Agenda — St. Helena City Council, May 17, 2023 (part 4 of 4)

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 414 of 564 ends

Page 8 of 10 ends

*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: November 10, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ production of alcohol. Only a few local wineries were able to survive Prohibition by producing sacramental wine, and the industry did not begin to recover until after World War II.4
Ironically, the modern wine tourism industry was born during Prohibition, when Bay Area residents began driving up to Napa to buy illegal wine. Modern St. Helena is a center of both the Napa Valley wine business and the local wine tourism industry.5 2126 Madrona Avenue
The first known owner of the property was Ulrich Meyer. In 1880, he sold the property to Conrad Meyer. In 1881, Conrad Meyer transferred a twenty-foot-wide piece of the property to W. (William) E. York. Conrad was a mason and carpenter and apparently built a four-room cottage on the Madrona property in 1883, which may be the core of the house currently on the property (it was reportedly 24 feet square, and the current house is about 24 feet wide but much longer). In 1884, Meyer sold the property to M. C. Cook, who wanted to develop the property as his permanent home. The Cook family was living on the ranch when their eldest son was born in 1885, and in all likelihood added to and altered the house over the half century they occupied the property. 6 Morgan Columbus Cook (1852-1914) was born in Missouri. He and his wife, Lelia, were pioneers in the Napa Valley. He grew alfalfa and had an orchard on the property on Madrona Avenue. In 1909, he harvested forty-seven tons of prunes from his property. He was a local farmer for many years. He was a husband and father to two children, Charles Harvey Cook (1885-1957) and Lillian Mae Cook. M. C. Cook died at age sixty-two due to a heart attack. Lelia stayed on in the house with her two adult children and continued to operate the farm. In 1923, Harvey Cook married Mary O. Wiley (1894-1972). They had a son, Harvey Ernest Cook, in 1928. The entire five-person family, including Lillian (who never married), continued to live together in the house on the property. Harvey Cook inherited the property after his mother died in 1943. He was a rancher and continued farming prunes on the property. Harvey Cook Jr. served with the United States Army in Japan before attending the University of California at Davis for agricultural college. The Cook family apparently continued living at the property until at least 1948. In 1957, Harvey Cook Sr. died from a heart attack.7 Starting in the 1950s, Andrew Isador Rossi (1922-2006) and Mary Jane Rossi (1929-2019) resided at the address. By 1952, when their son Edward was born, the young family was living on Madrona Avenue. Andrew Rossi emigrated from Italy with his family. His father, Louis Rossi, inherited their family ranch in Conn Valley in 1922 when his brother died. Andrew Rossi graduated from St. Helena High School in 1940 and joined the navy on Mare Island. He married Mary Jane Giacomini in 1951 and the couple had five children: Thomas (who died in infancy), Edward, Catherine, Dennis, and Susan. Mary Jane worked at Beringer and Andrew attended the vineyard on the property, which produces award-winning wines. Andrew Rossi died in 2006 and Mary Jane stayed on in the house on her own. After Mary Jane Rossi died in 2019, current owner Michael Kenneth Hubbard purchased the property. 8 Evaluation:

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) require that a significance criterion from A-D or 1-4 (respectively) be met for a resource to be eligible.

Criterion A/1: The house at 2126 Madrona Avenue is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The property is generally associated with the agricultural and rural-residential development of the St. Helena area in the late nineteenth century. Research has not revealed that the property is significant within that or any other historic context.

Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.

4 Marian Hansen, Images of America, St. Helena, Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2010, p. 96. 5 Lin Weber, Roots of the Present, Napa Valley 1900 to 1950, St. Helena: Wine Ventures Publishing, 2001, p.148 – 175. 6 The St. Helena Star, “Real Estate,” Dec. 24, 1880, 3; The St. Helena Star, “Local,” July 17, 1883, 1; The St. Helena Star, “Real Estate Sales,” May 26, 1884, 2.
7 The St. Helena Star, “Twenty Years Ago This Week,” May 11, 1934, 9; The St. Helena Star, “Good Yield of Prunes,” Oct. 29, 1909, 8; The St. Helena Star, “Alfalfa Pasturage,” Sep. 25, 1896, 3; Napa Journal, “Sudden Death of M. C. Cook,” May 15, 1914, 1; The St. Helena Star, “Personal and Social:

Silver Wedding,” Nov. 5, 1948, 4; The St. Helena Star, “With Our Soldier Boys,” Feb. 14, 1919, 8; The St. Helena Star, “Quiet Home Wedding,” Nov. 2, 1923, 1; US Census records, St. Helena, California, 1930, 1940; the St. Helena Star, “Shower For Baby,” Apr. 20, 1928, 6; The Napa Valley Register, “Mary W. Cook,” July 3, 1972, 9; The Napa Valley Register, “Harvey Cook Dies of Heart Attack in Lot,” Oct. 14, 1957, 7. 8 The Napa Valley Register, “St. Helena News Brief,” Dec. 3, 1952, 6; The Napa Valley Register, “Conn,” May 23, 1998, 53; The Napa Valley Register, “Three Napa County Boys Will Attend Boys State,” Apr. 10, 1969, 14; The St. Helena Star, “Academy Nominees,” Jan. 29, 1970, 3.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 94 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 415 of 564 ends

Page 9 of 10 ends

Criterion C/3: 2126 Madrona Avenue is not significant for its architecture. The house has been substantially altered over the decades, with the enclosure of an original porch and replacement of original siding among the most substantial changes to its historic form. Its size and massing as well as the lack of decorative detail indicate that it was originally a simple vernacular building constructed as shelter and without architectural distinction. Its current appearance gives no indication that it ever possessed the character-defining features of landmark Victorian-era residences. However, research has not revealed historic photographs, plans, or elevations, so the details of its original form are obscure. For these reasons, the property lacks the significance and integrity required for historic listing. It is therefore recommended ineligible to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3.

Criterion D/4: In rare instances, buildings themselves can serve as sources of important information about historic construction materials or technologies and be significant under Criterion D/4. 2126 Madrona Avenue is an example of a well-understood type of construction and does not appear to be a principal source of important information in this regard.

The property is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR and does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA.

Nor is it recommended eligible for listing on the City of St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory.

Figure 1: Map of the Central Portions of Napa Valley and the Town of St. Helena Compiled by M.G. King and T.W. Morgan from the Official Surveys and Records of Napa County, 1881.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 95 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 416 of 564 ends

Page 10 of 10 ends

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 96 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 417 of 564 ends

December 1, 2022
Sasha Janev
Kroeger-Janev Architects
1432 Main Street
St. Helena, California, 94574
Subject: Public comments on November 2021 Memorandum reviewing the Historic Compatibility of the Proposed Project for 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, Napa County, California.

Dear Sasha,
Summary of Findings
Brunzell Historical evaluated 2126 Madrona Avenue for architectural and historical significance according to local, state, and national eligibility requirements in 2021. Newspaper stories published when the house was constructed in 1883 indicate that it was 24 feet square; the current house is rectangular but is about 24 feet wide so the original building may be at its core. However, its size, materials, and features such as entry stairs that lead toward the side of the building (rather than toward the street) indicate multiple substantial alterations to the property outside the historic era. It lacks the architectural significance required for historic listing. Furthermore, because it is so heavily altered, the house does not retain integrity as a vernacular 1880s farmhouse. Nor has research revealed historical significance or association with important historic persons.

The Giacomini Rossi family occupied the property and farmed it for many decades, but their agricultural accomplishments have not left a substantial mark on the historic record. There is no evidence that they were leaders of the local agricultural community, that they developed innovative farming techniques, or that they had any lasting impact on the wine business. For these reasons, the property was not recommended eligible to the CRHR or the National Register of Historic Places. Neither the house nor its outbuildings meet any of the required criteria for significance as described below and in the attached DPR 523 forms. Nor was the property recommended eligible as a City of St. Helena historical resource.

California Register of Historical Resources
For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), one or more of the following criteria must be met:

1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; and/or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that an evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years are typically evaluated. The CRHR also requires that a Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 97 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 418 of 564 ends

resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for a resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Response to comments on Historical Resource Evaluation
In a document detailing their objections to the proposed project, neighbors of 2126 Madrona Avenue state that our Historical Resource Evaluation should be disregarded because of errors. Assertions that our report has many errors are not substantiated, i.e. no specific errors are listed. The criticisms of our report are vague and for the most part misread our document, attributing statements to it that are not found in the text of our report. The comments are not founded on a basic understanding of historic preservation practice, knowledge of state and local preservation regulations, or familiarity with professional standards for historic evaluations.

The substance of the commenter complaints are as follows:

1. The commenters assert that our report relies on the fact that the property was not previously listed on the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory.

Nowhere in our report does it state that a property must already be listed on a historic register to qualify as a historical resource; in fact, our report is explicitly labeled a historical resource evaluation and specifically assesses the property under the relevant CRHR eligibility criteria listed above. It introduces that 2126 Madrona Avenue is not on the local Historic Resource Inventory as a reason for preparation of the evaluation report, but the above assertion is false.

2. The commenters assert that our report states that historic eligibility is not associated with the broad patterns of history and that the report overlooks the fact that St. Helena inherits its historical value from the small farming tradition.

This comment is also based on a misreading of our report, which specifically evaluates the property’s potential for historic eligibility based on associations with local history. What our report says is that the property is not significantly associated with the historic context of local agricultural development or with any other important local context. In terms of the commenters’ assertion that the farmhouse is “the St. Helena style,” they are correct that it is a representative of a typology of historic-era building commonly found in Napa County. However, as explained in greater detail in our report and supported by photographs from our field survey, the house was never architecturally significant.

Constructed in 1883, its size, materials, and exterior details indicate that it has been substantially altered over the years to the point that it is not a very good example of a simple nineteenth-century farmhouse. The commenters misunderstand the central purpose of historic preservation regulations:
to identify historically and/or architecturally significant buildings constructed during the historic era so they can be set aside from ordinary old buildings and treated with special care. Historic preservation practice and law require that historic buildings be both significant under the criteria above and retain sufficient historic integrity to convey that significance. This house lacks both significance and integrity. Historic preservation is based on a fundamental assumption: we restrict the rights of a property owner via requirement to preserve a privately owned building only when such a building meets a high standard.

3. The commenters assert that the vineyard itself is historically significant because Mary Jane Giacomini Rossi lived on the property for most of her life, because the family dry farmed the vineyard, and because local vintner Beth Milliken Novak has referred to the vineyard as “historical.” Although the commenters accurately surmise that our office did not speak with the Rossi family, there is no professional requirement to perform oral histories when evaluating properties for historical significance. Our report was prepared in accordance with rigorous professional methodology and with reference to California OHP’s “Instructions for Recording Historical Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 98 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 419 of 564 ends

Resources,” which sets the standard statewide for compliance with the CEQA requirement that projects take historical resources into consideration. We consulted published histories of St. Helena and Napa County as well as dozens of primary source documents including historic maps, census records, and newspaper articles published between 1880 and 2019. Although some references to the quality of the wine produced by the vineyard were discovered, production of award-winning wines is not unusual in an area known for the outstanding quality of its wines. Research did not reveal any extraordinary agricultural accomplishments or groundbreaking wine-growing techniques attributed to the Andrew Rossi or other members of the family. The bottom line is that we could have studied this property for months and discovered many additional facts about Rossi family history, but the outcome would be the same because the house and other buildings lacked both historic significance and historic integrity. Specific evaluation of the vineyard as a historic landscape was outside the scope of the 2021 historical evaluation, but if such an effort were undertaken, it would require rigorous application of the standards discussed above, not just an assertion that the vineyard is historic because it has been dry farmed and because a single family occupied it for eight decades. The comments provided are not sufficient to find the vineyard eligible for historic listing as a historic landscape. And if the vineyard did qualify as a historic landscape, that would not trigger preservation in perpetuity of the specific vines present in 2022 as the commenters appear to assume.

I stand by the methodology of the report as well as its conclusions; overall, the criticisms of the report are not relevant to either City of St. Helena or CEQA requirements pursuant to historical resources. The commenters introduce no new facts to suggest that a second evaluation of the property would find it eligible for historic listing.

Evaluator Qualifications
I meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications for both History and Architectural History. I hold a Master’s degree in Public History and have worked in multiple facets of historic preservation and cultural resource evaluation since 2007. My experience includes municipal preservation planning and working as the lead staff member of a non-profit preservation organization. Since 2012, I have worked full-time as a historical consultant, completing dozens of evaluations for CEQA and Section 106 compliance. Additionally, I have completed local and national register nominations, historic context statements, and HAER recordation. The North Bay is the center of my practice, but I frequently work in the greater Sacramento area and other parts of the Bay Area, and have also completed projects in Southern California, Nevada, Oregon, New York, and Puerto Rico. In addition to my work with historic-period domestic, agricultural, and commercial properties for private clients, I have prepared reports on post offices, military bases, university campuses, hospitals, church properties, national parks, and a NASA site. I am listed as a Historian and Architectural Historian on the California Office of Historic Preservation’s roster of qualified consultants for every county in California.

Please contact me by phone at 707/290-2918 or e-mail at [email protected] with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Kara Brunzell, M.A.

Brunzell Historical
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 99 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 420 of 564 ends

1 WATER USE ANALYSIS
2126 MADRONA AVENUE, ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
OCTOBER 29, 2021
REVISED: MAY 19, 2022
REVISED: OCTOBER 10, 2022
REVISED: JANUARY 6, 2023
PREPARED BY:

MADRONE ENGINEERING
1485 MAIN STREET, SUITE 302
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 100 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 421 of 564 ends

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION & GENERAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 3 A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3 II. EXISTING WATER USE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 3 III. PROPOSED WATER USE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 4 IV. ALTERNATIVE WATER USE (PHASE II WATER RESTRICTIONS) .......................................................................... 5 V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 101 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 422 of 564 ends

3 I. Introduction & General Overview
A. Introduction
Madrone Engineering has prepared this report to assist the Berchtold Residence project with compliance with the City of St. Helena water use requirement. As of March 22, 2011, a water demand analysis must be completed to demonstrate that all proposed projects are water neutral (City of St. Helena Code 13.12).

B. Project Description
The property owner at 2126 Madrona Avenue is proposing to construct a new residence, ADU, pool, driveway, and related infrastructure and utilities. There is an existing 5-bedroom residence currently on the parcel.

This report will analyze and estimate existing water usage (pre-project) and future water usage (post-project) to determine the net increase (or decrease) in water usage. If water use is projected to increase, mitigation measures will be detailed that will bring the project into compliance with the City’s “no net increase” policy for water use.

II. Existing Water Use Analysis
The existing residence at 2126 Madrona Ave., St. Helena is a 5-bedroom residence built in 1905.

According to the “St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development”, a reasonable estimate of baseline existing demand is 150 gallons of water per bedroom per day. Therefore, existing residential and landscaping water use on the property can be estimated at 750 gallons per day.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 102 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 423 of 564 ends

4 III. Proposed Water Use Analysis
This project proposes the construction of a 4-bedroom residence, 1-bedroom ADU, and a pool at 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, CA. The bedroom count was developed by following the ”St.

Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development”, and by having clarifying conversations with City Public Works and Planning staff. In the basement, no rooms would be considered to be potential bedrooms, as they either do not have a means of secondary egress, or they are open to a hall (no door) and/or must be passed through to reach another room (no privacy). On the main floor, all potential bedrooms are counted as such. On the upper floor, the two study rooms and the tv room would not be considered potential bedrooms, as they are open to a hall (no door).

The new residence will have 10 toilets, 12 bathroom sinks, 6 showerheads, and 3 kitchen/bar sinks, as well as 3 clothes washers, 1 dish washer, 2 baths, and 1 laundry sink. Please see Table 1, below, for a summary of the proposed water use generated by the new main residence.

The 1-bedroom accessory dwelling unit will have 1 toilet, 2 bathroom sinks, 1 showerhead, and 1 kitchen sink, as well as 1 clothes washer and 1 dish washer. Please see Table 2, below, for a summary of the proposed water use generated by the new ADU.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 103 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 424 of 564 ends

5 Proposed landscaping is expected to use 70,790 gallons per year according to the landscape architect (see the MWELO calculations). Approximate water use for the proposed landscaping (averaged out for the entire year) is 194 gallons per day.

The proposed pool can be filled with trucked water rather than City water. Based on the above calculations, the proposed water usage for the parcel can be estimated at 729 gallons per day.

IV. Alternative Water Use (Phase II Water Restrictions) In the event that the City were to enter Phase II Water Regulations, the total water use on the property would be limited as follows: maximum of 65 gallons per person per day, and 2,500 gallons per month for landscaping (from April to October). The property is expected to have two full-time residents, and three part-time residents (180 days per year). Under Phase II Water Regulations, the total annual water use would be approximately 132,550 gallons, or 363 gallons per day, as shown in Table 3, below.

V. Conclusion
Table 4, below, provides a summary of the existing water use, proposed water use, and net effect of the project on total usage of City water.

This report demonstrates that the proposed project is in compliance with City of St. Helena water use requirements; specifically, the requirement that all proposed projects are water-neutral with respect to City water use.
2500
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 104 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 425 of 564 ends

STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN

SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECT

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE, ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
REVISION 3, JANUARY 5, 2023
PREPARED BY:

MADRONE ENGINEERING
1485 MAIN STREET, SUITE 302
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 105 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 426 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence
2 of 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION & GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................... 3 A. REPORT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3 II. PROJECT DATA FORM ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 III. RUNOFF REDUCTION OPTION CHECKLISTS .......................................................................................................... 5 A. OPTION 1: DISPERSE RUNOFF TO VEGETATED AREAS ........................................................................................ 5 B. OPTION 2: PERVIOUS PAVEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 5 C. OPTION 3: CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS ................................................................................................................ 6 D. OPTION 4: BIORETENTION FACILITY OR PLANTER BOX .................................................................................... 6 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 106 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 427 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence
3 of 7
I. Introduction & General Requirements
A. Report Overview
Madrone Engineering has prepared this report to assist the Berchtold Residence project in complying with current storm water regulations, specifically the Phase II NPDES Permit for Small Municipal Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). As of June 30, 2015, development projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface (roofs or pavement) must incorporate specific measures to reduce runoff.

As the total new or reconstructed impervious area for this project is part of a single-family residence project, the project is required to submit a complete Storm Water Control Plan for Small/Single-Family Home Projects. This report follows the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association guidelines found in Appendix C (Small/Single-Family Home Projects) of the Post-Construction Manual.

B. Project Description
This project is requesting Design Review Approval for the construction of a new residence and an ADU at 2126 Madrona Ave., St. Helena, CA (APN 009-470-010). The project will include construction of a new residence, pool, ADU, and related utility infrastructure.

The project location is near the southwest end of Madrona Avenue at the intersection of Fir Hill Drive. The parcel is on the valley floor with slopes ranging from 0-5%. Stormwater is currently transported through the parcel by sheet flow, and there is an existing City storm drain system in Madrone Avenue.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 107 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 428 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence
4 of 7
II. Project Data Form
Project Name/Number Berchtold Residence
Application Submittal Date January 9, 2023
Project Location (street address + APN) 2126 Madrona Avenue St. Helena, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
Name of Owner or Developer Michael Hubbard TR
Project Type and Description Single-Family Residential Project New residence, ADU, AC & chip seal
driveway, pool, and concrete patios.

Total Project Site Area (acres) 5.78 acres
Total New or Replaced Impervious Surface
Area (square feet)
~24,810 square feet
Total Pre-Project Impervious Surface Area ~9,840 square feet Total Post-Project Impervious Surface Area ~24,810 square feet Runoff Reduction Measures Selected
(check one or more)
☒ 1. Disperse runoff to vegetated area
☐ 2. Pervious Pavement
☐ 3. Cisterns or Rain Barrels
☒ 4. Bioretention Facility or Planter Box
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 108 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 429 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence
5 of 7
III. Runoff Reduction Option Checklists
The guidelines in Appendix C of the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual provide four options for reducing storm water runoff:

1. Disperse Runoff to Vegetated Areas

2. Pervious Pavement

3. Cisterns or Rain Barrels

4. Bioretention Facility or Planter Box
Storm water runoff from this project will be routed to vegetated areas (Option 1) and/or directed to bioretention facilities (Option 4). See below for specific details showing the implementation of the selected options.

A. Option 1: Disperse Runoff to Vegetated Areas
On the site plan, show:
☒ Each impervious area from which runoff will be directed, and its square footage. ☒ The vegetated areas that will receive runoff, and the approximate square footage of each. ☒ If necessary, explain in notes on the plan how runoff will be routed from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas.

Confirm the following standard specifications are met:
☒ Tributary impervious square footage in no instance exceeds twice the square footage of the receiving pervious area.
☒ Roof areas collect runoff and route it to the receiving pervious area via gutters and downspouts.
☒ Paved areas are sloped so drainage is routed to the receiving pervious area. ☒ Runoff is dispersed across the vegetated area (for example, with a splash block) to avoid erosion and promote infiltration.
☒ Vegetated area has amended soils, vegetation, and irrigation as required to maintain soil stability and permeability.
☒ Any drain inlets within the vegetated area are at least 3 inches above surrounding grade.

B. Option 2: Pervious Pavement
On the site plan, show:
☐ Location, extent and types of pervious pavements.

Confirm the following standard specifications are met:
☐ No erodible areas drain on to permeable pavement.
☐ Subgrade compaction is minimal.
☐ Reservoir base course is of open-graded crushed stone. Base depth is adequate to retain rainfall (3 inches is adequate) and support design loads (more depth may be required).

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 109 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 430 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence
6 of 7
☐ No subdrain is included or, if a subdrain is included, outlet elevation is a minimum of 3 inches above bottom of base course.
☐ Subgrade is uniform and slopes are not so steep that subgrade is prone to erosion. ☐ Rigid edge is provided to retain granular pavements and unit pavers. ☐ Solid unit pavers, if used, are set in sand or gravel with minimum 3/8 inch gaps between the pavers. Joints are filled with an open-graded aggregate free of fines. ☐ Permeable concrete or porous asphalt, if used, are installed by industry-certified professionals according to the vendor’s recommendations. ☐ Selection and location of pavements incorporates Americans with Disabilities Act requirements (if applicable), site aesthetics, and uses.

C. Option 3: Cisterns or Rain Barrels
On the site plan, show:
☐ Impervious areas tributary to each cistern or rain barrel. ☐ Location of each cistern or rain barrel.

Confirm the following standard specifications are met:
☐ Rain barrels are sited at grade on a sound and level surface at or near gutter downspouts. ☐ Gutters tributary to rain barrels are screened with a leaf guard or maximum ½-inch to ¼- inch-minimum corrosion-resistant metallic hardware fabric. ☐ Water collected will be used for irrigation only.
☐ Openings are screened with a corrosion-resistant metallic fine mesh (1/16 inch or smaller) to prevent mosquito harborage.
☐ Large openings are secured to prevent entry by children. ☐ Rain barrels and gutters are to be cleaned annually.
☐ The local mosquito and vector control district is informed of the installation. The district will be provided additional information and/or rights of entry if they request.

D. Option 4: Bioretention Facility or Planter Box
On the site plan, show:
☒ Impervious areas tributary to the planter box.
☒ Location and footprint of planter box.

Confirm the following standard specifications are met:
☒ Reservoir depth is 4"-6" minimum.
☒ 18" depth soil mix with minimum long-term infiltration rate of 5"/hour. See http://www.cccleanwater.org/c3-guidebook.html for a list of soil mix suppliers. ☒ Surface area of soil mix is a minimum 0.04 times the tributary impervious area. ☒ “Class 2 perm” drainage layer 12" deep.
☒ No filter fabric.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 110 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 431 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence
7 of 7
☒ Perforated pipe (PVC SDR 35 or approved equivalent) underdrain with outlet located flush or nearly flush with planter bottom.
☒ Connection with sufficient head to storm drain or discharge point. ☒ Underdrain has a clean-out port consisting of a vertical, rigid, non-perforated PVC pipe, connected to the underdrain via a sweep bend, with a minimum diameter of 4" and a watertight cap.
☒ Overflow outlet connected to a downstream storm drain or approved discharge point. ☒ Planter is set level.
☒ Emergency spillage will be safely conveyed overland.
☒ Plantings are suitable to the climate, exposure, and a well-drained soil. ☒ Irrigation system with connection to water supply, on a separate zone.

IV. Conclusion
This report demonstrates that the project design is in compliance with current stormwater regulations and follows the recommendations of Appendix C of the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual for a Small/Single-Family Home Project.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 111 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 432 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: VICINITY MAP
APPENDIX B: STORMWATER SKETCH
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 112 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 433 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence

APPENDIXA

VICINITY MAP
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 113 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 434 of 564 ends

SCALE:

N
1" = 2000'

PROJECT SITE
2126 MADRONA AVENUE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010

SHEET OF
DATE: SCALE:

APN:

JOB #
1485 MAIN ST., SUITE 302
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
(707) 302-6280
2 1' = 2,000' 1
05/31/22
009-470-010
VICINITY MAP 21.043

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 114 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 435 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence

APPENDIX B

STORMWATER SKETCH
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 115 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 436 of 564 ends

OHL
OHL

OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL
SCALE: N
1" = 30'
 BIORETENTION AREA #011,000 SF
 IMPERVIOUS AREA #02
6,940 SF (CHIP SEAL,

CONCRETE, ROOF)
 BIORETENTION AREA #02
350 SF
 IMPERVIOUS AREA #01
16,825 SF (CHIP SEAL,

CONCRETE, ROOF)
 IMPERVIOUS AREA #031,045 SF (CHIP SEAL, ASPHALT)
<E> VEGETATED AREA #03
1,700 SF
 VEGETATED/
PERVIOUS AREA #01
9,620 SF
 VEGETATED/
PERVIOUS AREA #02
5,360 SF
 POOL/SPA

SELF-RETAINING AREA
DATE:

SCALE:

JOB #:

OF
707-302-6280 APN:
1485 Main Street, Suite 302 St. Helena, California 94574 CA ST. HELENA

DMA EXHIBIT

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE

21.043
2 2
01/05/23
1'=30'
009-470-010
DMA EXHIBIT SCALE IN FEET 0 30'
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 116 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 437 of 564 ends

ASSESSOR PARCEL DATA FOR PROPERTIES SURROUNDING 2126 MADRONA AVENUE
2016 Madrona Avenue (APN: 009-470-014) Primary Residence = 3,018 SF; Garage = 503 SF; 3 bedrooms; 3 full baths; 1 half bath; lot = 11,431 SF (0.26 acre)
2036 Madrona Avenue (APN: 009-470-013) Bed & Breakfast = 1,595; 2 bedrooms; lot = 11,274 SF (0.26 acre)
2056 Madrona Avenue (APN: 009-470-027) Primary Residence = 3,444 SF; Garage = 440 SF; Unfinished square footage = 440 SF; 3 bedrooms; 3 full baths; 1 half bath; lot = 31,470 SF (0.72 acre) 2126 Madrona Avenue – existing (APN: 009-470-010) Primary Residence = 1,728 SF; Garage = 780 SF; 5 bedrooms, 2 full baths; lot = 5.78 acres
2212 Madrona Avenue (APN: 009-470-009) Primary Residence = 4,415 SF; Garage = 731 SF; Unfinished square footage = 1,688 SF; 3 bedrooms, no data provided for bathrooms; lot = 1.42 acre 1615 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-470-008) Primary Residence = 2,046 SF; Garage = 560 SF; 4 bedrooms, no data provided for bathrooms; lot = 1 acre
1693 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-470-007) Primary Residence = 3,424 SF; Garage = 1,458 SF; 3 bedrooms; 3 full baths; 1 half bath; lot = 1 acre
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 117 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 438 of 564 ends

1733 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-470-006) Primary Residence = 4,704 SF; Garage = 528 SF; Unfinished square footage = 295 SF; 4 bedrooms, 4 full baths; 1 half bath; lot = 1.35 acre 1775 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-470-005) Primary Residence = 1,652 SF; Garage = 484 SF; 2 bedrooms, 1 full bath; 1 half bath; lot = 43,310 SF (0.99 acre)
1795 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-470-004) Primary Residence = 5,633; Garage = 684 SF; 5 bedrooms; 5 full baths; lot = 1.01 acre
1815 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-470-003) Primary Residence = 3,945 SF; Garage = 1,120 SF; Unfinished square footage = 132 SF; 4 bedrooms, 3 full baths; lot = 1.02 acre 1837 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-460-002) Primary Residence = 5,271 SF; Garage = 1,140 SF; Unfinished square footage = 1,140 SF; 4 bedrooms; 5 full baths; 1 half bath; lot = 1.77 acre 1853 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-460-003) Primary Residence = 3,777 SF; Garage = 588 SF; 4 bedrooms; 3 full baths; 1 half bath; lot = 2 acre
1971 Fir Hill Drive (APN: 009-460-021) Primary Residence = 4,239 SF; Garage = 794 SF; 3 bedrooms; 4 full baths; 2 half baths; lot = 1.65 acre
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 118 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 439 of 564 ends

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
BN 73934304v1
707.200.9414 Direct December 12, 2022 [email protected]

SENT VIA EMAIL
Chantal Power
Contract Planner
City of St. Helena
Email: [email protected]
Maya DeRosa
Community Development Director
City of St. Helena
Email: [email protected]
Re: PL 21-044 - 2126 Madrona Ave. Single-Family Home Development Project Dear Ms. Power and Ms. DeRosa:

At the December 6, 2022, session, the Planning Commission requested a summary of the issues discussed at the neighborhood meetings. Our synopsis of the issues discussed is below, along with our comments regarding the status of each issue.

1. Access to the property from Fir Hill Drive. Several neighbors raised concerns about increased traffic on Fir Hill Drive from the initially proposed driveways to 2126 Madrona Avenue. Rather than engage in an extended assessment of easement rights, the Berchtolds agreed to remove those driveways from their plans.

Neighbors also had concerns regarding the visibility on the corner of Fir Hill Drive and Madrona Avenue. We confirmed that the motor court screening wall is located 48 feet from the property line on Madrona Avenue and 38 feet on Fir Hill Drive, which is well within the city of St. Helena street standards for visibility. Further, we agreed to shift some of the olive trees closer to the corner along Fir Hill Drive to increase visibility.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 119 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 440 of 564 ends

Chantal Power
Maya DeRosa
December 12, 2022

Page 2 ends

BN 73934304v1

2. Storm water runoff. Given the flooding that occurred in storms last winter, neighbors raised questions about the adequacy of storm water runoff plans. Notwithstanding the fact the Berchtolds’ property is downhill from the homes on Fir Hill, the Berchtolds have not only complied with the required storm water runoff management standard of a 2-year storm, but they made the commitment to create a dry pond at the low point of the property that substantially exceeds this standard. The dry pond can accommodate 5 times the output of a 100-year storm.

3. Water usage. Several neighbors queried the metrics given for water usage. The Berchtolds’ architect explained that the water usage calculations are based on City standards, not planned actual use. Landscaping plans contemplate low-water plantings and water conservation fixtures will exist throughout the house. As a result, actual water usage is likely to be well below that of other 5 bedroom homes in the community.

Additionally, any well drilled will be for agricultural use only, not domestic purposes.

4. Backyard layout. Neighbors on Fir Hill Drive (near Madrona Avenue) requested that the Berchtolds reconfigure their backyard to shift the bocce court to the east side of the property. This change has been made and will be reflected in future plans.

5. ADU location. Several comments were made regarding the ADU, which impacts the sightlines of the first two houses on Fir Hill Drive, closest to Madrona Avenue. To reduce the impact the Berchtolds have agreed to move the ADU five feet closer to the house, shift it 15 feet east and lower the ceiling heights. Specifically, the height of the roof on each end over the bedroom and living room will be reduced. While full elimination or moving of the ADU isn’t practical for the reasons discussed with the neighbors, the Berchtolds hope that these changes will reduce the impact on the neighbors.

6. House massing. The story poles were very helpful in contextualizing the house sizing.

These story poles show that the “north/south” footprint of the house is no larger than the current house footprint, with all increase on the “east/west” footprint that was much less visible from Fir Hill Drive and other neighbors. While some neighbors noted that the second story would be visible for those walking or driving down Fir Hill Drive, others acknowledged that most of the two story houses on Fir Hill Drive were similar in height.

Our general take from these discussions was that the house massing was no longer a concern.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 120 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 441 of 564 ends

Chantal Power
Maya DeRosa
December 12, 2022

Page 3 ends

BN 73934304v1
As the neighbors that attended the meeting will recall, there were many small groups having separate discussions. We have advised the neighbors that they are free to submit their comments to staff as well, and that staff has requested comments by December 19, 2022. Specifically, we have sent a copy of this letter to the neighbors so if there are different views than the ones articulated above they will have ample opportunity to supplement the above points.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Katharine H. Falace
KHF:jg
cc: Ethan Walsh
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 121 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 442 of 564 ends

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

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

The story poles helped very little, the effort was made, but it still doesn’t show the mass of the structures. The overall size of this project is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. They keep talking about “their dream home” which they say they are “entitled” to. But when the size and scope of their dream home affects the dream homes of the surrounding neighbors, some of which have been here their entire life, we need to take a second and maybe even a third look.

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

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

1. Size and scope

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

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

4. Sewer or septic?

5. Storm water run-off and drainage

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

7. Loss of historic vineyard
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 122 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 443 of 564 ends

8. Madrona and Fir Hill corner loss of visibility

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

10.CEQA, with the size of the project CEQA study should be required

11.The very large old Historical Oak tree

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Laura Andersen
Frank Rodrigues
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 123 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 444 of 564 ends

Patricia (Herdell) DiTomaso & Henry DiTomaso
Kathleen Herdell Christina Herdell
1615 Fir Hill Drive
St. Helena, CA 94574
December 19, 2022
Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Application for Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009-470-010) filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold The Planning Commission asked for a summary of outstanding issues at its December 6, 2022 meeting. As we stated during the meeting, no issue we raised at the October 18, 2022 hearing has been resolved except for the applicants agreeing to eliminate driveway access onto Fir Hill Drive and agreement to put up story poles. We also reported we cannot make a full assessment of issues until we see revised plans, especially as we reported Ms. Berchtold threatened us with full development of the parcel because we opposed their project application. We have since learned, she made a similar threat to another Fir Hill neighbor.

The Berchtolds had 2 neighbor meetings at the property; they walked through the building outlines and story poles.

During the first gathering, Ms. Berchtold said to a few neighbors that she and her husband were “ENTITLED” to build a house of this size and they were not going to reduce the project by "one square foot." She said many other unfortunate things to us. As would be understandable, this lead some neighbors to believe the meetings were not being held in good faith to discuss our concerns and possible alternatives. Ms. Berchtold was so upset after the first gathering she did not attend the second one. At least one neighbor left in tears.

Ms. Falace’s letter to the Planning Commission is misleading on several points which we address below along with continued problems we have with the current project.

House massing. House massing is absolutely still a high level concern. Story poles were helpful to see location and potential view shed issues. They do not in any way resolve the issue that this project is too large for the area and is in noncompliance with multiple General Plan requirements. Even with minimizing the design and materials selected, a residential development of this size does not fit into the scale and scope of the other residential structures in the Fir Hill neighborhood and a 19,515 sq. ft. development does not belong on the valley floor.

First, Ms. Falace states all issues related to the massing of the project have been resolved. Nothing is further from the truth. We continue to oppose a project that is almost 20,000 square feet in total. It is completely out of character with the neighborhood and town as well as sets a terrible precedence for homes in the City of St. Helena. Second, it is clear from the plans that the applicants are including a family home, a caretaker unit and an ADU. They try to disguise the caretaker unit as part of the family home stating it is attached to the home and does not have a separate kitchen; this makes no sense for people who have stressed privacy concerns over and over. For example, they claim their olive trees are intended to protect their privacy. If they need to block the views of long-term neighbors by planting olive trees for privacy, surely the family does not want a caretaker to intrude on their lives by using their kitchen when they are in town.

Moreover, the size of the caretaker unit is the size of a single family home in St. Helena. Third, and likewise, applicants' try to disguise a 'poolroom' as an ADU; however, that unit is over 800 square feet. It is the size of a single family residence in St. Helena. In short, applicants are trying to have 3 single family homes built in this project. The massing of the ADU and olive trees on Fir Hill obliterate the views of the Eastern hills and vineyard. Fourth, it is immaterial one floor is a basement. That size of a cement box will have impact on the local area including the oak tree and water flow.

Visibility on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill. It is very difficult to say something has been resolved until we see the updated plans. Moreover, although Ms. Falace claims the applicants' motor court screening is within city street standards for visibility, it fails to address visibility problems on a corner with both autos and pedestrians in the roadway on a regular basis. Her further argument that shifting some of the olive trees closer to the corner along Fir Hill Drive only worsens the visibility obstructions.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 124 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 445 of 564 ends

Storm Water Runoff. Ms. Falace claims there will be a dry pond on the property, but there were no details provided at the gatherings and we have not seen updated plans that incorporate it. In addition, she provides no details on how this dry pond will affect the historical oak and other environmental issues.

Water usage. No resolution is possible on this issue because applicants are using a City of St. Helena plan-review formula vs. actual water usage limits to get around water-usage issues for a home this size and agricultural/landscaping needs. The original plans call for 2 homes, 11 toilets, 14 lavatory faucets, 4 kitchen faucets, 2 baths, 1 laundry faucet, 7 shower heads, 4 washing machines and 2 dishwashers. Neighbors also want to know if the applicants plan to use cisterns. If so, we should be given the data so we can evaluate the impact and location of the cisterns. In addition, we have not seen an updated water report. The prior one was replete with errors and omissions. Finally, we would like to know what the Rossi historical water use for the property was so we can compare historical data with proposed use data.

Well for Agricultural use. We have not seen the plans for the well location and capacity. Other than a statement at the October hearing, applicants have not been instructed or agreed affirmatively in writing that no City of St. Helena water will be used for agriculture or landscaping. Furthermore, there is no information that applicants' will be granted a City of St. Helena well permit. Finally, some of the houses on Fir Hill use well water as their only water source. We need to ensure that no well (if granted) will affect the viability of any wells on Fir Hill. We would also like to know where a new well (if granted) would be dug.

Backyard layout. We have not seen any updated plans. However, at the gatherings, moving the boccie court and pool were discussed as one way that could mitigate removal of some vineyard rows and view shed impact. Nonetheless, applicants' still propose removing most of the vineyard along 1615 Fir Hill Drive to about our property line with the Rodrigues property.

ADU Location. The proposal to move the ADU five feet closer to the house, shifting it 15 feet east and lowering ceiling heights is progress in helping resolve the view shed issues, but this is new information. There is still confusion on whether the 2 buildings identified as an ADU are really an ADU. The reason we were given for why it can’t be relocated (or even removed completely) is because it provides pool privacy. Pool privacy does not require 2 buildings totaling 850 square ft. and a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit with an 864 square foot covered terrace. We continue to object to an ADU along Fir Hill. It requires removal of substantial vineyard rows and obliterates the views of many neighbors.

Noise Study. In discussions at the walkthrough’s noise was raised. Not only the HVAC systems for a project of this scale but any pumps being run to help mitigate the underground water and possible septic systems, pool pumps, all the mechanical noise, etc. need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.

Drainage. The 6,457 square feet that will be below grade will displace and divert current water flows from this area of construction. Displacing this water will be an issue with how the water drains around the property. While the applicants believe the dry pond will handle it, how does the water get to the dry pond? This must be addressed in the updated plans so it is clear there is no additional runoff onto Fir Hill ditches and culverts. There are many other drainage issues:
 Applicants need to provide an accurate topographical map from top of Fir Hill to Madrona so we can assess the slope, natural flow and accurate drainage problem for the project and impact on our properties.  Applicants will raise the topo of foundations which will interfere with natural drainage  is putting a cement wall along the project which will interfere with drainage?  Applicants are putting an underground cement basement which will interfere with drainage.  What is the current amount of impervious surface of the Rossi buildings and driveway? What is the applicants’ proposed impervious surface area and driveway? What impact will the difference make on drainage? Arbor Study. In both neighbor meetings the impact to the historic heritage oak tree was discussed, especially in relation to the drainage concerns. Because the tree is on City of St. Helena property, the City must require a tree impact study to be provided and approved by the tree committee. That tree is so old and large it is protected. In addition, because of environmental factors, it is seemingly fragile. There should be an official city arborist to assess the environmental impact issues for this tree.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 125 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 446 of 564 ends

Septic and leach lines. In the neighbor gatherings it was stated that the applicants should have a plan for a septic system in case they don’t bring down the city sewer lines from Hudson to 2126 Madrona. We have not seen plans for bringing the city sewer lines down Madrona and if they don’t, what are the septic plans (especially as they relate to the well plans).

Project grading and elevations: We were told the story poles included grading heights but we have not seen any updated plans that show the actual planned grading. This affects runoff onto Fir Hill and Madrona.

Missing elevation and composite drawings. The original planning submission packet included a composite from the view from 2212 Madrona but NO composite drawings from 1615 Fir Hill perspective. 1615 Fir Hill looks out directly at the vineyard and in the current plans, the backside of the ADU unit. We would request composite drawings from the point of view of 2212 Madrona and 1615 Fir Hill be included in the update packet.

Neighbors missing from the discussions. There were a couple of neighbors affected by this project that have not been aware of the neighbor gatherings and discussions. We are looping them in now but they may have comments and concerns not yet raised. With the holidays upon us, this may not get addressed until the New Year.

Grape Yields:

The Rossi family stated their yields have been 5 tons each year. There are some underperforming vines, but they are NOT near the house and should not be the ones removed. The underperforming vines are further up Fir Hill towards the Agee property where there is a natural swell. The Rossi family replaced some vines with younger vines that aren’t yet fully performing. Some are in the area proposed to be removed. It appears there are about 119 vines proposed to be removed. This vineyard was planted in an historical manner. They are not all one variety. The Rossi family believes the vineyard has not been properly maintained since they sold it which could account for lower yields. Finally, if the applicants pull out the existing historical vineyard, we would like applicants to be required to have the University of Davis study the vines first and get a DNA report on the vines since they are historical and should be preserved.

CEQA:

We continue to believe a CEQA environmental study should be completed since this project is almost 2 times the size of a commercial building in St. Helena.

SUMMARY:

We continue to oppose this project and will meet with new neighbors shortly. There are many other issues remaining to be resolved, but given the applicants’ contention they are entitled to build a project of this size, it is likely this project just is not going to happen with the applicants willing to make serious and substantial compromise. In the end, this may be a round peg into a square peg situation and the project should be denied as unsuitable for a City of St. Helena home.

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

Page 126 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 447 of 564 ends

Letter Re PL 21-044
December 14, 2022

SENT VIA EMAIL
Chantal Power
Contract Planner
City of St. Helena
Email: [email protected]
Re: PL 21-044 – 2126 Madrona Ave.

Dear Ms. Power,
We have not had the opportunity to meet, but my sister and I are the owners of 2056 Madrona (our “Home”), which is located immediately adjacent to the proposed development project at 2126 Madrona Ave. (the “Project”). We apologize for being late to this conversation, but we were unfortunately not incorporated into the outreach by the Applicant and/or its agents and are thus playing catch-up.

Our family has had a home in St. Helena since 1987 and my sister and I spent every summer living in town, playing at the “wooden park” (aka the elementary school), getting ice cream at The Big Dipper and swimming at the Meadowood pool. Having moved primary houses and cities 8 times in our childhood, St. Helena was always the consistent place we called home and we are honored to be able to raise our children to appreciate the town, and its people, as much as we do.

Our parents, David and Susan Martin, became full-time St. Helena residents in 2013 and became staples across town. Our Home includes both the improved structures, as well as vineyards managed by Duckhorn, which share a property line with the Project. We recently inherited our Home from our parents, both of whom passed away in the past 4 years from cancer and now lay to rest in the St. Helena cemetery. Being from a real estate development family, we know that our parents would have been active participants in this conversation, so we want to make sure that we too participate the best we can.

We have not yet had an opportunity to meet with the Applicant and/or its agents about the Project, due to their limited outreach, but, after proactive and consistent follow-up, do have a meeting scheduled for December 23, 2022. As a result, we have limited information on some of the topics outlined in the Topics of Concern exhibit but have submitted a FOIA request with the City to ensure a transparent process. We have outlined the topics that concern us in the Topics of Concern exhibit and look forward to further discussing these as necessary to support a thorough and transparent approval process. We do request, given how little information we currently have and our Home’s immediate adjacency to the Project, that we be given time to meet with the Applicant and/or agents and educate ourselves on the project before any major decisions are made. Thank you for your time and understanding.

Respectfully,
Katherine L. Osler Annabel R. Siri
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A5FA9B8-305F-4A6C-B6B9-3CF044727E71 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 127 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 448 of 564 ends

Letter Re PL 21-044
CC: St. Helena Planning Commission
Stephen Siri
Justin Osler
Topics of Concern Exhibit
Architectural Design § We are concerned with the Project’s architectural alignment with the adjacent architecture along Madrona, Fir Hill, Hudson & Dean York Lane.

Much of the architecture at the adjacent homes is classic European in nature with a focus on soft lines, limited glazing and subtle architectural moves.

Most of the glazing in this project opens directly on our Home and the landscaping plans indicate a limited amount of planting supportive of privacy along our shared frontage. We request that the balconies on both offices be removed and all windows facing east be removed to preserve the privacy of all neighbors, including our small children.
§ At a conceptual level, we believe that the Project, which is 18,654 SF and has 11 bathrooms, is entirely too large for the neighborhood. The largest neighboring home in visual range is ~6,700 SF, so 64% smaller than the Project, and homes on average range between 4,000-5,000 SF. Going one step further, we looked on Redfin at all closed sales of homes in St. Helena over the last 5 years with more than 1,000 SF and found that the average home is 2,114 SF, so the Project ~784% bigger than the average home (based on sales) in St. Helena. There were two transactions of over 10,000 SF, which were excluded from this analysis as one is a commercial winery and the other is a 12 unit apartment building. However, both of these facilities are still smaller than the Project. It is clearly out of context, but we also believe it’s prudent to review the Project through a commercial lens due to its scale.

While it’s fine to build a bigger home, we believe the Project should be scaled back to be at a maximum 8,000 GSF of conditioned space.

Civil Design § Grading Plans
o We would like to see fine grading plans to understand how the Applicant proposes to manage storm runoff, such that there is limited risk of the expansive landscaped area creating material runoff on adjacent properties – i.e., public right of way and operating vineyards.
o We would like to better understand the extent of any earth moving activities. Our primary concern is dust generation adjacent to vineyards and residential properties.
§ Sanitary Sewer & Domestic Water Supply
o The Project includes 11 bathrooms, at least one kitchen, numerous house bibs and a pool, which means it will use the same, if not more, fresh water than a boutique commercial hospitality property. We have not yet seen capacity studies for either the sanitary sewer or the domestic water supply to confirm that what exists in the street is capable of handling this additional DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A5FA9B8-305F-4A6C-B6B9-3CF044727E71 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 128 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 449 of 564 ends

Letter Re PL 21-044
connection without negatively impacting the existing residents. We note that the majority of our Home is not connected to the sanitary system due to historical capacity issues, and thus suspect that an upsizing of both lines may be necessary. To account for seasonality, we would expect to see monthly monitoring of both, as well as potholing every 20’ and/or a video study to verify line capacity, condition of the existing line and slope, so that any shortfall in capacity may be satisfied as a project specific condition during entitlement.

Shoring Design § We have heard that the project proposes an expansive basement. As a result, we expect this design condition to necessitate a shoring design from a licensed engineer. We are concerned that the project may utilize tiebacks or other “attachment” based designs vs. a braced technique. As an example, were the Project to use tiebacks to support its shoring, then it would be introducing unnatural materials into the soil in the setback zone. These materials need to be fully removed vs. simply disconnected to avoid leaving metals in the soils. We would like to see a project specific condition of approval that requires an internally braced shoring design.

Construction
Management
§ We think that it is prudent to keep in mind that the Project is not a typical residential property. It is in fact larger than many commercial projects in town. Per the last plans we saw, it has 18,654 GSF of conditioned space (incl. 11 bathrooms, so likely 40+ plumbing connections), an expansive landscaped outdoor area and a large basement that includes a mix of residential and commercial uses. With this type of scale, the Project will take an atypically high number of daily workers to construct efficiently, who will generate a large amount of particulate matter doing so. Our specific concerns are as follows:
o This Project will generate a substantial amount of dust during grading, concrete pours and wood framing activities. We do not believe the amount of dust generated by this Project is commensurate to a typical residential project and are worried about its impact on the adjacent vineyards and residential properties. We believe that this should be analyzed and in addition to the sound blankets described below. The Project should have a Dust Management Plan.
o Constructing this Project will generate an impactful level of noise over a longer duration than as is typical for a residential property. We would like to see a noise study that analyzes existing conditions and the expected impact of the work at this Project. Additionally, as typical with any large project adjacent to residential uses, we would expect the Applicant to be required to erect noise blankets at a height equal to its maximum elevation until it is fully enclosed and all sitework is complete.
§ Due to the scale of this Project, it will likely require a more than typical number of construction workers. Madrona Ave. and its adjacent streets are DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A5FA9B8-305F-4A6C-B6B9-3CF044727E71 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 129 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 450 of 564 ends

Letter Re PL 21-044
highly trafficked by pedestrians and cyclists. We would like to better understand how the Project will ensure all workers park along its frontage and document its minimization of construction traffic. Given the scale of the Project, we would expect to see a Project Specific Condition of approval that requires CARB-4 or equivalent machinery at all stages of construction.

Post Completion § As a result of feedback, the Project has been pushed closer to the property line such that its highest point appears to align with the required setback against our agricultural property. We would like to see Shadow Studies to better understand the impact on natural light to our agricultural property. We would also like to see a photometric study to study the potential effects of lighting pollution on the surrounding neighborhood and agricultural uses.
§ As proposed, the Project includes both commercial scale wine facilities as well as residential apartments for employees. Both activities will generate an atypical amount of traffic on Madrona Ave, which is one of St. Helena’s most trafficked streets for both pedestrians and cyclists. We would like to see both a traffic and trip count study completed to better understand the impact of this Project as well as if this Project is in-line with the standards that are typical of a residential property.
§ Our Home has experienced the same degradation of groundwater supply as others in the area, as California has been subjected to consecutive years of material droughts. The Project proposes to materially expand its use of groundwater from the current use. Therefore, we believe it imperative that the City study the proposed Project’s impact on the groundwater table through the use of multiperiod seasonal analysis. This is particularly important due to the Project’s equivalency with a commercial use. We understand the City’s apprehension of being held to a similar standard, but believe that the City enjoys a categorical exemption due to the public serving nature of its work.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A5FA9B8-305F-4A6C-B6B9-3CF044727E71 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 130 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 451 of 564 ends

From: Eric Janzen
To: Joseph Leach
Cc: Mario Traverso; Chantal Power; Maya DeRosa
Subject: RE: [External] Zoning Code proposal and water comments Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:58:51 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Joe,
Discharges of groundwater to the public storm drain system are permitted in our municipal code under SHMC Section 13.23.060.

The parcel at 2126 Madrona is outside of the FEMA special flood hazard zone so the regulations under 15.52 Flood Damage Prevention are not applicable.

PW has no jurisdiction over a flooding basement on this private parcel. Flooding damage on this parcel resulting from high groundwater entering the basement is between the owner and their insurance carrier.

Eric Janzen
Assistant Director of Public Works
City of St. Helena
707 967-2831
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 131 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 452 of 564 ends

Maya,
Thanks very much for reaching out. You may share that you have been among the very most responsive of City employees. I mean that!!!
I have a followup of my unplanned comment regarding the Lorraine and Joe Berchtold property on Madrona. Not sure where it will be most effective. Whether you want to include this in future hearing packet.

At the meeting I mentioned my neighbor's 10,000 sf house with full basement. Before it was occupied the basement filled with water within inches of the floor joists. A few hundred thousand dollars later they managed to waterproof the basement. However they need to run pumps 24/7 to keep water out during the rainy season. Fast forward to the atmospheric rivers we recently experienced. The pumps couldn't run fast enough and the whole house became uninhabitable. They are living in their guest house.

I share this as an example of the law of unintended consequences. Not to mention that a 5,000 sf Berchtold basement will displace a significant amount of groundwater. So if there are any drainage issues in the area or high runoff this project should provide calculations on what they are going to do with all that water. It is not insignificant.

I was happy to see the letter from Spottswoode re new well. I still recommend monitiring neighbors wells to prevent drawdown. With water its feast or famine.

Sincerely,
Kelly
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 132 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 453 of 564 ends

PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOR COMMENTS
Well: Well permits are issued through Napa County in coordination with the City of St. Helena.

Applicant is responsible for performing all studies, tests and engineering as required through the County permitting agency. The applicant is pursuing a well permit to replace or rehab the existing well. This process is independent of the design review process.

Water Neutrality: The Water Neutrality Analysis as presented is consistent with the guidelines that are applicable to all projects.

Storm Water Management: The project is conditioned to conform to all requirements as prescribed in the BASMAA Post Construction Manual for regulated projects.

Runoff and Drainage: Post construction runoff conditions are to be consistent with preconstruction runoff conditions. Runoff and inundation of adjoining parcels is not permitted. The property is served by existing public storm water facilities which are integrated into the plans.

Noise Pollution: Subject to SHMC 8.24.010
Septic or Sewer: The applicant is pursuing a sanitary sewer line extension in Madrona Ave to serve the residence. This is a common practice throughout the City. Certificate of occupancy will not be issues unless wastewater utility facilities are complete and operational. The plan development and installation may run concurrent to other permitting efforts.

Madrona and Fir Hill Loss of Visibility: Currently, there are significant visibility restrictions resulting from the large Oak tree, utility pole, trees and shrubbery. Although Fir Hill Drive is a private drive and not subject to the visibility triangle requirements defined in Section 17.04.160 of the SHMC, the detail below shows that project revisions exceed these standards. All proposals for development subject to SHMC

17.120.010.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 133 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 454 of 564 ends

Dear Commissioners Ponte, Anderson, Rothfeld, Segura and Warner, In your recent meeting regarding the Rossi Property and the Berchtolds’ plans for it, I understand several questions came up as to the Rossi Vineyard revitalization effort that we are undertaking in partnership with the Berchtolds.

I first want to say that we are very excited at the opportunity to rehabilitate this amazing heritage vineyard (planted in 1905) that still grows in our town. Vines like this are rare and very much worth preserving, and we anticipate that we will he able to restore it to health. We started farming the vineyard in the Spring of 2021, and last year the total yield from the vineyard with our partial-year management was approximately 0.88 tons across the entire five-acre site. This year, the first full year we were able to farm the property, our total yield was approximately 2.6 tons.

As we have been planning our revitalization effort, our primary focus is on producing the highest possible quality wine from the site while also increasing the health of the soil and the vines, thus also increasing tonnage as we work to make it economically viable.

To that end, we farm this vineyard with the same care as we farm our Spottswoode Estate Vineyard. We have shifted to regenerative organic and biodynamic farming, and we are refining the pruning practices in this old block. Specific to the dry-farmed heritage clones, we hope to introduce watering to the vineyard via a well to be dug on the property only during what is normally our rainy season, to emulate Mother Nature in ensuring a wetted soil profile near budbreak. We will do this only as needed, based upon the extent to which we continue to have low rain years (a vineyard that has been dry farmed for 115+ years cannot suddenly accept “normal” irrigation). To help with the replacement of missing vines, we will replant with new vines and/or we may transplant some of the old vines slated for removal due to construction. As we continue to learn, we will also introduce other techniques based on our research into heritage clone vineyards.

We are hoping to get the vineyard to a yield of at least five [5] tons total (~1.25 tons per acre) through this rehabilitation process from what will ultimately be closer to 4.35 acres (as some acreage will be removed for construction), allowing us to produce roughly 300 cases of the highest quality wine on an annual basis.

Our agreement with the Berchtolds runs through 2036, allowing us to plan for the long-term success of the vineyard. It is important to note that the agreement does have a provision that if the property is sold that the new owner has the right to terminate the agreement. For personal reasons, therefore, we do hope that the Planning Commission and the Berchtolds are able to come to an agreement on how their housing project might proceed.

Please let me know if you have any questions as you further study this project. We are more than happy to answer them!
Very sincerely,
Beth Novak Milliken
President & CEO
Spottswoode Estate Vineyard & Winery
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 134 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 455 of 564 ends

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
BN 75307206v1
707.200.9414 Direct February 21, 2023 [email protected]

FIR HILL NEIGHBORS
Re: NEW DATE: Community Meeting – March 1, 2023
Dear Neighbors:

After hearing from some of you that the date proposed was not convenient, we have rescheduled the community meeting date to a time that we understand is more convenient. We will now be hosting the community meeting on March 1, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. to answer any questions and go over the revised plans. The meeting will take at the property.

Thank you and, as always, reach out with any questions in the interim.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Katharine H. Falace
Shareholder
KHF:jg
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 135 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 456 of 564 ends

Page 136 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 457 of 564 ends

The Berchtolds had 2 neighbor meetings at the property; they walked through the building outlines and story poles.

Ms. Falace’s letter to the Planning Commission is misleading on several points which we address below along with continued problems we have with the current project.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 137 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 458 of 564 ends

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 138 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 459 of 564 ends

Grape Yields:

CEQA:

We continue to believe a CEQA environmental study should be completed since this project is almost 2 times the size of a commercial building in St. Helena.

SUMMARY:

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

Page 139 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 460 of 564 ends

Page 140 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 461 of 564 ends

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

AARON HECOCK, AICP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helena?

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

Page 141 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 462 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 142 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 463 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 143 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 464 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 144 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 465 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most respectfully,

Mary Cunningham Agee and Family

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 145 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 466 of 564 ends

Page 146 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 467 of 564 ends

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

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

Page 147 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 468 of 564 ends

Page 148 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 469 of 564 ends

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

Sincerely, Leslie Stanton
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 149 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 470 of 564 ends

Page 150 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 471 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 151 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 472 of 564 ends

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

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

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

Page 152 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 473 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 153 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 474 of 564 ends

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 154 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 475 of 564 ends

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

Here, the City has provided the following limitation:

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 155 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 476 of 564 ends

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

Page 4 ends

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

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
KATHARINE H. FALACE
cc:

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

Page 156 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 477 of 564 ends

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 157 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 478 of 564 ends

St. Helena Planning Commission
March 3, 2023

Page 2 ends

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

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
KATHARINE H. FALACE
cc:

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

Page 158 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 479 of 564 ends

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

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 159 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 480 of 564 ends

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

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

Page 160 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 481 of 564 ends

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

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

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

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

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

Page 161 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 482 of 564 ends

Page 162 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 483 of 564 ends

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

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

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

Page 163 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 484 of 564 ends

Page 164 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 485 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 165 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 486 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 166 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 487 of 564 ends

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

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

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

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

Page 167 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 488 of 564 ends

Page 168 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 489 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 169 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 490 of 564 ends

Page 170 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 491 of 564 ends

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

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

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

Page 171 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 492 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Alice Diane Ryerson
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 172 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 493 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Annette Smith
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 173 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 494 of 564 ends

Page 174 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 495 of 564 ends

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

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

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

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

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

Page 175 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 496 of 564 ends

Page 176 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 497 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 177 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 498 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 178 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 499 of 564 ends

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

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

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

3. Storm Water Runoff.

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

4. Water usage.

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

5. Well for Agricultural use.

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

6. Backyard layout and ADUs location.

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

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

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 179 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 500 of 564 ends

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

7. Noise Study.

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

8. Drainage.

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

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

10. Septic and leach lines.

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

11. Elevation and composite drawings.

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

12. Grape Yields:

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

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

Page 180 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 501 of 564 ends

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

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

SUMMARY:

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

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

Page 181 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 502 of 564 ends

Page 182 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 503 of 564 ends

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

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

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

Page 183 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 504 of 564 ends

Page 184 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 505 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 185 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 506 of 564 ends

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

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

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

CONCUSION
Our concerns are many and need answers.

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Laura Andersen
Frank Rodrigues
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 186 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 507 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Size and scope

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

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

4. Sewer or septic?

5. Storm water run-off and drainage

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

7. Loss of historic vineyard

8. Madrona and Fir Hill corner loss of visibility

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

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

Page 187 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 508 of 564 ends

11.The very large old Historical Oak tree

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Laura Andersen
Frank Rodrigues
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 188 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 509 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 189 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 510 of 564 ends

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

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

ORGANIZATION AND ELECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 190 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 511 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & ROLLCALL

3. MINUTES APPROVAL

4. PUBLIC FORUM

5. COMMUNICATIONS & PETITIONS

6. RECOMMENDED CONSENTCALENDAR

7. CONTINUED ITEMS

8. SIGN PERMIT/ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

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

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS – PUBLIC HEARINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY

COUNCIL (TSM/ZOTA/GPA/REZONE)

11. NAPA COUNTY REFERRALS

12. SCHEDULED MATTERS

13. REPORTS BY STAFF AND PLANNINGCOMMISSION

14. AGENDA FORECAST

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 191 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 512 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 192 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 513 of 564 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 193 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 514 of 564 ends

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

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

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

Helena.

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

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

MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:

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

Page 194 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 515 of 564 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 195 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 516 of 564 ends

83578.00008\41312079.1
Memorandum
To: City Council, City of St. Helena
From: Ethan Walsh
Date: May 10, 2023
Re: CEQA Analysis for Proposed Single-Family Residence at 2126 Madrona Avenue I. Introduction
On November 5, 2021, Joseph Berchtold (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of St. Helena (“City”) to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence (the “proposed Project”) on the property located at the 2126 Madrona Avenue. This memorandum briefly addresses the level of environmental review necessary for the proposed Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

II. Class 3 Exemption
As City staff report noted, the proposed Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 3 exemption set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The Class 3 categorical exemption applies to the construction of small structures, and the following is specifically listed as an example of a small structure: “One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303(a).) The proposed Project falls squarely within the Class 3 categorical exemption, as it entails the construction of a single-family residence.

A. The Class 3 Categorical Exemption Applies To Single-Family Residences In the Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) Zoning District
The construction of single-family residences in the A-20 district, where the proposed Project is located, is exempt under the Class 3 exemption for two reasons.

First, the Class 3 exemption is not limited to the construction of single-family residences in a residential zone. Rather, the Class 3 categorical exemption applies to the construction of “one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303(a).) In other words, there is no zoning limitation on the Class 3 exemption’s applicability to a single-family residence; that limitation relates only to the addition of a second dwelling unit.

If the Class 3 categorical exemption intended its zoning limitation to apply to the construction of single-family residences, the exemption would have been drafted to provide: “One single-family residence [no comma] or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.” The inclusion of a comma after single-family residence confirms that the zoning limitation does not apply to the construction of single-family residences.

Second, the proposed Project is located in a residential zone. The A-20 district “provides for agricultural and residential uses.” (St. Helena Municipal Code, § 17.20.010.) While there are various permitted uses within the A-20 district, the first permitted use listed is “One-single family dwelling.” (St. Helena Municipal Code, § 17.20.020.) CEQA does not define the term “residential zone” as a zone that exclusively permits residential uses. Because the A-20 district explicitly permits residential uses, it qualifies as a residential zone under CEQA.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 517 of 564 ends

83578.00008\41312079.1

Page 2 of 2 ends

B. The Proposed Project’s Size Does Not Render The Class 3 Categorical Exemption Inapplicable
Some members of the public have argued that the proposed Project is too big to qualify for the Class 3 categorical exemption. The Class 3 categorical exemption, however, does not limit the size of a single-family residence to which it is applicable. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303(a).) The Class 3 exemption does provide size limitations for other types of structures—i.e., for commercial buildings such as stores, motels, offices, and restaurants. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303(c).) But, in the contrast, the Class 3 categorical exemption does not limit its applicability to residential structures—e.g., single family residences, apartments, and duplexes—based on the square footage of such structures. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303(a)-(b).) Moreover, no published decision has held that the Class 3 exemption’s applicability to a single-family residence hinges on the size of the residence. Mr. Block, attorney for the Herdell family, cited to an unpublished opinion finding that the Class 3 exemption did not apply to a proposed single-family residence based on, among other reasons, the proposed residence’s size. (See Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County (2009) 2009 WL 4894456.) An unpublished opinion, however, has no precedential value. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115 [an unpublished opinion “must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action”].) The plain text of the Class 3 exemption is clear: the exemption applies to a proposed singlefamily residence, and the exemption does not have any limitation on the proposed residence’s size. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303(a).)
III. CEQA for this Project is limited to design related matters It is also important to be mindful that the discretionary decision before the Council is the consideration of a design review approval, and therefore even absent an exemption, CEQA review is limited to design related impacts. The First Appellate Court’s decision in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80 is relevant to this point. The proposed project in that case—like the proposed Project here—required only a demolition permit and design review from the City of St. Helena to demolish the existing structure at 632 McCorkle Avenue and to construct an eight-unit multifamily residential building at that site. (Id. at pp. 85-

86.) The court held that the City of St. Helena’s approval of a demolition permit and design review for the proposed project was not subject to CEQA because of the City’s limited discretion when considering these approvals. (Id. at p. 92.) The Court held that the City correctly determined that the City’s approval of the demolition permit and design review for the proposed multi-family development were thus not subject to CEQA. (Ibid.)
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 518 of 564 ends

May 11, 2023
By Electronic Mail
Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Berchtold Project CEQA Exemption
Dear Mayor Dohring and Councilmembers:

I am writing to explain why the proposal by Joe and Lorraine Berchtold to build a 19,000 square foot residential compound in a vineyard on land designated as agricultural is not exempt from environmental review.

A. The Berchtold Residence Is a “Project” Under CEQA.

CEQA establishes a multi-tiered process for environmental review. The first step is for an agency to conduct a preliminary analysis to determine whether proposed activity constitutes a “project.” CEQA defines “project” as activity that may effect a change in the physical environment and requires decision-makers to exercise discretion in granting or denying approval. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15357, 15378.) Activities that can be approved ministerially are not “projects” and are therefore not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15268, 15369.) Design review of the Berchtold residence is clearly a “project” under CEQA. Staff agrees, or it would not have relied on a CEQA exemption to shortcut environmental review. Determining whether to grant or withhold design review approval for the Berchtold house requires the Council to exercise its discretion by evaluating the project’s consistency with the General Plan and the compatibility of its design with the immediate environment. (SHMC § 17.164.030(A)(1)-(3).) B. The Berchtold Residence Is Not Exempt from CEQA
as a “Small Structure.”
Once an activity is deemed to be a “project,” the reviewing agency must determine whether it falls within an exemption to CEQA. Exemptions are interpreted narrowly in order to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment. (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697.) If the project is exempt, no further environmental review is necessary. If it is not exempt, the agency proceeds to the other tiers of CEQA, namely, the preparation of an initial study and, depending on its outcome, the preparation of a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an EIR.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 519 of 564 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 11, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

Because it is a “project” within the meaning of CEQA, the Berchtold residence is subject to environmental review unless it qualifies for an exemption. According to staff, the project falls within the “small structures” exemption, which applies to the construction of new “small facilities or structures,” including “[o]ne single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a).)
Applying an exemption for “small structures” to the construction of a 19,000 square foot residential compound does not pass the test of common sense. The Berchtolds want to replace a 3,893 square foot farmhouse with a two-story 14,407 square foot home, a 1,754 square foot garage, a 1,640 square foot covered terrace, an accessory dwelling unit comprising two structures and a covered terrace consisting of 1,714 square feet, a swimming pool, spa, and bocce court. In total, the project consists of more than 19,000 square feet of new construction, not including amenities.

The only reason to characterize the Berchtold residence as a “small structure” is to escape environmental review.

To qualify under the “small structures” exemption, a single family house must be in a residential zone. The proposed Berchtold house is not; it is on land outside the Urban Limit Line designated Agriculture (AG) in the General Plan and zoned Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20). Although residences are permitted in the A-20 zone, its primary purpose is to preserve agricultural land uses. (SHMC § 17.20.010.) It is not a residential zone.

At the April 25 Council hearing, the Mayor suggested that only secondary units, not primary residences, must be in a residential zone to qualify for the “small structures” exemption. That is because, the Mayor said, there is a comma demarcating the reference to a single-family residence (which is covered by the exemption wherever it is located) from a second dwelling unit (which is only covered if it is in a residential zone).

Respectfully, the Mayor’s reading makes no sense. The exemption excludes single family homes because they have little or no environmental impact when built on land zoned for residences. For purposes of the exemption, there is no reason to distinguish a main residence from an accessory unit based on their location. It is the small size of the structures, plus the fact that they are located on suitably zoned land, that limits their environmental impact.

The only appellate court to have considered the issue suggested that a house does not qualify for the small structures exemption unless it is located in a residential zone. (Gaviota Coastal Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County, California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, Case No. B216420 (December 21, 2009).)1 The Gaviota court ordered the county to conduct a focused EIR on a 14,000 square foot house proposed for a 17-acre parcel in part because the house was to be built on land zoned for agriculture, not housing. The Berchtold house is on land zoned primarily for agriculture, not housing, and is larger than the Gaviota house but is located on a much smaller parcel.
1 A copy of the Gaviota opinion is attached to this letter. The reference to the house not being in a residential zone is found on page 5 in the first sentence of the second paragraph from the top.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 520 of 564 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 11, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

C. The Berchtold Residence Falls Within the “Unusual Circumstances” Exception to the Small Structures Exemption.

Each of CEQA’s categorical exemptions contains exceptions. If an exception applies, an otherwise exempt project is taken out of the exemption and must undergo CEQA review. Here, the “unusual circumstances” exception to the small structures exemption applies. It provides: “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).)
To establish that the “unusual circumstances” exception applies, the proponent must show that (1) the project presents unusual circumstances and (2) there is a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect due to those circumstances. (Respect Life South San Francisco v.

City of South San Francisco (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 449, 457.) Whether unusual circumstances exist is a factual inquiry based on conditions in the immediate vicinity. (Id. at 456.) The possibility that a significant environmental effect will result from those circumstances is judged under the “fair argument” standard, which requires environmental review if a fair argument can be made that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1115.) The “fair argument” standard presents a question of law, not fact. (Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1139.) It intentionally triggers CEQA at a very low threshold based on this State’s policy of resolving any doubts in favor of more, not less, environmental review. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, at 1111-1113.)
Unusual circumstances clearly exist in this case because the Berchtold house is (1) more than four times larger than the average house in the neighborhood and (2) located in a historic vineyard on land intended to preserve agricultural uses. 2 Moreover, the record contains substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that the size and location of the Berchtold project will result in a significant impact on the environment.

1. Loss of Agriculture. The project will result in the loss of a half-acre of vineyard on land intended for agricultural protection. Setting aside evidence of other impacts, the loss of agriculture alone is a significant adverse environmental effect that arises directly from the project’s “unusual circumstances,” namely, the excessive size and inappropriate location of the proposed house.
2 For the relative house sizes, see the assessor parcel data for surrounding properties attached as pages 247-248 of the April 25, 2023 agenda packet. All future page references are to the 473-page agenda packet prepared for the April 25 meeting.

Based on the assessor data, the average house and garage in the neighborhood are approximately 4,000 square feet while the Berchtold house and garage are more than 16,000 square feet.

For the historic nature of the vineyard, see the April 20, 2023 letter from Dennis Rossi (p. 369).

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 521 of 564 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 11, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

2. General Plan Inconsistency. The environmental impact is significant in part because the project is inconsistent with policies contained in the General Plan. Those policies direct the Council to “discourage” the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses (Policy LU5.1) and “strictly limit” development on agricultural land (Policy LU5.3). Although it received less attention at the hearing, the project is also inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU2.2 to “[e]ncourage new residential development that is consistent in design, size, color, and floor area ratio (FAR) with the older residences in the neighborhood.”3
Under CEQA, general plan inconsistency is a land use impact that a reviewing agency must consider (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, § X(b)) and a strong indicator that the impact is significant. The Planning Commission denied approval because it found the project inconsistent with St. Helena’s General Plan. That finding, together with staff’s conclusion to the same effect, gives rise to a fair argument that the Berchtold residence will have a substantial effect on the environment.

3. Construction Impacts. The applicant estimates that their project will take three to four years to construct, far longer than a typical single-family house. One neighbor estimates that the excavation of the home’s 6,457 square foot basement will entail the removal of 2,370 cubic yards of dirt, requiring approximately 180 trips by dump trucks (and 180 return trips) along rural Madrona Avenue (Rodriguez p. 315). Once completed, the house will utilize mechanical infrastructure, such as HVAC, of the type more commonly found on commercial premises, with attendant noise, vibration and other impacts.

4. Water Use. To assert that the 19,000 square foot Berchtold residence will use less water than the 3,900 square Rossi house is absurd. At least one neighbor addressed the issue in detail (Ryerson p. 301). The new house can accommodate more people than the old house, will have more water-using fixtures and appliances, and will have an accessory unit and swimming pool.

The project allegedly satisfies the City’s water neutrality guidelines, but that is immaterial under CEQA. The CEQA issue is whether the project’s water use will significantly affect the environment, which requires a fact-based analysis based on the project’s actual water use, not the “rules of thumb” employed by the water neutrality guidelines. Further environmental review is warranted based on the sheer size of the Berchtold house. 3 Staff suggests that the floor area ratio of the Berchtold project is actually lower than nearby houses because it includes an enormous (6,457 square foot) basement and only the above-ground portion of the building should be included in calculating FAR. That is incorrect.

FAR is a measure of the "bulk" or volume of a building relative to the parcel on which it is situated. The St. Helena Municipal Code defines FAR as “the ratio of building gross floor area divided by net parcel area.” (SHMC §

17.04.160.) Gross floor area means that all of the floors in a building are considered, including uninhabitable and underground spaces and the floors on each story of a multi-story building. “Net parcel area” in this case should mean one acre, the maximum area of non-agricultural coverage on an A-20 parcel.

Properly calculated, the floor area ratio of the Berchtold project far exceeds the FAR of neighboring houses.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 522 of 564 ends

St. Helena City Council
May 11, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

5. Aesthetics. The aesthetic impact of a project is a proper subject of CEQA review. (Project Niles, supra, at 1141; CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, § I(c).) The City’s design review ordinance supplements but does not replace a CEQA analysis of aesthetic impacts.

The Berchtold residence will significantly degrade the aesthetics of the neighborhood, according to the people who live there. In a flood of letters, neighbors object to the project’s bloated size and lack of proportion (Rodrigues p. 252, DeRosa p. 297, Agee p. 274), its imbalance in scale and massing (Herdell p. 254, Hill p. 371), its negative impact on the viewshed (Herdell p. 254), and its incongruous architecture (Osler and Siri p. 257). Commentators characterize the house as a “McMansion” (DeRosa p. 313), an “affront to the aesthetic norms” of the neighborhood (Agee p. 273) and an “eyesore” (Barros p. 363).

These observations constitute substantial evidence of significant environmental impact. In Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358, the court held that public objections to the size and overall appearance of a chain store proposed for the Gold Rush-era city of Georgetown satisfied the “fair argument” test. Although the commentators had no special expertise in architecture, history or design, any rational layperson familiar with the area could conclude that a monolithic chain store may negatively impact the aesthetics of downtown. That is all the “fair argument” test requires. (Id. at 433-435.) A different court came to the same conclusion in Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, where a group of citizens opposed a mixed-use development in Fremont’s historic district. While the evaluation of aesthetic impacts is to some degree subjective, the court opined, comments by Fremont residents were not based on vague notions of beauty or per-sonal preference but on personal observations about the incompatibility of the project’s massing, scale, size, and architecture with its surroundings. (Id. at 1145.) Such fact-based comments constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may ad-versely affect the environment and, in both the Georgetown and Protect Niles cases, required an EIR.

The parallels to this case are obvious. A large group of neighbors describes the Berchtold compound as detrimental to the aesthetics of their neighborhood. Their comments do not rest on subjective notions of beauty but on the incompatible massing, scale, size and architectural style of this project relative to its rural setting. One does not need to be a design expert to see that the project may degrade the area’s look and feel. At least a fair argument can be made to that effect.

To determine whether the project will have an adverse impact on aesthetics, and whether it can be mitigated, the Council should require more detailed environmental review.

Sincerely,
Kevin Block
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 523 of 564 ends

Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County,, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2009) © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment
Unpublished/noncitable December 21, 2009
2009 WL 4894456
Not Officially Published
(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, 8.1115)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restricts citation of unpublished opinions in California courts.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.

GAVIOTA COAST CONSERVANCY, Petitioner and Respondent,
v.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent.

Lynn Ballantyne, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
2d Civil No. B216420.
|
(Santa Barbara County Super. Ct. No. 1302380).
|
Dec. 21, 2009.

Thomas P. Anderle, Judge, Superior Court County of Santa Barbara.

Attorneys and Law Firms
Roger Jon Diamond, for Appellant.

Marc C. Chytilo and Ana M. Citrin, Law Offices of Marc C. Chytilo, for Respondent.

Opinion
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
*1 Lynn Ballantyne appeals the grant of a petition for writ of mandate in favor of respondent Gaviota Coast Conservancy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res.Code, § 21000 et seq.) 1 In 2008, County of Santa Barbara
(County) adopted a mitigated negative declaration and approved Ballantyne's project to build a 13,333 square foot single family residence and garage, a 1,368 square foot detached guest house and garage, and a barn on the Gaviota Coast.

The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing County to rescind approval of the project and to vacate adoption of the mitigated negative declaration. County was ordered to prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR) on the aesthetics and visual impact of the project looking south toward the project from Farren Road. Appellant contends that this ruling is erroneous.

We affirm concluding that County erred in adopting the mitigated negative declaration. Substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that a focused EIR is required to address the aesthetics and visual impact of the project from Farren Road. ( Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123.)
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 524 of 564 ends

Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County,, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2009) © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 The Project
In May 2005, Ballantyne applied for a land use permit to build a single family dwelling and garage, a guest house and garage, and a barn on a 17.1 acre parcel at 500 Farren Road. The property is two miles west of Goleta and is subject to the provisions of the Goleta Community Plan. Located on the north side (uphill side) of Highway 101, the property is accessible from Farren Road, a public road that travels north to the mountains where it comes to a dead end. The property has steep slopes and is surrounded on three sides by rural land zoned for agricultural use.

County Planning and Development denied the permit application because the project was inconsistent with County's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element Visual Resource Policy 2 and County Zoning Code section 35-212. Planning and Development recommended that Ballantyne revise the project and asked the Board of Architectural Review to review the project and provide guidance.

In April 2006, Ballantyne submitted revised project plans to reduce the height of the residence and lower the building pad elevation. Planning and Development again found that the project did not comply with Visual Resource Policy 2 and the County Zoning Code.

Ballantyne appealed the decision to the County Planning Commission and, before the appeal was heard, modified the project to add a 660 foot long earth berm to block views of the residence from Highway 101 and Farren Road from the southeast and southwest. Planning and Development recommended that the project application be denied because the residence would still be visible from Farren Road from the north.

On November 8, 2006, Planning Commission approved the project by a split vote but modified the project by reducing the height of the berm and moving the building footprint 20 to 30 feet north. *2 Respondent Gaviota Coast Conservancy (GCC) appealed the Planning Commission decision to the County Board of Supervisors, contending that the project required a CEQA environmental review. On June 19, 2007, the Board of Supervisors ordered an environmental study to determine whether an EIR was required. County hired Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon), an independent environmental consultant, to prepare an initial study and a mitigated negative declaration.

The Rincon Memo
Rincon prepared an initial study and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which were circulated for public comment.

In a June 12, 2008 memo, Rincon noted that the draft MND erroneously stated that the aesthetic impacts would be minimal because Farren Road was not an important view location. Based on public comments regarding recreational use of the road and an EIR for a different project (the Santa Barbara Ranch Project) which identified part of Farren Road as a “key observation point,” the memo stated that a “fair argument” could be made that Farren Road was an important view location. Rincon recommended that a focused EIR be prepared to address aesthetics and the visual impact of the project from Farren Road.

The Rincon memo warned that approval of the project without an EIR would be vulnerable to legal challenge and suggested a second course of action: “If the county elects to move forward with the processing of an MND for the proposed project, we would suggest making the following revisions to the discussion to address the various comments made with respect to the analysis of impacts and policy consistent with respect to Farren Road.” Planning and Development responded that the EIR recommendation was premature because Rincon had not yet provided an analysis of views of the project from Farren Road or considered whether the key observation points described in the Santa Barbara Ranch EIR were relevant to the Ballantyne project.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 525 of 564 ends

Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County,, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2009) © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 At a July 15, 2008 hearing, the Board of Supervisors approved the project by a three-to-two vote and adopted the MND. It found that “[t]he proposed berm immediately south of the residence will increase the profile of the natural horizon and ensure that the residence does not intrude into the skyline as seen from Highway 101, Farren Road and other public viewing places.” The CEQA Action
GCC filed a writ petition alleging that the project was subject to CEQA, that the project was inconsistent with County's Visual Resource Policy and Zoning Code, and that the project required an EIR. Ballantyne opposed the petition on the ground that the project was subject to a CEQA ministerial exemption and a small structures exemption. Ballantyne argued that even if an environmental assessment was required, that the MND was sufficient.

The trial court found the project was not subject to a small structures exemption and that the CEQA ministerial exemption did not apply. “The primary issue here is the view, particularly from Farren Road looking south toward the project.” Citing expert testimony, staff reports, and an earlier photo simulation of the project, the trial court found: “There is no question that the project can be seen from Farren Road looking south to the project” and that the road is used by recreational hikers, bicyclists, birdwatchers, and persons accessing ranches north of the project. *3 The trial court found that Farren Road is a public road, that the road is designated as a recreational trail on a County Parks, Recreation and Trails Map, and that the road is a public viewing area. The court concluded there “is substantial evidence of a significant environment impact on scenic views” and that the project may conflict with County policies embodied in the General Plan and the Land Use and Development Code section 35.30.060. County was ordered to vacate its adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and ordered to prepare a focused EIR on the aesthetics and visual impact of the project looking south to the project from Farren Road.

Standard of Review
On appeal, we independently review the administrative record to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting a “fair argument” that the project as proposed may have a significant impact on the environment. (Friends of “B” Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 998, 1002.) The “fair argument” test imposes a low threshold requirement for the preparation of an EIR and reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. ( No Oil Inc v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83-84.) Where project approval is based on a mitigated negative declaration instead of an EIR, “the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. [Citations.]” ( Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) Ministerial Project
Ballantyne argues that an environmental review is not required because CEQA exempts ministerial projects such as a single family residence. (§ 21080; Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 733.) “The CEQA Guidelines define a ‘ministerial’ decision as one that involves little or no personal judgment by the public agency or official about the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. [Citation.] The agency or official merely applies the particular law or regulation to the facts. [Citation.]” (Koskta & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont'd. Ed.

Bar 2d ed 2009) § 4.26, p. 181.) If project approval involves both ministerial and discretionary actions, the project is deemed discretionary and subject to CEQA. (Cal.Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15268(d); Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 272-273.)
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 526 of 564 ends

Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County,, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2009) © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Ballantyne contends that the project is ministerial because project revisions were voluntarily made. County, however, imposed other project conditions to change the height of the 660 foot long berm, to relocate the building to the north, and to use approved landscaping and a lighting plan to reduce visibility.

Project revisions were imposed to make the project more consistent with County's Visual Resource Policy 2, a policy that does not describe fixed standards or objective measurements. Visual Resource Policy 2 and an Inland Zoning Ordinance (§ 35-213) state in pertinent part: “ ‘In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment.... Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms; shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places.’ “ *4 Ballantyne asserts that other projects on the Gaviota Coast have been treated as ministerial projects, but that is not dispositive. County determined that project revisions had to be made due to its size and location, and imposed 28 project conditions. The determination is entitled to great weight ( Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1015.) 2 and consistent with the County Land Use and Development Code, section 35 .82.110 which provides that land use permit applications should not be approved unless the project complies “with the provisions of the Comprehensive plan, including any applicable community or area plan, this Development Code, and any conditions established by the County.” Exercising its discretion, County required project changes to mitigate environmental consequences an EIR might uncover. (See e.g., Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at p. 273.) “ ‘These decisions may have great environmental significance relative to one physical site, negligible significance in another. Inevitably they evoke a strong admixture of discretion.’ [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 272.) There is no merit to the argument that Ballantyne could have compelled County to approve the project without revisions as a mere ministerial matter. (See e.g., Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1139.)
Category 3 Small Structure Exemption
Ballantyne argues that the project is subject to a Category 3 small structure exemption which includes “a single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.” (Cal.Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15303(a).) 3 The exemption is found in the CEQA guidelines but “[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language. [Citation.]” ( Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) This ensures that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review. ( Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697.) If the law were otherwise, a single family residence the size of a castle would be exempt from environmental review no matter where it is built or how much it obstructs public views of the skyline.

Here the project is prominently sited on a ridge line and surrounded by rural grazing land, zoned AG-II for agricultural use.

Although a Category 3 exemption applies to small structures, the project is not small or a typical single family residence. The main residence (13,333 square feet in size) will be four times larger than other single family homes in the area, measure more than 300 feet in length across a ridge line, and will exceed the 10,000 square foot “small structure” exemption for commercial buildings. (Ante, fn. 4.) When Planning and Development denied the application for a land use permit, it found that the residence would intrude into the skyline and did not comply with the visual resources provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and Inland Zoning Ordinance. Ballantyne was advised that planting citrus trees to screen the residence would not solve the problem but siting the residence north of the ridgeline could minimize the visual impact.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 527 of 564 ends

Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County,, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2009) © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 *5 A project location, here a scenic ridgeline, can defeat a categorical exemption. (See Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2, subd. (a).) “A categorically exempt project, like a single family residence, loses its exempt status ‘where the project may impact on an environmental resource of ... critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local agencies.’ [Citation.]” ( Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1105.)
It is uncontroverted that the project is not in a residential zone, is prominently sited on a ridgeline in a rural agricultural area, and may impact public views of the skyline from a public road used for recreational purposes. The Santa Barbara Ranch EIR described Farren Road as a “key observation point” that provides long scenic vistas for recreational users. Substantial evidence supports the finding that the project is not subject to a Category 3 exemption. ( San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382.) “If there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that an activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to ‘unusual circumstances,’ an agency may not find the activity to be categorically exempt from CEQA. [Citation].” (Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Act, supra, § 5.72, p. 246; see Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 124-125.) Mitigated Negative Declaration
CEQA Guidelines establish a rebuttable presumption that any substantial, negative aesthetic effect (i.e., the negative effect of the project on public views) is to be considered a significant environmental impact for CEQA purposes. ( Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1604.) The MND states that Farren Road does not qualify as a public viewing place because the road is not a throughway for the general public and “is not formally designated as a public view corridor, nor has it been formally identified as an important public viewing location in any adopted County policy document.”
The trial court concluded that County's Visual Resource Policy 2 does not require that a public viewing place be on a thoroughfare or that it be a formally designated public view corridor. We concur. Local Coastal Plan Visual Resource Policy 2 protects views to scenic resources “from public areas such as highways, roads, beaches, parks, coastal trails, access ways, and vista points.” It is not limited to formally designated view corridors. The same visual resource policy is set forth in the General Plan and the Land Use and Development Code which provide that the primary concern of the Coastal Act is to protect views of scenic resources from public areas such as roads, coastal trails and accessways, and vista points. *6 The administrative record shows that Farren Road is used for bicycling, bird-watching, sunset enjoyment, and as a trail head. It is used for recreational purposes by track teams, photographers, artists, hikers, sailplane and glider enthusiasts, and other recreational users. An EIR for another Gaviota Coast project (Santa Barbara Ranch) identified Farren Road as “a key observation point” for recreational users and reported that Farren Road was in County's proposed recreational trail system.

The June 12, 2008 Rincon memo acknowledged that a “fair argument” could be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment with respect to public views from Farren Road. Similar concerns were expressed by county staff, by architectural expert and Goleta Planning Commissioner Edward Easton, by the Board of Architectural Review who reviewed the project three times, by neighbors, by a visual impact expert (Ken Doud), and in project-related correspondence.

When the project was first reviewed, story poles were erected to show the visual profile of the project as seen from Farren Road.

Ballantyne argues that the story poles reflect a prior rendering of the project that has since changed. But those changes involve a minor shift of the building footprint. Rincon recommended a $7,300 photo simulation study to determine the visual impact of the project as modified but Ballantyne refused to pay for the study. Ballantyne assured County that the photos, plans, and submittals for prior iterations were accurate and could be relied on in preparing the MND. In a March 4, 2008 letter, Ballantyne's Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 528 of 564 ends

Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County,, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2009) © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 attorney stated: “To the extent that Rincon proposed to spend any sums related to a ‘visual analysis' of the Project's ‘visibility’ from higher elevations, the Applicants object to such costs as unreasonable.” The June 12, 2008 Rincon memo recommended that County: (1) prepare a focused EIR addressing the project's visual impacts looking south from Farren Road, or in the alternative, (2) adopt the MND with revisions to address concerns about visual impacts and policy consistency.

The Final MND states that the project will be “visually prominent” from Farren Road but “could be found to be consistent” with county policy because Farren Road “does not appear to meet any criteria for classification as an important ‘public viewing place’ ....“ It states that “[t]he proposed residence would be highly visible from Farren Road” and would alter views from various vantage points on Farren Road which is a proposed on-road trail and currently used as a recreational trail by hikers and bicyclists.

Ballantyne contends that the MND serves as the functional equivalent of an EIR, but the MND erroneously assumes that key observation points on Farren Road are not protected by County's Visual Resource Policy. The April 12, 2008 Rincon memo warned that the mitigated negative declaration “relies heavily on the notion that Farren Road is not an important view corridor,” a position which contradicts the Santa Barbara Ranch EIR. “ ‘The very uncertainty created by the conflicting assertions made by the [Rincon memo and the Final MND] as to the environmental effect ... underscores the necessity of the EIR to substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation.’ “ ( No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 85.)
*7 The administrative record includes statements by experts, reviewing agencies, and area residents that the project may create significant visual and aesthetic impacts on public view areas. (See Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [personal observations of residents substantial evidence of aesthetic impact].) Although the 660 foot long berm will screen the residence from Highway 101, it will not screen the residence as seen from Farren Road north of the project. This is why Rincon requested six photocompositions “ ‘to provide a firm, technically verifiable basis for the assessment of visual impacts and for the County's determination of project consistency with visual resources policies.’ “ Ballantyne refused to pay for the visualization study.

Ballantyne requests that the court visit the project site and see for itself whether the project obstructs a public view. The project, however, has been revised so many times that it is unknown how the project will impact public views from Farren Road. That is why Rincon recommended a focused EIR. “It is the function of an EIR, not a negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims based on substantial evidence as to the environmental effects of a project. [Citation.]” ( Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 935.)
Even if Ballantyne could point to substantial evidence that no significant impact will occur, a mitigated negative declaration cannot be upheld where the administrative record contains substantial evidence to the contrary. ( Ocean View Estate Homeowners Ass'n v. Montecito Water Dist., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 399.) Where, as here, no EIR “has been prepared, neither the lead agency nor a court may ‘weigh’ conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance.” ( Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 935.) The judgment is affirmed. GCC is awarded costs on appeal.

We concur: COFFEE and PERREN, JJ.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 529 of 564 ends

Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County,, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2009) © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 All Citations
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2009 WL 4894456
Footnotes
1 All statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Ballantyne complains that Planning Commissioner Michael Cooney remarked that County, as a matter of policy, treated applications for a single family residence as exempt from CEQA review. Ballantyne further claims that 50 land use permits for single family residences were approved or pending in the Goleta/Gaviota area, none of which had to go through environmental review.

We reject the argument because there is no evidence that the other projects involved a single family residence on Farren Road prominently sited on a rural ridgeline. Commissioner Cooney stated that the Ballantyne Project is a large project which “is going to set a precedent” because “this is part of the Gaviota Coast. It is not part of Goleta.... [¶] ...

It is not this beautiful, contemporary design that is problematic. It is where the applicants propose to put it.... [T]hey are proposing to put it on top of a ridge which is highly visible, not only from the areas that we've discussed today, but you can see it from distant areas up and down the coast. It will be dramatic.” A second Planning Commissioner, Cecilia Brown agreed that it was a siting problem and that landscaping “will not resolve any of the view shed issues from north Farren Road....”
3 Categorical exemptions are applied only where the project is not ministerial. (Cal.Code Regs, tit. 14; § 15300.1; see Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 733.) California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15303 states in pertinent part: “Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.... The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to: [¶] (a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. ... [¶] ... (c) ... In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.” (Emphasis added.) End of Document © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 530 of 564 ends

From: Frank Rodrigues
To: Paul Dohring
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Re: [External] 2126 Madrona Ave Appeal Recusal of Eric Hall Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 3:02:33 PM
Mr. Mayor,
Re: 2126 Madrona Ave “Appeal” in front of the City Council May 17,2023 We respectfully request that you do whatever is in your power to have Council Member Eric Hall recuse himself due to conflict and/or appearance of conflict of interest due to maximum monetary donation of $4,999.00 to his campaign from the Berchtold’s.

Thank you,
Frank Rodrigues
916.717.2094
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 531 of 564 ends

Rodrigues-Andersen
1693 Fir Hill Dr
May 12, 2023
RE: Berchtold Appeal - 2126 Madrona Ave, St Helena
Dear Mayor Dohring and City Council Members,
We would like to thank the City Council for continuing the review of the 2126 Madrona proposal and considering all facts, community input and specifics related to this project. As noted in all planning and council meetings and from community comments, this proposal is far beyond a single-family home in scope and size, is out of character for the neighborhood and surrounding communities within the city limits. We believe that this proposal is not exempt from CEQA, as it aligns with a small development in size, not a single-family home. We agree with the staff recommendation to uphold decision that was determined by the Planning Commission to deny the Application for a Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009- 470-010) filed by Joe & Lorraine Berchtold and their representatives.

Below lists several of our concerns and many within the community:

1. CEQA – This project exceeds the size and scope of a single-family home and should require CEQA and EIR - Environmental Review.

2. Eco System (Basement)-what effects the removal of this amount of earth will have short and long term.

3. Loss of Historic Vineyard-no going back

4. Water Neutrality-it’s hard to even say these words, excessive number of water using fixtures, Pool etc.

5. Storm water run-off-no plan on what and who is responsible if this project does not allow for the surrounding properties to drain properly, who will be responsible, require indemnification for surrounding properties if by chance a permit is eventually issued.

6. View Shed-to be protected, requesting a condition if a permit should eventually be allowed, no further plantings or fencing removing additional view shed from surrounding parcels.

7. Recusal of council member – Council Member Eric Hall due to conflict and/or appearance of conflict of interest due to maximum monetary donation of $4,999.00 to his campaign.

The project is being presented as a “Single Family Home”, in no stretch of the imagination should the size and mass of this structure be considered a single-family home. The new residence and ADU will total 19,515 square feet and consist of an excessive amount of water using fixtures and appliances that far exceed a single-family home.
• 12 Toilets
• 16 Lavatory Faucets
• 5 Kitchen sinks
• 8 shower heads
• 2 utility sinks
• 2 bathtubs
• 4 clothes washers
• 3 dishwashers
Does this list appear to be a single-family home within the city limits and in keeping with the General Plan? Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 532 of 564 ends

This proposed single-family home is larger than 4 homes combined in the surrounding area, and in no way can be water neutral with the current structure on the property. The project should present a realistic water use report, not using neutrality tools to mitigate the excessive number of water fixtures, pool, etc. They say they will truck the water in for the pool, what happens later that week when the pool needs more water to maintain its level, this is all city water use, how do we call this neutral. Due to the size of this home the permitting process should be held to the same standards as a small sub-division. CEQA, Environmental Impact report, actual water usage, HVAC noise pollution, and Storm water runoff.

Who is going to be responsible (if permitted) after this project is built for any issues that occur due to such drastic changes to the parcel. We request that if a permit is eventually issued there be a condition that indemnifies all surrounding properties from the costs of correcting storm water runoff.

Removal of Vineyard- The historic Vineyard is important history to St. Helena and should be protected. At the last meeting Mr. Berchtold’s legal counsel presented that they could transplant an estimated 300 vines that are proposed to be removed into open spots in the existing vineyard. This does not increase the loss of acreage of farmland. History tells us the likelihood of these vines surviving is slim. This is a direct contradiction of the applicants’ own statement, legal representatives, and Vineyard management’s testimony. Beth Novak Millikin stated in her written testimony “The vines that will be lost are not as viable from a farming perspective, as they are a unique thin strip just off Madrona Ave”. Mr. Berchtold stated in his presentation in Planning “removal of half acre of low productive vines”. Again, more deception of what they are trying to permit and build. If they truly believe the vines originally proposed to be removed are not viable, why would they transplant them.

They say and present what they believe will get approval, when challenged they change the statements on the next submission, not the facts. They have tended to deceive from the first submission. We believe the preservation of this vineyard is critical, however, it is just one of the many problems this project presents to the community.

The view shed needs to preserved and protected, if by chance a permit is eventually issued we request a condition that there is no further obstruction of view shed with plantings and fencing to the parcel affecting the surrounding properties and neighborhood.

It’s disturbing to listen the Mr. Berchtold’s statement in the Planning Commission meeting of how much he and his wife have enjoyed visiting the area and want to build their home here, but in doing so they propose to displace so much of the surroundings and environment. We would like to think they would want to preserve what they state they came here for, and for those whose homes have been here for years. Lastly, they state this is one of many homes they own, and they would be there only a few months a year if that. Unfortunately, we have to live with the massive structure and noise of the many systems needed to run this commercial size building in our neighborhood 365 days a year. Hard to believe we would let that happen and set that precedent in our town.

We ask the council to please preserve the peaceful, pristine environment of Madrona & Fir Hill along with the beautiful blocks of vineyards which surround the properties for many years to come. We ask that the City Council please uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and the City Council staff’s recommendation to deny this permit. Please do not set this precedent, it’s forever.

Respectfully,
Frank Rodrigues and Laura Andersen
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 533 of 564 ends

1230 Pine Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.967.9656 Phone
707.963.0771 Fax
707.200.9414 Direct May 12, 2023 [email protected]

SENT VIA EMAIL
Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena - Berchtold
Dear Mayor Dohring and Members of the St. Helena City Council:

Since public comment is closed, we respectfully submit the following written comments ahead of the next session.

First, the project follows the rules. As set forth in staff’s report, the project is consistent with General Plan policies LU2.2, PF1.1, CD3.2, HE1.5, HE2.4, and HE2.6. Further, the project satisfies SHMC section 17.164.030. As noted by staff: “..the next largest home, which is 5,633 square feet in size, is located on a property that is only one acre in size and has a floor area ratio (FAR) approximately twice the FAR of this proposal.” Staff also notes: “Although the project proposes the removal of existing farmland (a total net loss of 0.53-acre), this is one of the only properties along Fir Hill Drive that contain a residential use that has retained any on-site agricultural use.” Finally, with respect to LU5.1 and LU5.3, the applicant follows staff’s instructions to comply with same. Specifically, staff advised in its February 7, 2022, letter:
“Section 17.20.060(C) of the SHMC allows for a maximum nonagricultural coverage of 1 acre. The total proposed developed area of the site is 1.58 acres and needs to be reduced to 1 acre or less to meet this requirement. The new site design should endeavor to preserve the existing vineyard and utilize the non-vineyard areas for the new construction and outdoor amenity areas…In order to recommend approval of a Design Review application, findings of consistency with the General Plan must be made. Addressing the issue in number 1 Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 534 of 564 ends

Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
May 12, 2023

Page 2 ends

above…should bring the project into consistency with the General Plan.” (Emphasis in original.) The architect went on to revise the plans to be 1 acre and endeavored to preserve the vineyard by moving the 1 acre to as close to street corner as possible (instead of putting the house in the middle of the existing vineyard, for example) and to preserve the existing vineyard. These project revisions certainly constitute taking “reasonable account” of the required findings, including General Plan consistency, listed in SHMC §17.164.040(C). As stated, the applicant will give Spottswoode full discretion to transplant vines from the area to be converted to other areas on the property.

Second, as the color-coded map submitted by the applicant illustrates, the area to be converted is primarily comprised of the ADU. As noted by staff: “…the ADU should not be considered as part of the design review as it is only subject to ministerial review under the City’s Zoning Code and state law.”
The project is consistent with the general plan and zoning code and meets the objective development standards. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted.

Very truly yours,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
KATHARINE H. FALACE
cc: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
[email protected]
Maya DeRosa
[email protected]
Chantal Power
[email protected]
Ethan Walsh, Esq.

[email protected]
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 535 of 564 ends

Page 536 of 564 ends

City Council
May 17, 2023
Appeal File #PL23-010
Continuation from April 25, 2023, of appeal of March 7, 2023, Planning Commission denial of demolition permit and design review file #21-044 for a property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue within the A-20 zone.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 537 of 564 ends

Background and Project Meetings
• October 18, 2022 - 1
st Planning Commission meeting, continued for project
revisions and neighborhood outreach
• November 6, 2022 – 1
st Neighborhood meeting conducted at project site
• November 19, 2022 – 2
nd Neighborhood meeting conducted at project site
• December 6, 2022 – 2
nd Planning Commission meeting to present project
revision and outreach status update
• March 1, 2023 – 3
rd Neighborhood meeting conducted at project site
• March 7, 2023 – 3
rd P. C. hearing resulted in a denial of project
• March 22, 2023 – The applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission denial to the Planning Department
• April 25, 2023 – First public hearing by City Council to consider the appeal Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 538 of 564 ends

Site Plan Proposed at October
Planning Commission
Lot Size: 5.78 Acres
Existing Calculations
Vineyard: 5.08 acre
Orchard: 0.20 acre
Non-Ag: 0.50 acre
Change Resulting from
Proposal
Removal of 0.75 acre from
vineyard = 4.33 acre
Addition of 0.21 acre
orchard = 0.41 acre
Addition of 0.50 acre NonAg = 1.00 acre
Net loss of 0.54 acre active
agriculture
Proposed Structures: 14,407 SF Home + 1,754 SF Garage + 1,640 SF Terrace + 850 SF ADU + 864 SF Terrace = 19,515 SF Bocce Court
Pool and Spa
Primary Dwelling
ADU 5’ wall screening motor court
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 539 of 564 ends

Site Plan Proposed at March
Planning Commission
Changes to Site Plan since October
• Removal of driveways along Fir Hill
• ADU moved and massing revised
• Pool size reduced
• Pool and bocce court reoriented
• Area of proposed vineyard removal
reduced
• Area of proposed olive orchard
reduced and moved away from street
intersection to increase visibility
• Bioswale proposed around area of
development and two retention
basins proposed
• Landscape plan revised to reduce
water usage and water use analysis
revised to reflect change
• Net loss of 0.53 acre active
agriculture
No change in size of structures
Bocce Court Primary Dwelling
Pool
and Spa
ADU
5’ wall screening
motor court
Bioswale and
retention
basins
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 540 of 564 ends

Active Agriculture
Approximate
rear line of area
proposed for
development of
structures and
amenities
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 541 of 564 ends

Removal of Active Agriculture &
Proposed Development
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 542 of 564 ends

Proposed
Landscaping
Area counted toward 1-acre nonagricultural development • House
• ADU
• Pool
• Bocce court
• Ornamental landscape
plantings
• Retention Basins
• Driveway exempt per Zoning
Code
6 Pineapple Guava trees
counted toward Ag use
5 Citrus trees counted
toward Ag use
Olive orchard counted
toward Ag use
6 Seville
Olive trees
counted
toward Ag
use
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 543 of 564 ends

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

Design Review Finding Number 1
• Consistency and compatibility with the applicable elements of the general plan
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 544 of 564 ends

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 545 of 564 ends

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 546 of 564 ends

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 547 of 564 ends

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 548 of 564 ends

CEQA Exemption

1. The Class 3 Categorical Exemption applies to singlefamily residences in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) Zoning District.

2. The proposed project’s size does not render the Class Categorical Exemption inapplicable.

3. The First Appellate Court’s decision in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31
Cal.App.5th 80 is relevant to this point.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 549 of 564 ends

Recommendation
City Council to make final decision on appeal.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 550 of 564 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 551 of 564 ends

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 552 of 564 ends

Patricia (Herdell) DiTomaso & Henry DiTomaso
Christina Herdell
Kathleen Herdell
1615 Fir Hill Drive St. Helena, CA 94574
May 15, 2023
Honorable Mayor Paul Dohring ([email protected]) Honorable Vice Mayor Eric Hall ([email protected]) Honorable Council Member Lester Hardy ([email protected]) Honorable Council Member Anna Chouteau ([email protected]) Honorable Council Member Billie Summers ([email protected]) St. Helena City Clerk ([email protected]) Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Appeal from Planning Commission Denial of a Demolition Permit and Design Review Application for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold
Dear Mayor Dohring and Council Members:

We, the owners of 1615 Fir Hill Drive, St. Helena, CA, respectfully submit our continued opposition to Mr. and Ms. Berchtold’s appeal from the Planning Commission’s denial of their Application to build an almost 20,000 sq. ft. home, complex and ADU at 2126 Madrona, St.

Helena CA. We agree with the recommendation of the Staff Report and believe the City Council easily should find the Planning Commission did not err in denying the Application or abuse its discretion in doing so as inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. We have expressed ourselves in opposition in writing and in meetings with both the Planning Commission and the City Council hearings.

Having done so, however, we wish to ensure that should the City Council approve the project instead of upholding the Planning Commission’s denial and the staff recommendation to you, we would like the project to have several permit conditions imposed. One of the most important ones would be to prohibit the applicants from putting anything along the fence lines or property that would impair our ability or members of the public to have a view of the vineyards and mountains, including but not limited to solid fencing or walls. The standard deer fencing is appropriate for the neighborhood and allows us all to enjoy the agricultural splendor of neighboring vineyards. It also allows drivers on both Madrona and Fir Hill better be able to spot road conditions and other traffic and pedestrians and take safety precautions.

Respectfully,
Patty and Hank DiTomaso
Chris Herdell
Kathleen Herdell
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 553 of 564 ends

Page 554 of 564 ends

From: Chris Fowler
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment for 5.17 CC Meeting
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7:29:58 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in hopes that Vice Mayor Hall can offer some light and clarity regarding the $4,900 campaign contribution that he received from Joe Berchtold on August 30, 2022. I am in no way implying there is any impropriety happening or that there is anything more to the contribution than what it is, but I do feel that Mr. Hall owes, in particular, the residents in the Fir Hill area some explanation; and whether there was any ex parte communication in regards to the proposed project in and around the time of the campaign contribution. Going through both Napa County and City of St. Helena campaign statement disclosures, as far back as they are searchable, it appears that Mr. Berchtold has only made one single campaign contribution, and that was to Mr. Hall at the maximum allowable limit, while there was a pending building application for the donor. California SB 1439, up until it was clarified in early January of this year, would have compelled Mr. Hall to recuse himself from discussions and voting on the Berchtold project. I have watched elected officials recuse themselves for far less out of an abundance of caution, and to avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest. While SB 1439, as clarified, allows participation from Mr. Hall now, it absolutely would not moving forward.

I have seen and heard a number of discussions from locals regarding this, and I believe there is some merit in the questions people are asking regarding this.

Again, I am in no way saying everything isn't on the up and up, but this is a small town, and I hope Mr. Hall can set the record straight for all of us. "SB 1439 expands the application of Government Code Section 84308 — the Levine Act — to local elected officials. Although the law does not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2023, it contains a provision that disqualifies officials from participating in decisions involving a prior donor’s license, permit, or other entitlement for 12 months after the date of a donation exceeding $250. This disqualification is also triggered by the receipt of a donation over $250 from any “participant” in a decision." -https://www.calcities.org/news/post/2022/11/22/new-financial-interest-law-will-not-applyto-2022-campaign-contributions "The Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC) officially removed some ambiguity around a new financial interest law,SB 1439 (Chaptered, 2022). Just before the holidays, the FPPC voted to formally adopt aCommission Opinion stating that the disqualification obligations in SB 1439 do not apply retroactively to campaign donations received in 2022.

SB 1439 expands Government Code Section 84308 — the Levine Act — to local elected officials. Under the new law, Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 555 of 564 ends

officials must abstain from participating in certain decisions related to campaign contributions. The amendment does not apply to contributions received or proceedings participated in throughout 2022 before the statutory amendments took effect on Jan. 1."
-https://www.calcities.org/news/post/2023/01/04/fppc-officially-clarifies-application-of-newfinancial-interest-law Respectfully,
Chris Fowler
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 556 of 564 ends

From: ELLEN SHIFFLETT
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] FirHill/Madrona proposed build
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 7:56:00 AM
I am writing today to voice my concern/opinion about the proposed build at FirHill and Madrona. I agree with the opposition that this proposed plan will be detrimental to the city of St Helena.

Thank you
Ellen Shifflett
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 557 of 564 ends

Page 558 of 564 ends

Re: 2126 Madrona
During the hearings leading up to this the applicant has been required to erect story poles, commit to engaging in commercial olive oil production, required to engage in neighbor meetings which they are then held responsible to report, engaged in debate on olive tree spacing/crop yields and placement of rosemary, and debates even on the definition of agriculture. None of these demands or considerations have any basis in code. Long debate and negotiation occurred on the size/layout and position of the ADU (which in other projects have been left vague and noncommittal as state has mandated that those are not subject to design review or even discussion and by law are exempt from certain development standards.

Often ADU’s/ JADUs are left off (with city guidance) of Design review submissions. At those same hearings neighbors have been fueled by City acquiescence and sometimes as a result of City direction to believe that they can influence or change the standards by which a project is reviewed. That power does not exist in code.

Arbitrary and inconsistent application of code leaves all citizens in legal and financial peril.

Property rights and values reside appropriately within code and have critical support therein.

Code is law. It either matters and is applied to projects universally and consistently, or it simply does not matter and we are left floundering in a peculiar and counterproductive chaos where simply the loudest voices rule. When we collectively allow it to cease to matter then no citizen can safely find refuge and security in it when they exercise their ongoing enjoyment of their property or undertake a project, or choose to sell or transfer that property with all the rights that are defined and empowered in code.

Simply put the rules must apply equally to all. We can debate and amend the rules and there are procedures for that and those procedures are writ in code. That “opportunity” has no place in an individual case before the Planning Commission or on appeal before the City Council.

That same code defines your reasonable expectation of how any neighbor may control or effect a neighbors project. Code defines what your neighbor can build and also by that what likely effects that development can and perhaps will have on neighbors/fellow townspeople.

I believe that most people understand that the dynamics of code should apply as we are a society of laws and we all seek and depend upon the protection and understanding that code provides. I understand there is a tendency to want to look the other way when sometimes the effects of buildouts that code defines perturb or inconvenience. But for any society of laws to function we have to see, embrace and support both sides of the dynamic.

Daniel Hale
1810 Vineyard ave
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 559 of 564 ends

Page 560 of 564 ends

From: Ross Allen
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Fir & Madrona Mansion vote tonight
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 11:34:21 AM
Hello
I am unable to attend the Council's meeting tonight, where the application to override the Planning Commission's denial of permit for the 19,000 sqft mansion at Fir and Madrona will be considered.

I wish to tender my opinions for your consideration:

1. The Council should deny the application and refuse to allow this project.

The applicants, their lawyers, and architect have shown NO WILLINGNESS to compromise.

This project is wrong for St. Helena and the neighborhood.

2. To avoid even the slightest perception of influence and impropriety, Mr. Hall—having received a $4900 campaign contribution from the nonresident applicant while the matter was pending—must recuse himself from further discussions and the vote.

Failure to recuse will taint his tenure on the Council and may lead to formal ethics complaints from a number of citizens.

Recusal will demonstrate adherence to high ethical standards to the significant number of citizens who not only oppose the project but also have expressed concerns about financial influence.

Thank you,
- Dr. Ross R. Allen
643 Pratt Ave.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 561 of 564 ends

Page 562 of 564 ends

From: Elaine de Man
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] May 17 Special Meeting of the St. Helena City Council Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 12:16:18 PM
Date: May 17, 2023
To: Mayor Paul Dohring, and members of the St. Helena City Council:

As I am sure you are all aware, during his mayoral campaign, Vice-Mayor Erik Hall received a $4,900 campaign contribution from Joseph Berchtold, whose application will be under discussion at the May 17 meeting of the City Council.

On January 1, 2023, Senate Bill 1455 went into effect, broadening the scope of Section 84308 of the Political Reform Act to prohibit local elected officials from taking part in licensing, permitting, and other use entitlement proceedings involving a party or participant who has contributed more than $250 to the official within the12 months prior to the proceeding Citing a need to clarify whether or not elected officials should be prohibited from taking part in decisions involving parties and participants from whom they received contributions of $250 or more during the 12 months before the amended statute was in effect, the FPPC's legal division, issued the following recommendation on November 2, 2022.
"...given the Legislature’s intent to combat “pay-to-play” politics, Section 84308 should be applied in such a way that local elected officials who have received a contribution exceeding $250 are prohibited from taking part in a license, permit, or other use entitlement proceeding involving the contributor for 12 months after receipt of the contribution, even if receipt occurred before the statutory amendments took effect. This interpretation ensures the most imminent application of the new provisions and serves to protect the public interest by immediately addressing what the Legislature determined was a “longstanding, well-documented, and real” problem of pay-to-play political practices."
https://fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NSDocuments/AgendaDocuments/General%20Items/2022/november/In-ReKendrick-Opinion-Request.pdf?utm_source=FPPC%20 The FPPC, however, chose to ignore the legal division's recommendation and instead issued an "opinion" stating that a local elected official is not prohibited from taking part in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use based on contributions received before January 1, 2023.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 563 of 564 ends

https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NSDocuments/AgendaDocuments/General%20Items/2022/december/O-22- 002.pdf
Please note, that is but an opinion of the elected officials of the FPPC and that doesn't make it right. And, it may not even be legally defensible.

The recommendation of the FPPC's Legal Division was quite clear:
"Section 84308 should be applied in such a way that local elected officials who have received a contribution exceeding $250 are prohibited from taking part in a license, permit, or other use entitlement proceeding involving the contributor for 12 months after receipt of the contribution, even if receipt occurred before the statutory amendments took effect."
Given that, and the appearance of impropriety on the vice-mayor's part if he takes part in these proceedings, it seems the most prudent and ethical thing would be for Vice-Mayor Erik Hall to recuse himself from any further involvement in this application.

Sincerely,
Elaine de Man
St. Helena
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 564 of 564 ends

St. Helena City CouncilMay 17, 2023

St. Helena City Council
May 17, 2023