with Housing Element Law.

Additionally, HCD’s rejection correspondence signaled the Department’s awareness that “the Hunter Subdivision Project has been pending since 2010,” and stated that “the element should provide an analysis demonstrating the likelihood of these units being built during the planning period.”8 As this correspondence confirms, the City’s past course of conduct with respect to the Project raises some doubts, to say the least.

The City’s current course of conduct – the imposition of conditions that contravene its contractual promises, violate the HAA, and threaten to jeopardize the Project altogether – is functionally indistinguishable from the delay tactics that it has employed for the past decade.

Under either approach, the City cannot demonstrate that the Project will be developed within the 6th RHNA Cycle, and therefore cannot receive credit for the Project’s 87 units. Nor is the City likely to make up for these units elsewhere, given that the plainly fanciful nature of the City’s sites inventory was readily apparent to HCD.

Finally, we understand that the City has revised its Housing Element in response to HCD’s feedback, and that it now maintains that “the Hunter Subdivision project is anticipated to receive planning approval in the near future. The Final Environmental Impact [Report] was released in October 2022 and the project is scheduled for hearing before the City’s Planning Commission in February of 2023.” This new promise of project “approval” of course is hollow if the “approval” the City issues is subject to unlawful and onerous conditions that will preclude the Project from actually being constructed. Housing Element Law does not require the City to simply assure HCD that project approvals are forthcoming. Instead, the City must demonstrate that the Project has “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period.”9 In this regard, approving the Project subject to numerous onerous and unlawful conditions is no different than disapproving the Project outright, as in either instance the project is unlikely to be built. The path to Housing Element compliance, therefore, requires a change of course with respect to the Project.

IV. Many conditions are constitutionally impermissible or otherwise unlawful.

Finally, we note that many of the conditions are likely constitutionally impermissible, as unlawful regulatory takings, violations of the applicant team’s due process rights, and unlawful exercises of the City’s police powers. See Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 126 Cal. App. 3d 330, 337 (Ct. App. 1981) (arbitrary and discriminatory property restrictions are invalid and unlawful exercises of police power); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 398 (1994)

8 Dep’t of Housing & Comm. Dev., “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), App’x at 2. See also Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(3) (Housing Element must identify “an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period.”).
9 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(3).

Agenda Item #5.11.

St. Helena Planning Commission
February 2, 2023

(requiring “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” “between the harm caused by the new land use and the benefit obtained by the condition.”); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(4) (mitigation measures require “essential nexus” to legitimate government interest and must be “roughly proportional” to the impact of the project). For this reason as well, the requested conditions are improper and unlawful.10
* * * * *
The City’s obligations under the Agreement, and under the HAA, and under Housing Element Law, compel the withdrawal of the numerous unlawful conditions of approval. At a minimum, the City must withdraw (or modify, per the applicant team’s prior requests) Conditions 87, 89, and 90. We expressly reserve our rights to pursue all available remedies under contract and state housing law should the City decline.

Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Golub
William Sterling
West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law Practice Group
Holland & Knight LLP
cc: Maya DeRosa, AICP, Community Development Director
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney

10 We also note for completeness that the Final EIR’s conclusion that the Project would have significant and unavoidable VMT impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law, as the applicant team has documented in the record. See Comment Letter 93 (Leslie R. Perry, “Comments to Draft EIR – Hunter Subdivision Project” (Nov. 1, 2021) (enclosing W-Trans, “Comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Hunter Subdivision Project” (Nov. 1, 2021); DKS, “Review of City of St. Helena’s Application of SB 743 Requirements Project #21082-000 of the Planned Residential Development” (Oct. 20, 2021)) (Planning Commission Report, pages 3006-3017). The EIR should reflect the fact that the Project will have no significant and unavoidable impacts.

Agenda Item #5.11.

ATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 HUNTER SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2-7-23
Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001
APN 009-030-057
These conditions shall apply to City approval of Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001.

However, the only conditions herein that constitute preconditions to the approval of the Final Map are those that explicitly state that they constitute such preconditions, and such conditions may be satisfied through substantial completion, as determined by the City Engineer, by execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, or a combination thereof. Either substantial completion or execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement or a combination of both, shall enable the City Engineer to make a determination of substantial compliance with these condition and the Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001.

Planning Division: General Conditions

1. This specific approval is limited to the Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2010-40, and is not intended to serve as an approval of the overall project description that was submitted with the tentative map application.

2. This approval is based upon all conditions of approval set forth herein, including mitigation measures and specified plans and agreements included by reference, as well as all applicable City rules and regulations. Any deviations from the conditions must be reviewed and approved by the City for conformity with this approval. Deviations may require approved changes to these approvals and/or further environmental review. Deviations without the above described approval will constitute a violation of permit approval.

3. Except as specifically authorized in these conditions of approval, the grading, development, use, and maintenance of the property; the size, shape, arrangement, and location of the structures, parking areas and landscape areas; and the protection and preservation of resources shall be subject to Planning Commission approval and shall conform to the conditions of approval below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the associated grading and construction of infrastructure for the project shall be permitted without Design Review approval if the design of such infrastructure has otherwise been approved by means of the Tentative Map or Final Map. All plans and agreements (such as landscape maintenance plans) required pursuant to these conditions of approval must be submitted for review and approval and shall be implemented as approved by the City.

4. The use and/or construction of any structures or improvements authorized by this approval shall not commence until all necessary planning and building permits pertaining to the use or construction in question are obtained. Before any grading or building permit will be issued by the City, the Owner/Applicant must obtain written clearance from all departments having conditions; such clearance shall indicate that the Owner/Applicant has satisfied all preconstruction conditions.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

2 5. The Owner/Applicant’s acceptance of this permit and/or commencement of use, construction and/or operations under this approval shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions of this approval by the Owner/Applicant.

6. The Owner/Applicant shall ensure that potential contractors are aware of City requirements.

The Owner/Applicant shall notify all contractors and subcontractors in writing of the site rules, restrictions, and Conditions of Approval and submit a copy of the notice to the Planning Department.

7. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, Section 16.16.100, the Tentative Map approval is valid for a two (2) year period ending February 7, 2025, unless later extended by operation of state law.

The Final Map shall be filed by this date or an extension of time shall be requested prior to the expiration date.

8. Pursuant to St Helena Municipal Code, any request for an extension of the Tentative Map must be justified in writing and received by the Planning Department at least twenty (20) days prior to expiration. The time at which such map expires may be extended by the City Council for one year, and on further application twenty (20) days before the expiration of the one year extension, the subdivider may request a second one-year extension, and on further application twenty (20) days before the expiration of the second one-year extension may request a third one-year extension. No extension shall be permitted beyond the third one-year extension.

9. Prior to recordation of the Final Map and subject to City approval as to form and content, the Owner/Applicant shall include all of the mitigation measures and conditions of approval associated with or required by this Project approval on a separate informational sheet(s) to be recorded with the Final Map. All applicable conditions and mitigation measures for the Project shall be printed on grading and/or building plans.

10. Compliance with all permit conditions shall occur in accordance with specific regulations but in all cases not later than prior to occupancy or initiation of use unless another time is set by law or by this approval. Occupancy or final inspection of a project may be withheld if all conditions, including payment of fees for services rendered by the City, are not met.

11. In any action or proceeding to attack, challenge, invalidate, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval of applicant’s Project, in whole or in part, applicant shall defend, at its own expense and without any cost to the City, and with counsel acceptable to the City, and shall fully and completely indemnify and hold the City, its agents, officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, damages, costs, attorney’s fees and liability of any kind, so long as the City reasonably promptly notifies the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceedings and the City cooperates fully in the defense of the action or proceedings.

12. This Tentative Parcel Map shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the real property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to their benefit and benefit of the City of St. Helena.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

3 13. If the Tentative Map is proposed to be revised, including revisions to these conditions of approval, the revisions shall be approved pursuant to and in accordance with Section 16.16.130 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

14. The primary purpose of this review is for compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The owner/applicant is responsible for meeting with the Building Official/Fire Inspector to review compliance with Building and Fire Codes, including fire protection systems and the accessibility standards of Title 24.

15. All required fees, including planning fees, development impact fees, park impact fees, and building permit fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit unless such payment has been modified by adopted mitigation measures or conditions of approval. Fees shall be those in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permit.

16. This authorizes the creation of a tentative subdivision of a 16.92-acre parcel (APN 009-030- 057) located at the north/east terminus of Adams Street into 52 lots. In addition, two lettered lots are created: Parcel A (0.06 acres) is an open space lot adjacent to an internal roadway; Parcel B (0.04 acres) will contain a private water well to be used for irrigation of landscaped areas.

17. All uses of the property shall be in compliance with the MR: Medium Density Residential zoning district regulations.

18. The applicant shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigations measures adopted as part of this project and listed in the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted as part of this project.

19. All conditions of approval shall be clearly identified and included on all plans submitted for future permit review and issuance.

20. Prior to applying for building permits, proposed future development on any of the newly created lots or parcels shall require the approval of a Design Review application and Use Permit application as applicable, subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission.

21. The Applicant shall be responsible for all City plan check and inspection costs as described in the St. Helena Comprehensive Fee and Rate Schedule.

Planning Division: Final Map Conditions

22. The owners of the 51 single family residences and the multi-family development on parcel 52 shall be members of a homeowner's association, or another funding mechanism acceptable to the City, dedicated to the maintenance of the project’s common areas, the internal irrigation system (fed by the well on Parcel B), and the well on Parcel B.

23. Prior to recordation of the final map and concurrent with the Subdivision Improvement Plan, the applicant shall submit CC&R's (Codes, Covenants and Restrictions) to the City Attorney, Public Works Director and Community Development Director for review and approval.

CC&R's shall be recorded at time of recordation of final map. CC&R's shall include all Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

4 restrictions and maintenance regulations pertaining to, landscaping and common areas; shall include all restrictions and maintenance agreements pertaining to roads and access easements; and all restrictions and maintenance agreements pertaining to the irrigation well and internal irrigation water distribution system. The CC&Rs must be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit for any structure on the project site.

24. Pursuant to Section 16.20.090, upon approval of the final map by the City Council, the City Clerk shall execute the appropriate certificate on the certificate sheet and shall, subject to the provisions of Section 66464 of the state Subdivision Map Act, transmit the map, or have an authorized agent forward the map, to the county recorder prior to the issuance of a building permit.

25. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all overhead utilities on the site shall be undergrounded.

Planning: Misc. Conditions

26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall develop a building construction plan to be approved by the Planning Director and Building Official to insure that the homes meet or exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and receive a green rating under either the LEEDS, Green Points Checklist, or other acknowledged rating system for energy conservation and green building practices. The latest version of the City of St. Helena green building standards will apply at the time of building permit submittal.

27. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City of St. Helena, which agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the St. Helena City Council. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Napa County, and shall ensure that the project complies with the requirements of Municipal Code section 17.146.050, Residential development project, inclusionary/in-lieu fee requirements. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall demonstrate how the project satisfies the minimum density requirement of the General Plan to construct a minimum of 87 dwelling units, including single family, multifamily, and accessory dwelling units.

Planning: Flooding Conditions

28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the occupant shall prepare a statement that has been approved by the Public Works Director for inclusion in the disclosure documents provided to purchasers of homes which describes the flood risk present at this location and notifies the buyer of the availability of low-cost Preferred Risk Policy flood insurance.

Planning: Landscape Conditions

29. City of St. Helena Community Development Department shall review the final landscape and fencing plan as part of a Design Review approval and prior to issuance of building permits for construction on the property to ensure compliance with Mitigation Measures. Landscaping shall be native, drought tolerant, compatible with oak trees and requiring minimal irrigation.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

5 30. Landscape plans shall comply with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Section 17.112.140 of the St Helena Municipal Code. Plans shall be designed and verified by a landscape professional and shall include drought tolerant landscaping and low water irrigation systems. Landscaping shall not block vision from exits or at street intersections.

Planning: Construction Activities Conditions

31. Mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditioning units and spa equipment, shall be located away from property lines and shall be shielded or enclosed to minimize noise levels.

Noise generated shall not exceed 60 dBa, Ldn. This condition of approval implements Mitigation Measure NOI-1 from the project environmental impact report, Chapter 8.24 of the St Helena Municipal Code, and noise-related policies of the St Helena General Plan, including policy 8.3.11 from the 1993 General Plan and policy PS2.4 from the 2019 General Plan.

32. The applicant and/or construction manager shall notify all contractors and subcontractors that no trespassing is allowed on adjoining properties.

33. To reduce disturbance of residents in the project vicinity, construction activities which generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Delivery of materials/equipment and cleaning and servicing of machines/equipment shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Exceptions to these time restrictions may be granted by the Public Works Director for one of the following reasons: (1) inclement weather affecting work, (2) emergency work, or (3)other work, if work and equipment will not create noise that may be unreasonably offensive to neighbors as to constitute a nuisance. The City Engineer must be notified and give approval in advance of such work. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal or local holidays that generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits.

34. This property in the vicinity of an agricultural district. All future purchasers of homes or renters living in the project shall be notified of the expectation of legal, normal agricultural activities on the adjacent land, including day or night disbursement of chemicals, and creation of dust, noise, or fumes, and of the City’s Right to Farm ordinance.

Public Works: General Conditions

35. Prior to recordation, the Final Map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director to accommodate the following facilities in the right of way of both Starr Avenue and Adams Street:
• Curb and Gutter in accordance with City Standard #310 for a 24” gutter. • Sidewalks, either attached to the curb or detached from the curb, on both sides of the street along Starr Avenue, and only on the south side of Adams Street, in accordance with City Standard #315
• Parking lane on both sides of the street in accordance with City Standard #301 for a “Collector” street.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

6 • Class II on-street bike lane on both sides of the street in accordance with Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual Index 1003.2 but not less than 5 feet wide. • Two vehicle travel lanes in accordance with City Standard #301 for a “Collector” street. • Striping to delineate parking, bike, and travel lanes.

36. All public improvements utility connections shall be designed in accordance with the City of St. Helena’s Construction Standards (SHMC 16.32.230).

37. The City has adopted the latest edition of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual. Applicant is responsible for conformance construction plans in accordance with the BASMAA Manual, SHMC Section 13.32 et. seq., and the State Water Resources Control Board Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) General Permit (Order 2013-0001 DWQ). Approval of project by Planning Commission does not constitute compliance with storm water regulations nor a right to develop per approved plans unless this condition of approval is fully satisfied.

38. Grading plans, public improvement plans and connections to public utilities shall be prepared by a California Licensed Civil Engineer.

39. An Encroachment Permit is required prior to starting work within City right of way.

40. All public facilities damaged by construction activities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City at the Applicant's expense.

41. During water shortage emergencies, all construction water used for the project shall be obtained from a source other than a City of St. Helena potable water sources (SHMC

13.04.221).

42. Unless exempted, any ADU or JADU constructed with a new single-family home shall have a separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility and payment of the normal connection fee and capacity charge for a new dwelling are required SHMC

17.116.030(G)(2).

43. Developer shall design and construct all improvements and facilities shown on any approved tentative map, site plan, or other documents submitted for permit approval, in accordance with the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC), and the City of St. Helena Design and Construction Standards. Approval of a tentative map depicting improvements that do not conform to the SHMC or City standards does not constitute approval of an exception to the SHMC or City standards unless explicitly stated herein or in another City resolution.

44. The developer shall be responsible for all City plan check, map check and inspection costs.

The developer shall deposit funds with the City upon the initiation of plan check services. The amount of the initial deposit shall be determined by the City Engineer. Additional funds may be required based upon actual plan check and inspection costs.

45. If any of the improvements which the applicant is required to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land in which the applicant does not have title or interest Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

7 sufficient for such purposes, the applicant shall do all of the following at least 60 days prior to the filing of the final or parcel map for approval pursuant to Government Code Section 66457:
a) Notify the City of St. Helena (hereafter "City") in writing that the applicant wishes the City to acquire an interest in the land which is sufficient for such purposes as provided in Government Code Section 66462.5;
b) Supply the City with (i) a legal description of the interest to be acquired, (ii) a map or diagram of the interest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 1250.310 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (iii) a current appraisal report prepared by an appraiser approved by the City which expresses an opinion as to the current fair market value of the interest to be acquired, and (iv) a current Litigation Guarantee Report;
c) Enter into an agreement with the City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or other security as the City may require, pursuant to which the applicant will pay all of the City's cost (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and overhead expenses) of acquiring such an interest in the land.

46. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all proposed utilities, both on-site and along project frontages, shall be placed underground. This does not include surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets.

47. Except for the existing well on Lot 19 of the Tentative Map that will be providing irrigation water to this development, all existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks shall be abandoned under permit and inspection of Napa County Department of Environmental Health. If applicant determines that there are none, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project engineer shall provide a letter describing the scope of the search done to make this determination and demonstrating to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer that there are no other existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks within the boundaries of the Tentative Map.

Public Works: Fees

48. Public Works engineering and inspection fees for Improvement Plan and Final Map review shall be due and payable at the time of making the first submittal in connection with the Improvement Plans or the Final Map, as applicable.

49. All Public Works Development Impact fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of building permit(s) for the improvements to which they are applicable, unless otherwise authorized by the City.

Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

50. Improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted by a California Registered Civil Engineer for the construction of all necessary and required on-site and off-site improvements including grading, water, sanitary sewer, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, curbs, gutters, Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

8 sidewalks, parkway strips and streetlights. All design and construction shall conform to the City of St. Helena Design and Construction Standards, as applicable.

51. Per Mitigation Measure GEO-1, a detailed Soils Investigation/Geotechnical Report (the “Soils Report”) shall be prepared and submitted for review with the submittal of the improvement plans.

The report shall address, at a minimum, potential for liquefaction, expansive soils, seismic risk, recommendations for roadway structural sections, foundation, and other items as mentioned in the Mitigation Measure. The improvement plans shall incorporate all design and construction criteria recommended in the Geotechnical Report and acknowledgement of inclusion of any recommendations in the soils report applicable to improvements within this development shall be included on a signature line for the Geotechnical Engineer on the cover sheet of the improvement plans. The signature line should include a statement that the Geotechnical Engineer has reviewed the plans and that the plans have incorporated recommendations as outlined in the Soils Report.

52. All private water mains, sewer mains and storm drains shall be clearly labeled “Private” on the improvement plans.

53. Improvements plans shall include a storm water pollution prevention plan. Erosion control measures shall be included within the improvement plans and the projects WDID number shall be included on the cover sheet of the improvement plans.

54. The improvement plans shall include the following note per the Engineering Controls portion of Mitigation Measure NOI-1: “All mobile and stationary construction equipment employing an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order.”

55. Roadway Improvements:
a. The structural section of all road improvements shall be designed based upon a geotechnical investigation that provides the basement soils R-value and expansion pressure test results. A copy of the geotechnical report shall also be submitted with the first set of improvement plan check-prints.
b. Where new roadway improvements abut existing paving and sidewalk, curb and gutter, the existing pavement and concrete curb and gutter section shall be saw-cut and reconstructed to provide a smooth conforms conform. The limits of such reconstruction shall be as determined by the City Engineer.
c. Pavement markings and signage shall be provided on all streets as necessary and as required by the City Engineer. Signage restricting parking and red painted curbing shall be installed where appropriate. Speed limit signs and other regulatory and informational signs shall be installed at locations determined by the City Engineer. d. Street lighting shall be designed to provide to meet safety requirements and minimize glare.

Street light standard and luminaries of the design, spacing, and locations shall be approved by the City Engineer. All lighting must have shields.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

9 e. Ramps for disabled persons meeting the most recent standards shall be provided at all intersections and at the limits of the improvements where they do not adjoin existing sidewalk improvements. Sidewalk warps shall be provided as necessary to allow a clear four-foot-wide walkway at all locations, including areas where mailboxes, streetlights, and fire hydrants obstruct sidewalks.

56. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-1 of the approved environmental document, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats in trees adjacent to the Project site within 2 weeks prior to any Project construction (site clearing, grading). The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and presence of guano within the Project site and 50 feet around these areas. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be mapped and described in a survey letter report. If roosting bats (individuals or colonies) are detected within the Project site, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified as soon as possible prior to any construction activity to confirm the bats can be avoided during construction. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely avoided, a qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and approval, and that plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction that could impact the roosting bats or maternity colony. A written report of the findings shall be provided to the City prior to grading.

57. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-2 of the approved environmental document, if construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), prior to commencement of construction the Project applicant or their contractor shall implement the following measures to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting raptors and other nesting birds:
• Preconstruction surveys by a biologist of all potential nesting habitats within 500 feet of construction activities, where accessible, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance. If construction is stopped for 14 days or more during the breeding season, a new preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted before work can be restarted to ensure no new nesting has occurred in the interim.
• If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required, following submittal of a survey report letter to the City of St. Helena Planning Department. • If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined by the biologist that all the young have fledged. The buffers shall be established by the biologist in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typical buffers may include 500 feet for raptors and 50 to 250 feet for other bird species based on the location of the nest, the nesting species present, and types of construction activities that may cause potential nest abandonment. The perimeter of the buffer zone shall be fenced or marked with staked flagging.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

10 58. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-3 of the approved environmental document, wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively) shall be obtained prior to any grading work.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate authorization from the Army Corp of Engineers and any other regulatory agency to alter the wetland.

59. Prior to the commencement of grading, the developer shall provide evidence that an archaeological monitor has been retained to be present on the site during all ground-disturbing activities per mitigation measure CUL-1.

60. Per mitigation measure CUL-2 of the approved environmental document, if human remains are unearthed during grading operations, work must stop within 100 feet of the find and the county Coroner shall be contacted immediately.

61. Per mitigation measure GEO-2 of the approved environmental document, if known or suspected paleontological resources are unearthed during grading or trenching operations, the area of discovery shall be roped off by the contractor to include a 50-foot radius buffer and remain off-limits until cleared by a qualified paleontologist.

62. Per mitigation measure HAZ-1 of the approved environmental document, the Project applicant shall ensure the following subsurface soils testing and follow-up analysis be performed prior to obtaining a grading permit:
• A soils testing work plan shall be developed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (DTSC 2008) by an appropriately licensed individual (i.e., professional geologist, environmental engineer, or similar qualification) for the portions of the Project site historically used for agriculture. Special consideration shall be given to targeting site soils that are representative of historic agricultural use, and to avoid sampling recent fill material placed during levee construction. Prior to carrying out soils testing, the work plan shall be submitted to the Napa County Division of Environmental Health (as the Certified Unified Program Agency for all cities and areas of Napa County) and the City of St. Helena for review and approval.
• The number of soil samples, sampling methods, compounds tested, background samples (if applicable), and laboratory analyses shall be completed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance. Should analytical results exceed naturally occurring concentrations or applicable CHHSLs, the health risks of such a condition shall be evaluated in human health risk assessment as described in DTSC standards and guidance (e.g., preliminary endangerment assessment guidance manual). • The risk assessment shall describe measures that must be implemented to ensure potential health risks to construction workers, site residents, and the general public as a result of hazardous materials are reduced to a cumulative risk of less than one in one million for carcinogens and a cumulative hazard index of 1 for non-carcinogens, or as required by the Napa County Division of Environmental Health acting as the Certified Unified Program Agency and/or DTSC oversight. In the event human health risk assessment shows elevated chemical concentrations pose a risk to human health or the environment, the risks shall be eliminated or substantially reduced by removal (e.g., excavation of soils and off-site disposal) or Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

11 remediation of contaminated soils, and/or implementation of institutional controls and engineering controls (IC/EC). IC/EC may include use of a construction risk management plan, use of hardscape to cap problem areas, importation of clean soil in landscaped area to eliminate exposure pathways, and/or deed restrictions. If IC/EC are implemented, an Operations and Maintenance Program shall be prepared and implemented to ensure that the measures adopted are maintained throughout the life of the Project.

63. Per mitigation measure NOI-1 of the approved environmental document, the contractor shall implement the following for onsite noise control and sound abatement means that, in aggregate, would yield sufficient construction noise reduction during the site preparation, grading/excavation, and building construction phases of the Project to ensure compliance with the FTA-based guidance standard of 90 dBA hourly Leq at or beyond the property lines of the nearest residences, as noted.

Administrative Controls – At all times during site preparation and construction:
• Comply with Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code with respect to allowable construction periods,
• Minimize idling time of onsite equipment, and
• Either locate onsite stationary construction equipment (such as generators or air compressors) as far from adjacent residential property boundaries as is feasible or place this equipment inside an approved noise-attenuating casing (e.g., sound-attenuated air intakes and heat vents, exhaust mufflers, etc.), or place this equipment indoors.

Engineering Controls – All mobile and stationary construction equipment employing an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order; and
Install Sound Abatement – During site preparation and construction which involves the operation of more than two pieces of heavy equipment (dozer, backhoe, front-end loader, crane, tractor, etc.) for at least one hour and when operating within 25 feet of the exterior of a residence (either offsite or onsite), do the following:
• Erect a temporary barrier (i.e., plywood sheet) or install sound blankets (or comparable temporary solid barriers) on the Project’s construction fencing, or • Locate sound path intervening containers or trailers onsite to block direct line-of-sight between residences and the operating heavy equipment.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

12 Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

64. Starr Avenue: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Starr Avenue shall join the existing Starr Avenue at Hunt Avenue and shall be improved to include the facilities listed in condition of approval #35. The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

65. Adams Street: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Adams Street shall join the existing section of Adams Street (currently a dead end) and be extended into the subdivision.

The street shall be improved per condition of approval #35. At the northerly terminus of Adams Street, a conform shall be constructed with Class 2 aggregate base to connect to the existing walking path/access road/levee. A gate shall be included at the terminus of the road and connection to the walking path/access road that has appropriate signage indicating it is not a through road for vehicles. The gate shall be constructed per direction from the Fire Chief and shall include a Knox box. The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

66. Street A: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Street A shall be improved to include two 10 ft. travel lanes, two 8 ft. parking lanes, curbs, gutters, a 6 ft. planter strips and 4 ft. sidewalk on the south side of the road and a 10-foot distance from the face of curb to the right-of-way line on the west side of the road. The total right-of-way width shall be 56 feet.

The area between the curb and the right-of-way line on the west side of the street shall be graded such that it can be passable by pedestrians (cross slopes should not exceed 5%). The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

67. Streets B and C: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Streets B and C shall be improved to include two 10 ft. travel lanes, two 8 ft. parking lanes, curbs, gutters, 6 ft. planter strips and 4 ft. sidewalks within an overall 56 ft. right-of-way. The cul-de-sac associated with Street C shall be constructed per City Standard 304. The knuckle at the intersection of Streets B and C shall be constructed per City Standard 305. The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

68. EVA: From Street A to levee: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the emergency vehicle access road (EVA) shall be improved to provide an all-weather access road (paved) from Street A up to the existing levee road to the north. The width of the EVA shall be a minimum of 21 feet from face of curb to face of curb within an overall 25 ft. wide dedicated EVA. The EVA shall accommodate emergency vehicles (must provide for turning radii to accommodate fire vehicles as per the Fire Department requirements.) Turning templates shall be provided with the improvement plans during the plan check process to ensure the EVA can accommodate Fire Department apparatus.

69. Access from Lot 52 to Starr Avenue shall be for EVA and pedestrian purposes. Ownership of this parcel shall be the same as Lot 52, or the access point shall be made part of Lot 52.

70. Adjacent to Lot 51 there is a portion of existing right-of-way that needs to be vacated by the City prior to the recordation of the final map. The applicant shall provide all descriptions and Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

13 plats to the City for vacation of this right-of-way. The vacation of the right-of-way by the City of St. Helena shall either be done prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the final map.

71. Per Mitigation Measure AES-1, all streetlights shall include shields and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light and to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the development.

Public Works Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Conditions

72. As detailed in the Final EIR for the project, the Developer is required to off-set the Project’s water demand of 37.04 AFY. The Project’s landscape water demand is estimated at 17.16 acrefeet per year, which is within the capacity of the existing on-site well. Due to the new potable water demand on the City system in the amount of 19.8 AFY, the Developer shall implement an alternative innovative method of mitigating water use as allowed under Section

13.12.030(B) of the SHMC and/or Appendix J of the EIR. The required improvements to offset water demand are as follows: Identify and implement offsite improvements that reduce water loss from the public water distribution system and/or identify and implement offsite improvements that result in a net increase in potable water availability equivalent to 19.8 AFY, or a combination of these. No building permit may be issued until the City has confirmed that the Developer has completed the approved measures and such measures have been accepted by the City, or Developer has entered into a public improvement agreement with the City to ensure the completion of such improvements and provided security in one of the forms described in Government Code section 66499 in an amount equal to the estimated cost of construction of the proposed offsite improvements as determined, or reviewed and approved, by the City Engineer. Any public improvements shall be constructed to St. Helena Public Works Construction Standards whenever applicable.

73. Any modifications to the existing well other than the installation or maintenance of pumping and storage equipment and connection to the onsite irrigation water distribution system, shall require a permit per section 13.16.060 of the St Helena Municipal Code.

74. The Final Map shall include easements to provide for the installation of the private onsite water system connected to onsite well.

75. All homes and the proposed multi-family parcel shall be served by the onsite well for landscaping and other outdoor water use. Only interior fixtures may be served by City of St.

Helena domestic water.

76. All parcels must be connected to the internal irrigation well for outside uses, including landscape irrigation and exterior hose bibs.

77. The Applicant shall make written application to the City of St. Helena in conformance with Chapter 13.04 of the St. Helena Municipal Code for Water Service to the new parcels.

78. The applicant/owner shall be required to install water mains and service lines to serve the project parcels with City water. All water mains and lines within the public right of way shall be constructed in conformance with City standards.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

14 79. The applicant/ owner shall make written application to the City of St. Helena for annexation to the Sewer District and for Sewer Service to the new parcels in conformance with Chapter

13.20.070 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

80. All public water and sewer mains must be located in public right-of-way wherever possible.

Where public water and sewer mains must be located on private property, all necessary easement dedications must be made part of the final map or by separate document (if outside of the boundaries of the final map) prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City.

81. Sewer grades must be designed such that ultimate finished floors are a minimum of 12” above upstream manhole or clean-out rim elevations. Inadequate elevation differentials or grade on private laterals, as determined by the City, must be mitigated by either raising finished floor elevation(s) or installing privately owned and operated sewer lift station(s) with grinder/ejector pump(s) on site.

82. All water improvements shall conform to the City standards.

83. The existing 10 ft. public waterline easement shall be abandoned by separate document once the relocated water line has been built and is operational.

84. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, the existing 12-inch waterline running through the development shall be relocated to Starr Avenue by the applicant/developer. At the westerly end of Starr Avenue, the line shall be reconnected to the existing 12-inch waterline outside north of Lot 46.

85. The proposed well and appurtenances (pump, etc.) for this development shall be owned and operated by the Homeowner’s Association for this development. The well shall supply irrigation water for all landscaping of common areas and on all lots within the subdivision to limit use of domestic water produced by the City. Signage shall be provided on each lot warning of the use of well water and that the well water shall not be used for domestic purposes.

Piping for all irrigation water from the well shall be purple pipe (same as used for recycled water). Also, disclosure statements (either through disclosures as required by the Department of Real Estate or on the final map) shall be provided to all property owners notifying them about use of well water and statements warning that well water should not be used for domestic purposes.

86. The sewer easement on lot 21 shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and shall be located entirely within Lot 21. Statements shall be included on the final map precluding any permanent structures from being constructed within this easement. The sewer line shall be connected to the existing sewer main in Paseo Grand Drive.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

15 Public Works Drainage Improvements Conditions

87. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all City-required improvements related to storm water for the project shall be installed by the project developer at its expense. Drainage improvements shall be designed and funded by the developer in accordance with the Design Criteria utilizing the rationale method and any applicable adopted City drainage plans.

88. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval, drainage plans and hydraulic calculations prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer.

The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following conditions before and after development:
• Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps and drainage courses.

89. Post-development flows leaving the site shall not exceed pre-development flows.

90. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide to the City an analysis of the capacity and condition of existing drainage facilities downstream of the development (including any detention/retention ponds), including recommendations for off-site drainage improvements, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Site grading and drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans.

91. The 100-year overflow and pipeline easement on Lot 25 shall be dedicated on the final map and language shall be included on the final map prohibiting any permanent structures (including garages, sheds, swimming pools, etc.) from being constructed within the easement, as well as provisions (including requirement regarding grading) that ensure that Lot 25 remain in a condition such that it allows relief for the 100-year storm overflows.

92. Prior to Final Map recordation, the developer shall obtain a construction easement from the City over Parcel 009-030-019 to construct the drainage improvements, wall, and fence on lots 5-20. The drainage ditch on Lots 5-20 shall be privately owned and maintained.

Public Works Final Map Conditions

93. A final map, as defined in the State Subdivision Map Act, shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer, showing all parcels, rights-of-way, and easement(s) shall be filed with the City Engineers Office. The final map shall be substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map and all applicable conditions of approval. The final map is not valid until it has been approved and recorded.

94. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall secure all necessary rights-of-way and easements for both onsite and offsite improvements. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated on the map or provided by separate instrument. The developer shall prepare all necessary legal descriptions and deeds. Offers of dedication shall be either via easement or fee title).

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

16 95. The applicant shall transmit by certified mail a copy of the conditionally approved Tentative Map together with a copy of Section 66436 of the State Subdivision Map Act to each public entity or public utility that is an easement holder of record. Written compliance shall be submitted to the City of St. Helena

96. The final map shall not be approved prior to approval of the Subdivision Improvement Plans.

97. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall either complete required improvements in accordance with the approved improvement plans or enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

98. Abandonment of existing 10-foot public water easement crossing the property shall be included on the final map or by separate document.

99. The unnumbered lot between Lots 3 and 4 as shown on the Tentative Map shall be included as part of Lot 52 and shall not be a separate lot.

Public Works Construction Conditions
100. No grading or other construction shall be performed until the improvement plans have been approved and signed by the City Engineer. Encroachment Permits and Building Permits will not be issued prior to the approval of the improvement plans. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work within the City’s rights of way.
101. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found necessary by the City Engineer.
102. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent has been submitted and received by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. A copy of the project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan shall be submitted to the City. 103. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Napa County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately.

Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 104. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made.
105. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and/or geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

17 geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity. Additionally, if field conditions warrant installation of any subdrains, the location, size and construction details must be provided to the City for review and approval prior to construction. 106. Prior to placing the final lift of asphalt, all public sanitary sewer lines shall be video inspected at the expense of the contractor/developer. All video tapes shall be submitted to the City. If any inadequacies are found, they shall be repaired prior to the placement of the final lift of asphalt.
107. All streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks or other public facilities damaged in the course of construction associated with this development shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City at the Developer’s expense. 108. The applicant shall submit a proposed haul route for all trucking associated with this project to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 109. Dust control must be maintained to the City’s satisfaction. 110. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Public Works Subdivision Final and/or Release of Securities Conditions:
111. All public improvements shown on the Improvement Plans shall be completed and accepted by the City prior to release of any security posted.
112. All punch-list work shall be completed, and any outstanding inspection fees or other charges shall be paid prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy or prior to acceptance of the improvements, at the discretion of the City.
113. Video inspections shall be made of all storm drain and sewer lines installed by developer as set forth in the approved improvement plans to ensure that they are clean of dirt, rocks, debris or other material. Contractor/developer shall be responsible for cleaning and flushing all storm drain lines prior to acceptance by the City. If flushing of the storm drain system is required, the contractor/developer shall put sufficient plugs/filters in place to ensure that any debris, mud or other material is not washed beyond the piping system in the subdivision nor into any natural water course. A copy of the DVD of all storm drain lines shall be delivered and reviewed by the City prior to acceptance. This condition shall be satisfied prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy or prior to acceptance of the improvements, at the discretion of the City.
114. Developer shall provide sufficient security guaranteeing the public improvements for a period of one year.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

18 115. A complete set of As-Built or Record improvement plans showing all substantial changes from the original plans shall be certified by the Civil Engineer of record and submitted to the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the public improvements. 116. Prior to acceptance of the public improvements, the developer shall provide a written statement signed by his or her engineer certifying that they observed the work during construction and that site grading and all private site improvements have been completed in accordance with the improvement plans approved by the City Engineer. 117. Prior to acceptance of the public improvements, the developer shall provide a written statement signed by his or her geotechnical engineer certifying that they observed the work and reviewed testing results, and that all of work was performed in accordance with the recommendations included in the Soils Report or other recommendations necessitated by field conditions.

Fire Department Conditions
118. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer is responsible for fire hydrants to be included and installed within the development (number, location and spacing) to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Locations of the fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of the final map. 119. Plans submitted for building permit shall exhibit compliance with the current St. Helena Fire Code, as adopted and codified in St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36. 120. Prior to issuance of future building permits, all construction plans for homes and other structures shall include fire sprinklers as required by the City of St. Helena Fire Department. 121. One hour minimum fire-resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10’ of property boundary is required. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy.
122. Any gates installed to control vehicular access to a property are required to be setback 30- feet from the property line and/or edge of pavement, whichever is greater. No vehicle gates may be installed without Fire Department and Public Works Department review and explicit approval.
123. Access to the levee road is restricted for public use and only granted to emergency vehicles and emergency egress for Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park residents. Signage prohibiting its use by the public is recommended. Public access will be granted at the discretion of the Authority Having Jurisdiction during emergencies/evacuations.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #5.11.

From: Isobel luria <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 2:24 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Hunter Project FEIR and Tentative Subdivision Map Comment for Planning Commission
To the St. Helena Planning Commission: Chairman Ponte et al The Planning Commission is now being asked to approve the FEIR regarding the “Hunter Project,” which includes a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM), that purports to describe how the

16.9 acre property will be subdivided. The nomenclature Tentative Subdivision Map is misleading: as defined in the Glossary of the CA Institute for Local Government, this is “a map showing the design of a proposed subdivision of five or more lots. It includes existing conditions in and around the subdivision. This is the stage when a city or county must place all the restrictions it deems necessary on the map…and additional conditions or substantive design changes cannot be required once a Tentative Subdivision Map is approved. “ When examining the TSM found in the FEIR, it is incomplete. The FEIR indicates the intention of the developer to create 51 lots with single-family, market rate residences, 11 of which would contain ADUs. It also states that “ the applicant intends to ultimately develop a 3.4 acre parcel with 25 attached, multifamily, residential units.” While the area of the map containing the 51 plots has some detail, the multifamily section lacks any detail: it is simply labeled 25 unit, multifamily housing. This is of particular concern as in the DEIR, the 3.4 acre parcel, although lacking any detail, is labeled “future 25 apartment units (affordable housing).” It is a known fact that St. Helena is in need of more affordable housing as many people who work in and around the city can no longer afford to live here. While the FEIR mentions an affordable housing component, it is not indicated on the map and this obfuscation is confusing be it deliberate or accidental. An affordable housing component is exactly the sort of condition that should be included in a TSM as well as the relevant details such as placement of structures, set-backs, and so forth.

Furthermore, and I quote from the St. Helena Planning Department report “ approval of the tentative subdivision map would only provide the subdividing of the property. Future applications would define the exact development that would take place on lots created by the subdivision.” This is not the way the process is supposed to work. The TSM being presented for approval should contain all the conditions and details which the City requires. As it now stands, the City is being asked to approve a largely undefined project and “additional conditions and substantive design changes cannot be required, once a tentative subdivision map is approved.” As far as Affordable Housing is concerned, while there is verbiage about the intent to provide some, the fact that it is not specified on the TSM should render this map unacceptable. In addition, such a lack of detail weakens the City’s ability to negotiate with the applicant in the future.

Agenda Item #5.11.

To summarize, the Planning Department is advocating that the City grant approval of a subdivision with only a vague idea of what the applicants will actually agree to construct. Numerous residents have clearly expressed their reservations about this project. Once this FEIR and the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved, the City will have much less ability to exert control over this controversial development. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission not to approve the FEIR with its poorly defined Tentative Subdivision Map and not to send it to the City Council for final approval.

Sincerely,
Isobel Luria
Starr Avenue,
St. Helena
Agenda Item #5.11.

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org February 7, 2023
City of St. Helena Planning Commission
Vintage Hall Board Room – Second Floor
465 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Public Comment Re: Item 5.1: Public Hearing - Hunter Subdivision Project Dear Chair Ponte and Commissioners,
The Napa County Bicycle Coalition (NCBC) represents over 2,000 members and supporters throughout Napa County in advocating to make riding a bicycle in our communities safe, convenient, and accessible for riders of all ages and abilities. Since 2008, the Napa County Bicycle Coalition has worked with local organizations, businesses, elected officials, and the public to align our transportation infrastructure with the needs of cyclists and other active transportation users.

We were disappointed to learn that our suggestions, submitted via our November 2022 public comment to the Planning Commission, have not been integrated into this project.

We requested a Class I shared-use path along the north side of Adams Street to Library Lane, widened sidewalks on Starr Avenue to at least five feet, and traffic-calming measures on both Adams Street and Starr Avenue.

The response to our comment (Attachment 20 in the staff report) refers to the Circulation chapter and Figure 5.5 of the St. Helena General Plan, which the City regards as its official policy on future bicycle facilities. This chapter states: “The City envisions that each of the ‘Future Roadway Extensions’, as identified in Figure 5.3, would at a minimum consist of a bicycle/pedestrian path equivalent to a ‘Class I Bike Path’” (page 5-20). The extensions of Adams Street and Starr Avenue, included in the Hunter Subdivision project, are in these “Future Roadway Extensions” (Figure 5.3).

Furthermore, Figure 5.5 depicts both extensions of Adams and Starr as proposed alignments for the Vine Trail, a Class I path. While the alignment for the Vine Trail has changed, Figure 5.5 includes Class I paths in its purview and does not limit Adams and Starr to Class II bike lanes. While we agree that Class II bike lanes would be sensible with traffic-calming on Starr Avenue for continuity with existing facilities, we maintain that a Class I path should be included on Adams Street, for the reasons outlined in our November comment.

Agenda Item #5.11.

PO Box 5157 | Napa, CA 94581 | (707) 258-6318 | www.napabike.org The response to our comment did not address our call for traffic-calming measures on Adams and Starr as part of this project. We reiterate that speeding is already a significant traffic safety concern in St. Helena, particularly on roads designed comparably to Adams and Starr. Residents report that Starr Avenue is used as a cutthrough street to avoid SR 29 and Silverado Trail traffic and experiences high volumes of speeding motorists. More broadly in St. Helena, a group of citizens concerned with speeding on existing City streets has formed and began meeting with the City Police Department to identify actions to reduce speeding. The City approved a contract with GHD to address traffic safety on Madrona and Spring after citizen reports of unsafe motorist behaviors on those streets, namely speeding. Through our Safe Routes to School safety evaluation efforts and several separate conversations with community members, parents in St. Helena have expressed their fear of allowing their children to walk and bike to school due to motorist behaviors such as speeding. The City has the opportunity to greatly reduce the risk of speeding motorists on the future extensions of Starr and Adams from the beginning by requesting that the developer include trafficcalming on these streets.

We reiterate our asks from our November comment letter for a Class I shared-use path on Adams Street, widened sidewalks on Starr Avenue, and traffic-calming measures on both Adams and Starr in order to address the VMT impact of this project and better align this development with City goals around climate, public health and safety, and active transportation.

Should you have any questions about any of the above recommendations, please contact Carlotta Sainato at (707) 258-6317 or [email protected]. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Carlotta Sainato
Program Manager
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 1:32 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Hunter Project; Planning Commission 2/7/23 Public comment.

Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Tracy McBride <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 1:18 PM
To: cityclerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Randy Hussong <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Hunter Project; Planning Commission 2/7/23 Dear Chair Ponte, Commissioners and CIty Staff,
Regarding the Hunter development project:

1. In order to mitigate evacuation problems at the structurally degraded and undersized Pope Street bridge, an Adams Street Bridge to SIlverado Trail must be included for reference in this project. We are not seeing a clear coordination of an Adams St extension to the Trail project (obviously to be paid for and completed by the CIty of St Helena not this developer), and how this new bridge will coordinate with the Hunter development project. A structurally sound bridge must be completed for evacuation and traffic circulation. The Hunter project is now the tipping point to complete this traffic flow, which was always intended. How is the coordination, planning, and schedule factored into the Hunter project? These are two side-by-side major projects and now is the time for planning so costs of an Adams Street bridge are not negatively impacted.

2. We are not seeing evidence that water neutrality can be achieved. At a time when the City of St Helena is pushing residents to pay an extremely high rate for water, retrofitting toilets and water conservation at 50+ new Agenda Item #5.11.

2 residences will not make this project water neutral. The only way to make this project water neutral is for more source water, and how is this developer paying/contributing to that source?

3. The segregation of low income housing adjacent to existing dense apartments is equivalent to red-lining and putting all the low income residents together, separated from the other homes. As you know red-lining is illegal, and just not right.

4. What guarantees are there that in 50 years, the residents of this development will not be suing the city for allowing their homes to be built in a flood zone, because this area has flooded? A successful lawsuit would be paid by each resident of this city.

These are the key issues that the Planning Commission must address in clear and plain language -- for the residents of St Helena -- before the Hunter Project can proceed to the City Council.

Tracy McBride, Randy Hussong
Phone: 510-517-6202
email: [email protected]
Agenda Item #5.11.

From: Kathleen Guneratne <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 5:49 PM
To: John Ponte <[email protected]>; Autumn Anderson <[email protected]>; Marika Rothfeld <[email protected]>; Rosaura Segura <[email protected]>; Christopher Warner <[email protected]>; Anil Comelo <[email protected]>; Maya DeRosa <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Hunter Project- Opposed - Public Comment Dear Planning Commission:

Commissioner John Ponte, Chair, [email protected] Commissioner Autumn Anderson, [email protected] Commissioner Marika Rothfeld, [email protected] Commissioner Rosaura Segura, [email protected] Commissioner Christopher Warner, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report, File #PL10-040 Dear City Planning Commission:

As a resident and homeowner at 1370 Grove Court, I write to voice my strong opposition to the planned Hunter subdivision. Even in its scaled back version, the Environmental Impact Report gives me great concern that this will occasion irreparable harm to the environment, and Native American burial grounds. In particular, especially given the drought, I am concerned that the proposed findings that requires, at the a minimum additional analysis of a significant environmental issue facing all of California, sustainable groundwater management.

I am proud to live a town that respects nature, the environment and sustainable development and prioritizes affordable groundwater for all its residents.

I urge you not to approve this report and this project. It will cause irreparable harm to the neighborhood and the environment.

Regards,
Kathleen Guneratne
1370 Grove Court
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #5.11.

JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
February 6, 2023
Via Email:

Commissioner John Ponte, Chair, [email protected] Commissioner Autumn Anderson, [email protected] Commissioner Marika Rothfeld, [email protected] Commissioner Rosaura Segura, [email protected] Commissioner Christopher Warner, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report, File #PL10-040 Dear Chair Ponte, Commissioners, City Manager Comelo, Community Development Director DeRosa:

As you may recall, we represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents who are extremely concerned by the City’s actions with respect to the referenced project. We wrote on October 31, 2022, identifying several failures of the project to consider or properly analyze specific impacts of the project, including most notably the proper analysis of the project’s water availability and groundwater use.

It appears that the FEIR has been revised since the prior version was published in October 2022. The FEIR is now dated as January 2023. However, no redline was provided and it is unclear what was changed; but it is clear that the document attached to the February 2023 Staff Report is not the FEIR which has been posted on the City’s website.

What is clear is that the project remains inconsistent with both the previous and current general plans, and the environmental analysis has patent defects. Attachment 17 of the Staff Report for the February 7, 2023, Planning Commission meeting attempts to respond to our October 31, 2022 letter. (Our October 31 letter and Attachment 17 are attached for your convenience.) Yet the response entirely fails to grapple with the actual issues, and reaches conclusions directly at odds with the evidence in the record.

Water Neutrality
The response in Attachment 17 ignores the basic fact that significant new information has been made available which contradicts the EIR’s conclusions, including state mandated changes of County policy require reconsideration of the proposed water use. Most importantly, and in reverse order of Attachment 17’s attempt at a response, Attachment 17’s paragraph 5 relies on outdated information. The cited Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

information predatesthe information published by Napa County in 2022, which wasset out in our October 31 letter. That is, significant new information contradicting the basis for the project’s impact on groundwater has been made available that has not been analyzed or considered in the project’s EIR.

The significant new information from 2022 is that “Several wells located near the Napa Valley Subbasin margin in the northeastern Napa area, southwestern Yountville area, and southeastern St. Helena area show periods of groundwater decline during times of drought.” 1 Simply ignoring this evidence of an
increase in the severity of the project’s impacts on groundwater resources is not reasonable.

In response to those groundwater issues and as required by SGMA and the recently-approved Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan,2 as set out in our October 31 letter, Napa County has substantially reduced the groundwater allocation to all wells. Although DEIR Appendix L, the September 9, 2021, Well Capacity Study Memorandum emphasizes that “it is recommended that the annual groundwater use conform with County policy.” (Most curiously, DEIR Appendix L has been omitted from the February 2023 Staff Report.)
Attachment 17 ignores that this policy has changed. Attachment 17’s continued position that the onsite well will offset approximately 17 acre-feet of demand is no longer consistent with County policy – rather, only approximately 5 acre-feet can be provided by the well under the new allocation of 0.3 acre-feet per acre.
3 Attachment 17 simply ignores this; and thus its position that 17 acre-feet of water will be offset by the well is plainly erroneous and contrary to the evidence.

In short, the project needs to come up with an additional 12 acre-feet of water from somewhere else. It cannot do so from the on-site well. Attachment 17’s reference in paragraph 3 to the water neutrality analysis in the staff report and Master Response #2 similarly ignore this fundamental flaw.

Even with that failing aside, the water neutrality analysis that credits more than 17 acre-feet of water use to “groundwater” as opposed to the City’s water (and thus subject to its water neutrality ordinance) appears to ignore that the project site well may be drawing from the same basin that supplies the City’s wells. As such, there does not appear to be an analysis of well interference which would suggest that the onsite well is actually any different source of water than the City’s wells. Thus, the project’s water neutrality analysis should have included the entirety of the project’s water use, without any exclusion for the well. This failure to address significant new information regarding changes to County groundwater policy driven by the state mandated SGMA is directly related to the severity of the project’s impact on groundwater resources and requires additional analysis. 1 (Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Summary, Executive Summary (Jan. 2022) p. 2, availableat https:// www.countyofnapa.org/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 23549/ GSP_Executive-SummaryAbstract?bidId=.) 2 See https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/preview/124; https://www.countyofnapa.org/3084/GroundwaterSustainability-Plan. 3 (See Napa County Well Permit Standards FAQ, available at https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25906/Well-Permit-Standards-FAQs---15-July-2022.) Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

Traffic
We also noted the failure to consider the extensive evidence in the record that the project’s impacts on traffic are improperly analyzed and not mitigated despite available solutions being previously proposed.

Although the applicant suggests only vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and not level of service (LOS) should be the standard, the only traffic study provided focuses on the latter.

Yet the EIR completely fails to thoroughly analyze or mitigate VMT. The DEIR’s analysis wrongly uses an Affordable Housing percentage of 28.73%, when the project currently provides for zero. (DEIR 3.14-26, Staff Report p. 721.) But then the DEIR, without apparently relying on any traffic experts, essentially concludes that though the City has not adopted VMT significance thresholds, that the project is indeed significant in its impact, but that there is no mitigation available. This suggestion is directly contrary to the general plan itself, which provides for improvements to the City’s street network that would lessen the length of the project’s trips – particularly connection of Adams to Silverado Trail. (DEIR 3.14-19, Staff Report p. 714.) No analysis however was conducted; though the only traffic study that was prepared indicated that the project should be required to make improvements to the road network. Those conditions appear to have been ignored. In short, there is simply no credible evidence in the record to support the finding that reasonable mitigations or changes have been incorporated into the project to account for the significant impact of VMT, let alone LOS.

Indeed, Attachment 17’sresponse to our prior comments ignores the extensive history of this application, including the operative traffic study, wherein it was previously identified that road improvements were necessary mitigation. The project was essentially tabled for nearly a decade for this reason.

The Traffic Study (DEIR Exhibit K) – which the DEIR appears to suggest now applies to analysis of the general plan rather than CEQA – repeatedly failed to use reasonable assumptions for the project, substantially undercounts the expected traffic increase, and does not comport its analysis with the description or stated intended use of the project. But whether or not the traffic study is used in consideration with CEQA’s transportation element, the DEIR’s Greenhouse Gas analysis does depend on the traffic study. (DEIR 3.7-27, Staff Report p. 500.) As such, the flaws in the traffic study are a CEQA issue as well as a general plan issue, and the operational Greenhouse Gas analysis is inadequate.

For example, the 11 Accessory Dwelling Units, which are touted as providing additional workforce housing, are allocated only 4 AM Peak Hour outbound trips. Moreover, reasonable assumptions would suggest the multi-family units to lead to more trips for the residents of those units given the nature of the local workforce.

The traffic study fails to account for the unique nature of the Napa Valley economy and local transportation demands, and significantly understates the impact of the project. It also ignores the reality of life in Saint Helena. For example, the traffic report apparently incredibly claims that the 87 new units will result in only two (2) people driving their children to school by crossing Main at Adams – the main access to the project. And only one (1) will go pick their child up. (Traffic Study Figure 8, February 2023 Staff Report p. 2007.) And it ignores the significant impact that the project would have on evacuation routes in the event of an emergency.

Yet the traffic report also shows a nearly-quarter mile backup at the Pope Street bridge by 2040. (Id. p. 2031.) The report admits “the project would be inconsistent with the City’s LOS policies at the Silverado Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

Trail/Pope Street intersection.” (Id. at 2039.) And, shamefully, the Traffic Report essentially throws up its hands in acknowledging that improvements to Silverado Trail and Pope Street are necessary; but because they might be hard, nothing can be done about it. (Id.) Despite its failings the Traffic Report does still include several required mitigation measures and improvements that are recommended to address traffic issues. (Id. at 2038-39.) Yet it appears none have been incorporated into the project. The project thus plainly is inconsistent with the general plan, whether or not LOS is considered as a CEQA element.

The suggestion that a statement of overriding considerations can be adopted now without attending to the previously identified issues is contrary to law. Prior to adopting a statement of overriding considerations, a finding must be made that the impact is unavoidable and that changes or alterations have been included to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts.4 That finding must be based on substantial evidence in the record.5 However, the record of the project, dating back more than a decade, is replete with evidence that traffic impacts of the project can indeed be mitigated, and failure to do so is contrary to the applicable general plan principles.

Both the above-noted improvements to Silverado Trail/Pope Street and the planned connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail have been repeatedly identified as mitigations to the impacts and risks of the project. Further, connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail would substantially lessen project vehicle miles traveled (VMT), allowing project traffic direct access to a major thoroughfare without the additional distance traveled through City streets. Because such improvements are specifically contemplated in the City’s long-term plans, but neither properly analyzed nor included as mitigation measures, failure to require the project to carry out this immediately-adjacent improvement that would directly mitigate the project’s impacts on VMT (and LOS) is contrary to the evidence in the record and clearly inconsistent with the General Plan.

Public Safety
These failings to mitigate the project’s impacts on the road network underscore its failure to seriously analyze its substantial danger to the public, including wildfire and flood risks. Although the EIR notes that the property actually burned during the Glass Fire, there is no other acknowledgment that the property currently serves as critical firebreak for the rest of the City. The Board of Forestry’s recently-adopted 2021 State Fire Regulations emphasize the need to preserve and implement firebreaks in projects.6 Removing this critical firebreak is a wildfire impact that is not even acknowledged, let alone analyzed and mitigated.

And that risk is substantially worsened by the failure to address the needed road improvements. Without connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail and the mitigation of the Silverado Trail/Pope Street intersection conditions, the project presents substantial threats to public safety.7 The project lacks safe emergency access and egress and would worsen existing emergency evacuation times for residents of the 4 P.R.C. § 21081.
5 CEQA Guideline 15093.
6 The project is not technically subject to CAL FIRE’s jurisdiction, but the agency’s emphasis on firebreaks is highly instructive and persuasive.
7 E.g., DEIR App. K, p. 15 (February 2023 Staff Report p. 1989) (Finding of the current Pope Street bridge: “emergency access can be impeded due to congestion along the bridge, creating difficulty for services to be provided to areas along Silverado Trail.”)
Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

City. The project creates specific threats to public safety by failing to mitigate its everyday traffic impacts and ignoring the potential for loss of life and property that could occur as a result of the increased traffic on already overburden public roads during a wildfire.

So too does the potential construction of housing behind a levee that appears to be substandard and poorly maintained. As noted by other commenters, the City has repeatedly failed to maintain the levee, yet is financially responsible for the massive liability a failure would cause. As the project is proposed behind a levee for which the City is entirely responsible, any failure thereof would result in ruinous liability to the City. Unless the applicant is conditioned to post a security for the liability that it is seeking to take on by developing in a high-risk location, the financial risk of the project cannot be concluded to warrant a statement of overriding considerations. As the project presents a real threat to the safety of the public, itshould be rejected irrespective of any other considerations -- whether or not it technically complies with the City’s zoning code or general plan (which as we have noted separately, it does not.) (Gov. C. § 65589.5(j)(1)(A) (“The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved.”)) Failure to provide Affordable Housing
A statement of overriding considerations requires balancing of, inter alia, the economic benefits of the project with its demands on the environment. However, the applicant hasseemingly withdrawn any intent to make the project affordable. There is no affordable housing agreement to consider that might balance the benefits of the project to the pressing need for affordable housing.8 Without a proposed affordability plan to consider, there is no basis to conclude that the project will provide the needed affordable housing that might warrant a statement of overriding considerations. (And this does not even begin to address the discriminatory design of the project, that proposes to squeeze a large number of multifamily units into a corner of the project, while building oversized lots that do not comply with the density minimum on the remainder of the project.) Statements of overrider consideration are required to explain in detail how and why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts and why the City is willing to accept such impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15093). We simply see no facts in the record that would offset the water, traffic, public safety, liability and General Plan consistency impacts created by this project.

Conclusion
The Saint Helena Citizensfor a Sustainable Future wantthe City to succeed and grow. But to do so, projects must be well designed, carefully thought through, and provide a benefit to the City and its residents, not the financial aims of an out-of-town developer.

As such, the project should be redesigned and conditioned, to provide at least the following:
• True water neutrality
• Connection of Adams Street to Silverado Trail
• Improvement of Silverado Trail/Pope Street Intersection 8 As noted separately, to the extent an affordable housing agreement is to be proposed in connection with the project, it must be considered concurrently in order to meaningfully balance the economic and social impacts of the project. Without that, any purported benefit would be purely speculative and lack substantial evidence.

Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

• Financial security to the City in the event of a failure of the levee • An affordable housing agreement that actually provides for affordable housing in the project, not undefined funding of non-existent future projects
• A design that provides for consistent density and style of housing across the project; not a noncompliant subdivision of large homes, with an overcrowded multifamily parcel to boost its density.

All of these items are necessary to make the project safe, sound, and to truly warrant a statement of overriding considerations. Yet, asthe full confines of the project remain unknown, it is impossible to reach a reasonable conclusion on the current record. Given the applicant has had extensive opportunities to provide the required information, the project should not just be delayed again; it should be denied.

Sincerely,

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC
Joshua S. Devore
JSD:sol
cc: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #5.11.

JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
October 31, 2022
Via Email:

Commissioner John Ponte, Chair, [email protected] Commissioner Autumn Anderson, [email protected] Commissioner Marika Rothfeld, [email protected] Commissioner Rosaura Segura, [email protected] Commissioner Christopher Warner, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report, File #PL10-040 Dear Chair Ponte, Commissioners, City Manager Comelo, Community Development Director DeRosa:

We represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents who are extremely concerned by the City’s actions with respect to the referenced project.

Numerous members of the Citizens group have individually commented on the project in the past. They write now collectively due to what appears to be an imminent failure of the City to recognize and adhere to recent groundwater requirements.

Before the Planning Commission is a request to certify the Final EIR and approve a Tentative Map for the Hunter Subdivision project. There have been extensive comments on the failures of the EIR to consider basic detrimental aspect of the project. The Final EIR responses have failed to provide a good-faith effort at full disclosure by ignoring, distorting, or giving short-shrift to those comments. As a reminder, this project was tabled nearly a decade ago, in part due to a determined need to improve the Pope Street/Silverado Trail intersection as a result of the project. Obviously, the applicant hopes that has simply been forgotten, or that the City will ignore its level of service (LOS) analysis.

Though VMT analysis is indeed the latest requirement, the project is reviewed under the 1993 General Plan. LOS must be considered per General Plan policies 5.4.1 and 5.4.2. And while there is also an analysis of some portions of the current general plan for comparison, some of the most relevant plan 1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

policies are omitted, such as LU2.61 and CR1.42 The traffic study acknowledges the significant impact on traffic at Main and Pope Street, but ignores the worsening traffic at Pope/Silverado.3 That said, we will not restate all the issues with the EIR here, as they have been raised by more than 100 commenters and are too numerous to list. We do note now however one glaring problem in the proposed findings that requires, at the very least, additional analysis of a significant environmental issue facing all of California, sustainable groundwater management.

The project is for the subdivision of a 16.92 acre property. The EIR analyzed its proposed groundwater use of an on-site well of up to 17.16 acre-feet (AF) per year to provide for all on-site irrigation of public and private landscaping, as well as a small remnant of an existing vineyard. (DEIR 3.9-

40.) (The EIR also fancifully suggests that the remainder of the project will be water neutral, despite its demand for nearly 20 AFY beyond that produced by the onsite well. But that fantasy is not even the instant problem.)
The proposed finding regarding the project’s consistency with the Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is contrary to the evidence. Proposed Hydrology and Water Quality finding I. 7. states:

The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The County works with local jurisdictions, including the City, to sustainably manage the Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin in compliance with SGMA. In its most recent assessment of conditions, the County, through its technical consultant, determined that the Subbasin is not exhibiting significant impacts with regard to the applicable sustainability indicators defined by SGMA, including lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater in storage, degradation of groundwater quality, and depletion of interconnected surface waters.
(Staff Report p. 50-51 (emphasis added.))
This is inconsistent with the Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan’s (GSP) recent assessment, published in January 2022:

Groundwater levels reflect the amount [of] groundwater in storage and the movement of groundwater. Monitoring data exhibit generally stable long-term trends, although conditions are largely dependent on seasonal precipitation input.

Several wells located near the Napa Valley Subbasin margin in the northeastern Napa area, southwestern Yountville area, and southeastern St. Helena area show 1 “LU2.6 Allow residential density at the higher end of the permitted range for single family development within Medium and High Density Residential Land Use designations as long as the development character of the single family area is maintained, including lot widths, orientation to street, building heights, onsite parking, traffic, and noise, among other considerations.” (2019 General Plan.) 2 “CR1.4 Develop and use, in addition to intersection level of service standards, performance measures that consider all road users to determine transportation impacts of new development.” (2019 General Plan.) 3 DEIR Appendix K, p. 36 Table 7 (emphasizing worsening delay at Main Street/Pope Street - Mitchell Drive, but ignoring change in AM Peak LOS at Silverado Trail/Pope Street from LOS C to LOS E.) 1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

periods of groundwater decline during times of drought. Continued monitoring of groundwater levels will be important to evaluate future hydrologic and climatic influences.
(Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Summary, Executive Summary (Jan. 2022) p. 2, available at https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/23549/GSP_Executive-SummaryAbstract?bidId=.) Indeed, while the GSP consists of a dozen separate sections, plus an Executive Summary and an Executive Summary Abstract, this critical contradictory information is found on the top of the second page of the Executive Summary Abstract –the simplest and first document of the GSP. (See https:// www.countyofnapa.org/3218/GSP-Sections.) It is indeed one of the most prominent findings of the GSP that wells in southeastern Saint Helena are showing evidence of groundwater decline during this ongoing drought.

Thus, the proposed contrary finding on this critical matter not only is not supported by substantial evidence, it is directly contrary to the most recent information.

As a result of these findings, Napa County has recently substantially revised downward the allocation of groundwater to subbasin, valley-floor properties. Although such properties were previously allocated 1 acre-foot of water per acre, per year, going forward all uses will be limited to 0.3 AF/acre/ year. This includes both existing and proposed wells. Any existing well usage above that level is prohibited to increase above its current net usage. (See Napa County Well Permit Standards FAQ, available at https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25906/Well-Permit-StandardsFAQs---15-July-2022.) New domestic wells outside the subbasin may use 2 AF/year total (not per acre), and new public water supply wells may use their parcel specific recharge.4 But the well proposed to deliver the 17+ AF is not a new well.

Although the project is conditioned to require offsetting its Municipal water demand of 19.8 AF/year, no recognition of the GSP Subbasin limitations of groundwater use is made for the additional

17.16 AF/year to be pumped from the onsite well. The EIR does disclose that the well is currently inoperable meaning that the existing baseline for groundwater use is zero (DEIR 3.9-42 (Staff Report p. 594). As such the new water use proposed would be required to be limited to no greater than 0.3 AF/AC per year to comply with the GSP sustainable groundwater limitations.

However, there is no discussion of this GSP limitation and its potential impacts on rural residences and agriculture let alone any mitigation proposed or required. Instead, DEIR Appendix L, the September 9, 2021 Well Capacity Study Memorandum, referenced the prior 1 AF/AC allotment that has been reduced by 70%. Yet that memorandum emphasizes that “it is recommended that the annual groundwater use conform with County policy.”(DEIR Appx. L, p.1 (emphasis in original.) (No well interference analysis appears to have been conducted either, despite the well being within 1,500 feet of the Stonebridge wells.)
4 WAA Tier 1: Water Use for Napa County, available at
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25905/Well-Permit-Standards-Applicability-Tables---15- July-2022
1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

In sum, while the project and its EIR focused on water neutrality for its municipal use, it failed to adequately evaluate onsite groundwater pumping, the GSP current basin conditions, pumping limitations and the resulting significant impact on the environment.

Very truly yours,

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY
Joshua S. Devore
JSD/sol
cc: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney, [email protected]
St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future
Maria Villegas
Sandra McCorkle
Ben Alderman
Elizabeth Alderman
Martha Angus
Dyan Beito
Richard Beito
Linda Brown
Ron Brown
Bernerd Buckley
Cindy Ford
John Ford
Gale Greisen
Sherri Kelly
Marina Lavagnino
Katie Leinen
Sandra Lowry
Isobel Luria
John Milliken
Ann Nevero
Jan Oddy
Anne Offord
Becky Palmisano
Dave Palmisano
Laura Pohlen
Patrick Pohlen
Laurence Schlatter
Rene Schlatter
Dave Valentine
Dave Wilkinson
1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

Attachment 17
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
DP&F Letter of Oct 31, 2022
On October 31, 2022, Joshua Devore sent a letter on behalf of Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future with comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed. The points raised in his letter are addressed below.

The letter isincluded as Attachment 17 to the February 7, 2023, Planning Commission staff report.

Response numbers below refer to paragraph numbers as shown in Attachment 16.

1. Analysis of Level of Service (LOS) is provided in this staff report.

2. As pointed out in this comment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) has, by state law, replaced LOS as a topic for analysis in an environmental impact report. An analysis of the project’s conformance with General Plan policies is provided in this staff report.

This comment also highlights an error in the traffic analysis (shown a change in the level of service at Pope/Silverado from LOS C to LOS E). This typographical error has been corrected (see Attachments 6l and 7 to this report) to show that, while a less than significant increase in delay at this intersection will occur, the LOS will remain at “C”.

3. The issue of conformance with the City’s water neutrality requirements is discussed in this staff report and in Master Response #2 to comments on the Draft EIR.

4. Please see Master Response #2 to comments on the Draft EIR. The onsite well will offset approximately 17 acre-feet of demand (reducing the use of City water by this amount).

The remaining 19.8 acre-foot offset is required by the conditions of approval to occur through the completion of one or more system improvements prior to issuance of building permits (see condition of approval #72).

5. City staff has carefully reviewed the issues associated with the use of the existing private well for onsite irrigation and outdoor uses, and has determined that the proposed use of the well is consistent with all applicable laws and programs, and that the proposed project is consistent with the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The source for the conclusion regarding impacts to the groundwater basin, as discussed in the Draft EIR (page 3.9-40), is the “Napa County Groundwater Sustainability – Annual Report for Water Year 2020, (April 2021)” prepared by Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers for Napa County in April 2021, which determined that, “… the Subbasin was found to continue to exhibit stable groundwater levels, even despite a very dry 2020 water year, as it has historically, and has continued to be operated within the sustainable yield of the Subbasin (of between 17,000 and 20,000 AFY)” and “... Annual storage changes have commonly 1 Agenda Item #5.11.

fluctuated between positive and negative values dating back to 1988; however, the median change is a positive increase of 1,784 AF, indicating that groundwater demands are not resulting in depletion of the aquifer.”

6. The impact of the use of the existing well for onsite irrigation is addressed in detail in the Draft EIR and in Master Response #2, which addresses similar comments on the Draft EIR.

7. Please see the response to comment 5.

8. Please see the response to comment 5.

9. Please see the response to comment 5. Staff’s conclusion is that the existing well is not subject to the pumping limits discussed in this comment.

10. Please see the response to comment 9.

11. Please see the response to comment 5. Regarding impactsto the City’s Stonebridge wells, note that the capacity study performed on the existing well found no reduction in groundwater levels during sustained pumping, indicating that impacts to the City’s Stonebridge wells would result from the use of the well for onsite landscaping and outdoor uses.
2 Agenda Item #5.11.

JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
February 6, 2023
Via Email:

Commissioner John Ponte, Chair, [email protected] Commissioner Autumn Anderson, [email protected] Commissioner Marika Rothfeld, [email protected] Commissioner Rosaura Segura, [email protected] Commissioner Christopher Warner, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 Dear Chair Ponte, Commissioners, City Manager Comelo, Community Development Director DeRosa:

As you may recall, we represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents. We wrote on October 31, 2022, regarding the blatant failures of the applicant to comply with the City’s zoning code. The Staff Report for the February 7, 2023, Special Meeting of the Planning Commission (“February 2023 Staff Report”) attempts to respond to that letter in Attachment 18. (Our October 31 letter and Attachment 18 are attached for your convenience.) The applicant has also made some minor adjustments to its submitted map in response.

Both the February 2023 Staff Report and the Applicant’s response clearly demonstrate approval would be improper.

Violation of Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.04.120
The Applicant still fails in its fundamental obligation to describe the project it wants approved. As you may recall, the prior Staff Report for the postponed November 1, 2022, Planning Commission hearing (November 2022 Staff Report) described the project for consideration as follows:

The proposed project being considered by the Planning Commission at this time is a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide an approximately 17-acre parcel of land in the eastern area of the city, east of the existing terminus of Adams Street. The proposed subdivision would create lots for 51 single family homes, and a separate parcel (lot 52) on Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

which multi-family attached housing units would be built. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is included as Attachment 3 to this report.

The applicant proposes to include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) with 11 of the 51 single family homes. The Commission should note that the applicant has not yet filed an application for any specific development project; this would be done after the approval of the tentative map and recordation of the Final Map (following approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement and compliance with other relevant tentative map conditions). Approval of the tentative subdivision map would only provide for the subdividing of the property; future applications would define the exact development that would take place on the lots created by the subdivision. (November 2022 Staff Report, p. 19, emphasis added). The updated Staff Report for the February 7, 2023, meeting retains the same description. (February 2023 Staff Report, pp. 5-6.) That is, nothing has changed about the fundamental decision before the Commission.

Our October 31, 2022, letter made clear that this is expressly illegal. The tepid response to this failing in Attachment 18 essentially concedes this is true – that the discretionary submittals were not made concurrently, though they should have been. But the response nevertheless suggests that the Commission should move forward anyway, essentially arguing it is now too late to follow the zoning code.

Again, Title 16 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code, the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, provides unambiguously that:

All applicants for tentative maps and tentative parcel maps shall concurrently submit applications for all other discretionary approvals, including but not limited to, conditional use permits, variances, rezonings, and general plan amendments. (Subdivision Ord., § 16.04.120 (emphasis added.)) This law is not new and has not changed since the Project’s application was filed.

Attachment 18 contends that despite this clear language, the Commission should not reject the application until all of the required concurrent submissions are made, because the tentative map application was accepted as “complete” in March of 2011. The Staff Report fails to explain how that completion date relates to the Applicant’s failure, over the last dozen years, to “concurrently” submit the required applications for all other discretionary approvals. “Concurrently” and “simultaneously” are not the same – and obviously, substantial other documentation has been submitted for consideration in the meantime regarding the project following the “completeness” date. The Permit Streamlining Act specifically contemplates the requirement for additional information following a completeness determination, and states specifically that it “shall not be construed as limiting the ability of a public agency to request and obtain information which may be needed in order to comply with [CEQA].” 1 Because all of the components of the project need to be evaluated as a whole to avoid piecemealing, the requirement in the City’s Subdivision Code to provide all discretionary submissions concurrently is not 1 Cal. Gov. C. § 65944(c).

Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

merely a formality.
2 The failure to require concurrent submission of the required discretionary approvals is a current, ongoing, express objective failure to follow the zoning code.

Yet, rather than continue the matter until all of the necessary information to consider the full scope of the project is presented, Staff instead suggests that the application must be considered now pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2), because the applicant was not provided “with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity…. ” within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete. But that provision not only does not apply to the instant decision – this is a subdivision, not a housing project3 – it did not exist at the time the application was submitted and deemed “complete.” It was not added to the Housing Accountability Act until 2015 in AB1516. Proceeding based on a supposed failure to comply with a rule that did not exist and does not apply is a red herring.

The City has the opportunity and obligation to have the applicant comply with the zoning code now. Not doing so would be a clear failure to proceed as required by law.

Violation of Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.16.020
This is not merely an academic or technical fault. The failure to submit concurrently the required discretionary approvals makes it impossible to consider the whole of the project. Following our October 31, 2022, letter which noted clear defects in the tentative map, the Applicant indeed updated the map in a half-hearted effort to correct certain of the identified shortcomings.

The map previously presented for approval showed nothing in Lot 52. In the latest submission, the Applicant has attempted to cure some of those defects. TM1 now indicates Lot 52 is “Future Multi-Family Residential.” Similarly, TM3 now shows six large, proposed pad elevations for “Future Multi-Family Residential.”
This change, while now better-complying with the Subdivision Code, is fatal to the application. The future Lot 52 is zoned Medium Density Residential (MR) and designated as MDR in the General Plan. As correctly noted in the Staff Report:

The MDR designation providesforsingle-family detached and attached homes,secondary residential units, public and semi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses.

Residential densities shall be in the range of 5.1 to 12.0 dwelling units per gross acre. (February 2023 Staff Report p. 2.) Multifamily units are allowed only on specific designated “MR zoned parcels, which are identified as ’Key Housing Sites’ in Table 42 of the city’s 2015-2023 housing element.” (Zoning Code § 17.40.020 N.). The Hunter project is not included in that list. Thus, under the general plan, the site is not indicated for multifamily use, and multifamily units are not an allowed use. 2 An EIR must analyze all the impacts of the foreseeable approvals for the project, including future ministerial approvals.
3 Indeed, the Staff Report says this explicitly on page 6: “Approval of the tentative subdivision map would only provide for the subdividing of the property; future applications would define the exact development that would take place on the lots created by the subdivision.”
Agenda Item #5.11.

February 6, 2023

As multifamily units are not allowed under the zoning and general plan designation, Applicant appears even more clearly intent to have the Planning Commission bless a future, unsubmitted project, that is not within the Commission’s power. A use permit is required, and the applicant must show that the project is consistent with all of the required provisions of Chapter 17.112. (Zoning Code § 17.40.030.) While the Applicant still fails to submit the required information, even a cursory review of the latest submission at TM3 shows that the building pads are immediately adjacent to the property lines, and plainly not compliant with the required setbacks.

Moreover, the building pads shown in TM3 do not match with the conceptual layout used in the EIR. (Compare Staff Report at p. 152 with p. 230.) Simply put, while it remains unknown what the actual project proposed is, the proposed Tentative Map is inconsistent with the EIR, and thus must be rejected.

Thus, there is no current basis to conclude that the tentative map as presented will actually be built to include the indicated multifamily units; and as such, no basis to reach a finding that the project actually complies with the density minimum based solely on a “Future” unsubmitted and unpermitted project.

Conclusion
A “tentative map” is somewhat of a misleading title. The “tentative map” must be complete, and fully set out the project and its conditions. It is tentative only in that it has not been built – not that it is subject to change. Again, the Planning Commission can act only on what is actually presented to it for consideration.

What has been presented is incomplete, but what has been does not comply with the Zoning Code or General Plan. Because the Planning Commission’s function is to evaluate the projects’ conformance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, it is required to reject the Map as presented.

The Applicant’s failure to address objective deficiencies in its submission prior to reconvening a hearing on its application after more than a dozen years is disappointing, but not surprising. However, the City must proceed as required by the current, operative law. Failure to proceed as required by law would only result in an immense waste of resources that could be easily avoided.

Given the applicant’s repeated failure to comply with the Zoning Code and General Plan, the project should be denied.

Sincerely,

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC
Joshua S. Devore
JSD:sol
cc: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #5.11.

JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
October 31, 2022
Via Email:

Commissioner John Ponte, Chair, [email protected] Commissioner Daniel Hale, Vice Chair, [email protected] Commissioner Autumn Anderson, [email protected] Commissioner Marika Rothfeld, [email protected] Commissioner Rosaura Segura, [email protected] Commissioner Christopher Warner, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 Dear: Chair Ponte, Commissioners, City Manager Comelo, Community Development Director DeRosa:

We represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents who are extremely concerned by the City’s actions with respect to the referenced project.

Numerous members of the Citizens group have individually commented on the project in the past. They write now collectively due to their concern with what appears to be an imminent basic failure of the City to follow its own law.

Before the Planning Commission is a request to certify the EIR and approve a Tentative Map for the Hunter Subdivision project. This letter addresses the latter, the requested approval of the Tentative Map.

The presented Tentative Map, Attachment 3 to the Staff Report (TM 2022-01), does not comply with either the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Code nor the General Plan. It is important to note that the Planning Commission is not acting on any conceptual map that was presented in the EIR.

Rather, as far as consideration of the approval of the Tentative Map, TM 2022-001, Attachment 3 is the actual Map the Commission is to act upon.1
1 We also note that it appears from public records that the property was sold to White Fang Properties, LLC in June 2021, but such sale was not recorded until earlier this month. (Napa Recorder Doc. 2022-0018523, June 2, 2021 Grant Deed from Dennis R. Hunter to White Fang Properties, LLC, a South Dakota LLC, recorded October 10, 2022.) It is thus not clear who the proper applicant is, and whether the property owner is a party to the application. There is no reference to White Fang Properties anywhere in the nearly 3,000-page agenda packet. It appears at least that the Owner information on the proposed Map is incorrect. 1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

This Tentative Map is fatally defective and must be rejected.

Violation of Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.04.120
The Staff Report describes the project for consideration as follows:

The proposed project being considered by the Planning Commission at this time is a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide an approximately 17-acre parcel of land in the eastern area of the city, east of the existing terminus of Adams Street. The proposed subdivision would create lots for 51 single family homes, and a separate parcel (lot 52) on which multi-family attached housing units would be built. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is included as Attachment 3 to this report.

The applicant proposes to include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) with 11 of the 51 single family homes. The Commission should note that the applicant has not yet filed an application for any specific development project; this would be done after the approval of the tentative map and recordation of the Final Map (following approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement and compliance with other relevant tentative map conditions). Approval of the tentative subdivision map would only provide for the subdividing of the property; future applications would define the exact development that would take place on the lots created by the subdivision. (Staff Report, p. 19, emphasis added).
1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

This is expressly illegal.

Title 16 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code, the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, provides unambiguously that:

All applicants for tentative maps and tentative parcel maps shall concurrently submit applications for all other discretionary approvals, including but not limited to, conditional use permits, variances, rezonings, and general plan amendments. (Subdivision Ord., § 16.04.120 (emphasis added.))
The recognition by staff that “future applications” are required renders the submission incomplete, and directly contrary to Section 16.04.120’s mandate that the requests be made “concurrently.” Such a system makes perfect sense, as otherwise it is impossible to consider the whole of the project.

In short, Applicant’s proposal that ‘we will figure out the rest later’ is expressly counter to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, and requires rejection.

Violation of Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.16.020
As a result of what appears to be a ‘get one foot in the door’ tactic, the submitted Map is objectively deficient, and fails to comply with the City’s Tentative Map requirements. Section 16.16.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance dictates the requirements for a Tentative Map. It requires that numerous specific “proposed design elements and improvements shall be shown on the tentative map or described on an attached written statement,2” including that:

The proposed use of each lot, lot layout and dimensions and area of each lot.

Engineering data shall show the approximate finished grading of each lot, the preliminary design of all grading, the elevation of proposed building pads, the top and toe of cut and fill slopes to scale and number of each lot. (Subdivision Ord., § 16.16.020 C.3.) However, the Map presented for approval shows nothing in Lot 52.

No usage of Lot 52 is shown (See Map Sheets TM1, TM3.) No finished grading of Lot 52 is shown. (See Map Sheet TM3.) No elevation of Lot 52 building pads is shown. (Id.) While these details are included for the remaining lots, Lot 52 is blank. As such, the Map does not comply with the Subdivision Ordinance’s requirements to detail each lot, unless Lot 52 is actually proposed to have no development.

Indeed, the presented Map Sheet TM2 shows the current use of Lot 52 as vineyard. As no changes to Lot 52 are proposed, assuming that the Map presented actually complied with Section

16.16.020, it would designate Lot 52 as open space. (Subdivision Ord. § 16.16.020 C.6.) Nothing on the Map, nor any attachments or plan notes that are actually presented for approval, designates any other usage, grading, elevation or other change to Lot 52.
2 There is no “attached written statement;” only a suggestion of a future submission detailing the actual development to be proposed.
1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

While the Staff Report suggests that there may be a future specific description of 25 units of attached multi-family housing presented, no description has been provided for consideration or approval. To the extent different usage and grading of Lot 52 is proposed, it “shall” be included on the Tentative Map. Given the conflict between the Staff Report, Applicant’s apparent future plans, and the Map presented, it is plain that the Map presented for approval does not comply with Section 16.16.020 and must be rejected.

Violation of General Plan and Zoning Code
As such, the Map under consideration details a subdivision containing the required details only for 51 developed lots, and one open space lot. Those lots are proposed to consist of 51 Single Family Homes, and 11 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The Map under consideration thus provides plans for 62 units on the 16.92-acre parcel.

The parcel is zoned Medium Density Residential (MR) and designated as MDR in the General Plan. As correctly noted in the Staff Report:

The MDR designation provides for single-family detached and attached homes, secondary residential units, public and semi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Residential densities shall be in the range of 5.1 to 12.0 dwelling units per gross acre.
(Staff Report pp. 15-16.) The Map that is actually presented for consideration provides for a density of only 3.66 units per acre (62/16.92). It must be rejected as not complying with the Zoning Code or General Plan.

While Applicant appears intent to have the Planning Commission bless a future, unsubmitted project, that is not within the Commission’s power. The Planning Commission can act only on what is actually presented to it for consideration, and what has been presented does not comply with the Zoning Code or General Plan. Because the Planning Commission’s function is to evaluate the projects’ conformance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, it is required to reject the Map as presented.

There appears to be a suggestion that the Commission could provide Conditions that the Applicant must demonstrate by future actions that the project satisfies the General Plan. (Compare Proposed Condition of Approval (CoA) 14 (“The primary purpose of this review is for compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.”) with CoA 27 (a future “Affordable Housing Agreement shall demonstrate how the project satisfies the minimum density requirement of the General Plan.”) (Staff Report pp. 143-144.)
But the Planning Commission is required to make a finding that “the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of this code.” (Subdivision Ordinance §

16.16.080 (emphasis added.)) At its most generous, the record suggests only that the subdivision could be compliant with the minimum density if future actions are taken. 1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

Indeed, the very first element of the General Plan Consistency Analysis provides that “Conformance with the required General Plan density will be confirmed at the time an Affordable Housing Agreement and development plans are submitted for review and approval.” (Staff Report Attachment 4, p. 165 (emphasis added.)) That is not sufficient to make the finding required for approval that the project is compliant now.

Most concerningly, that same analysis element cryptically states that “If constructed with these types and numbers of units, the project would conform with the minimum density required by the General Plan. There are other alternative scenarios which would achieve the minimum density; the proposed subdivision map does not preclude achieving the minimum residential density required by the General Plan.” (Id. (emphasis added.)) That analysis is based on a hypothetical scenario of 51 single family homes, 11 ADUs, and 25 multi-family units. But as no multi-family development on Lot 52 is actually shown on the tentative map (but all of the other lots are described), the analysis apparently suggests that perhaps the applicant could instead build 51 single family homes with 36 ADUs using the proposed map. But there is no way to know, because the submission does not comply with City Subdivision Ordinance.

Certainly, a finding merely that the project is not precluded from meeting the General Plan is not what the City code envisions. The Commission must make a finding that the project is compliant. As the Map that is before the Commission does not, as currently presented, meet the General Plan or Zoning Code requirements, it must be rejected.

Conclusion
The Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future are not anti-growth. They are in favor of responsible City management, informed decision making, and adherence to law. They are concerned with the environment, and equity in development. The proposed project that has been presented is for large lots for single family homes. A number of those lots would have income-producing ADUs, for the single-family homeowners to profit by.

The members of the Citizens group are unable to fully consider the project however, as no actual proposal for low-income or multi-family housing units has been presented. But it appears the Applicant will relegate such development to a corner of the property, rather than fairly disperse them throughout a development that evenly complies with the General Plan and Zoning Code density requirements. The project’s proposal appears to destroy an existing vineyard with the (unspecified future) multifamily units to bulk up the unit count on a development that does not comply with the General Plan or Zoning Code density requirements.

This is directly contrast to 1993 General Plan Policy 4.3.5:

Require future residential development to conform to the pattern and density of older, neighboring areas of town in order to complement existing town character and ensure that densities are high enough to protect against unnecessary incursion into vineyard agricultural areas.
1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

(1993 General Plan Policy, Staff Report p. 166 (emphasis added.)) Current General Plan Policy 3.1 is functionally identical. (“Require future development to conform to the pattern and density of the neighboring areas. In order to complement existing town character and protect against incursion into vineyard agricultural areas.” (Staff Report p. 180.))
Thus, the project – a large non-conforming subdivision with a potential future, dense multifamily parcel to compensate – should not simply be deferred for further consideration of the missing multi-family elements, but it should be rejected in its entirety.

Very truly yours,

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY
Joshua S. Devore
JSD/sol
cc: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney, [email protected]
Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future:

Maria Villegas
Sandra McCorkle
Ben Alderman
Elizabeth Alderman
Martha Angus
Dyan Beito
Richard Beito
Linda Brown
Ron Brown
Bernerd Buckley
Cindy Ford
John Ford
Gale Greisen
Sherri Kelly
Marina Lavagnino
Katie Leinen
Sandra Lowry
Isobel Luria
John Milliken
Ann Nevero
Jan Oddy
Anne Offord
1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

October 31, 2022

Becky Palmisano
Dave Palmisano
Laura Pohlen
Patrick Pohlen
Laurence Schlatter
Rene Schlatter
Dave Valentine
Dave Wilkinson
1500 FIRST STREET | STE 200 | NAPA, CA 94559 | T: 707.261.7000 DPF-LAW.COM Agenda Item #5.11.

Attachment 18
Response to Comments on Tentative Subdivision Map
DP&F Letter of Oct 31, 2022
On October 31, 2022, Joshua Devore sent a letter on behalf of Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future with comments on the proposed tentative subdivision map. The points raised in the letter are addressed below.

Comment: The letter notes that the tentative map lists the property owner as Dennis R. Hunter, but the property that is the subject of the tentative map was recently conveyed to White Fang Properties, LLC.

Response: The tentative subdivision map and proposed resolutions have been updated to reference the new property owner.

Comment: The letter states that the tentative map must be denied because Municipal Code Section 16.04.120 states that applicants for tentative maps shall concurrently submit applications for all other discretionary approvals. In this case, the City is considering only the tentative subdivision map, and the applicant will need to apply for and secure additional discretionary approvals prior to the actual construction of the project.

Response: Staff disagrees that this section constitutes grounds for denying the tentative subdivision map. Section 16.04.120 sets forth a requirement that applies at the time of submission of the tentative map application, and at the most dictates that the Planning Director require concurrent submission of application for other discretionary approvals before the tentative map application was deemed complete. Asstaff has noted, the application for this map was accepted as complete on March 25, 2011. To the extent that City were to require compliance with this section, it should have done so at the time the tentative map was deemed complete rather than using it as ground for denial after fully processing the application. This is especially true given the restrictions that the State Legislature has placed on local agencies’ discretion to deny housing development projects. Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2) provides a limited time for determine whether a housing development project is compliant with existing objective land use requirements. Specifically, Section 65589.5(j)(2) reads as follows:
(A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
1 Agenda Item #5.11.

. . .
(B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.

There is no record that staff notified the applicant that other discretionary applications must be submitted concurrently prior to or immediately after deeming the tentative map application complete. Based on the restrictions imposed by Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2), staff does not believe that the City can deny the application based on a failure to comply with Section

16.04.120.

Comment: The letter asserts that the tentative map is not compliant with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance because the map does not show the use, approximate finished grading or elevation of proposed building pads for Lot 52.

Response: The tentative map has been updated to show the use, approximate finished grading and elevation of proposed building pads for Lot 52.

Comment: The letter asserts that the tentative map is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, arguing that the subdivision map provides for 62 units (the single family units and ADUs), and characterizing the 3.13 acre property where the multifamily housing development as “open space.” Based on this characterization, the letter argues that the density of the tentative map is only 3.66 units per acre.

Response: Staff does not agree with this characterization of the proposed density for this tentative map. In order to approve the tentative map, the City Council must find that the tentative map is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. In order to find that the map is consistent with the General Plan and Tentative Map, and confirm that when the project is developed, the map should demonstrate that it can meet the density requirements for this property as required by the General Plan and Zoning designations. The tentative map meets this requirement. The tentative map demonstrates that the map as currently configured allows for the development of the property at a density that that is within the allowed density for the MDR/MR land use and zoning designation. The applicant has indicated that they will develop a specific number of ADUs as part of the project, and intend to develop the 3.13 acre property as a multifamily development comprised of 25 units. The 3.13 acre parcel is not designated orzoned for open space, and should not be considered as such. Between the single family units, ADUs and multifamily development, the tentative map demonstrates how the required density can be achieved, and therefore demonstrates consistency with the General Plan Further, the conditions of approval assure that priorto approval of a final map, the applicant will demonstrate specifically how the General Plan and Zoning density will be met prior to approval of the final subdivision map (see Condition of Approval #24). The tentative map therefore ensures not only that the development of this property can meet the density requirements of the General Plan and Zoning 2 Agenda Item #5.11.

Code, but that it will do so. The tentative map therefore is consistent with the density requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Code.
3 Agenda Item #5.11.

From: Tracy Jonelis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:51 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Please register my comments for the February 7 meeting about the Hunter Subdivision Project
Dear Maya DeRosa -
Please register my comments for the February 7 meeting about the Hunter Subdivision Project You should (1) NOT recommend certifying the final EIR because it does not properly address the scope of the project or the actual impact it will have on the safety of the community and the environment; and (2) NOT approve the tentative subdivision map for the same reasons.

The impacts include:
-the excessive size and density of the project;
-increased traffic, which will be impossible to mitigate; -increased traffic noise;
-project is in a flood zone;
-project will use an excessive amount of water during times of drought, when Saint Helena has already imposed water restrictions for current residents;
-claiming the project will use only groundwater is deceptive, since droughts have depleted the aquifer and the project will eventually need Saint Helena's water supply; -degradation of environment with loss of plant and animal diversity; -elimination of open space, which is essential for quality of life in Saint Helena.

Thank you.

Tracy Jonelis
Agenda Item #5.11.

From: fj <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 8:39 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] You should (1) NOT recommend certifying the final EIR because it does not properly address the scope of the project or the actual impact it will have on the safety of the community and the environment; and (2) NOT approve the tentative subdi...

Dear Maya DeRosa -
I want to make sure I specifically mention the issues below.

You should (1) NOT recommend certifying the final EIR because it does not properly address the scope of the project or the actual impact it will have on the safety of the community and the environment; and (2) NOT approve the tentative subdivision map for the same reasons.

The impacts were mentioned below:

Size and density of the project; traffic; noise; water use; built in a flood zone; loss of open space; degradation of the natural environment affecting plants and animals.

Thank you.

Frank Jonelis
Agenda Item #5.11.

From: Sherri Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:13 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>; Anil Comelo <[email protected]> Cc: John Ponte <[email protected]>; Autumn Anderson <[email protected]>; Christopher Warner <[email protected]>; Rosaura Segura <[email protected]>; Marika Rothfeld <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Hunter Subdivision Project, SHPC agenda 2/7/23 item 5.1 Good morning,
Please include my comments below into the public comment for tonight's Planning Commision meeting.

There have been many concerns expressed by members of the St. Helena community over the last 12 years in public comments to the Planning Commission regarding the Hunter project application, including:
• the unsafe and inappropriate building location,
• negative impacts on traffic, especially emergency egress on the east side of St. Helena, • unrealistic water use calculations in the proposal, which are not compliant with Napa County regulations,
• the need for differently configured affordable housing than the applicants have included in their proposal (I would like to note that notwithstanding any affordable housing included in the Hunter project, an approach in keeping with the principles of inclusion and social justice would be to intersperse affordable housing in an evenly distributed way throughout the St. Helena community).

The Hunter project proposal is currently so vaguely defined that the mitigation measures suggested in the FEIR and even the hundred-plus conditions that City staff has recommended as prerequisites for Tentative Map approval in Planning Commission Report 140-157 fail to provide realistic and comprehensive solutions to these problems.

While the Hunter project applicants have responded to some of the above concerns during the EIR process, taken as a whole, the mitigations proposed by the applicant are unrealistic and unachievable. As a result, St. Helena City staff proposed the builder improve the project proposal through 123 conditions for approval (Planning Commission Report 140-157). In response to this good faith effort of the part of the City of St. Helena to bring this project application into some sort of safe and workable state, the Hunter/Vanzutphen group has retained the law firm of Holland and Knight LLP to threaten legal action against the City for having the audacity to insist that this project's lack of definition and many flaws be properly and realistically addressed (attachment 4 to this agenda item). Clearly, the Hunter/Vanzutphen group have no interest in spending the time and money required to build this project in a compliant and safe manner. This threat of legal action against the City makes transparent the goal of the Hunter/Vanzutphen group to ‘make a fast buck’ and disappear.

Further evidence of the ill-defined nature and obscure details of the Hunter project is pointed out by Joshua Devore, in attachment 9 to this item, dated 2/6/23. “It appears that the FEIR has been revised since the prior version was published in October 2022. The FEIR is now dated as January 2023. However, no redline was provided and it is unclear what was changed; but it is clear that the document attached to the February 2023 Staff Report is not the FEIR which has been posted on the City’s website.” Also, Mr. Devore’s citation of a Violation of Subdivision Agenda Item #5.11.

Ordinance Section 16.16.020 in attachment 10, dated 2/6/23 with documentation of the applicant’s failure to submit concurrently the required discretionary approvals. How can the City assure that members of the public were accurately notified of the Hunter project elements if required discretionary approvals were never included in the project application or if changes to the FEIR documents have been made yet not indicated or published in such a way as to assure public access?
As Isobel Luria wrote in attachment 5 to this item, dated 2/3/23 “As it now stands, the City is being asked to approve a largely undefined project and ‘additional conditions and substantive design changes cannot be required, once a tentative subdivision map is approved.” Looking at the Hunter project as currently proposed, with the general failure (and apparent refusal, as evidenced by Hunter/Vanzutphen’s threat of legal action in attachment 4) to effectively mitigate issues of public safety, traffic, water neutrality and the need for inclusively located affordable housing, how can City staff and leadership responsibly approve any step forward on the Hunter project application?
At this point in the 12+ year contentious discussion regarding the Hunter project, the mitigations proposed during the EIR process are efforts to save an irredeemably flawed, unsafe and unrealistic development proposal. If the Hunter project is built as proposed, the City of St.

Helena and the citizens of St. Helena, including any new residents of the project, will reap negative financial, physical and emotional consequences for decades to come.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission not to certify the Final EIR and to deny the requested Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 for the Hunter Subdivision project and the entire Hunter Subdivision project application.

Sherri Kelly
Agenda Item #5.11.

MONIQUE OLIVIER
1390 Grove Court
St. Helena, CA 94574
415.602.6554
[email protected]
February 7, 2023
Via Email
Commissioner John Ponte, Chair, [email protected] Commissioner Autumn Anderson, [email protected] Commissioner Marika Rothfeld, [email protected] Commissioner Rosaura Segura, [email protected] Commissioner Christopher Warner, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] City of St. Helena Planning Commission
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Hunter Subdivision Project
Dear Chair Ponte, Vice-Chair Anderson, and Commissioners:

I write to urge the Commission to (1) not recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and (2) not recommend that the City Council approve the requested Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10- 040 for the Hunter Subdivision Project (the “Project”). In their current form, both the EIR and related “findings,” and the tentative map, are substantially infirm and raise significant questions about the impact the Project will have on the safety and well-being of the St. Helena community. At a minimum, further investigation and analysis must be done before a project of this size moves forward and irrevocably changes St. Helena. As proposed, the public safety risks of the Project outweigh any benefit to St. Helena and its residents.

The Project does not comply with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance or the General Plan. To approve the project, the Commission must find that “the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of this code.” (Subdivision Ord. § 16.16.080.) The Ordinance also requires that applicants for tentative maps “shall concurrently submit applications for all other discretionary approvals, including but not limited to conditional use Agenda Item #5.11.

Olivier to St. Helena Planning Commission
February 7, 2023
permits, variances, rezonings, and general plan amendments.” (Id., § 16.04.120.) Thus, the Commission has an obligation to understand and review all aspects of the Project before sending it on to the City Council for approval. The Commission does not have the information required to make such a recommendation.

For example, the parcel at issue is zoned as Medium Density Residential (MDR), but as proposed it does not meet that requirement. This alone requires rejection of the Project as presently proposed. The Project suggests 25 multi-family units, but the Tentative Map provides no detail regarding Lot 52 – the only possible location for those units to satisfy the MDR requirement. Staff suggests a future affordable housing agreement that would bring the Project within the MDR zoning, but there is no proposal of any sort by the Project at this time. The city cannot approve segments of the Project based upon some anticipated future compliance with the law. This is particularly egregious where, as here, there is only a vague suggestion that affordable housing may at some point be proposed and approved. Remarkably, the Statement of Overriding Considerations for Project approval includes a statement that the Project “provides needed housing to the City, particularly affordable housing.” This statement is categorically false under the Project as currently proposed.

In addition, the EIR is deficient in, at a minimum, the following ways. The EIR groundwater analysis is facially in conflict with the Napa Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan’s 2022 assessment. As we all know, drought conditions in our community are extreme and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. The 2022 assessment specifically identifies wells in southeastern St. Helena – the area of the proposed project – as showing groundwater decline. Notably, the EIR fails to acknowledge that the well is currently inoperable. In addition, the EIR fails to adequately address the significant traffic issues, as well as the complex public safety issues that arise from constructing the project in a flood plain with a levee that has not been certified by the federal government. Further, there is insufficient environmental analysis on protected species, animal habitats, the river and river access, and seasonal wetlands.

Finally, the Planning Commission report itself notes that the Park/Open Space Preserve alternative to the Project “is the environmentally superior alternative,” but then summarily dismisses this option on the basis that this alternative “would not avoid all of the significant impacts associated with the Project and all of the identified mitigation would still be required.” There is no evidence to support that statement. The Commission has an obligation to further investigate the Park/Open Space Preserve option to determine if there is, in fact, a compelling basis to reject it over the Project.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Olivier to St. Helena Planning Commission
February 7, 2023
In short, the Project’s proponents have put forth an incomplete and troubling proposal that makes it impossible to reach the conclusions that the FEIR professes.

The city and the public cannot properly evaluate the impact of this Project because its complete scope is not disclosed. And, as currently presented, the purported benefits of the Project do not outweigh the identified adverse environmental and safety risks to our community, and is not the superior alternative. Rather, the Project threatens the public safety of St. Helena and its residents.

I urge the Commission not to put forward any recommendations to the City Council until further investigation and analysis about the scope, details, and impact of this Project are undertaken.

Thank you,
Monique Olivier
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Please provide these comments for tonight's meeting to the Planning Commission, Planning Dept and City Council. Thank you for your assistance.

Public Comment
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:08 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Please provide these comments for tonight's meeting to the Planning Commission, Planning Dept and City Council. Thank you for your assistance.

Honorable Planning Commission Chair and Honorable Commissioners, You as public servants know, it is the sworn responsibility of commissioners and councilmembers to require any critical information when making decisions that could severely and adversely impact the citizens of St Helena, particularly with regard to decisions that pose risks for property loss, injury, or loss of life. In the case of this project, risks are related to levee failure or overtopping.

Agenda Item #5.11.

2 With that in mind, approving an EIR that would place human beings on a location where their safety relies solely on a levee, without proper documentation to back safety claims does not adequately address the “Hazards” component of the EIR, and must be deemed not complete. 1) The EIR conƟnues to refer to the St Helena levee as being designed to the 200 year flood level, despite the FEMA LeƩer of Map Revision provided to St Helena states that the Levee is accredited to the 100 year flood level. The EIR reply to public comments about levee safety with climate change, wildfire scarring and upstream development is:
“Because the levee was designed to accommodate a more severe flooding event than required (200-year vs 100-year), future increases in storm flows in the Napa River (if they occur as a result of climate change) would be handled beƩer than if the levee were designed to minimum 100-year standard.” Our city officials can and should require wriƩen verificaƟon of their claim. To accept it without evidence places St Helena taxpayers at risk for liability of misleading new residents living at that locaƟon. 2) The levee is now over a decade old. Visible compacƟon to the top of the levee is measurable and apparent, and as with dirt levees, is due to a web of gopher trenching visible throughout. It is the compacƟon of the open trenches that causes subsidence of the levee which reduces it’s height and capacity to safeguard from flooding. This locaƟon has undergone repeated, catastrophic flooding, and the public and city officials have the right and responsibility for a full levee inspecƟon and evaluaƟon prior to allowing the housing of innocent and unsuspecƟng people. What data is the EIR basing their claim on that “the levee is safe”? The EIR must provide informaƟon that the levee has not suffered compacƟon or subsidence over the last 12 years by providing documentaƟon or an inspecƟon report.
3) The Applicant proposes a fire “escape route” for that will be constructed into the side of the levee. Based on this, the EIR does not address “hazards”. • Will the applicant just build a road into the side of the levee? Can the city/applicant legally alter the levee structure without submiƫng it to FEMA – will it affect the LeƩer of Map Revision which is based on the exact structure and design submiƩed for the LeƩer of Map Revision? How does a road cut into the side of the levee affect the integrity of a levee which the enƟre subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods depend on for flood risk reducƟon? • What is the escape route for the eastern lots during a flood event where the levee fails or overtops? The EIR states that the evacuaƟon route is on top of the levee. How does the EIR explain the use of the levee as an evacuaƟon route if it is being overtopped or fails during a flood?
Agenda Item #5.11.

3 • What is the grade of that “escape route” and is it passable? • Does the DWR or any agency involved in funding the levee construcƟon allow for building a road into the side of the levee?
4) The EIR states that maintenance of the SH levee has been ongoing, yet a public records request provided reports that show years of no/missing maintenance records. The public has the right to validaƟon of the EIR’s unsubstanƟated claims of consistent levee maintenance by providing the full records (2011 through 2023) as an addendum or a link to them on the city site. The Final EIR simply says “they are available at City Hall”, yet they are not. Simply staƟng “they are there” is not an answer to the public’s quesƟon, and should not be accepted by our representaƟves acƟng on our behalf.

In summary, “Hazards” is an EIR component that assesses public safety, and this EIR has not provided documentation to back their claims despite repeated public outcry. Once the map is accepted, the applicant has no responsibility to the people living at risk behind the levee that we taxpayers own, operate, maintain and are liable for into perpetuity. Please represent our interests and demand the EIR adequately assess public safety as required by law, and evaluate the true condition of the levee condition and re-state in the EIR it’s capability to the 100 year flood as FEMA deemed it to be.

Thank you for your service to this community. Your time and dedication is much appreciated.

Ann Nevero
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:20 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS - Please provide comments for tonight's meeting to the Planning Commission, Planning Dept and City Council. Please replace this with the previous email - this includes attachments
Attachments: FEMA LOMR 12-09-0871P-060208.pdf
Importance: High
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:15 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS - Please provide comments for tonight's meeting to the Planning Commission, Planning Dept and City Council. Please replace this with the previous email - this includes attachments Importance: High
Agenda Item #5.11.

2 Vineyard Valley 1986 – immediately adjacent to the Hunter proposed project location Honorable Planning Commission Chair and Honorable Commissioners, You as public servants know, it is the sworn responsibility of commissioners and councilmembers to require any critical information when making decisions that could severely and adversely impact the citizens of St Helena, particularly with regard to decisions that pose risks for property loss, injury, or loss of life. In the case of this project, risks are related to levee failure or overtopping.

With that in mind, approving an EIR that would place human beings on a location where their safety relies solely on a levee, without proper documentation to back safety claims does not adequately address the “Hazards” component of the EIR, and must be deemed not complete. 1) The EIR conƟnues to refer to the St Helena levee as being designed to the 200 year flood level, despite the (aƩached) FEMA LeƩer of Map Revision provided to St Helena states that the Levee is accredited to the 100 year flood level. The EIR reply to public comments about levee safety with climate change, wildfire scarring and upstream development is: “Because the levee was designed to accommodate a more severe flooding event than required (200-year vs 100-year), future increases in storm flows in the Napa River (if they occur as a result of climate change) would be handled beƩer than if the levee were designed to minimum 100-year standard.” Our city officials can and should require wriƩen verificaƟon of their claim. To accept it without evidence places St Helena taxpayers at risk for liability of misleading new residents living at that locaƟon.

Agenda Item #5.11.

3 2) The levee is now over a decade old. Visible compacƟon to the top of the levee is measurable and apparent, and as with dirt levees, is due to a web of gopher trenching visible throughout. It is the compacƟon of the open trenches that causes subsidence of the levee which reduces it’s height and capacity to safeguard from flooding. This locaƟon has undergone repeated, catastrophic flooding, and the public and city officials have the right and responsibility for a full levee inspecƟon and evaluaƟon prior to allowing the housing of innocent and unsuspecƟng people. What data is the EIR basing their claim on that “the levee is safe”? The EIR must provide informaƟon that the levee has not suffered compacƟon or subsidence over the last 12 years by providing documentaƟon or an inspecƟon report.
3) The Applicant proposes a fire “escape route” for that will be constructed into the side of the levee. Based on this, the EIR does not address “hazards”. • Will the applicant just build a road into the side of the levee? Can the city/applicant legally alter the levee structure without submiƫng it to FEMA – will it affect the LeƩer of Map Revision which is based on the exact structure and design submiƩed for the LeƩer of Map Revision? How does a road cut into the side of the levee affect the integrity of a levee which the enƟre subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods depend on for flood risk reducƟon? • What is the escape route for the eastern lots during a flood event where the levee fails or overtops? The EIR states that the evacuaƟon route is on top of the levee. How does the EIR explain the use of the levee as an evacuaƟon route if it is being overtopped or fails during a flood?
• What is the grade of that “escape route” and is it passable? • Does the DWR or any agency involved in funding the levee construcƟon allow for building a road into the side of the levee?
4) The EIR states that maintenance of the SH levee has been ongoing, yet a public records request provided reports that show years of no/missing maintenance records. The public has the right to validaƟon of the EIR’s unsubstanƟated claims of consistent levee maintenance by providing the full records (2011 through 2023) as an addendum or a link to them on the city site. The Final EIR simply says “they are available at City Hall”, yet they are not. Simply staƟng “they are there” is not an answer to the public’s quesƟon, and should not be accepted by our representaƟves acƟng on our behalf.

In summary, “Hazards” is an EIR component that assesses public safety, and this EIR has not provided documentation to back their claims despite repeated public outcry. Once the map is accepted, the applicant has no responsibility to the people living at risk behind the levee that Agenda Item #5.11.

4 we taxpayers own, operate, maintain and are liable for into perpetuity. Please represent our interests and demand the EIR adequately assess public safety as required by law, and evaluate the true condition of the levee condition and re-state in the EIR it’s capability to the 100 year flood as FEMA deemed it to be.

Thank you for your service to this community. Your time and dedication is much appreciated.

Ann Nevero
Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

Agenda Item #5.11.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Comment for Planning Commission Feb 7 2022 Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Comment for Planning Commission Feb 7 2022 Planning Commission,
My comments are for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting to review the Hunter project FEIR.

I have repeatedly requested levee maintenance records for the full period of the levee’s existence – 2011 through present day. I have only received records beginning in 2019. The EIR should at the very least provide a link to the records they are referencing. Citizens should not have to spend hours searching the website for old documents nor should they continue to use the valuable time of a small city staff to do the legwork. It is the consultants and the applicant who should clearly demonstrate the proof through appropriate records and data for all claims made in the EIR. It isn’t possible to verify that the levee has been properly maintained. This is a substantial safety and liability issue for the City.

It is readily observable that gophers have caused extensive burrowing throughout the levee. Here’s a picture I took Dec 2022.

Agenda Item #5.11.

2 No agency should allow housing to be placed in a known flood risk area without complete information regarding the existing condition of a levee that is supposed to reduce flood risk. See Dept of Agriculture article below – USDA – United States Department of Agriculture
Lesson Learned:

Embankment dams and levees are vulnerable to damage from wildlife intrusions and animal impacts.

Agenda Item #5.11.

3 Earth embankment dams and levees are vulnerable to damage from wildlife intrusions and animal impacts. Dams are often located in areas that are desirable to wildlife: outside of developed areas near a water source with a variety of vegetation. Some animals excavate burrows, tunnels, and dens for shelter, while other predatory animals will enlarge these burrows by digging in search of prey. In addition, herbivorous animals forage on vegetation growing on embankment dams. These animal activities can create open areas on and within the fill that impact the safety and performance of the dam.

When animals excavate dens, burrows, and tunnels within embankment dams, they create voids and open spaces that weaken the structural integrity of the dam. They can also allow the intrusion of surface water into the embankment.

Rain and snow events loosen soils around a burrow, causing a burrow to collapse. Animal dens also erode and collapse under the load of heavy equipment and other vehicles using the dam crest as a road. The collapse of burrows often causes sinkholes to form.

Thank you,
Tim Nieman
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:49 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Hunter Project
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Don Simons <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:11 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Hunter Project
Please send to the Planning Commission, Planning Department and City Council. These are my comments regarding the Hunter housing project.

The idea of building homes behind an aging levee when we are facing climate change and an onslaught of atmospheric rivers, wildfires and unpredictable weather patterns makes no sense at all. Most government and scientific institutions are limiting or barring development in flood zones. How can St Helena consider placing people on a flood risk zone with a levee that was constructed by a private engineering firm and not inspected as a requirement of the EIR? Additionally, there is no demand by city officials to re-evaluate the higher flood risks after significant upstream development since 2011, wildfire ravaging of hillsides and the repeated occurrence of once rare atmospheric rivers.

The taxpayers of St Helena are clear that we do not want to put people in harms way without a complete evaluation of a decade old levee in an unpredictable new flooding environment. EIR’s are supposed to address hazards to ensure public safety is not impacted by a new project. This EIR has not done that and has not provided levee safety assurances including an inspection, an inundation map and an escape route for the subdivision during a flood event. What areas will now flood if the levee fails?
Agenda Item #5.11.

2 It is the role and responsibility of our city officials to make certain that all our safety concerns have been fully addressed before allowing a tentative map approval. That is what EIR’s are supposed to do. It did not.

Thank you for your time and serving our city,
Don Simons
St. Helena
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Hunter Project
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Patty <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:51 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Hunter Project
I am sending a public comment in regard to the Hunter housing proposal located behind the City’s levee. Please send to the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and City Council.

As a taxpayer and longtime resident, I am voicing my opinion that the city/applicant conduct a full inspection of the levee which is nearly 15 years old.

We are entering a period of unprecedented climate change with record breaking storms across the nation and the world. We have suffered numerous wildfires that have left hillsides above the area upstream bare, which reduces the ability for absorption of excessive rains we are encountering. This added runoff will increase the flood levels of the Napa River and further challenge the levee.

The taxpayers of St Helena have been clear that we do not want to put human beings in harm’s way without a full and complete evaluation of a decade old levee in an unpredictable new flooding environment.

Agenda Item #5.11.

2 EIR’s are supposed to address hazards to ensure public safety is not impacted by a new project. This EIR has NOT done that and has not provided levee safety assurances.

It is the role and responsibility of you, our city officials to make certain that all our concerns have been fully addressed prior to granting a purely financially prosperous project to an applicant who has not and will not live in that location.

Thank you for serving our city,
Patty Simons
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Hunter Project concern
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Closed for Lunch between 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Tishna Pastrama <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Hunter Project concern
We are writing in regards to the Hunter Project meeting this evening.

First and foremost we are concerned for the safety of residents who currently reside on the east side of Main Street in St. Helena, near the proposed project.

Significant alterations to the historic flood plain behind the levee will have major ramifications to potential flooding in adjacent areas in the event of a levee failure or over top.

FEMA accredited our levee with a 100 year flood rating and the EIR has been erroneously touting it as a 200 year accreditation. This is extremely alarming that such an important safety requirement could be skewed in this way. It has given residents a FALSE sense of understanding as to what is approved.

Agenda Item #5.11.

2 Also, the fact that our levee has never been inspected by a governmental agency is unimaginable and a huge red flag. Not truly knowing the condition of this levee at this time and going forward to approve the EIR is an enormous safety issue.

There has been a proposal that the required emergency road could be cut into the levee which seems counter intuitive during a flood disaster. Such a suggestion calls for the need to conduct a full engineering status of the levee, as it puts all the surrounding residents’ lives at risk if something were to fail and that route would be eliminated as an escape route.

Public safety in such a high risk flood area has to be the highest priority of this EIR. Based on the EIR content it clearly is not.

We ask that you deem it incomplete.

Sincerely,
Gabe and Tishna Pastrama
St. Helena
Tishna Pastrama
Agenda Item #5.11.

1 FREQUENTLY ASKED LEVEE QUESTIONS
Many commentors have asked questions about the levee adjacent to the Hunter Subdivision project site and the protection it provides to the project area. Summaries of these comments and responses from the Public Works and Planning departments are provided below.

Question: “Gophers have caused extensive burrowing throughout the levee” and “The levee is now over a decade old. Visible compaction to the top of the levee is measurable and apparent, and as with dirt levees, is due to a web of gopher trenching visible throughout.” Response: Inspections are conducted monthly by operations staff. Inspection records are available online: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/flood-control-and-river-restoration-project Inspection report PDF p5, Item 10 “Animal Control” does not reflect the presence of any burrows.

No active pest management plan/service was previously contracted before 3/24/23 when Ops staff executed a contract amendment with Clark Pest Control to commence services similar to rodent management services for the Wastewater Treatment Facility treatment pond levees.

The inspection report reflects both settlement and filler joint deterioration as it relates to the flood wall, Inspection Report PDF. 9, Item 5 “Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete Structures”, Item 6 “Foundation of Concrete Structures” and Item 7 “Monolith Joints”. Staff will develop a CIP to remediate these items.

Question: “The EIR continues to refer to the St Helena levee as being designed to the 200 year flood level, despite the (attached) FEMA Letter of Map Revision provided to St Helena states that the Levee is accredited to the 100 year flood level.” Many commentors have expressed this same concern, sometimes including a reference to flood insurance availability as “proof” that the levee will fail. What is the levee certified for?
Response: The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map notes the 100-year flood being “diverted” by the levee and not impacting those parcels in which it protects, including the Hunter development. The same map denotes 500-year flooding of the area on the “dry side” of the levee development.

There is an extensive discussion of the floodplain and the role of the levee, starting on page 3.9-5.

Figure 3.9-2 is also quite helpful, as it shows the most recent FEMA data (post LOMR) but also acknowledges that the 2% flood risk is due the presence of the levee. The commenters are also reminded that FEMA is not a land use agency; they can recommend revised floodplain management practices, but they do not make land use recommendations.

The notation on the updated FEMA map is not necessarily based upon an overtopping or failure of the levee or flood wall. It primarily reflects flows exceeding the capacity of the Napa River and flooding adjacent lands around the limits of the flood protection project.

Question: “The EIR states that maintenance of the SH levee has been ongoing, yet a public records request provided reports that show years of no/missing maintenance records. The public has the right to validation of the EIR’s unsubstantiated claims of consistent levee maintenance by providing the full records (2011 through 2023) as an addendum or a link to them on the city site.” Response: As noted above, inspection records through February 2023 have been uploaded to the City’s website and are available for public inspection. Additional records will be uploaded when available.

Question: “Can the city/applicant legally alter the levee structure without submitting it to FEMA – will it affect the Letter of Map Revision which is based on the exact structure and design submitted Agenda Item #5.11.

2 for the Letter of Map Revision? How does a road cut into the side of the levee affect the integrity of a levee which the entire subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods depend on for flood risk reduction?”
Response: “Improvements” that impact the integrity of the levee will require FEMA approval. The applicant will be required to confirm whether the proposed improvements required to implement the proposed Tentative Map, including the proposed emergency access from the subdivision to the levee road, which requires additional fill against the levee, requires FEMA permitting.

Question: “How can the City approve development in a flood plain” These comments apparently result from a misreading of the updated FEMA map, which shows the project in an area subject to a 500-year flood risk (a 0.02% annual chance of flooding), and a mischaracterization of what constitutes a “flood plain.” The St Helena Municipal Code defines “floodplain” as, “… land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source.” “Susceptible” in this context does not include areas subject to a 500-year flood risk.

The City reviews the flood zone as part of the entitlement process and then requires construction means/methods to conform to the corresponding zone. For instance, if a zone requires construction of finished floors 1 foot above a designated elevation, the building permit process will document the finished floor elevation both as designed and constructed through the Flood Certificate process.

Agenda Item #5.11.

1 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HUNTER SUBDIVISION This document provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the Hunter Subdivision project.

Topics in this FAQ:
• Is the Hunter Project In a Floodplain?
• How will the Hunter Project Comply with Water Neutrality Requirements? • Will the Hunter Project affect emergency evacuation?
• Will we lose access to trails and open space?
• Will the Hunter Project provide affordable housing?
• Will the Hunter Project create traffic congestion?
More detailed information is available on the City’s web site. Go to www.cityofsthelena.org and search for “Hunter” or check the City Council agenda page at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/ to download the complete staff report package.

FAQ: Is the Hunter Project In a Floodplain?
Yes, the Hunter Project is located in an area designated by the Federal Emergency Managament Agency (FEMA) as a “floodplain,” but with a 1-in-500 risk of flooding in an given year. This 1-in-500 risk is the same as affects the adjacent Vineyard Valley mobilehome community, and is considered safe for development.

Many commentors have asked whether the Hunter project is located in a floodplain, and if the levee adjacent to the Hunter Subdivision project site can be relied upon to provide protection to the project area. Summaries of these comments and responses from the Public Works and Planning departments are provided below.

Question: “Gophers have caused extensive burrowing throughout the levee” and “The levee is now over a decade old. Visible compaction to the top of the levee is measurable and apparent, and as with dirt levees, is due to a web of gopher trenching visible throughout.” Response: The City has updated its website the inspection reports from Oct 2015 through February 2023. Inspection records, current to 2/14/23, are available online:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/flood-control-and-river-restoration-project The City performs regular inspections of the levee and has scheduled to upload additional reports as they are available. Additionally, similar to the inspection/maintenance of the levees surrounding the Wastewater Treatment Ponds, the City has engaged a vendor to provide pest management services.

Question: “The EIR continues to refer to the St Helena levee as being designed to the 200 year flood level, despite the (attached) FEMA Letter of Map Revision provided to St Helena states that the Levee is accredited to the 100 year flood level.” Many commentors have expressed this same concern, sometimes including a reference to flood insurance availability as “proof” that the levee will fail. What is the levee certified for?
Response: The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map notes the 100-year flood being “diverted” by the levee and not impacting those parcels in which it protects, including the Hunter development. The same map denotes 500-year flooding of the area on the “dry side” of the levee development.

There is an extensive discussion of the floodplain and the role of the levee, starting on page 3.9-5 Agenda Item #5.11.

2 of the Draft EIR for the Hunter project. The figure below shows the most recent FEMA data (post LOMR) but also acknowledges that the 0.2% flood risk (a 1-in-500 chance in any given year) is due the presence of the levee. The commenters are also reminded that FEMA is not a land use agency; they can recommend revised floodplain management practices, but they do not make land use recommendations.

The notation on the updated FEMA map is not necessarily based upon an overtopping or failure of the levee or flood wall. It primarily reflects flows exceeding the capacity of the Napa River and flooding adjacent lands around the limits of the flood protection project.

Question: “The EIR states that maintenance of the SH levee has been ongoing, yet a public records request provided reports that show years of no/missing maintenance records. The public has the right to validation of the EIR’s unsubstantiated claims of consistent levee maintenance by providing the full records (2011 through 2023) as an addendum or a link to them on the city site.” Response: As noted above, inspection records through February 2023 are available for public inspection on the City’s web site:

Agenda Item #5.11.

3 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/flood-control-and-river-restoration-project Additional records will be uploaded when available.

Question: “Can the city/applicant legally alter the levee structure without submitting it to FEMA – will it affect the Letter of Map Revision which is based on the exact structure and design submitted for the Letter of Map Revision? How does a road cut into the side of the levee affect the integrity of a levee which the entire subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods depend on for flood risk reduction?”
Response: “Improvements” that impact the integrity of the levee would require FEMA approval. The applicant will be required to confirm whether the proposed improvements required to implement the proposed Tentative Map, including the proposed emergency access from the subdivision to the levee road, which requires additional fill against the levee, requires FEMA permitting.

Question: “How can the City approve development in a flood plain” These comments apparently result from a misreading of the updated FEMA map, which shows the project in an area subject to a 500-year flood risk (a 0.02% annual chance of flooding), and a mischaracterization of what constitutes a “flood plain.” The St Helena Municipal Code defines “floodplain” as, “… land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source.” “Susceptible” in this context does not include areas subject to a 500-year flood risk.

The City reviews the flood zone as part of the entitlement process and then requires construction means/methods to conform to the corresponding zone. For instance, if a zone requires construction of finished floors 1 foot above a designated elevation, the building permit process will document the finished floor elevation both as designed and constructed through the Flood Certificate process.

FAQ: How Will the Hunter Project Comply with Water Neutrality Requirements? The Hunter project will be required to comply with the City’s Water Neutrality regulations. A proposed condition of approval requires the project to build improvements that offset its water use before construction of homes can begin.

The City of St Helena, responding to limits on the amount of water available to serve homes and businesses with water for drinking and other indoor uses (“City water”), has adopted regulations which require that new development does not increase the demand for City Water. This can be done either by offsetting demand elsewhere in the city (reducing the use of City water in existing homes or businesses), reducing leakage in the City’s water system, or paying fees that fund these types of projects.

The water needs for the Hunter project will be met through a combination of City water (for indoor uses) and an existing onsite well, which will be used for outdoor uses (irrigation, washing cars, etc.).

The use of the onsite well will offset about half of the project’s total demand for water. The rest of the water savings required by City regulations will need to be done through water-saving projects to be built by the developer before construction of homes can begin. A proposed condition of approval recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission requires that these projects are built and operational before construction of new homes in the Hunter Project can begin. Retrofitting of toilets in existing homes is not proposed.

The issue of Water Neutrality and the project’s ability to comply with the City’s requirement for no net increase in demand for domestic water, is addressed in detail in Master Response #2 in the Final EIR.

Agenda Item #5.11.

4 The Draft EIR concluded that a variety of measures (detailed in Appendix J to the Draft EIR) are available that would either decrease water demand or increase the efficiency of the City’s water system so that the additional demand created by the proposed project would be offset and overall citywide demand would not increase. The Master Response also notes that the use of the onsite water well for irrigation and other outdoor uses is part of the overall strategy to reduce water demand for the project.

FAQ: Will the Hunter Project Affect Emergency Evacuation? No, the Hunter project will not create problems related to emergency evacuation. By completing the roadway network in the area (connecting Adams Street and Starr Avenue), the project will provide new evacuation routes.

Numerous comments were raised regarding emergency evacuation, specifically for residents of the adjacent Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park (Vineyard Valley). Concerns included the addition of vehicles from the Proposed Project and the potential to hinder evacuation of residents in the area, including in the Vineyard Valley development during an emergency.

Commentors asked whether this impact was considered and expressed concern about potential adverse impacts to public safety.

On August 3, 2021, the St. Helena Police Department in conjunction with the St. Helena Fire Department conducted a practice emergency evacuation drill of Vineyard Valley residents. The emergency simulated a major incident, such as a fire, where the residents of Vineyard Valley would be asked to leave in a moment's notice in their vehicles. Residents evacuated in approximately 25 to 30 minutes. An “After Action Report,” dated Sept 20, 2021, which provides additional detail on the evacuation drill, is available as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3357/fin al_eir_hunter_subdivision_project_oct_2022.pdf
Based on the results of the evacuation drill, the St. Helena Police Department has concluded that any additional traffic from the Proposed Project would not significantly impact the ability of Vineyard Valley residents to safely evacuate the development in the event of an emergency. The Police Department also concluded that the proposed extension of Starr Avenue to Adams Street will help facilitate future evacuations by providing additional roadway capacity and additional routing options for emergency traffic. If, for some reason, the levee maintenance road is closed, residents of Vineyard Valley would exit using the access onto Pope Street.

In the event of an emergency there would be three roadways that would enable vehicles to safely enter/exit the Project site and all streets and roads would be designed to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress.

FAQ: Will we lose access to trails and open space?
No, the Hunter project will not affect existing public trails, although it will affect some informal trails on private property that are currently used by residents and visitors.

There is one public trail adjacent to the Hunter project site, which runs along the top of the levee road from the end of Adams Street to the Napa River in a loop, as shown in the figure below. This trail is entirely outside of the Hunter subdivision and would not be affected by the project.

Agenda Item #5.11.

5 The Hunter project site contains an informal trail network which is often used by residents and visitors. The use of these trails is not guaranteed—they are on private property—and the development of the project would remove these trails.

Walking Path/Trail
Levee Maintenance
Road
128
29 Hollis Ln
Paseo Grand Dr
S tarr Ave
Allison Ave
June Ln
Paulson Ct
GranadaCt
Del Monte Ct
Fulton Ln
San Lucas Ct
Peppertree Cir
Madrona Ave
Library Ln
Del Campo Ct
Kidd Ranch Rd
Stockton St
Crinella Dr
Church St
Kearney St
Ma riposa Ln
Del Rio Ct
Redondo Ct
Brown St
Mitchell Dr
Edwards St
Pratt Ave
Money Way
Pine St
Oak Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Laguna SecaCt
Signorelli Cir
Tainter St
McCorkle Ave
Spring St
Meadowcreek Cir
Adams St
Railroad Ave
Chiles Ave
Hunt A ve
Pope St
29 Main St
Napa River Loop
Hunter Subdivision Project
SOURCE: Napa County 2015, Bing 2022
Date: 6/22/2022 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\FigureX_NapaRiverLoop.mxd 0 610 305 Feet
Napa River Loop
Hunter Subdivision Project Boundary
St. Helena City Boundary
101
37 12
221
29 1
116
175
121
12 128
128
16 680
780
5 505
80 Lake County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
Marin County
Solano County
Project Site
Agenda Item #5.11.

6 FAQ: Will the Hunter Project Provide Affordable Housing? Yes, the Hunter subdivision project will be required to provide affordable housing as required by City regulations. The St Helena Municipal Code (chapter 17.46) requires that at least 20% of the homes in all all housing developments with more than five dwelling units be affordable to moderate, low, and very low income households (as defined in the Housing Element of the St Helena General Plan). This requirement applies to the proposed Hunter subdivision.

Among the requirements for affordable housing in the Municipal Code are:
• The affordable units “shall be constructed and completed not later than the related market rate units.”
• “Affordable units shall be comparable in number of bedrooms, exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to market rate units in the same residential project.” • “Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the residential project, or, subject to the approval of the planning commission, may be clustered within the residential project when this furthers affordable housing opportunities.”
The Municipal Code allows for exceptions to the requirement that the affordable units be the same size as market-rate units and distributed throughout the project, subject to approval by the Planning Commission.

The Municipal Code also allows “alternative methods” to provide affordable housing, potentially including the payment of in-lieu fees instead of building affordable units as part of a residential project.

Whether the units are provided as part of the proposed project or an alternative method is proposed, the applicant’s proposal would need to be approved in an Affordable Housing Agreement that would be subject to review and approval by the City Council. A proposed condition of approval recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission requires that the Affordable Housing Agreement be approved before the Final Map for the subdivision can be approved.

FAQ: Will the Hunter Project Create Traffic Congestion? No, the Hunter project will not create new congestion. The Hunter project would add traffic to local roadways where congestion already occurs, but it would not create new congestion. This is similar to numerous other projects in St Helena, residential and commercial, which all create the need for residents or customers to drive their cars and add to existing congestion.

The project’s impacts on local roadways are thoroughly documented in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project. The study is Appendix K to the project’s Draft Environmental Impact report, available online:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/page/3357/ap pendices_combined_with_slipsheet_opt.pdf
Intersections where cars from the Hunter project would add to existing or projected congestion are:
• Main St/Pope St: Adds ~5 seconds of delay to peak hour waits at the intersection • Paseo Grande/Pope St: Adds <5 seconds of delay to peak hour waits • Silverado Trail/Pope St: Adds 1.3 seconds of delay to peak hour waits Conditions of approval require improvements and payment of traffic impact fees. These fees will be Agenda Item #5.11.

7 used (combined with fees paid by other projects and other City funds) to make roadway improvements that are beyond the responsibility of the Hunter project.

Agenda Item #5.11.

50 California Street, Suite 2800 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Daniel R. Golub
415-743-6900
[email protected]
February 2, 2023
Via Email and First-Class Mail
John Ponte, Chair, Planning Commission
Autumn Anderson, Vice Chair, Planning Commission
Rosaura Segura, Planning Commissioner
Marika Rothfeld, Planning Commissioner
Christopher Warner, Planning Commissioner
CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING COMMISSION
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: City of St. Helena, Unlawful Conditions on Hunter Subdivision Project Dear Chair Ponte, Vice-Chair Anderson, and Commissioners:

Holland & Knight LLP has been engaged to represent Dennis Hunter, Kelly and Ben Vanzutphen, and White Fang Properties, LLC in connection with the Hunter Subdivision project located north of Hunt Avenue (APN 009-030-057) (the “Project”). Our West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law practice group focuses specifically on enforcing recently reformed provisions of state housing law, in particular Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act.

We write to address the hundred-plus conditions that City staff has recommended imposing upon the Project as prerequisites for Tentative Map approval. Planning Commission Report, 140-157 (attached hereto for reference as Attachment A).

I. The City’s imposition of conditions related to storm water drainage violates its commitments in the 2009 Purchase and Sale Agreement.

First and most critically, we wish to address the following “Public Works Drainage Improvements Conditions”:
 87.1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all City-required improvements related to storm water for the project shall be installed by the project developer at its

1 For avoidance of confusion, please note that staff’s discussion of “Conditions Not Revised As Requested by the Applicant” (Planning Commission Report, pages 25-26), appears to mis-number the applicable conditions. Thus, Agenda Item #5.11.

St. Helena Planning Commission
February 2, 2023

expense. Drainage improvements shall be designed and funded by the developer in accordance with the Design Criteria utilizing the rationale method and any applicable adopted City drainage plans.
 89. Post-development flows leaving the site shall not exceed pre-development flows.  90. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide to the City an analysis of the capacity and condition of existing drainage facilities downstream of the development (including any detention/retention ponds), including recommendations for off-site drainage improvements, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Site grading and drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans.

As you know, in January of 2009, Mr. Hunter and the City entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”) with respect to the City’s purchase of property in connection with its control project. In the Agreement, the City committed “to build certain retention and drainage facilities,” including a new detention basin and drainage ditches, and modifications to the then-existing detention basin inlet. Agreement, § 1.7. Per the Agreement, the City was obligated to construct this infrastructure “based upon the projected build-out of [the Project].” Agreement, § 1.7(c).

The demands expressed in Conditions of Approval 87, 89, and 90 are wholly inconsistent with the City’s contractual promise to develop storm water infrastructure based on the projected build-out of the Project. Condition 87, requiring the development team to install “all Cityrequired improvements related to storm water” at their own expense, suggests that the City developed storm water infrastructure that fell below its own requirements. Likewise, Condition 90 requires the development team to undertake a detailed and expensive analysis of “existing drainage facilities” (i.e., those built by the City pursuant to its contractual obligations), recommend improvements, and then make those improvements. In other words, the City demands that the development team analyze the City’s own work, suggest improvements, and pay for them. And while the “requirement to provide detailed hydrological analysis of proposed stormwater systems” may be “a standard requirement for all development projects,” as the Planning Commission Report (p. 26) asserts, it is certainly not a “standard requirement” in the context of storm water systems that the City has already built, pursuant to a legal obligation.

Condition 89 likewise seek to shift the City’s responsibility for developing adequate storm water infrastructure onto the development team.

Put simply, the Agreement obligated the City to develop storm water infrastructure adequate to serve the needs of the Project as built out. To now insist that its own efforts were inadequate, and demand that the development team pick up the slack, is unlawful. See, e.g., Harm v.

Frasher, 181 Cal. App. 2d 405, 417 (1960) (“There is implied in every contract a covenant by each party not to do anything which will deprive the other parties thereto of the benefits of the

the comment for “COA 88” appears to apply to Condition 87, the comment for “COA 90” appears to apply to Condition 89, and the comment for “COA 91” appears to apply to Condition 90.

Agenda Item #5.11.