Agenda — St. Helena City Council, May 17, 2023 (part 1 of 4)

**UPDATE 5/17/23**
City of St. Helena
Special City Council Meeting
Wednesday, May 17, 2023 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena

PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.

The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website.

Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line City Council agenda.

Simultaneous Spanish interpretation services during meetings can be scheduled upon request.

To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público.

Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected] .

El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/ .

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall:, City Council Members: Anna Chouteau, Lester Hardy, Billy Summers

3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

4. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Under California law, public comments at special meetings are limited to subjects on the agenda only. Therefore public comment will take place during consideration of the item. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes.

5. NEW BUSINESS:

Page 1 of 564 ends

5.1. Appeal filed by Joseph Berchtold to overturn the March 7, 2023 Planning Commission denial of his applications for demolition permit and design review in order to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new single-family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture zoning district.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Recommendation:

City Council to make final decision on the appeal.
*Public comment received after publication of the agenda.

Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation PPT
*1.Public comment.DiTomaso.Herdell
*2.Public comment.Chris Fowler
*3.Public.comment.Ellen Shifflett
*4. Public comment.Daniel Hale
*5.Public comment.Dr Ross Allen
*6.Public comment.Elaine de Man
3 - 564

6. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for May 23, 2023, at 6:00 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on May 13, 2023 and updated on May 17, 2023.

Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

Page 2 of 564 ends

Report to the City Council
Special City Council - 17 May 2023
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS:

Subject: Appeal filed by Joseph Berchtold to overturn the March 7, 2023 Planning Commission denial of his applications for demolition permit and design review in order to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the
construction of a new single-family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre
Agriculture zoning district.

CEQA
Determination:

Exempt
Prepared By: Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

BACKGROUND
The appellant submitted an application on November 5, 2021, requesting approval of a resolution granting a demolition permit and design review in order to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new single-family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture zoning district.

The Planning Commission considered the applicant’s request at a meeting held on October 18, 2022. Due to concerns expressed by Planning Commissioners and members of the public, such as potential inconsistencies with the General Plan and numerous concerns expressed by neighbors to the project, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant:
• Hold meetings with the neighbors, install story poles to show the massing of the proposed project,
• Provide the Planning Commission with information that is responsive to the neighborhood concerns; and
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 3 of 564 ends

• Inform the Planning Commission if the applicant proposes any revisions in response to the concerns expressed by the public and/or Commissioners.

A project status update was given at the December 6, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant provided photos of the story poles and some details related to the two neighborhood meetings that occurred on November 6, 2022, and November 19, 2022, respectively. Additionally, as requested by the Planning Commission, Spottswoode Winery provided an anticipated vineyard production assessment for the December 6, 2022, Planning Commission. The Planning Commission requested that staff and the project applicant have all final revisions completed in a timely manner, and set March 7, 2023, as the hearing date to bring the project back to the Commission for review.

At the March 7, 2023, public hearing, additional public comments were received from neighbors who had concerns that the applicant had not made sufficient revisions to address concerns raised at the earlier Planning Commission meetings and comment letters.

The Planning Commission has the discretion to independently consider the consistency of the project with the General Plan as required by Design Review finding SHMC Section

17.164.030 (A) (1):

A. In addition to the purposes prescribed in Section 17.164.020, the following factors shall be considered by the planning commission in reviewing all applications:

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

The Commission ultimately determined that the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 due to the net loss of 0.53-acre of agricultural uses that would result from the project and voted to deny the project (3-1).

On March 21, 2023, the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial to the City Council in accordance with St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section

17.08.180.

On April 25, 2023, the City Council heard the denial appeal and after a lengthy public comment period and discussion, moved to continue the item for further discussion to another public hearing for the fifth and final hearing.

DISCUSSION
As noted above, the project has reviewed at four publicly noticed hearings. At the April 25th City Council appeal hearing, the appellant provided oral testimony to support the written arguments submitted with their original appeal. The Council also received written and oral public comments, which were largely reflective of public comments made at the previous hearings. Kevin Block, an attorney for the Herdell family did Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 4 of 564 ends

provide new written and oral testimony arguing that the project is not exempt from CEQA. The City Attorney’s office has provided a memorandum (Attachment 4) addressing the issues raised in Mr. Block’s letter.

The City Council considered the written and oral comments provided, the planning staff report and supporting documents, and deliberated on the many issues to consider, including the General Plan inconsistency noted as the basis for the Planning Commission denial. The Council also discussed the changes made to the Ag zone over the years as well as the intention of preserving agriculture in an area that had been largely converted to one-acre lots, no longer suitable for agricultural uses, and how to adequately weigh the consistency of neighborhood character with a property that is much larger than the surrounding one-acre lots. Additional deliberation considered how the General Plan intent of agricultural preservation should be applied against the zoning allowance for one acre of non-agricultural development.

To further clarify the proposed changes on the site as it relates in particular to the nonagricultural coverage, the applicant/appellant has provided a color exhibit that further explains/illustrates the portion of vineyard proposed for removal, what is proposed for development and other uses of the site (Attachment 2).

FISCAL IMPACT
All fees associated with the appeal application have been borne by the appellant.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council to make final decision on the appeal.

ATTACHMENTS

1. April 25 CC Agenda Packet - Item 10.1

2. A1.0 V6 Color Final Site Plan

3. March 7 2023 PC Agenda Packet
Attachment 4-Memo re CEQA Review for Single Family Residence Public comment. Block & Block, LLP
Public comment.Frank Rodrigues 2
Public comment.Frank Rodrigues and Laura Andersen
Public comment.Katharine Falace
Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 5 of 564 ends

City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, April 25, 2023 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena

The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website.

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Simultaneous Spanish interpretation services during meetings can be scheduled upon request.

To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público.

El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/ .

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall:, City Council Members: Anna Chouteau, Lester Hardy, Billy Summers

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. PUBLIC FORUM:

Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during Public Forum. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes. Each person is entitled to speak on any non-agendized item only once at any meeting. Brief questions by Council Members for clarifications may

Page 1 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 6 of 564 ends

be posed and answered, and Council Members may make requests that items be placed on future agendas, but in accordance with state law, no substantive discussion or action may take place unless and until the matter properly appears on the agenda.

6. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND AB 1234 REPORTS:

Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.

7. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS

7.1. National Library Week Proclamation
Proclamation
7 8. STAFF BRIEFING
None

9. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public (present at the meeting) may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote)

9.1. March 2023 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
Recommendation:

Receive and File
Staff Report - Pdf
9 - 14

9.2. Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution Authorizing (1) the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to STH Contract: FY2021- 077 in the amount of $220,200, to the Professional Service Agreement with Operational Technical Services for temporary Wastewater Treatment Operators for a total amount not-to-exceed $950,200; (2) a Wastewater Fund budget increase of $220,200 to 571-5029-2020; and (3) use of Wastewater Operations Fund balance of $220,200; (4) the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 5 to STH Contract: FY2021-048 in the amount of $490,650 to the Professional Service Agreement with Operational Technical Services for temporary Water Treatment Operators for a total amount not-to-exceed $2,644,005; (5) a Water Fund budget increase of $490,650 to 561-5034-2020; and (6) use of Water Operations Fund balance of $490,650.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Senior Management Analyst
Recommendation:

Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
15 - 26

Page 2 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 7 of 564 ends

9.3. Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution approving the plans for the R23-79 Pavement Restoration Project, and authorizing advertisement for bids.

CEQA Determination: Class I Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Public Works Assistant Engineer Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council adopt the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
27 - 61

9.4. Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution (1) authorizing the City Manager to execute a reimbursement agreement with Napa Valley Wine Train in the amount not to exceed $115,300 for the installation of a pedestrian crossing structure on the Sulphur Creek railroad bridge, (2) authorizing a budget transfer from the General Fund Reserve of $115,300 to Streets Capital Fund to fund the project.

CEQA Determination: Class I Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Public Works Assistant Engineer Recommendation:

Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
63 - 79

9.5. Consideration and Proposed Approval of (1) Amendment #3 to STH Contract: FY2020-049 with Lisa Wise Consulting for additional meetings and revisions to public review draft in association with Zoning Code Update for an additional $38,875 for a total contract amount not-toexceed $376,234, (2) a budget increase of $38,875, and (3) use of General Fund fund balance of the same.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - Pdf
81 - 142

9.6. Quarterly Grant Report for FY 2023 Q3, for the period ending March 31, 2023
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Senior Management Analyst
Recommendation:

Receive and file report.

Staff Report - Pdf
143 - 150

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.1. Appeal filed by Joseph Berchtold to overturn the March 7, 2023, denial of his applications for demolition permit and design review in order to 151 - 487

Page 3 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 8 of 564 ends

demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new single-family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture zoning district.

CEQA Determination: Class I Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA
Prepared By: Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation
Public comment.Margot Ainsworth
Public comment.Sandra Barros
Public comment.Susan Michul
Public comment.Dennis Rossi
Public comment.Dennis Rossi
Public comment.Christopher Hill
Public comment.Annette Smith
Public comment.Clay Timon
Public comment.Connie Wilson
Public comment.Jodie Morlet
Public comment.Rita Hellewell
Public comment.Ross Allen
Public comment.Susan and Ron Krausz
Public Comment.Herdell.DiTamaso
Public comment.Laura Andersen and Frank Rodrigues
Public comment.Gina Lewis
Public comment.Kevin P Block
Public Comment.Mary Alice Stielau
Public Comment.Jim Gamble
Public Comment.Celeste Neeley

11. OLD BUSINESS

11.1. None

12. NEW BUSINESS

12.1. Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council receive accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of St. Helena for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022.
489 - 513

Page 4 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 9 of 564 ends

Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation

12.2. Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 2nd Quarter Finance Report and Consideration of Resolution Approving Mid-Year Budget Adjustments for FY 2022-23.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the report and approve a Resolution Approving Mid-Year Budget Adjustments for FY 2022-23.

Staff Report - Pdf
Presentation
515 - 580

12.3. Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution appointing applicants to the Active Transportation & Sustainability Committee, Planning Commission, Library Board of Trustees, and Measure H Oversight Committee
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Recommendation:

Staff recommends adopting a resolution appointing applicants to the following committees:
• Appoint two applicants to the Active Transportation Sustainability Committee
• Appoint one applicant to the Library Board of Trustees • Appoint one applicant to the Planning Commission
• Appoint five applicants to the Measure H Oversight Committee Staff Report - Pdf
Public Comment.Jack and Loraine Stuart
581 - 631

13. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for May 9, 2023, at 6:00 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on April 21, 2023.

Page 5 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 10 of 564 ends

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred.

Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.

If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St.

Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

Page 6 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 11 of 564 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA
National Library Week
2023 Proclamation
WHEREAS, libraries provide the opportunity for everyone to pursue their passions and engage in lifelong learning, allowing them to live their best life; and WHEREAS, libraries have long served as trusted institutions for all members of the community regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic status; and
WHEREAS, libraries strive to develop and maintain programs and collections that are as diverse as the populations they serve and ensure equity of access for all; and WHEREAS, libraries adapt to the ever-changing needs of their communities, continually expanding their collections, services, and partnerships; and WHEREAS, libraries play a critical role in the economic vitality of communities by providing internet and technology access, literacy skills, and support for job seekers, small businesses, and entrepreneurs; and
WHEREAS, libraries are accessible and inclusive places that promote a sense of local connection, advancing understanding, civic engagement, and shared community goals; and WHEREAS, libraries are cornerstones of democracy, promoting the free exchange of information and ideas for all; and
WHEREAS, libraries, librarians, and library workers are joining library supporters and advocates across the nation to celebrate National Library Week; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that I, Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor of the City of St.

Helena, and the St. Helena City Council, proclaim National Library Week, April 23-29, 2023. During this week, I encourage all residents to visit their library to explore the wealth of resources available.

Dated: April 25, 2023
________________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
City of St. Helena
Agenda Item #7.1.

Page 7 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 12 of 564 ends

Page 8 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 13 of 564 ends

Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 25 Apr 2023
Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Subject: Appeal filed by Joseph Berchtold to overturn the March 7, 2023, denial of his applications for demolition permit and design review in order to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new singlefamily home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture zoning district.

CEQA
Determination:

Class I Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA Prepared By: Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Reviewed By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

Page 151 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 14 of 564 ends

• Inform the Planning Commission if the applicant proposes any revisions in response to the concerns expressed by the public and/or Commissioners.

The Planning Commission has the discretion to independently consider the consistency of the project with the General Plan as required by Design Review finding SHMC Section

17.164.030 (A) (1):

A. In addition to the purposes prescribed in Section 17.164.020, the following factors shall be considered by the planning commission in reviewing all applications:

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

On March 21, 2023, the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial to the City Council in accordance with St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section

17.08.180.

DISCUSSION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

APPELLANTS GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
On March 20, 2023, the applicant submitted a letter (Attachment 4) setting forth the basis for requesting that the City Council overturn the denial of the Demolition Permit and Design Review. In summary, the appellant contends that:

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

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 152 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 15 of 564 ends

Staff response:

Section 17.04.160 of the SHMC provides the following definition for agriculture:
"Agriculture" means the use of the land for agriculture purposes, including farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, horticulture (including Christmas trees), floriculture, viticulture, apiaries and animal farms; but not including stockyards or the commercial feeding of garbage or offal to swine or other animals.

Pursuant to Section 2.28.020(F) of the SHMC, the Director of Planning shall "interpret planning documents and planning related ordinances and advise interested citizens. The planning director shall assist property owners and builders in meeting the city’s planning requirements." Further, the City is required to “interpret and administer the zoning ordinance in a reasonable fashion consistent with the public interest of the residents of the City.” (SHMC Section 17.04.060.) The Planning Commission applied an interpretation of the Zoning Code that agriculture means the retail production of plants and/or animals. This interpretation had been established by the Director of Community Development early in the review process, is consistent with the definition in the City’s Zoning Code and was relayed to the project architect during project meetings with staff. The issue that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan policies related to development of agricultural properties pursuant to this interpretation was applied to the Issues Letter dated February 7, 2022, (Attachment 7) and also in several subsequent discussions with staff. Staff believes that this is a reasonable interpretation of the definition listed above, and that it is not an abuse of discretion for the City to decline to count every area containing edible plants or trees bearing edible fruit as “agriculture” under this City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Ultimately, the issue that the Planning Commission considered – and upon which the resolution of denial was partly based upon – was whether the net loss of 0.53 acres of agricultural land created inconsistency with the general plan’s prohibition against removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses. The discussion of whether food products sold commercially versus grown for personal use constituted “agriculture” was not a basis for the disapproval, so the appellant’s assertion that this discussion was an abuse of discretion is misplaced. The project will create a net loss of 0.53 acres of agricultural land, even with the inclusion of the citrus trees, which the Planning Commission determined to be inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3. The appellant was advised of this at the outset of the project, but pressed forward with a proposal that included the net loss at issue, which was a partial basis for the Planning Commission’s denial.

2. 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.

Staff response:

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 153 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 16 of 564 ends

The Planning Commission concluded that the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3.

LU5.1 Discourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.

LU5.3 Strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan.

The appellant’s argument that the Planning Commission interpreted the proposed project to be inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 specifically because the project involved an application to construct a singlefamily home on land designated for agricultural use is an incomplete and incorrect statement of the Planning Commission’s decision. In fact, the staff report for the hearing expressly acknowledged that single-family homes are a permitted use within the A-20 zone and Agriculture General Plan land use district.

However, even with the proposed addition of new fruit trees, and olive trees for the anticipated production of an estate olive oil, the project would still result in a net loss of 0.53 acre of total agricultural uses. Staff determined the project to be inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 due to this net removal of existing agricultural uses on the property for the purpose of constructing the proposed home. Both General Plan policies seek to preserve existing agriculture, and the Planning Commission agreed with staff's determination that the existing agriculture should not be removed in order to accommodate the construction of the non-agricultural use, particularly when the site is currently developed with a home and accessory structures that do not impede on the existing agriculture.

While the appellant also notes that the Zoning Code allows for the removal of no more one acre of active agricultural use, the Planning Commission had the discretion to independently consider the consistency of the project with the General Plan as that is a Design Review finding (SHMC section 17.164.030 (A)(1)). Further, it is important to review the consistency of the project with the statement of purpose for the A-20 zone that is noted in SHMC 17.20.010:
"The purpose of the A-20 district is to promote and implement the policies of the general plan to preserve agricultural land uses and provide for future orderly development as the urban limit line is adjusted to accommodate urban growth.

This district restricts the density of residential use and stipulates the location and area of residential development to promote preservation of agricultural land use and reduce impacts to the provision of infrastructure as the urban area of the city expands."
The zoning code emphasizes the importance of preserving agricultural land in the A-20 zone. The denial action by the Planning Commission was not a “de facto prohibition on the development” (Attachment 5, page 8), but rather a determination that the applicant’s proposed project would result in a substantial net loss of agriculture onsite. Neither staff nor the Planning Commission ever expressed to the appellant that no single family residence would be permitted on this parcel, only that of the elimination of a significant portion of the on-site Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 154 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 17 of 564 ends

agricultural land would potentially violate General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3.

Through this lens, General Plan policy LU5.1 is not inconsistent with other General Plan policies or the provision in the zoning code allowing for a singlefamily residence in the A-20 zone. It is certainly possible for the appellant to propose a single-family residence that will not result in a substantial conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, but the appellant chose not to do so.

Appellant further argues that policy LU5.3 only “discourage[s]” the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, and that it would be an abuse of discretion for the City to interpret that policy as preventing the appellant from removing a net amount of 0.53 acres of agricultural uses to build a new home and associated amenities in the A-20 zone. Appellant argues that the Planning Commission’s decision converts the General Plan policies into a de facto farmland preservation policy. Staff disagrees with this characterization of the Planning Commission’s decision. This is especially the case given that the Planning Commission did not absolutely prohibit the removal of vineyards on the site, but made its decision based on the net loss of agricultural land, taking into account the new agricultural uses added to the parcel.

The Planning Commission decided that the conversion of over ½ acre of farmland to a non-agricultural use as part of the proposed project is inconsistent with a General Plan policy that discourages the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. In staff’s view, this is a reasonable interpretation of the General Plan policy.

The City Council’s role in this appeal is to determine whether or not this project is consistent with these two General Plan policies. Courts provide “great deference” to a city council’s ability to interpret its own general plan and the policies therein, as the body that adopted the general plan in its legislative capacity has “unique competence” to interpret those policies when applying them in an adjudicatory capacity. (Save Our Peninsula Comm’n v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142.) Courts will only override a city council’s interpretation of its own general plan and factual findings if “based on the evidence before [the] city council, a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 243.) In evaluating this question, “the inquiry is whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, unlawful, or procedurally unfair. (Corona-Norco Unified School District v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 992.) And, the party challenging a city’s determination of consistency has the burden of showing why the determination was unreasonable based on all the evidence in the record. (Old East Davis Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Davis (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 895, 907.) The City Council will need to decide whether the proposed project is consistent with these two policies as part of this appeal, and as noted above, the City Council is given a significant amount of deference in making that decision.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 155 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 18 of 564 ends

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

Staff response:

As a threshold matter, the appellant incorrectly states on the last line of page 8 of the appeal letter that: “In fact, staff made no written representations to this effect” (in reference to the fact that the applicant was advised at the beginning of the application process of the need to preserve agricultural acreage). Please refer to Attachment 7, the February 7, 2022 letter to the applicant, in which staff specifically requested that the applicant not remove the vineyard, in order to not be in conflict with General Plan policies in the Land Use Element pertaining to Agriculture.

Appellant argues that the City did not evaluate a proposed project at 777 Pratt for consistency with the two General Plan policies that served as the Planning Commission’s basis for denial, and it therefore should not do so in this instance.

The referenced project at 777 Pratt is distinguishable from appellant’s project as because the Pratt property did not contain active agriculture at the time the application for the project was submitted to the City (Attachment 6). It was a flat, vacant site with no vegetation. This is clearly a different set of facts than those at issue in this appeal.

Prior Planning Commission decisions do not serve as “precedent” for future decisions, each decision is made on its merits by the Planning Commission or Council at the time an application comes before the body, based on an application of the applicable rules to the applicable facts. With that said, however, the facts presented in the application for 777 Pratt were clearly different than those at issue in this appeal, and there is a clear explanation for any difference in the Planning Commission’s decisions on those two applications.

4. 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.

Staff response:

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. However, changes to the project resolution are frequently made at the hearing and the City Attorney did read the denial finding into the record at the hearing. The appellant had the opportunity to provide extensive testimony as part of the Planning Commission hearing, which went well beyond the requirements of the Brown Act. 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 comment are closed, and there is rarely the opportunity to comment on that final language. Further, to the extent that the appellant is arguing that he has been denied due process in some form, he is Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 156 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 19 of 564 ends

receiving due process through the appeal process (in addition to the due process already provided through the Planning Commission hearing), and will have an opportunity to present arguments before the City Council at the hearing on the appeal.

CORRESPONDENCE
Public comments received prior to the publishing of this agenda are included in Attachment 8.

FISCAL IMPACT
All fees associated with the appeal application have been borne by the appellant.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

ATTACHMENTS

1. Denial Resolution

2. March 7 2023 PC Agenda Packet

3. March 7 2023 PC Denial Resolution

4. March 7 2023 PC MInutes

5. Appellant's Letter

6. Archival Aerial Photos of 777 Pratt Avenue

7. Issues Letter - February 7 2022

8. Public Comment
Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 157 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 20 of 564 ends

2126 Madrona Avenue
Denial Resolution
April 19, 2023
CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL

DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A

DEMOLITION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AT
2126 MADRONA AVENUE (File No. PL21-044)

THEREBY DENYING THE PROJECT
PROPERTY OWNER: Lorraine and Joe Berchtold APN: 009-470-010 Recitals

1. The applicant submitted an application on November 5, 2021 requesting approval of a resolution granting a demolition permit and design review in order to demolish an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new singlefamily home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) zoning district; and

2. The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered the project, staff report, and all testimony, written and spoken, at a duly noticed public hearing on October 18, 2022, where the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to allow the applicants time to meet with neighbors, and address issues raised prior to and during the public hearing; and

3. On December 6, 2021, the Planning Commission heard a project status update, and directed the applicants to provide final revisions to be reconsidered on March 7, 2023; and

4. The Planning Commission considered the revised project, staff report, and all testimony, written and spoken, at a public hearing on March 7, 2023, where the Planning Commission voted to deny the project due to the applicants’ failure to address general plan inconsistencies; and

5. On March 22, 2023, the appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial to the City Council in accordance with St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.08.180; and

6. The City Council considered the appellant’s appeal at a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2023 and considered the demolition permit and design review applications in their entirety. The City Council, after reviewing materials provided from the Planning Commission public hearing, as well as considering the staff report and record of the proceedings before the City Council, the written evidence submitted for the Council public hearing, and the testimony and other evidence submitted at the Council public hearing, desires to deny the appeal thereby denying the demolition permit and design review applications for the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue based on the full record before the Council in this appeal.

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 158 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 21 of 564 ends

2126 Madrona Avenue
Denial Resolution
April 19, 2023
Resolution
The City Council of the City of St. Helena herby resolves:

A. To deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of a demolition permit and design review for the demolition of an existing single-family residence to accommodate the construction of a new single-family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) zoning district.

B. The City Council hereby finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 which exempts the demolition and removal of small structures including single-family homes; and Section 15303, which exempts the construction or conversion of small structures including single-family residences, garages, pools, etc..

C. Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.164.030, the City Council makes the following design criteria finding to support the motion to deny the demolition permit and design review for the construction of the proposed singlefamily home and accessory structures on-site:

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

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

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

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 159 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 22 of 564 ends

2126 Madrona Avenue
Denial Resolution
April 19, 2023
Because the project removes a net 0.53 acres of existing farmland for nonagricultural uses, and the applicant declines to dedicate another 0.53 acres to agricultural uses to offset this loss, the project does not comply with the current General Plan, and the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary finding of General Plan compliance.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a demolition permit and design review application was duly and regularly denied by the City Council of the City of St. Helena at a regular meeting on April 25, 2023, by the following roll call vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring:

Vice Mayor Eric Hall:

Council Member Anna Chouteau:

Council Member Lester Hardy:

Council Member Billy Summers:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 160 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 23 of 564 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2023
FILE NUMBER: PL21-044
SUBJECT: Request by Sasha Janev on behalf of Lorraine and Joe Berchtold for adoption of a resolution approving a demolition permit to demolish an existing residence and accessory structures to accommodate the construction of a new single-family home and accessory dwelling unit and design review of the proposed new single family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the A-20 zoning district.

PREPARED BY: Chantal Power, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPLICATION FILED:11/05/21 ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE:08/23/22 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2126 Madrona Avenue
APN: 009-470-010
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Agriculture/Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) APPLICANT: Sasha Janev on behalf of
Lorraine and Joe Berchtold
PHONE: 707-968-5265

BACKGROUND
The project is located in the Agriculture General Plan land use district, and the TwentyAcre Agriculture (A-20) zoning district, outside the Urban Limit Line on a 5.78-acre parcel with an existing vineyard. The site is currently developed with an existing single-family home and two accessory structures, all of which are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the construction a new single-family home and accessory dwelling unit.

The existing home was constructed in 1883 and has been determined to have no historic or architectural value based on the attached historic resource evaluation.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 31 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 161 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 24 of 564 ends

The Planning Commission considered the applicant's request at a meeting held on October 18, 2022. Due to concerns expressed by Planning Commissioners and members of the public, discussed in further detail below, such as potential inconsistencies with the General Plan and numerous concerns expressed by neighbors to the project, the Planning Commission requested that the applicants hold meetings with the neighbors, install story poles to show the massing of the proposed project, provide the Planning Commission with information that is responsive to the neighborhood concerns and inform the Planning Commission if the applicant proposes any revisions in response to the concerns expressed by the public and/or Commissioners. A project status update was given at the December 6, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant provided photos of the story poles and some details related to the two neighborhood meetings that occurred on November 6, 2022, and November 19, 2022, respectively. Additionally as requested by the Planning Commission, Spottswoode Winery provided an expected vineyard production assessment attached to the 12-7-2022 staff report (Attachment 15). The Planning Commission requested that staff and the project applicant have all final revisions completed in a timely manner, and set March 7, 2023 as the hearing date to bring the project back to the Commission for review.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is seeking approval of a demolition permit to demolish three existing structures totaling 3,893 square feet, and design review approval to construct a twostory, 14,407 square foot single-family home with a large basement and 7,950 square feet above grade, a 1,754 square foot garage, a 1,640 square foot covered terrace. The applicant is additionally proposing to construct an 850 square foot one bedroom accessory dwelling unit ("ADU") with an 864 square foot covered terrace concurrently with the construction of the single family home and associated accessory structures. The ADU may be approved ministerially, and is not subject to design review.

The proposed single-family dwelling contains a large basement and first story and a smaller second story. The 6,457 square foot basement will contain three large storage rooms, a laundry room, game room, a bathroom, a powder room, and a mechanical room. The 5,244 square foot first floor will contain a large kitchen and pantry, a large living and dining room, a mudroom, three bedrooms, a sitting room, two powder rooms, and three bathrooms. The 2,706 square foot second floor will contain master bedroom and master bathroom, a second bathroom, two studies, a bar room, and a T.V. room.

The 850 square foot accessory dwelling unit will contain a living room, a kitchen, a bedroom, a laundry room, and a bathroom.

The site includes 5.08 acres of existing vineyard on the 5.78-acre lot. Approximately

0.66 acres of the existing vineyards will be removed to accommodate the proposed structures leaving 4.42 acres of vineyards intact. An additional 0.13 acres of fruit and olive trees will be added to existing .20-acre orchard and the applicant/owner plans to work with local olive oil producers to create an estate olive oil. The applicant/owner also plans to work with Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate and produce wine from the 4.42 acres of vineyard that will be preserved.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 32 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 162 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 25 of 564 ends

Changes to Project Since October 18, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting The following revision were made in response to Planning Commission requests and as a result of the neighborhood meetings on November 6, 2022 and November 19, 2022:

1. The driveways proposed along Fir Hill Drive have been removed.

2. The proposed ADU has been moved an additional 15' back from Fir Hill Drive and 5' closer to the proposed primary structure.

3. The massing of the ADU was revised by lowering the roof height by 2'.

4. The pool was reoriented and the size was reduced.

5. The bocce court was reoriented to expand the views of neighboring properties.

6. The area of vineyard proposed for removal was reduced from 0.75 acres to

0.66 acres.

7. The area of olive orchard proposed was reduced from 0.21 acres to 0.13 acres to provide for a newly proposed retention basin and to increase visibility on the corner of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive.

8. A 1' deep, 6' wide bio-swale will surround the area proposed for development and two bioretention basins with 2,025 cubic feet of retention capacity will be installed at the front of the property.

9. The landscape plan has been revised to further reduce overall water usage.

10.The water analysis was updated to reflect the reduced water usage from the revised landscape plan.

11.The layout of the olive orchard along Fir Hill was adjusted to increase visibility at the intersection with Madrona Avenue.

ANALYSIS
CEQA
Staff has concluded the requisite analysis and concluded that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, which exempts demolition and removal of individual structures including one single-family residence, and Section 15303, which exempts the construction or conversion of small structures including single-family residences, garages, pools, etc. The proposed project is not subject to any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption as outlined in CEQA Section 15300.2. The project site is not visible from a scenic highway, is not included on a hazardous waste site, and will not impact historic resources or otherwise generate or contribute to any potentially significant impacts.

GENERAL PLAN
The subject property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Agriculture (AG). The AG land use designation allows agricultural and winery uses with restricted single family residential and public/quasi-public uses. The St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 and 2015-2023 Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Eight-Year Action Plan include the following policies that are relevant to the proposed project:
• LU5.1 - Discourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 33 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 163 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 26 of 564 ends

The applicant proposes removal of approximately 0.66 acres of existing vineyard to accommodate the proposed residential project. Staff has discouraged the applicant from removing any of the existing vineyard to be consistent with this General Plan Policy. However, the applicant has stated that the section of vineyard to be removed is the least viable for rehabilitation and not likely to be productive and has proposed the addition of 0.13 acres of fruit and olive trees to the existing .20 acre orchard for the production of an estate olive oil as an alternative to keeping all the existing vineyard. Regardless of the proposal to include the addition of olive trees to the site, the project site will still lose 0.66 acres of existing farmland for a non-agricultural use, and net loss of 0.53 acres of total agricultural uses, rendering the project inconsistent with this 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.

The applicant has proposed a very large single-family residence and accessory structures totaling 19,515 square feet. This is a reduction from the initial application proposal, and 6,457 square feet (or more than one-third of the proposed residence) will be located below grade, not visible from street views.

The above grade portion of the development consists of a 5,244 square foot first floor, and 2,706 second floor of the proposed primary dwelling, 1,754 square foot garage and 1,640 square foot covered terrace, a 850 square foot ADU and 864 square foot covered terrace. As with General Plan Policy LU5.1, staff has determined that the proposed removal of the existing vineyard for the purpose of developing the parcel for nonagricultural use is inconsistent with these two General Plan policies. However, 2126 Madrona, is the only property on Fir Hill Drive that has retained agricultural uses on-site.
• LU2.2 - Encourage new residential development that is consistent in design, size, color, and floor area ratio (FAR) with the older residences in the neighborhood.

Although the proposed single-family home and accessory structures are very large, approximately one-third of the proposed construction would be below grade. The above ground portion of the project, as well as relationship to the site and surrounding area, should be used for consistency comparisons.

The A-20 zone consists of large parcels with few limitations on the size of structures and provides for a wide variation of designs and sizes as evidenced along Fir Hill Drive, which has been developed with greater density and intensity of uses than what is intended for the A-20 district. Though the above ground portion of the project is larger than the other surrounding homes in the A-20 zone (depicted on Attachment 8), this parcel is the largest of the neighboring residential properties, and proposes a 0.08 FAR that is less than the average 0.10 FAR of the surrounding neighborhood.

The design and colors used throughout the neighborhood are eclectic so comparisons should be limited to the types of color and materials used which are Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 34 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 164 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 27 of 564 ends

typical of residential uses, consistent with the intention of this policy. The design applies articulation of facades and layered massing.
• PF1.1 - Require that the approval of new development be contingent upon the ability of the City to provide water without exceeding the safe annual yield of its water supply.

With the use of water efficient fixtures, the proposed home and landscaping will not result in an increase of water used on the site.
• CD3.2 - Ensure that the new residential designs contribute positively to existing neighborhoods by complementing character and incorporating design features, such as front porches, façade articulation and step backs.

The architectural design provides façade articulation and layered massing, along the street views of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive. Some of the project revisions include the relocation of the ADU an additional 15’ back from Fir Hill Drive, and 5’ closer to the proposed primary residence, a reduction of the pool size, and the reorientation of the pool and bocce court. The ADU, pool, and bocce court will be framed in by a low wall (1.5’ to 2.5’ in height above grade). The proposed olive orchard has been redesigned to cover the area previously designated as driveway space along Fir Hill Drive, and to preserve the Madrona Avenue-Fir Hill Drive corner view. A 5’ wall will screen the vehicle motor court from public view. The second story steps back from the first story to help reduce overall massing and allowing neighborhood views of the mountains and surrounding vineyards (please see photo simulation on Sheet A1.3). • HE1.5 - Encourage innovative housing types and designs.

The project design is modern and incorporates articulation, layered massing, earth tones and natural elements such as stone veneer, cement plaster with wood and metal accents.
• HE2.4 - Promote second unit production.

Although, not subject to discretionary review pursuant to State law, the project includes an 850 square foot accessory dwelling unit, with a covered terrace. • HE2.6 - Promote a balance of types of housing throughout the whole community.

The project proposes a large single-family home and an accessory dwelling unit, which are allowable uses in the A-20 district.

ZONING
Consistent with the General Plan land use designation described above, the subject property has a zoning designation of Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20), which allows residential and agricultural uses, and is intended to preserve agricultural land uses and provide for future orderly development as the urban limit line is adjusted to accommodate urban growth.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 35 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 165 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 28 of 564 ends

Pursuant to SHMC §17.20.060, the following development standards apply:
• Maximum non-agricultural coverage, 1 acre: 1 acre proposed • Floor area ratio (F.A.R.), Not regulated
• Front setback, 50 feet, measured from center line of abutting street: 70 feet proposed
• Rear yard, 20 feet: Approximately 800 feet proposed
• Side yard, 20 feet: 20 feet proposed
• Height of buildings/structures, 30 feet: 29 feet proposed Staff Response: The project as proposed meets the development standards prescribed by Section 17.20.060 of the SHMC. The 5.78-acre site has 5.08 acres of vineyards and is currently developed with 0.5 acres of non-agricultural uses. As shown on Sheet A1.0, the project proposes the removal of (0.66 acres) of the existing vineyard, which will leave

4.42 acres of vineyards to be rehabilitated for reuse, and 1-acre of non-agricultural use.

The addition of (0.13 acres) of fruit and olive trees to the existing .20-acre orchard, with plans to develop an estate olive oil, will bring the total non-agricultural coverage to 1-acre.

The project proposes additional landscaping consisting of very-low, low, and moderate use plantings consistent with code Section 17.112.140(B) of the SHMC that encourages xeriscape principles.

Note, the driveway is not included in the overall lot coverage consistent with superscript 1 of Section 17.20.060 (C) - Standards for Two Acre Lots or Greater in Area, which states that all structures, driveways (except for a sixteen-foot-wide driveway no greater than twothirds the length of the parcel), parking, patios, lawn, or other non-agricultural uses shall be limited to one-acre maximum per parcel. The driveway for the primary residence is 16- feet and runs the width of the property, rather than the length. The driveways have not been counted toward the total non-agricultural coverage of the site. However, the screened motor court fronting Madrona Avenue has been included in the total 43,650 square feet (1-acre) residential coverage calculation. The screen wall surrounding the motor court is proposed at a height of 5-feet and is setback 48-feet from the front property line, where a minimum 40-foot setback for fences exceeding 3.5 feet in height is required.

Though not subject to the visibility triangle requirements defined in Section 17.04.160 of the SHMC because Fir Hill Drive is a private drive, rather than a street, the project exceeds the standard as noted in Attachment 14.

WATER
Chapter 13.12.030 of the SHMC requires mandatory water efficiency measures and water demand offset requirements for new construction. Among these provisions is the requirement that any "new development" (i.e. construction that would introduce any freestanding building that contains water-using fixtures, any floor area additions to existing nonresidential structures, or any residential additions or remodeling that increases the number of independent living units) offset new water demand by an amount equal to the new demand placed on the city water system (i.e., it must be water neutral). The offset must be clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 36 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 166 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 29 of 564 ends

Staff Response: The Water Use Analysis proposes a net decrease of 21 gpd to the average daily water usage by utilizing low flow water fixtures throughout, drought tolerant landscaping, and a cover for the pool. The existing vineyard is currently dry farmedbut is proposed for rehabilitation and will utilize well water from a new well that will also provide water for the proposed olive orchard, or if the regulatory controls do not allow the installation of a new well, the vineyard will continue to be dry-farmed and the olive orchard will be irrigated with City water after the applicant makes any adjustments to proposed landscaping to ensure that the project will remain water neutral.

PARKING
SHMC Section 17.124.030 "Minimum On-site Parking Requirements", requires that residential uses provide two parking spaces for the main dwelling unit, one of which shall be contained within a garage or carport. In addition to the required parking for the primary residence, one parking space, covered or uncovered, shall be provided on site for an ADU. As described in SHMC Section 17.124.050(D), parking in tandem is permitted in residential districts when required parking is less than 3 spaces.

Staff Response: The project primary residence will provide a three-car enclosed garage and a screened motor court capable of accommodating multiple vehicles, exceeding the requirements established in Sections 17.124.030 and 17.116.030 of the SHMC.

DEMOLITION PERMIT
As provided in SHMC Section 17.164.050(G), no permit authorizing the demolition of any building within any zoning district shall be issued until approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with the following findings:

1. That, based on the public record and testimony presented at a public hearing, the building is determined not to be a significant architectural or historical building. If a building is determined to be significant by the planning commission, no demolition will be authorized unless the following findings are made by the commission:
a) That the building poses a threat to health, safety and general welfare if it is not demolished,
b) That the restoration of the building is not feasible or practicable using current building codes including, but not limited to, the Historic Building Code provisions of the Uniform Building Code of the state of California, c) That no public or other funding is available for financing renovation or purchase of the building;

2. That the demolition does not eliminate elements that are required to maintain the essential character of the neighborhood.

3. That the design review of the proposed replacement structure has been approved in conjunction with the demolition permit.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 37 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 167 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 30 of 564 ends

Staff Response: The existing home was constructed in 1883 but does not appear on the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. A Historic Resources Evaluation was conducted for the existing structures on the site (Attachment 3). The evaluation concluded that substantial alterations occurred outside of the historic era, the structures lack architectural significance, historic significance, or association with historic persons required for historic listing. The evaluation determined that none of the existing structures on the site meet the required criteria of significance necessary for eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. Demolition of the existing structures would not be contrary to the requirements of the SHMC Section

17.164.050(G), and demolition of the structures will not occur prior to approval of design review for the replacement structures. Further study was conducted by the Historic Preservation expert and responses to neighborhood comments were provided (Attachments 4 and 5).

DESIGN REVIEW
SHMC Section 17.40.040 requires design review approval for all subdivisions, signs, new structures or buildings (except for one accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions set forth in Section 17.116.030) or exterior revisions (not including change in exterior color) of any existing structures or buildings for both permitted and conditional uses pursuant to SHMC Section 17.164. The purpose of design review is to promote the qualities that bring value to the community and foster attractiveness and functional utility of the community as a place to live and work. The Planning Commission must find that the project takes reasonable account of the design criteria prescribed in SHMC Section

17.164.030 (listed below) in review of this application:

1. Consistency and compatibility with the applicable elements of the general plan; Though not entirely consistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 due to the removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses, the applicant has stated that the portion of existing vineyard proposed for removal to accommodate the project is the least viable for rehabilitation, has partnered with the Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate the remaining vineyard, and has proposed to add an additional 0.13-acre of fruit and olive trees to the existing 0.20-acre orchard and plans to establish an estate olive oil in an effort to continue and preserve the majority of the agricultural uses on the site. However, the project will lose 0.66-acre of existing farmland, with a proposal to plant an additional

0.13-acre of olive trees, resulting in a net loss of 0.53-acre of farmland for nonagricultural use. The project is consistent with General Plan policies LU2.2, PF1.1, CD3.2, HE1.5, HE2.4, HE2.6, as noted in the General Plan Section of this report.

2. Compatibility of design with the immediate environment of the site; Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 38 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 168 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 31 of 564 ends

The proposed primary residence is very large, but a significant portion of the home will be located in a basement level not visible from the street. Additionally, the applicant has worked with City staff to break up the façade fronting Fir Hill Drive. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant held meetings with the neighboring residents and made subsequent minor revisions intended to minimize the massing while preserving the vineyard and mountain views of neighboring properties, including relocating the ADU an additional 15’ back from Fir Hill Drive and 5’ closer to the house, reduction of the pool size, and reorientation of the pool and bocce court. The house design will utilize earth tone paints, cement plaster, and natural accent elements such as stone, wood, and metal.

3. Relationship of the design to the site;
The project proposes removal of approximately 0.66-acre of existing 5.08-acres of vineyards from the site and demolition of the existing structures to accommodate the proposed primary residence, garage, accessory dwelling unit, pool, bocce court, the addition of approximately 0.13-acre of fruit and olive trees to the existing 0.20-acre orchard, and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards. The proposal meets or exceeds all setback requirements and exceeds the off-street parking requirements and provides adequate circulation for vehicles. A 5-foot wall located outside of the front setback is designed to screen a portion of the motor court from street view.

4. Determination that the design is compatible in areas considered by the board as having a unified design or historical character;
The surrounding area has a mix of historic and non-historic development. The project site is developed with a residential structure originally constructed in 1883 but has been determined not to have any historic value that would be eligible for national, state, or local historic registration. The project has been designed to minimize impact on the surrounding area through use of articulation, layered massing, exterior treatment of earth tones and natural materials, and undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed residence.

5. Whether the design promotes harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;
Aside from the nearby historic Spottswoode Winery, which is located in the Winery district, the property is completely surrounded by A-20 lands developed with primarily residential uses that have not retained on-site agricultural uses.

The proposal includes the removal of 0.66-acre of existing vineyards and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production and includes the addition of olive trees which will be used in the production of an estate olive oil, to retain the agricultural nature of the existing lands, and a new Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 39 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 169 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 32 of 564 ends

residence to replace the existing residence in an area that is developed with other residential structures of various shapes and sizes.

6. Compatibility with future construction both on and off the site; The project proposes new residential uses and the rehabilitation and reuse of the existing vineyard and installation of olive trees for the production of an estate olive oil, in compatibility with the surrounding A-20 zone which allows agricultural and residential uses.

7. Whether the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are appropriate to the function of the project;
The project will use earth tones and natural elements, undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed structure, façade articulation, layered massing, and a step back of the second story as well as setbacks exceeding the minimum requirements of the A-20 zone.

8. Whether the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community;
Because the project proposes a large residence, the planning and siting of the buildings has been critical to the overall design. The structure will underground a large portion of the primary residence, provide articulation, layered massing, and a step back of the second story, as well as setbacks greater than the required minimums. Additionally, the project proposes more than the required parking and on-site circulation and can easily accommodate the residents of the home as well as guests.

9. Whether the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; The proposal includes the removal of 0.66-acre of existing vineyards and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production and includes the addition of 0.21-acre of olive trees to an existing 0.13-acre orchard, which will be used in the production of an estate olive oil. The proposed site plan also includes a bocce ball court and ornamental landscaping. 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.

10. Whether access to the property and circulation systems are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 40 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 170 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 33 of 564 ends

The project proposes more than the minimum required parking and on-site circulation can easily accommodate the residents of the home as well as guests.

11. Whether natural features and vegetation are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project;
The project will remove the 0.66-acre of the existing vineyard and will preserve and rehabilitate the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production in partnership with the nearby Spottswoode Winery.

12. Whether the materials, textures, colors, and details of the construction are an appropriate expression of its design concept and function and whether they are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions; The design uses earth tone paints, cement plaster, and natural accent elements such as stone, wood, and metal which are materials found on other surrounding homes. The primary residence has been designed with larger than required setbacks, undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed residence, façade articulation and layered massing in order to preserve the mountain and vineyard views of surrounding properties. The above ground portion of the proposed primary structure is 7,950 square feet, which is approximately 2,300 square feet larger than the largest existing home in the surrounding neighborhood. However, 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. Therefore, in evaluating compatibility with adjacent and neighboring structures, the size of the home in relation to the parcel on which it is proposed, and not just size alone, is an important factor.

13. Whether the landscape design concept for the scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors, create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; The proposed structures will be surrounded on the front and sides with 0.33-acre of fruit and olive trees, and gardens designed to create visual interest in contrast with the earth tones used for the structures and functionality for the residents.

14. Whether sustainability and climate protection are promoted through the use of green building practices such as appropriate site/architectural design, use of green building materials, energy efficient systems and water efficient landscape materials.

The landscaping has been designed to create a desirable and functional environment and includes several garden areas, and several fruit and olive trees, while preserving approximately 4.42-acres of the existing vineyards.

Construction will comply with the California Green Code and will incorporate solar panels, and water efficient landscaping.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 41 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 171 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 34 of 564 ends

ISSUES
As stated above, the project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission at two separate meetings. The first meeting, held on October 18, 2022, and resulted in a continuation of the project due to numerous concerns raised by the public and a request by the Planning Commission for additional information. The Planning Commission also requested that the applicants install story poles to demonstrate the massing of the proposed structures and to hold meeting with the neighboring property owners. Two neighborhood meetings were conducted on November 6, 2023, and November 19, 2023, in which neighbors met with the project applicant team and discussed various project concerns. The meetings were conducted informally, and no meeting minutes were provided. The second Planning Commission meeting was held on December 6, 2023, with the purpose of providing a project status update to the Commission. At this meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the project applicant provide a summary of the neighborhood meetings (Attachment 9) and allow the neighbors the opportunity to respond and provide any additional comments and clarifications regarding the details of the neighborhood meetings.

Following the circulation of the applicant summary of the neighborhood meetings, three separate letters were received from neighbors providing additional comment (Attachments 10-12). All three neighboring property owners continued to express concern over the project details with particular emphasis on the following:

1. Project massing/size of structures
The applicant has worked with staff and considered the comments from neighbors to reduce the massing of the proposed structures. However, the St. Helena Municipal Code does not limit massing in the A-20 zone. Staff cannot impose a reduction in project massing that other properties in the same zone would not be subjected to based on the existing standards in the City's zoning code.

2. Trees: historic oak and placement of olive grove
The existing historic oak tree is located in the City public right-of-way and will be protected in place. The project has been conditioned to protect any roots that may be exposed by grading activities.

3. Water: water usage and well for on-site agricultural uses The applicant has prepared a Water Use Analysis according to the Water Neutrality regulations, which has been reviewed and accepted by the Public Works Department. The city cannot impose additional standards which would not be required for any other property in the A-20 zone.

The applicant has proposed a new well to replace the existing well, which will be removed to accommodate the proposed construction. As the well permit process is separate from design review, the applicant will be required to either obtain the necessary well permit through Napa County and the City or provide studies to show that the on-site agricultural uses can either be dry farmed, as is currently the Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 42 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 172 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 35 of 564 ends

case, or irrigated using City water without exceeding the water neutrality requirements (see Public Works condition # 31).

4. Drainage and stormwater runoff
The project civil plans show that water flows away from Fir Hill Drive across the site and toward stormwater facilities located within Madrona Avenue. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a 1’ deep, 6’ wide bio-swale around the perimeter of the area proposed for grading and development, and two bioretention basins with a total capacity of 2,025 cubic feet, or 5 times the output from a 100-year storm. A Stormwater Control Plan has been reviewed and accepted by the Public Works Department for stormwater runoff during construction activities.

5. Noise from mechanical equipment
All mechanical equipment associated with the project, including HVAC, will be located in the basement mechanical room. As all residential development must meet Title 24 regulations for interior noise levels, the project will not pose noise impacts to surrounding properties. The project construction activities have been conditioned to comply with Chapter 8.24 – Noise, of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

6. Loss of vineyard/grape yields
Comments from neighboring properties have indicated that the existing vineyard is historic. However, no evidence has been provided to show that the vineyard has been nominated as historic. Furthermore, the Historic Resource evaluation performed for the project site has determined that the property is not an historic resource and is not eligible for listing on a national, state, or local registry based on the CEQA criteria for historic resources. Grape yields are not subject to the design review process.

Notwithstanding, the removal any of the existing vineyard is inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 that discourage the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural use and strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of the General Plan that are designated as agricultural land.

7. Visibility on the corner of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive Visibility at the corner of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive is already somewhat obstructed by the presence of a very large historic oak tree. The project has proposed and been conditioned to protect the oak. In order to further reduce visibility impacts, the proposed olive orchard has been moved farther from the corner and the larger of the two proposed bio retention basins will be placed at the corner of the property. Though not subject to the visibility triangle requirements defined in Section 17.04.160 of the SHMC because Fir Hill Drive is a private drive, rather than a street, the project exceeds the standard as noted in Attachment 14.

8. Number of bedrooms and bathrooms
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 43 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 173 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 36 of 564 ends

Some concerns have been expressed over the proposed number of bedrooms and bathrooms. However, there are no general plan or zoning criteria in place that would limit the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. The interior use of the structures is not something the the Planning Commission considers as part of design review, and the project has complied with the City’s Water Neutrality regulations. Some clarification has been provided on the project plan set to remove door jams and headers from rooms not to be used as bedrooms.

9. Sewer or septic
The applicant has submitted an application for sewer extension and connection for the project, which is currently under review by the Public Works Department. The sewer application is independent of design review and the Public Work Department has provided a wastewater condition for sewer or septic to be installed subject to all City and County regulations prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

10.Grading concerns and construction
The Conceptual grading plan has been included in the project plan set, Sheet C2.1 and indicates that project site slopes away from Fir Hill Drive and toward Madrona Avenue.

11. Location of the ADU and backyard layout
As a result of the neighborhood meetings, the ADU has been located 15’ further from Fir Hill Drive, and 5’ closer to the primary structure than initially proposed, and the roof height of the ADU has been decreased by 2’. The pool has been reduced in size and both the pool and bocce court have been reoriented to address neighbor concerns. Further, the ADU should not be considered as part of the design review application as it is only subject to ministerial review under the City's Zoning Code and state law.

12. CEQA
Various comments have been received. The project is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Structures) and Section 15303 (Reconstruction or Conversion of Small Structures). The Class 1 and Class 3 exemptions apply equally to single family residence regardless of size.

CORRESPONDENCE
Three formal letters from neighboring property owners have been received by staff (Attachments 10-12). Additionally, an email was received regarding the project potential for flooding in the basement (Attachment 13). Public Works Staff has determined that any potential for the proposed project resulting in flooding of the basement would be outside of the purview of City staff and would instead be between the property owner and their insurance company.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 44 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 174 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 37 of 564 ends

Option 1
For the reasons described above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Determine that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15303; and

2. Accept the required findings and approve the attached resolution granting demolition permit and design review approval for the proposed construction on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue.

Option 2

1. Determine that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15303; and

2. Find the project inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 and continue action on the item, requesting that the applicant/owner revise the project plans to retain all of the existing vineyards and redesign the site for Planning Commission review at a future date.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Project Plans

3. Project Statement

4. Historic Resource Evaluation

5. Response to HRE Comments

6. Water Use Analysis

7. Stormwater Control Plan

8. Assessor Parcel Data for Surrounding Properties

9. Applicant - Neighborhood Meeting Summary

10. 1693 Fir Hill Dr - Neighborhood Meeting Summary

11. 1615 Fir Hill Dr - Neighborhood Meeting Summary

12. 2056 Madrona Ave - Neighborhood Meeting Summary

13. Basement Flooding Discussion

14. Public Works Response to Neighbor Comments

15. Vineyard Expected Production Capacity

16. Applicant Letter to Fir Hill Neighbors 2-21-23
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 45 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 175 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 38 of 564 ends

CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.

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

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

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

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

4. Now, therefore let it be found that the Planning Commission approves the Demolition Permit and Design Review thereby authorizing the proposal contained in said plans based on the findings below and subject to the conditions of approval enumerated herein.

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

B. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, which exempts the construction or conversion of small structures including single-family residences, garages, pools, etc.

C. Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.164.050, the Planning Commission makes the following findings to support the motion to approve the Demolition Permit to allow for the demolition the existing structures on-site:

1. That, based on the public record and testimony presented at a public hearing, the building is determined not to be a significant architectural or historical building.

2. That the demolition does not eliminate elements that are required to maintain the essential character of the neighborhood; and Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 46 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 176 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 39 of 564 ends

3. That the design review of the proposed replacement structure is approved prior to approval of the demolition of a housing structure.

The existing home was constructed in 1883 but does not appear on the St.

Helena Historic Resource Inventory. A Historic Resources Evaluation was conducted for the existing structures on the site. The evaluation concluded that substantial alterations occurred outside of the historic era, the structures lack architectural significance, historic significance, or association with historic persons required for historic listing. The evaluation determined that none of the existing structures on the site meet the required criteria of significance necessary for eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. Demolition of the existing structures would not be contrary to the requirements of the SHMC Section

17.164.050(G), and demolition of the structures will not occur prior to approval of design review for the replacement structures.

D. In accordance with the design review criteria identified in SHMC Section 17.164.030, the Planning Commission finds that the project demonstrates the following:

1. Consistency and compatibility with applicable elements of the general plan; Though not entirely consistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 due to the removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses, the applicant has stated that the portion of existing vineyard proposed for removal to accommodate the project is the least viable for rehabilitation, has partnered with the Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate the remaining vineyard, and has proposed to add an additional 0.13-acre of fruit and olive trees to the existing 0.20-acre orchard and plans to establish an estate olive oil in an effort to continue and preserve the majority of the agricultural uses on the site. However, the project will lose 0.66-acre of existing farmland, with a proposal to plant an additional

0.13-acre of olive trees, resulting in a net loss of 0.53-acre of farmland for nonagricultural use. The project is consistent with General Plan policies LU2.2, PF1.1, CD3.2, HE1.5, HE2.4, HE2.6.

2. Compatibility of design with the immediate environment of the site; The proposed primary residence is very large, but a significant portion of the home will be located in a basement level not visible from the street. Additionally, the applicant has worked with City staff to break up the façade fronting Fir Hill Drive. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant held meetings with the neighboring residents and made subsequent minor revisions intended to minimize the massing while preserving the vineyard and mountain views of neighboring properties, including relocating the ADU an additional 15’ back from Fir Hill Drive and 5’ closer to the house, reduction of the pool size, and reorientation of the pool and bocce court. The house design will utilize earth tone paints, cement plaster, and natural accent elements such as stone, wood, and metal.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 47 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 177 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 40 of 564 ends

Page 48 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 178 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 41 of 564 ends

step back of the second story as well as setbacks exceeding the minimum requirements of the A-20 zone.

10.Whether access to the property and circulation systems are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;
The project proposes more than the minimum required parking and on-site circulation can easily accommodate the residents of the home as well as guests.

11.Whether natural features and vegetation are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project;
The project will remove the 0.66-acre of the existing vineyard and will preserve and rehabilitate the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production in partnership with the nearby Spottswoode Winery.

Page 49 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 179 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 42 of 564 ends

residence, façade articulation and layered massing in order to preserve the mountain and vineyard views of surrounding properties. The above ground portion of the proposed primary structure is 7,950 square feet, which is approximately 2,300 square feet larger than the largest existing home in the surrounding neighborhood. However, 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.

Therefore, in evaluating compatibility with adjacent and neighboring structures, the size of the home in relation to the parcel on which it is proposed, and not just size alone, is an important factor.

13.Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors, create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; The proposed structures will be surrounded on the front and sides with 0.33-acre of fruit and olive trees, and gardens designed to create visual interest in contrast with the earth tones used for the structures and functionality for the residents.

14.Whether sustainability and climate protection are promoted through the use of green building practices such as appropriate site/architectural design, use of green building materials, energy efficient systems and water efficient landscape materials.

Construction will comply with the California Green Code and will incorporate solar panels, and water efficient landscaping.

Planning Department Conditions of Approval
E. The Planning Commission approves a demolition permit and design review for the above-described project with the following conditions of approval. The conditions noted below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.

1. The project shall be in conformance with all city ordinances, rules, regulations and policies in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit.

2. The design review shall be vested within one (1) year from the date of final action. A building permit for the use allowed under this approval shall have been applied for within one (1) year from the effective date of this action or the approval shall expire, provided however that the approval may be extended for up to two (2) one-year periods pursuant to the St. Helena Municipal Code, Section 17.08.130, Extension of Permits and Approvals.

3. Any request for an extension of this approval shall be justified in writing and Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 50 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 180 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 43 of 564 ends

receivedby the Planning Department at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration.

4. The approvals shall not become effective until fourteen (14) calendar days after approval, providing that the action is not appealed by the City Council or any other interested party within that 14-day period.

5. All required fees, including planning fees, development impact fees, residential in-lieuhousing fees, building fees, toilet retrofit fees, and St. Helena Unified School District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Fees shall be those in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permit.

6. Pursuant to City Council Resolution 2003-65, the owner and applicant are informed ofthe following:

Prior to issuance of a building permit, in recognition of the need for additional affordable housing, and to mitigate the effectsof this development on the supply and demand of affordable housing, the permitee shall be subject to a Housing Impact Fee, an inclusionary requirement, an in-lieu fee, and/or similar fair and appropriate mechanisms, to provide funds for or to develop additional affordable housing.

7. Compliance with all permit conditions shall occur in accordance with specific regulations but in all cases no later than prior to occupancy or initiation of use unlessanother time is set by law or by this approval. Occupancy or final inspection of a project may be withheld if all conditions, including payment of fees for services rendered by the City, are not met.

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

9. Provided they are in general compliance with this approval, minor modifications may be approved by the Planning Director.

10.Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.08.110, this permit shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the real property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to their benefit and benefit of the City of St. Helena.

11.The primary purpose of this review is for compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The property owners or their designee shall be responsible for meeting with the Building Official, Fire Inspector and or Public Works Department to review compliance with Building Codes, Fire Codes and specific Public Works Standards including fire protection systems and any applicable accessibility standardsof Title 24.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 51 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 181 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 44 of 564 ends

12.Construction shall be in compliance with plans submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 7, 2023, except as modified herein.

13.During construction, the project site shall be adequately fenced and secured to prevent trespassing.

14.No new landscaping shall be installed while the City is in a declared Phase II or Phase III water emergency.

15.Exterior lighting shall be directed or shielded to prevent glare onto public roadways oradjacent properties.

16.To reduce disturbance of residents in the project vicinity, construction activities whichgenerate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Monday through Saturday. Delivery of materials/equipment and cleaning and servicing of machines/equipment shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Exceptions to these time restrictions may be granted by the Public Works Director for one of the followingreasons: (1) inclement weather affecting work, (2) emergency work, or (3) other work,if work and equipment will not create noise that may be unreasonably offensive to neighbors as to constitute a nuisance. The Public Works Director must be notified andgive approval in advance of such work. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal or local holidays that generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits.

Public Works Department Conditions of
Approval

17.An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within City right-of-way.

Encroachment Permits will not be issued prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans.

18.A separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility is required (SHMC 17.116.030). Backflow prevention devices shall be installed; all public improvements utility connections shall be designed in accordance with the City of St. Helena’s Construction Standards (SHMC 16.32.230).

19.The applicant shall verify that the existing water service and meter sizes are adequate to provide domestic and sprinkler water to the proposed residence.

If the existing meter size and/or services size is not adequate, the applicant shall replace the existing piping and/or meter with the appropriate size and be responsible for any fees associated with increasing the meter size.

20.An onsite wastewater treatment (septic tank) system, conforming to Napa County technical standards and plans approved by Napa County Environmental Services shall be submitted for approval prior to clearance for issuance of a building permit. Alternatively, a sanitary sewer extension and district annexation shall be pursued. All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with City of St. Helena Standards and Specifications. Sanitary sewer facilities shall be installed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 52 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 182 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 45 of 564 ends

Occupancy.

21.Post-construction storm drain runoff shall be limited to pre-construction levels.

The improvement plans shall demonstrate that flows will not increase due to improvements being installed with this project. No lot-to-lot drainage is allowed. All site drains must be connected to the public stormdrain system or discharged through the face of curb or to an established waterway.

22.The City has adopted the latest edition of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual.

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

23.The Applicant shall provide an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and a schedule for implementation of approved measures to the Public Works Department forreview and approval with the first improvement plans submitted for review. A grading permit shall not be issued until the erosion and sediment control plan is approved.

24.The Applicant shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found necessary by the PublicWorks Director.

25.The Applicant shall construct all of Public Improvements generally shown on the DesignReview Plans and more specifically described below:
a. As there are no existing curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements fronting the property and no immediate future plans for new improvements, the proposed driveway fronting Madrona shall be constructed in accordance with County of Napa Standard P-2 (Driveway Connection to Arterial Roads – RuralRoads.
b. All landscaping and fencing along the front and side yards shall be installed suchthat they provide adequate sight distance and conform to City Standard 324 regarding Visibility and Fencing.

26.Any excavation adjacent to the historic oak on Madrona Avenue shall comply with Section 2-1 04 Protection of Vegetation of Saint Helena City Public Works standards.

27.Preservation of the historic oak tree within the public right-of-way along Madrona Avenue shall comply Section 12.24.150 Protection of protected trees during and after construction activity of the SHMC.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 53 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 183 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 46 of 564 ends

28.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant (or tree professional) shall place orange construction fencing around the tree dripline and it must extend 5’ beyond the drip line and have it inspected by the City Arborist with a written verification that the location of the construction fencing is in acceptable location. (This will exclude any part of the drip line extending into the pavement on Madrona Ave).

29.Prior to the issuance of any permit, the homeowner or permit applicant must place 4” of mulch below the entire dripline of the tree but 1’ away from trunk flare. Exclude any part of the drip line extending into the pavement on Madrona Avenue.

30.In order to eliminate competition and help continue to preserve the Heritage Oak tree, the City Arborist recommends the property owner remove the adjacent redwood tree next in the canopy of the Heritage oak prior to the issuance of a building permit.

31.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required to prepare a Water Use Analysis according to the Water Neutrality regulations, which relies on the use of a well for irrigation purposes. The applicant shall provide evidence of permit processing through Napa County or provide studies to show that the on-site agricultural uses can either be dry farmed, as is currently the case, or irrigated using City water without exceeding the water neutrality requirements.

Building Department Conditions of Approval

32.The applicant will be required to comply with the codes adopted at the time the applicant applies for a building permit. At this time the City of St. Helena utilizes the 2019 Title 24 codes.

33.When submitting plans for a building permit, the plans shall include all documentation listed on the building permit application checklist.

34.The applicant shall provide a construction waste management plan with the building permit application.

35.The plans for construction shall include a checklist for compliance with the California Green Buildings Standards Code, mandatory measures. Provide a reference on the checklist indicating where the mandatory measures can be found on the plans.

36.When submitting plans, the title page shall include all information referenced on the building permit application checklist Title Page requirements.

37.Building Permit application materials and plans shall include any documentation pertaining to special loads applicable to the design and the specified section of the code that addresses the condition; special inspections Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 54 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 184 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 47 of 564 ends

for any systems or components requiring special inspection; requirements for seismic resistance; and a complete list of deferred submittals at time of application. Any deferral of the required submittal items shall have prior approval of the Building Official however deferral of fire sprinkler design is not allowed.

38.Any deferral of the required submittal items shall have prior approval of the Building Official; however, deferral of the fire sprinkler design is not allowed.

39.A separate permit submittal is required for demolition of existing structures, construction of pools, installation of generators and PV-systems.

40.Properties that are on septic systems or are intending to abandon a septic system are encouraged to contact Napa County Environmental Health Department early in the process to prevent project delays. A permit is required for Demolition of existing septic systems from the Napa County EHD.

Fire Department Conditions of Approval

41.Plans submitted for building permit shall exhibit compliance with the current St.

Helena Fire Code, as adopted and codified in St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36 and include compliance with vegetation hazard mitigation requirements of Section 8.08.010 (E)(9) of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

42.Fire sprinklers shall be installed as required by Fire Code and the Fire Department.

43.One hour minimum fire-resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10’ of property boundary is required. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy.

44.Any gates installed to control vehicular access to a property are required to be setback 30-feet from the property line and/or edge of pavement, whichever is greater. No vehicle gates may be installed without Fire Department and Public Works Department review and explicit approval.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 55 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 185 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 48 of 564 ends

APPROVED: ATTEST:

John Ponte Maya DeRosa, AICP
Chair, Planning Commission Planning and Building Director Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 56 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 186 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 49 of 564 ends

Project Information: 2126 MADRONA AVE. SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE APN #: APN: 009-470-010 SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 General Civil Drawings *SQUARE FOOTAGES FROM EXTERIOR BUILDING PERIMETER A0.0 COVER SHEET C1.0 COVER SHEET C2.0 HARDSCAPE PLAN C2.1 GRADING PLAN C3.0 UTILITY PLAN Architectural Drawings A1.0 SITE PLAN A1.1 SITE PLAN A1.2 SITE SECTION A1.3 SITE PHOTOS A2.1 RESIDENCE BASEMENT PLAN A2.2 RESIDENCE FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.3 RESIDENCE SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.4 RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN A2.6 ADU FLOOR PLAN A2.7 ADU ROOF PLAN A3.1 RESIDENCE ELEVATIONS A3.2 RESIDENCE ELEVATIONS A3.3 ADU ELEVATIONS A3.4 ELEVATION MATERIALS A3.5 COLORED ELEVATIONS A3.6 COLORED ELEVATIONS APPLICABLE CODES: 2 STORY + BASEMENT NO. OF STORIES: VB CONSTRUCTION TYPE: R-3 OCCUPANCY: A-20 AGRICULTURE DISTRICT ZONING: 009-470-010 A.P.N.: PROJECT ADDRESS: LOT AREA: PROJECT NAME: BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 5.78 ACRES ( 251,777 S.F.) 2126 MADRONA AVE. FEMA ZONE: MAX ALLOWABLE: 30' NO BUILDING HEIGHT: CIVIL ENGINEER: MADRONE ENGINEERING 1485 MAIN STREET, SUITE 302 SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 TEL: (707) 302-6280 CONTACT: JOEL DICKERSON EMAIL: [email protected] 2019 Californa Building Code (CBC) 2019 California Electrical Code (CEC) 2019 California Mechanical Code (CMC) 2019 California Plumbing Code (CPC) 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) 2019 California Residential Code (CRC) 2019 California Energy Code (CEC) 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (GBS) 2019 California Administrative Code (CAC) Applicable General Plan, Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances Note: These drawings are to conform to the requirements of the code editions cited above. Any work performed in association with these drawings must also comply with these code editions. CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT AND ATTACHED GARAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BUILDING HEIGHT: 28' FLOOR ELEVATION OR DIMENSION POINT REVISION ROOM NUMBER ROOM NAME GRID LINE DOOR SYMBOL WINDOW SYMBOL SHEET NUMBER ENLARGED DETAIL NUMBER DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SECTION/ ELEVATION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER INTERIOR ELEVATION NUMBERS 1 #A8.# XXX ROOM 1. The work included under this contract consist of all labor materials, transportation, tools and equipment necessary for the construction of the project leaving all work ready for use. 2. All construction shall conform to the 2019 California Building Code; 2019 California Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes; 2019 California Residential Code, 2019 California Energy Code; 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; Title 24; Fire Safe Standards and any other local governing codes and ordinances. In the event of conflict, the most stringent requirements shall apply. 3. The plans indicate the general extent of new construction necessary for the work, but are not intended to be all-inclusive. All demolition and all new work necessary to allow for a finished job in accordance with the intention of the drawing is included regardless of whether shown on the drawings or mentioned in the notes. All work is new, U.O.N. 4. Any errors, omissions or conflicts found in the various parts of the construction documents shall be brought to the attention of the Architect and the Owner for clarification before proceeding with the work. 5. The General Contractor shall maintain a current and complete set of the construction documents on the job site during all phases of construction for use of all the trades and shall provide all the subcontractors with current construction documents as required. 6. The General Contractor shall verify and assume responsibility for all dimensions and site conditions. The General Contractor shall inspect the existing premises and take note of existing conditions prior to submitting prices. No claim shall be allowed for difficulties encountered which could have reasonably been inferred from such examination. 7. Written dimensions take precedence. Do not scale drawings. 8. All dimensions to and from new construction when shown in plan are to face of stud, face of masonry, centerline, unless otherwise noted. 9. All dimensions on reflected ceiling or electrical plans are from face of finish or center line of column to center line of fixture or group of fixtures. 10. All vertical dimensions are to face of finish, finish floor, unless otherwise noted. 11. All dimensions noted "Verify" and "V.I.F." are to be checked by contractor prior to construction. Immediately report any variances to the architect for resolution. 12. Interior walls are 2x4 or 2x6 wood studs @ 16" o.c. unless otherwise noted and all exterior wall are 2x6 wood studs @ 16" o.c. unless otherwise noted. 13. Contractor shall provide all seismic bracing and hold-down clips as required by Code for all suspended ceiling and soffit framing conditions. 14. Coordinate all work with existing conditions, including but not limited to: irrigation pipes, electrical conduit, water lines, gas lines, drainage lines, etc. 15. Provide adequate temporary support as necessary to assure the structural value or integrity of the building. 16. Protect all existing building and site conditions to remain including walls, cabinets, finishes, trees and shrubs, paving, etc. 17. Details shown are typical. Similar details apply in similar conditions. 18. Verify all architectural details with structural, and design/build drawings before ordering or installation of any work. 19. Where locations of windows and doors are not dimensioned, they shall be centered in the wall or placed two stud widths from adjacent wall as indicated on the drawings. 20. All required exits shall be operable from inside, without the use of key or special knowledge. 21. All changes in floor materials occur at centerline of door or framed opening unless otherwise indicated on the drawings. 22. All materials, fixtures and equipment must be installed per manufacturer's specification and recommendations. 23. Verify clearances for flues, vents, chases, soffits, fixtures, etc. before any construction, ordering of, or installation of any items of work. 24. Sealant, caulking and flashing, etc. locations shown on drawings are not intended to be inclusive. Follow manufacturer's installation recommendations and standard industry and building practices. 25. All roof deck penetrations and exterior wall openings shall be guaranteed by the contractor to be water tight for a minimum period of one year after substantial completion of all work under this contract. 26. The General Contractor shall remove all rubbish and waste materials of all subcontractors and trades on a regular basis, and shall exercise a strict control over job cleaning to prevent any direct debris or dust from affecting, in any way, finished areas in or outside job site. 27. Contractor shall leave premises and all affected areas clean and orderly, ready for occupancy. This includes cleaning of all glass (inside and outside) and frames, both new and existing. 28. Install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with the specifications and in conformance with CBC and local Fire Marshal requirements. 29. All exterior doors and windows are to be weather stripped per Title 24 requirements, unless otherwise noted in door details. 30. Glass subject to human impact shall be of safety glazing material to meet State and Federal requirements. 31. Any survey monuments within the area of construction shall be preserved or reset by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor. 32. Provide shop drawings for all millwork, metal work and custom items. 33. Contractor is responsible for reviewing and complying with requirements of Soil Report as prepared by Geotechnical Engineer. 1 #A8.#
& And
< Angle
@ At Diameter or Round
# Pound or Number A.C. Air Condintiong or
Asphaltic Concrete ACOUS. Accoustical A.D. Area Drain ADJ. Adjustable ADJAC. Adjacent A.F.F. Above finish floor AGGR. Aggregate ALT. Alternate ALUM. Aluminum APPROX Approximate ARCH Architectural A.S.R.B. Architectural site review board BD. Board BFE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION BITUM. Bituminous BLDG. Building BLK. Block BLKG. Blocking BM. Beam B.O. Bottom of BOT Bottome B.P. Building Paper BTWN. Between C.B. Catch Basin CEM. Cement CER. Ceramic C.J. Control Joint CLG. Ceiling CLKG. Caulking CLR. Clear CLST. Closet C.M.U. Concrete Masonry Unit CNTR. Counter C.O. Clean-Out COL. Column CONC. Concrete COND. Condition CONN. Connection CONST. Construction CONT. Continuous CONTR. Contractor C.T. Ceramic Tile CTR. Center C.W. Cold Water D DRYER DBL. Double DET. Detail D>F> Drinking Fountain DIA. Diameter DIM. Dimension DISP. Dispenser DN Down DR. Door DW Dishwasher DWG. Drawing DWR. Drawer EA. Each (E) Existing E.I.F.S. Exterior Insulation & Finish System E.W. Expansion Joint EL. Elevation ELEC. Electrical EMER. Emergency ENCL. Enclosure E.P.B. Electrical Panel Board EQ. Equal EQUIP. Equipment EXIST. Existing EXP. Expansion EXT. Exterior EXP. Expansion F.A. Fire Alarm F.A.U. Forced Air Unit F.B. Flat Bar F.D. Floor Drain F.D.N. Foundation F.E.C. Fire Extinguisher Cabinet FEMA Federal Emergency Management
Agency F.H.M.S. Flat Head Machine Screw F.H.W.S. Flat Head Wood Screw FIN. Finish FIXT. Fixture FLR. Floor FLASH. Flashing FLUOR. Fluorescent F.O.C. Face of Concrete F.O.F. Face of Finish F.O. Ply Face of Plywood F.O.S. Face of Stud F.P.R.F. Fireproof FR. Frame FT. Foot or Feet FTG. Footing FURR. Furring FUT. Future G. Gas Outlet GA. Gauge GALV. Galvanized G.T> Garbage Disposal GEN. General G.F.I. Ground Fault Interrupt GL. Glass GND. Ground GR. Grade G.S.M. Galvanized Sheet Metal GYP. Gypsum H.B. Hose Bibb H.C. Hollow Core or Handicapped HD. Head HDBD. Headboard HDR. Header HDF. Hardware HDWD. Hardwood HGR. Hanger HGT. Height H.M. Hollow Metal HORIZ. Horizontal HR. Hour H.R. Handrail H.W.H. Hot Water Heater I.D. Inside Diameter IN. Inch INSUL. Insulation INT. Interior INTER. Intermediate JAN. Janitor JST. Joist JT. Joint KIT. Kitchen LAM. Laminate LAV. Lavatory LB. Pound LIN. Linear LN. Line LT. Light MACH. Machine MAINT. Maintain MAT. Material MAX. Maximum M.B. Machine Bolt M.C. Medicine Cabinet M.D.O. Medium Density Overlay MECH. Mechanical MEMB. Membrane MTL. Metal MFR. Manufacturer MICRO Microwave MIN. Minimum MISC. Miscellaneous MTD. Mounted MUL. Mullion (N) New N. North N.I.C. Not in Contract NO. or # Number NOM. Nominal N.T.S. Not to Scale O.A. Overall O.C. On Center O.D. Outside Diameter (Dim.) OPNG. Opening OPP. Opposite PERIM. Perimeter PL. Plate P.LAM. Plastic Laminate PLAS. Plaster PLYWD. Plywood PNL. Panel PNT. Paint P.S.I. Per Square Inch PT. Pressure Treated or Post Tensioned PTD. Painted P.T.D. Paper Towel Dispenser PTN. Partition P.T.R. Paper Towel Receptacle Q.T. Quarry Tile R. Riser R.A. Return Air RAD. Radius REC. Recessed REF. Reference REFL. Reflected REFR. Refrigerator REG. Register REINF. Reinforced REQ. Required RESIL. Resilient RET. Retaining REV. Revision/ Revised/ Reversed RM. Room REMOV. Removable R.O. Rough Opening RWD. Redwood S. South S.C. Solid Core S.C.D. See Civil Drawings S.D. Storm Drain, Soap Dispenser/Dish SCHED. Schedule SECT. Section S.E.D. See Electrical Drawings SEP. Separation S.H. Sprinkler Head SHR. Shower SHT. Sheet SHTG. Sheathing SIM. Similar SL. Sliding S.K.D. See Kitchen Drawings S.L.D. See Landscape Drawings S.M.D. See Mechanical Drawings S.P.D. See Plumbing Drawings SPEC. Specification or Special SQ. Square S.S. Stainless Steel S.S.D. See Structural Drawing S.S.K. Service Sink STD. Standard STL. Steel STOR. Storage STRL. Structural S.V. Sheet Vinyl T. Tread T.B. Towl Bar T.B.D. To Be Determined T.C. Top of Curb TEL. Telephone TEMP. Tempered T.&G. Tongue & Groove TER. Terrazzo THK. Thick T.M.E. To Match Existing T.O. Top of T.O.C. Top of Concrete T.O.P. Top of Plate T.O. PLY Top of Plywood T.O.W. Top of Wall TYP. Typical U.B.C. Uniform Building Code UNEXC. Unexcavated UNF. Unfinished U.N.O. Unless Noted Otherwise VAR. Varies V.C.T. Vinyl Composite Tile VEN. Veneer VERT. Vertical VEST. Vestibule V.G.D.F. Vertical Grain Douglas Fir V.I.F. Verify in Field VOL. Volume W Washing Machine W. West W/ With W/D Stacked Washing
Machine and Dryer W.C. Wall Covering WD. Wood W.H. Water Heater W/O Without W.P. Work Point or Waterproofing WSCT. Wainscot W.S.P. Wet Standpipe WT. Weight WR. Water Resistant WW. Welded Wire 2 E 8 A5.2
B
C
D
A
2 A3.1 BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE SAINT HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574 2126 MADRONA AVE. OWNER: ARCHITECT: KROEGER-JANEV ARCHITECTS 1432 MAIN STREET ST. HELENA CA 94574 TEL: (707) 968-5265 CONTACT: SASHA JANEV EMAIL: [email protected] JOE BERCHTOLD IN CARE OF MICHAEL HUBBARD TR 600 UNIVERSITY ST., SUITE 1625 SEATTLE, WA 98101 LANDSCAPE DESIGNER: CLAUDIA SCHMIDT P.O. BOX 42 SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 TEL: (707) 480-9571 EMAIL: [email protected] Landscape Drawings L1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN L2.1 PLANTING PLAN & PLANT SCHEDULE L2.2 PLANTING PLAN & PLANT SCHEDULE COLOR PLANTING PLAN BUILDING AREA CALCULATION: EXISTING RESIDENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED: 2,508 S.F. EXISTING GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED: 799 S.F. EXISTING STORAGE BARN: 586 S.F. TOTAL REMOVED 3,893 S.F. PROPOSED RESIDENCE: BASEMENT: FIRST FLOOR: SECOND FLOOR: TOTAL: COVERED TERRACE: PROPOSED ADU: FIRST FLOOR: COVERED TERRACE: EXISTING RESIDENCE: BELOW GRADE ABOVE GRADE 6,457 S.F. 5,244 S.F. 2,706 S.F. 850 S.F. 864 S.F. 7,950 S.F. 1,640 S.F. GARAGE & STORAGE: 1,754 S.F.

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A0.0 COVER SHEET SCALE: N.T.S.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 57 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 187 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 50 of 564 ends

SCALE: N1" = 2000'

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

M A D R O N A A V E

F I R H I L L D R
<E> WELL TO BE

DEMOLISHED
SCALE: N
1" = 140'
 RESIDENCE
 ADU
APN: 009-470-026 2056 MADRONA AVE.

APN: 009-470-013
2001 DEAN YORK LN.

APN: 009-460-001
2212 MADRONA AVE.

APN: 009-470-009
1615 FIR HILL DR.

APN: 009-470-008
1693 FIR HILL DR.

APN: 009-470-007
1733 FIR HILL DR.

APN: 009-470-006
1755 FIR HILL DR.

APN: 009-470-005
1795 FIR HILL DR.

APN: 009-470-004
1815 FIR HILL DR.
1837 FIR HILL DR.

APN: 009-470-003
APN: 009-470-002
APN: 009-470-025
2126 MADRONA AVE.

APN: 009-470-010

20.0'
REAR YARD 50.0' SIDE SETBACK

FROM FIR HILL C/L
2 1 2 6 M A D R O N A A V E N U E
D E S I G N R E V I E W P L A N S F O R :

S T . H E L E N A , C A , 9 4 5 7 4

SHEET INDEX

VICINITY MAP

SURVEY NOTES

SITE MAP
C1.0 COVER SHEETC2.0 HARDSCAPE PLANC2.1 GRADING PLANC3.0 UTILITY PLAN

PROJECT INFORMATION

MICHAEL HUBBARD TR
600 UNIVERSITY ST., SUITE 1625
SEATTLE, WA 98101
2126 MADRONA AVENUE
ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574
009-470-0105.78 ACRES
A-20ALBION SURVEYS
1113 HUNT AVENUE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
JON WEBB. P.L.S.
707/963-1217

MADRONE ENGINEERING
1485 MAIN STREET, SUITE 302
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
JOEL DICKERSON, P.E.
707/302-6280
OWNER:

SITE ADDRESS:

ASSESSOR PARCEL #:

PARCEL SIZE:

CITY ZONING:

SURVEYOR:

CIVIL ENGINEER:

ARCHITECT:

PROJECT STATEMENT
6"W

UTILITY POLE
PP
SIGN

WATER METER & DCV

FIRE HYDRANT WITH GATE VALVE

WATER VALVE
SEWER MANHOLE/RISER WITH ID #

FDC/PIV WITH CHECK VALVE

CLEANOUT
STORM DRAIN MANHOLE WITH ID #
WM
WV
SDMH#2
SSMH#1
CO

SYMBOL LEGEND
85 GAS LINE

WATER LINE

EXISTING CONTOUR

CENTERLINE

PROPERTY LINE

SOLID STORM DRAIN

PERFORATED STORM DRAIN

GRADE SWALE
85 PROPOSED CONTOUR
FH

OVERLAND RELEASE ROUTE

SS SANITARY SEWER
sSD

STREET LIGHT

TOP/TOE BANK

GRADEBREAK
6"G
W WELL
TREE
6"

TREE TO BE REMOVED

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO OBTAIN DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO BUILD A NEW RESIDENCE, ADU, POOL, DRIVEWAY, AND ALL RELATED UTILITIES AT 2126 MADRONA AVENUE.

KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS
1432 MAIN STREET
ST. HELENA, CA 94574SASHA JANEV
(707) 968-5265

1. THE BOUNDARY ON THESE DRAWINGS DOES NOT REPRESENT A PROPERTY LINE SURVEY. PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON RECORD DATA, AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE POSITIONS OF THE LINES.

2. THE TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY OF APRIL, 2021 PERFORMED BY ALBION SURVEYS.

3. THE VERTICAL DATUM OF THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON NAVD88 AND THE HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAD83 CALIFORNIACOORDINATE SYSTEM ZONE II PER TRIMBLE GPS OBSERVATIONS USING NGS OPUS SOLUTION. BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN PER 11 RM 11, NCR. ROTATED CLOCKWISE 1d21'OO" TO NAD 83.

4. SITE BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: N/A

5. MADRONE ENGINEERING ASSUMES NO LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS OR REPLACE THEM AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.

ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES

ESTIMATED PROJECT EARTHWORK

UNADJUSTED

QUANTITIES
(CY)

ADJUSTED

QUANTITIES
(CY)
CUT ~3000 TBD
FILL ~3000 TBD

ESTIMATED NET EARTHWORK BALANCED
THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF DISTURBED SOIL IS 43,411 SF (0.99 AC).

C1.0

COVER SHEET
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN

INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN

PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE

ENGINEERING WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY MADRONE ENGINEERING. IT SHALL BE THE USER'S SOLE

RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.

EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION

FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043

CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON

C IV I L

REGISTERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER
STA TE

OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:

U
SA

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3

REVISIONS
3 NO CHANGES THIS SHEET

AB AGGREGATE BASEAC ASPHALT CONCRETEAD AREA DRAIN

BC BEGIN CURVEBFE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION PER FIRMBM BENCHMARKBCR BEGIN CURB RETURNBVC BEGIN VERTICAL CURVEBS BOTTOM OF STAIRSBSW BACK OF SIDEWALK

CB CATCH BASINC&G CURB AND GUTTERCMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNITCP CONCRETE PIPE

CENTERLINE

CO CLEANOUTCOMM COMMUNICATIONCV CHECK VALVECW COLD WATER

DCV DOUBLE CHECK VALVEDG DECOMPOSED GRANITEDIP DUCTILE IRON PIPEDS DOWNSPOUTDW DOMESTIC WASTEDWG DRAWINGEC END OF CURVE (E) EAST<E> EXISTING
ECR END CURB RETURNEG EXISTING GROUNDEGR EDGE OF GRAVELEP EDGE OF PAVEMENTEVC END VERTICAL CURVEFDC FIRE DEPT. CONNECTIONFG FINISHED GRADE

FH FIRE HYDRANTFIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPFL FLOW LINEFM FORCE MAINFS FINISHED SURFACE

GB GRADE BREAKGR GRAVEL

HP HIGH POINTINV INVERTIP IRON PIPEIRR IRRIGATION

JP JOINT POLE

LF LINEAL FEET/FOOTLP LOW POINTMH MANHOLEMON MONUMENT
(N) NORTH<N> NEWOC ON CENTEROG ORIGINAL GROUNDOH OVERHEADOHL OVERHEAD LINE PROPOSED

PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETEPD PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONPG&E PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRICPI POINT OF INTERSECTIONPIV POST INDICATOR VALVEP/L PROPERTY LINEPRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVEPSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDEPVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTIONPW PROCESS WASTE

R RADIUSRT RIGHTROW RIGHT OF WAYRWL RAIN WATER LEADERRCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (S) SOUTHS SLOPE (FEET/FOOT)SAD SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSSD STORM DRAINSDP SUBDRAIN PIPESED SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGSSLD SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSSLV SLEEVESMD SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGSSPD SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGSSS SANITARY SEWERSSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUTSSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLESTA STATIONSTD STANDARDSW SIDEWALKTC TOP OF CURBTFC TOP FACE OF CURBTOC TOP OF CONCRETETS TOP OF STAIRSTW TOP OF WALLTYP TYPICAL

UG UNDERGROUND

VC VERTICAL CURVEVG VALLEY GUTTER
(W) WEST

WM WATER METERW/S WATER SERVICEWV WATER VALVE

ABBREVIATIONS

1. THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES LISTED BELOW ARE ESTIMATES ONLY AND MAY VARY DUE TO SOIL TYPE, COMPACTION AND BULKING FACTORS, GRADING PRACTICES, AND COMPACTION VALUES.

2. THE UNADJUSTED QUANTITIES HAVE BEEN DERIVED USING A VOLUMETRIC ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS.

4. THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN DEVELOPING ADJUSTED QUANTITY ESTIMATES: · QUANTITIES FROM UTILITY TRENCHES AND FOUNDATION TRENCHES HAVE NOT BEEN ESTIMATED. · QUANTITIES RELATED TO OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION HAVE NOT BEEN ESTIMATED.

3. CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK WITH THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF COMPACTION AND BULKING FACTORS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PROPOSED GRADING ACTIVITIES. THESE FACTORS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CUT & FILL QUANTITIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS ANALYSIS.

4. SEE THE TABLE BELOW FOR THE ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR THE PROJECT:

B E R C H T O L D R E S I D E N C E
SCALE IN FEET 0 140'SCALE IN FEET 0 2,000'
MAP FROM USGS 7.5 MIN SERIES MAP NAME: ST. HELENA
LC
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 58 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 188 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 51 of 564 ends

OHL
OHL
OHL

OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL

M A D R O N A A V E

F I R H I L L D R
RDWD_14/25
295.11RDWD_22/30
294.93
WO_48/100
293.80
WAL_14/25
296.26
WAL_16/STUMP
295.23
WAL_16/25
294.06 FIG_12/15 294.78
WAL_16/STUMP
294.86
POM_4/10
293.84
POM_4/10
293.61
POM_4/10
293.68
POM_4/10
293.94
FRUIT_4/5
294.27
FRUIT_6/15
296.31
OLIVE_6/15
293.99
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/10
294.76
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/10294.86
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/10294.79
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15294.81
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15294.89
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15294.93
ITAL_CYP
294.70
ITAL_CYP
295.14
TREE_12/15295.81
TREE_8/15295.25
TREE_8/15295.07
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15295.15
LIQUID_AMBER_8/20
294.69
LIQUID_AMBER_12/20
295.17
LIQUID_AMBER_10/25
295.82
LIQUID_AMBER_10/25
296.50
LIQUID_AMBER_10/25
296.61
RDWD_16/25
293.44
RDWD_20/25
293.75
RDWD_20/25
294.27
WAL_12/30
293.26
WILLOW_10/20
296.05
WAL_16/25
296.22
OLIVE_8/15296.84
FRUIT_6/10
297.47
WAL_14/15
297.59
FRUIT_4/10
296.59
LIQUID_AMBER_4/10
297.62
FH
293.66
SCALE:

N
1" = 20'
295
300
294
296
299
298
297
301
300
295
293
294
296
297
298
299
301
 STEPS
3 6-IN RISERS2 12-IN TREADS
 STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS
 STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS
 ADU
FF 299.00
 POOL
 SPA
 GARAGE
FF 299.00
 BIORETENTION AREA #01SURFACE AREA = 1,000 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 1,500 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50 BOCCE COURT

16.0'

50.0' SIDE SETBACK

FROM FIR HILL C/L
 RESIDENCE
FF (MAIN) 299.00
FF (BASEMENT) 286.00

30.0'
 WASTEWATER PRIMARY
DISPERSAL FIELD - 1,600 SF
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 BIORETENTION AREA #02SURFACE AREA = 350 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 525 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50

48.0'

45.8'

16.0'

60.0'

45.0'
TOTAL NEW/RECONSTRUCTED IMPERVIOUS AREA : 24,810 SF (0.57 AC)TOTAL DISTURBED SOIL AREA: 43,000 SF (0.99 AC)

HARDSCAPE LEGEND

TYPE OF IMPERVIOUS

SURFACE AREA DESCRIPTIONS AREA (SF) TYPICAL SECTION PERVIOUS/ IMPERVIOUS

BUILDINGS, GARAGES,

CARPORTS, OTHER

STRUCTURES WITH
ROOFS
BUILDINGS 11,250 N/A IMPERVIOUS
WALLS 330 N/A IMPERVIOUS

PATIO, IMPERVIOUS

DECKING, PAVERS

AND IMPERVIOUS
LINERS
CONCRETE 5880 N/A IMPERVIOUS

SIDEWALKS AND

PATHS GRAVEL
0 6" CL 2 AB IMPERVIOUS

ROADWAYS AND

DRIVEWAYS
ASPHALT CONCRETE 800 2.5" AC OVER 6.0" CL 2 AB IMPERVIOUS CHIP SEAL 6,390

DOUBLE CHIP
SEAL OVER 10"
CL 2 AB

IMPERVIOUS
GRAVEL 370 10" CL 2 AB IMPERVIOUS

OTHER PERVIOUS

SURFACE

DECOMPOSED

GRANITE
0 N/A PERVIOUS

GREEN ROOF
0 N/A PERVIOUS
LAWN
0 N/A PERVIOUS

BIORETENTION/
SWALE 1,300 N/A PERVIOUS
TOTAL 26,320
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN

INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN

PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE

RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.

EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION

FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043

CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON

C IV I L

REGIS TERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER

S TA TE

OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:

U
SA

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3

HARDSCAPE PLAN

HARDSCAPE PLAN
C2.0 SCALE IN FEET 0 20'

REVISIONS
3 REVISED SITE PLAN
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 59 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 189 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 52 of 564 ends

OHL
OHL
OHL

OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL

M A D R O N A A V E

F I R H I L L D R
WO_48/100
293.80
OLIVE_6/15
293.99
RDWD_16/25
293.44
JP_W/_STREET_LIGHT
293.94
SIGN
294.12
DI
293.48
DI
293.44
EP
296.82
EP
296.16
EP
295.54
EP
294.92
EP
294.41
EP
294.00
EP
293.81
EP
293.79
EP
293.76
EP
293.68
EP
293.50
EP
293.47
EP
293.58
EP
293.55
EP
293.54EP
293.30
EP
293.14

MAILBOX
294.48
JP
293.47

BOLLARD
293.60

BOLLARD
293.66
FH
293.66
JP
295.20
GB
293.71
GB294.07
GB
294.75
GB
295.12
GB295.59
GB296.50
DI
293.18
DI
293.22
EP
297.60
EP
296.85

PLANTER
296.31

PLANTER
296.22

PLANTER
295.50
EVR
296.92
EVR
296.51
EVR
296.04
EVR
296.09
EVR
296.68
EVR
294.23
EVR
293.64
EVR
293.20
EVR
293.05
GB300.29
GB299.91
GB299.16
GB298.08
GB297.23
GB296.79
EP
297.69
EP
298.31
EP
299.09
EP
299.64
EP
300.51
EP
301.12
EP
296.11
EP
296.51
EP
296.50
EP
296.62
EP
296.62
DI
300.75
DI
300.74
GB300.82 GB
300.94
GB300.97
GB
301.50
EP
301.61
EP
302.35
SCALE:

N
1" = 20'
295
300
294
296
299
298
297
301
300
295
293
294
296
297
298
299
302
301
 STEPS3 6-IN RISERS
2 12-IN TREADS
 STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS
 STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS

DISTURBED

SOIL AREA

DISTURBED

SOIL AREA

DISTURBED

SOIL AREA

DISTURBED

SOIL AREA
 ADU
FF 299.00
 POOL
 SPA
 GARAGE
FF 299.00
 BIORETENTION AREA #01SURFACE AREA = 1,000 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 1,500 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARD
TSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50
 BOCCE COURT
 RESIDENCE
FF (MAIN) 299.00
FF (BASEMENT) 286.00
 WASTEWATER PRIMARY
DISPERSAL FIELD - 1,600 SF
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 BIORETENTION AREA #02SURFACE AREA = 350 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 525 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50 S=2.0%
S=1.0%
S=2.0%
S=4.5%
S=1.0%
S=2.0%
S=1.0%
FS 297.23
BS 297.40 TS 298.90
FS 293.55
FS 293.24
FS 293.43
FS 298.63
FS 298.83
FS 298.98
FS 298.98
FS 298.98
FS/EG 296.28 FS/EG 295.27 FS/EG 297.69
FS/EG 298.74
FS 298.75FG 298.25
FS 298.92
FG 298.33
TW 299.50
FG 298.00
FS 285.98
FL 297.00
FL 297.00
FL HP 297.50
FS/EG 294.00
TS 296.50
FS 294.50
GB 298.00 GB 298.00
FS 285.98
FS 298.80FS 298.80
TW 299.50
FG 298.50
TW 299.50
FG 298.25
TS 298.50
FS 297.23
TW 299.25
TW 299.25 FS 297.78
FS 298.58 TW 299.50 GB 298.00 GB 298.00
GB 298.00
FL 296.00 FL 294.00 FL 293.00
FL 295.00
FS 298.75
FG 298.25
FL 294.00 FL 293.25
S=1.8%
S=3.5%
S=0.5%
S=2.0%
S=1.8%
S=50%
S=1.0%
S=2.0%
S=4.5%
S=4.5%
S=50%
S=50%
S=2.0%
S=2.0%
S=1.0%
S=6.0%
S=1.0%
S=1.5% S=2.5% S=1.2%
S=2.0% S=1.7% S=1.7%
298
298
295
294
297
294
295
TW 299.25
FG 294.00
FG 294.00
298
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN

INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN

PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE

RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.

EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION

FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043

CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON

C IV I L

REGIS TERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER

S TA TE

OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:

U
SA

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3

GRADING PLAN

GRADING PLAN
C2.1 SCALE IN FEET 0 20'

REVISIONS
3 REVISED GRADING PLAN
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 60 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 190 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 53 of 564 ends

WO_48/100
293.80
OLIVE_6/15
293.99
RDWD_16/25
293.44
JP_W/_STREET_LIGHT
293.94
DI
293.48
DI
293.44
TP292.91

MAILBOX
294.48
WM
294.12
WM
294.63
JP
293.47
WV
293.76
FH
293.66
JP
295.20
ELEC_PANEL
295.27
DI
293.18
DI
293.22
SS_TANK
295.89
SS_TANK
295.87
LID
295.87LID
295.87
SSCO
295.41
SEPTIC_+/-
295.16
SUMP
293.51
ELEC_PANEL
292.86
ELEC_PANEL_SUMP_CONTROLS
292.82
SSCO293.10
SSCO
293.11
SSCO
293.30
SSCO
293.23
DI
300.75
DI
300.74
FLAG_BLUE_STAKE
298.36
GAS_METER
295.36
FLAG_YELLOW
296.04
OHL
OHL
OHL

OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL
W

M A D R O N A A V E

F I R H I L L D R

W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SCALE:

N
1" = 20'
295
300
294
296
299
298
297
302
301
300
295
293
294
296
297
298
299
302
301
303
 ADU
FF 299.00
 POOL
 SPA
 GARAGE
FF 299.00
 BIORETENTION AREA #01SURFACE AREA = 1,000 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 1,500 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50 BOCCE COURT
 RESIDENCE
FF (MAIN) 299.00
FF (BASEMENT) 286.00
 WASTEWATER PRIMARY
DISPERSAL FIELD - 1,600 SF
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
 BIORETENTION AREA #02SURFACE AREA = 350 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 525 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARD
TSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50
W
W

GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS
W
W
GAS
E
E
E
E E
E E E
 GAS METER

NEW LOCATION

CONNECT TO
<E> GAS LINE
 UNDERGROUND
ELECTRIC FROM <E>
POLE
 SUBDRAIN

PUMP (COLLECTFROM BASEMENT &

WALL SUBDRAINS)
 STORM DRAIN

PUMP (COLLECT

FROM LIGHT

WELLS & ANY

NECESSARY DS)
DI#01 24-IN
RIM 293.50
INV (OUT) 292.07
8" SDR 35 S = 1.0%
INV (IN) 291.82
S=1.0% MIN
2" FM
1" SCH 40
2" SCH 40

GAS GAS GAS

CONNECT TO
<E> WATER METER
 BACKFLOW

PREVENTER
 ELECTRIC METER
S=1.0% MIN
2" FM

SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS SS
6" SDR 35
S=1.0% MIN
S=1.0% MIN
6" SDR 35
S=1.0% MIN
6" SDR 35
 BASEMENT SEWER PUMP
 SEWER GRAVITY BREAK BOX

CONNECT TO
 SEWER LINE

EXTENSION
INV ~291.14
 SSCO
INV 294.35
 SSCO
INV 295.62
 SSCO
INV 294.67
 SSCO
INV 293.55

1.5" FM
 GRAVEL INFILTRATION TRENCH
DI#02 24-IN FOR BIO #02 OVERFLOW
RIM 293.50
INV (OUT) 292.00 6" SDR 35
S = 1.0%
SS
 SSCO
INV 295.00
6" SDR 35
S=1.0% MIN
<E> 6" WATER MAIN
<E> 8" WATER MAIN
<E> WELL TO BE

DEMOLISHED
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN

INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN

PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE

RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.

EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION

FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043

CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON

C IV I L

REGIS TERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER

S TA TE

OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:

U
SA

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3

UTILITY PLAN

UTILITY PLAN
C3.0 SCALE IN FEET 0 20'

REVISIONS
3 REVISED UTILITY PLAN

NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:

1. FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF STRUCTURES SHALL INCORPORATE AN IMPERVIOUS CUTOFF WALL.2. FACILITIES LOCATED IN AREAS OF HIGH GROUNDWATER, HIGHLY INFILTRATIVE SOILS, OR WHERE CONNECTION OF THE UNDERDRAIN TO A SURFACE DRAIN OR SUBSURFACE STORM DRAIN ARE INFEASIBLE MAY OMIT THE UNDERDRAIN.

3. NO LINER, NO FILTER FABRIC, NO LANDSCAPE CLOTH.

4. MAINTAIN BGL, TGL, TSL AT LEVEL ELEVATIONS AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS.

5. CLASS 2 PERMEABLE LAYER MAY EXTEND BELOW AND UNDERNEATH DROP INLET.6. ELEVATION OF UNDERDRAIN DISCHARGE IS AT TOP OF GRAVEL LAYER.

7. REQUIRED SOIL MIX: 60%-70% FINE SAND, 30%-40% COMPOST (VOLUME BASIS). SOIL SHALL BE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING A LONG-TERM, IN-PLACE INFILTRATION RATE OF AT LEAST 5 INCHES PER HOUR. SOIL SHALL ALSO SUPPORT VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH.

BIORETENTION FACILITY

WITH SUBDRAIN
 8" CONCRETE CURB/WALLOR CMU BLOCK WALL

WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS
4" SDR 35
(SOLID)

SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT
(2" ABOVE FS/EG)
4" SDR 35
(PERF. SUBDRAIN)
4" SDR 35
(SOLID)
24"x24" CONCRETE

DROP INLET W/ ATRIUM GRATE
FG/EG
FG/EG

COBBLES OR SPLASH BLOCK

STORMDRAIN PIPE
(FROM IMPERVIOUS AREA)
6" MIN.
18" MIN.12" MIN.

TSL
TGL
BGL
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL

SPECIFIED SOIL MIX
(SEE NOTE 7)
2" MIN.

STORMWATER FLOW
2:1 OR FLATTER

WHERE SHOWN

ON PLANS

STORMWATER FLOW
1 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 61 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 191 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 54 of 564 ends

+/-25.00' +/-28.00'

ROAD CL ROAD CL MADRONA AVENUE

FRONT SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE
(E) VINEYARDS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK +/-53.00' A1.1 1 FIR HILL DRIVE ROAD CL +/-50' 315' 310' 305' 300' 295' ELEV 299' ELEV: 297'-6" +/-20'
+/-20' SIDE SETBACK

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE
(E) RESIDENCE
(E) GARAGE (E) GARAGE (E) VINEYARDS

MADRONA AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 315' 310' 305' 300' 395'

PROPERTY LINE
(E) STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING PROPOSED

AGRICULTURAL - VINEYARD

NON AGRICULTURAL - HOUSE SITE

AGRICULTURAL - ORCHARD

5.08ac 4.42ac

0.5ac 1ac

DRIVEWAY (EXEMPTION)

0.33ac
NA 0.03ac

USE CHANGE
-0.66ac

0.2ac +0.13ac
+0.5ac
TOTAL PARCEL AREA 5.78ac 5.78ac
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/6/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.0-Site-202101-V6_2013.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50' NORTH A1.0 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50' 1 SITE PLAN - EXISTING RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50'
2 NORTH NAPA COUNTY TAX ASSESSORS INFORMATION PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONS Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 62 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 192 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 55 of 564 ends

ROAD CL

MADRONA AVENUE

PROPERTY LINE (E) VINEYARDS
+/-20'

ROAD CL PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

FRONT SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE (N) DRIVEWAY FIR HILL DRIVE (E) TREE TO REMAIN ROAD CL +/-50' PROPOSED POOL W/ COVER 300' 299' PROPOSED RESIDENCE MAIN FLOOR 303' 302' 301' 298' 297' 296' 295' 294' 293' SIDE SETBACK LINE A2.2 1 A2.6
1 ADU (N) GATE (N) ENTRY PATH PARKING (N) GATE ELEV.: +297'-6" (N) SITE WALL, t.o.w 5ft. a.f.g. +/-117' +/-49'
+/-166'
+/-214' +/-56'
+/-58'
+/-15'
+/-59'
+/-38'
+/-48'
+/-72'
+/-27' ELEVATION: +299'-0" +/- 28' +/- 22'
+/- 50'
+/-135'
+/-193' PROPOSED BOCCE COURT PROPOSED (N) STORM WATER RETENTION PER CIVIL ENGINEER (N) SITE WALL, T.O.W 1'-6" A.F.G. (N) STORM WATER RETENTION PER CIVIL ENGINEER +/-32'
+/-231' +/-39'
NON AGRICULTURAL COVERAGE AREA:

0.99 ACRES (43,519 SQ. FT.)

MAXIMUM NON AGRICULTURAL COVERAGE
CRES OR GREATER : AREA
1 ACRE (43,560 SQ. FT.) SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' NORTH A1.1 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' 1 Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/6/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.1-Site-202101-V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1001 Caymus Street, Napa, CA 94559 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV3 09/22/2022 D.R. REV D.R. REV2 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 63 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 193 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 56 of 564 ends

+/-25.00' +/-28.00'

ROAD CL ROAD CL MADRONA AVENUE

PROPERTY LINE

FRONT SETBACK
(E) VINEYARDS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK +/-53.00' FIR HILL DRIVE ROAD CL +/-50' 315' 310' 305' 300' 295' ELEV 299' ELEV: 297'-6" +/-20'
+/-20' SIDE SETBACK

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE
+/-59'
2 1
2 1 1815 Fir Hill Drive 1795 Fir Hill Drive 1755 Fir Hill Drive 1733 Fir Hill Drive 1693 Fir Hill Drive 1615 Fir Hill Drive 2212 Madrona Avenue 3 3
+/-153'
+/-250'
+0'-0" DATUM (+299') +28'-0" TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" 2ND F.F. -13'-0" BASEMENT F.F. FIR HILL DRIVE CL ROAD 2212 MADRONA MAIN RESIDENCE +/-250' 2126 MADRONA AVE. +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +11'-0" ABV. DATUM FIR HILL DRIVE POOL CL ROAD +/-153.00' 1615 FIR HILL DRIVE 2126 MADRONA AVE. +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +28'-0" TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" 2ND F.F. 1815 Fir Hill Drive 1795 Fir Hill Drive 1755 Fir Hill Drive 1733 Fir Hill Drive 1693 Fir Hill Drive 1615 Fir Hill Drive 2126 MADRONA AVE.

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 100 NORTH A1.2 SITE SECTIONS SCALE: 1" = 50' SITE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 30' SITE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 30' SITE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 30' 1 2
3 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 64 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 194 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 57 of 564 ends

+/-25.00' +/-28.00'

ROAD CL ROAD CL MADRONA AVENUE

PROPERTY LINE

FRONT SETBACK
(E) VINEYARDS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK +/-53.00' FIR HILL DRIVE ROAD CL +/-50' 315' 310' 305' 300' 295' ELEV 299' ELEV: 297'-6" +/-20'
+/-20' SIDE SETBACK

SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE
+/-59' View 1 View 2 View 3 View 4 1815 Fir Hill Drive 1795 Fir Hill Drive 1755 Fir Hill Drive 1733 Fir Hill Drive 1693 Fir Hill Drive 1615 Fir Hill Drive 2212 Madrona Avenue +/-153'
+/-250' View 6 View 5
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/27/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.2-Site Section-202101-V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50 NORTH A1.3 SITE PHOTOS SCALE: 1" = 50' A VIEW FROM 2212 MADRONA PROPERTY
1 VIEW FROM 2212 MADRONA PROPERTY
2 VIEW FROM 2212 MADRONA PROPERTY
3 FROM 2212 MADRONA DRIVEWAY
4 FROM 1615 FIR HILL DRIVE
5 6 FROM 1615 FIR HILL DRIVE
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 65 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 195 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 58 of 564 ends

STAIR UP TV/CASEWORK STAIR UP LIGHT WELL BATH WINE STORAGE STAIR UP PLANTER PLANTERLIGHT WELL STAIR UP MECH./ STOR. PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER GAME ROOM MECHANCIAL/ STORAGE LAUNDRY ELEVATOR PDR. RM. EXERCISE ROOM STORAGE HALLWAY STORAGE SITTING ROOM A/V ROOM PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER 23'-10" 72'-4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 138'-2" 36'-7" 26'-7" 23'-1" 24'-6" 26'-0" 43'-2" 14'-11" 22'-0" 138'-2" 17'-0" 19'-1" 49'-2"
85'-3" STORAGE
4'-8" 7'-7"
86'-3"
28'-9" BASEMENT PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.1 BASEMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 66 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 196 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 59 of 564 ends

SLOPE UP STAIR DOWN STAIR UP STAIR DOWN SLOPE UP STAIR UP STAIR DN. STAIR DOWN 49'-2" 36'-1" 21'-4"
106'-7" 24'-6" 43'-6" 22'-0" 138'-2"
26'-3" 17'-2" 26'-7" 36'-7"
106'-7" GUEST PARKING PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER SITTING ROOM LIVING/DINING ROOM GARAGE STAIR HALL PDR. RM. CLOS. ELEVATOR LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW STORAGE MUD ROOM/HALL BATH 2 BEDROOM 1 CLOS. BATH 1 BEDROOM 2 CLOS. MOTOR COURT COVERED ENTRY BATH BEDROOM PATIO TRASH ROOM GARDEN STORAGE COURTYARD KITCHEN COVERED PORCH WINE ROOM VESTIBULE STORAGE STORAGE VEST. 2 PANTRY NEW SITE WALL PDR. RM. STORAGE STORAGE PLANTER 20'-3 1/2" 76'-10 1/2" 19'-0" 138'-2" STORAGE CLOS. 22'-0" 7'-0" 4'-8" 25'-8" 14'-11" 7'-7"
39'-3" 18'-0" 15'-2" 12'-10" 15'-2" FIRST FLOOR PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 67 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 197 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 60 of 564 ends

16'-10"
49'-2" 50'-2" 19'-0" 22'-0" 91'-2"
21'-2"
70'-6"
28'-9" 20'-7" 69'-2" 22'-0" 91'-2"
16'-2" 16'-2" HER STUDY BATH STOR. TV ROOM STOR. VANITY PRIMARY BATH FIREPLACE STAIR DOWN STORAGE TERRACE PRIMARY BEDROOM CLOSET BAR ELEVATOR LINEN/STOR. CLOSET HIS STUDY STOR. 7'-2"
7'-0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 68 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 198 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 61 of 564 ends

+29'-0" ABV. DATUM (328'-0") TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +10'-6" ABV. DATUM (309'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +16-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANELS TOP OF PARAPET ROOF PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.4 ROOF PLAN RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 69 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 199 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 62 of 564 ends

SWIMMING POOL
30'-10" 11'-5" 11'-5"
53'-8"
18'-10" 16'-0" 18'-10"
53'-8"
mech. yard niche screening fence BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING ROOM BATH COVERED PORCH SPA 9'-0" 37'-10" 22'-4" 6'-6" 9'-0" 37'-10" 22'-4" 6'-6" 138'-2" 18'-10" 18'-10" FLOOR PLAN - ADU NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.6 FIRST FLOOR PLAN ADU SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 70 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 200 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 63 of 564 ends

+14'-0" ABV. DATUM (313'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +12'-0" ABV. DATUM (311'-0") TOP TRELLIS +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +9'-0" ABV. DATUM (308'-0") TOP TRELLIS +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +9'-0" ABV. DATUM (308'-0") TOP TRELLIS +10'-0" ABV. DATUM (309'-0") TOP OF PARAPET ROOF PLAN - ADU NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.7 ROOF PLAN ADU SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 71 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 201 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 64 of 564 ends

EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. BESEMENT FIN. FLOOR -13'-0" BELOW DATUM +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') FIN. GRADE @ GUEST PARKING -1'-6" BELOW DATUM (297'-6") +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/29/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 1 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION (VIEW FROM MADRONA AVE.) SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 72 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 202 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 65 of 564 ends

EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') BESEMENT FIN. FLOOR -13'-0" BELOW DATUM +16-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. GRADE @ GUEST PARKING -1'-6" BELOW DATUM (297'-6") STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +15-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIR HILL DRIVE SECTION LINE +10'-6" ABV. DATUM (309'-6") TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +10'-6" ABV. DATUM (309'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') BESEMENT FIN. FLOOR -13'-0" BELOW DATUM +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. FIN. FLOOR +5'-0" DATUM (304') Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/29/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 1 NORTHWEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (VIEW FROM FIR HILL DRIVE) SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 73 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 203 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 66 of 564 ends

FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +14'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +9'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF TRELLIS +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +5-6" ABV. DATUM TOP OF FENCE EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. CEDAR WOOD BOARD FENCE FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +14-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF PARAPET TOP OF FENCE +8'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF OPENING +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF PARAPET +8'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF OPENING +5-6" ABV. DATUM TOP OF FENCE OPEN EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +14-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. +5-6" ABV. DATUM TOP OF FENCE CEDAR WOOD BOARD FENCE +12'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF TRELLIS +9'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF OPENING +9'-0" ABV. DATUM +8'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF DOOR/WIN TOP OF TRELLIS OPEN FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +12'-0" ABV. DATUM (311') TOP OF TRELLIS +14-0" ABV. DATUM (313') TOP OF ROOF EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310') TOP OF DOOR/WIN DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. OPEN +9'-0" ABV. DATUM (308') TOP OF DOOR/WIN Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/29/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A3.3 GUEST HOUSE ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 ADU SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (VIEW FROM FIR HILL DRIVE) SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"4 ADU SOUTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 1 ADU NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
2 ADU NORTHWEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 74 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 204 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 67 of 564 ends

+29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') FIN. GRADE @ GUEST PARKING -1'-6" BELOW DATUM (297'-6") +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/30/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 1 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" A3.4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION & FINISH MATERIALS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" STONE WALL & DARK METAL TRIM METAL TRELLIS & AWNING WITH LOUVERS STONE VENEER & CEMENT PLASTER WALLS WITH DARK METAL WINDOW FRAMES STONE VENEER WALLS CEMENT PLASTER & WOOD WALLS CEMENT PLASTER & WOOD WALLS WITH DARK METAL WINDOW FRAMES LOW LANDSCAPE STONE WALLS Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 75 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 205 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 68 of 564 ends

0 4' 8' 16'
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A3.5 COLORED ELEVATIONS SCALE: NTS Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 76 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 206 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 69 of 564 ends

0 4' 8' 16'
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:

ARCHITECT:

These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.

Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:

BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.

SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574

KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265

A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A3.6 COLORED ELEVATIONS SCALE: NTS Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 77 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 207 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 70 of 564 ends

EXISTING OAK REMAINS

ALL OTHER EXISTING

TREES TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING VINEYARD

REMAINS

EXISTING PROPOSED

AGRICULTURAL - VINEYARD

NON AGRICULTURAL - HOUSE SITE

AGRICULTURAL - ORCHARD

5.08ac 4.42ac

0.5ac 1ac

DRIVEWAY (EXEMPTION)

0.33ac
NA 0.03ac

USE CHANGE
-0.66ac

0.2ac +0.13ac
+0.5ac
TOTAL PARCEL AREA 5.78ac 5.78ac
NORTH
1 OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" =60' These documents are the property of Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design.

Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.

Issue
SCALE :

Date
Project No.

Drawn By
Date
Checked By C L A U D I A S C H M I D T P.O. B O X 42 S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 480 9571 F A C S I M I L E 707 963 9781 E M A I L [email protected] L A N D S C A P E D E S I G N Sheet
of
1/9/2023
CBL
CSLD
11/05/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 DESIGN REVIEW REV 1
09/16/22 DESIGN REVIEW 2
01/09/23 DESIGN REVIEW 3

AS NOTED
3BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 2126 MADRONA AVENUE ST HELENA, CA 94574 APN: 009-470-010

EXISTING SITE PLAN &

OVERALL SITE PLAN
0 120 feet L1.0
SCALE: 1"= 60'
60 180 240
SHEET INDEX:

L1.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN & OVERALL SITE PLAN,

WELO CALCS NON-AGRICULTURE PLANTINGS,

PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONS
L2.1 PLANTING PLANS & PLANT SCHEDULE
NON-AGRICULTURAL - WATER SOURCE CITY OF ST.

HELENA
L2.2 PLANTING PLAN & PLANT SCHEDULE AGRICULTURAL -

WATER SOURCE WELL
2 EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" =60'
3 WELO CALCS NON-AGRICULTURE PLANTINGS
4 PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONS
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 78 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 208 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 71 of 564 ends

6' X 8.5' 16' X 16.5'

BALCONY
BAR OFFICE 2
BATH 3

TV ROOM
11' X 14'
STOR. MASTER
6' x 11' BATH

FIREPLACE

18.5' X 25'

8.5' X 13'

BATHTUB MASTER BEDROOM

STORAGE WATER CLOSET DRESSING ROOM
13' X 14' DRESSING ROOM
14' X 23'
VANITY

WATER CLOSET
SHOWER

TERRACE

ELEVATOR
STAIR DOWN 1

MAIN LEVEL
SCALE: 1" = 20' These documents are the property of Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.

Issue
SCALE :

Date
Project No.

AS NOTED
3BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 2126 MADRONA AVENUE ST HELENA, CA 94574 APN: 009-470-010

PLANTING PLANS &

PLANT SCHEDULE

NON-AGRICULTURAL -

WATER SOURCE
L2.1
2 UPPER FLOOR
SCALE: 1" = 20'
PLANTING PLANS NON-AGRICULTURAL - WATER SOURCE CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY OF ST. HELENA
NORTH
0 40 feet
SCALE: 1"= 20'
20 60 80

TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS
1 LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI 'TUSCARORA' TUSCARORA CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNK 24" BOX LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 1 OLEA EUROPAEA 'SEVILLANO' SEVILLANO OLIVE 75 YEAR OLD FIELD DUG VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 4 OLEA EUROPAEA 'TUSCAN BLEND' TUSCAN BLEND OLIVE 24" BOX VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 6 PISTACIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE 60" BOX LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA

SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 12 CISTUS X PULVERULENTUS 'SUNSET' SUNSET ROCKROSE 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 8 EUONYMUS JAPONICUS JAPANESE EUONYMUS 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 9 EUONYMUS JAPONICUS `MICROPHYLLUS` BOXLEAF EUNONYMUS 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 6 LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY 15 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 40 OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE' TM LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE 5 GAL VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 21 PLUMBAGO AURICULATA 'MONOTT' TM ROYAL CAPE PLUMBAGO 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 31 PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 'COMPACTA' COMPACT CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY 15 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA

GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 37 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'ROMA 13' PLATINUM BEAUTY® VARIEGATED MAT RUSH 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 54 MUHLENBERGIA LINDHEIMERI LINDHEIMER'S MUHLY 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 119 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS 'LENCA' REGAL MIST® PINK MUHLY GRASS 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 16 MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA

PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 9 LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA 'GROSSO' GROSSO LAVENDER 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 15 SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 25 SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'MIDNIGHT' MIDNIGHT MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 40 TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDER 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 25 VERBENA BONARIENSIS TALL VERBENA 1 GAL VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA

GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 2,808 SF NON-IRRIGATED SEEDED GRASSES NON-IRRIGATED SEEDED GRASSES SEED NON-IRRIGATED

RAISED BEDS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 128 SF VEGETABLE BOX VEGETABLE BOX TBD MODERATE WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANT SCHEDULE WATER SOURCE CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 79 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 209 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 72 of 564 ends

These documents are the property of Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.

Issue
SCALE :

Date
Project No.

AS NOTED
3BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 2126 MADRONA AVENUE ST HELENA, CA 94574 APN: 009-470-010

PLANTING PLAN & PLANT

SCHEDULE

AGRICULTURAL -

WATER SOURCE WELL
L2.2

PLANTING PLANS AGRICULTURAL - WATER SOURCE WELL
NORTH 1

MAIN LEVEL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
0 40 feet
SCALE: 1"= 20'
20 60 80

TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS
6 FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVA 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 7 OLEA EUROPAEA 'SEVILLANO' 100 YEAR OLD SEVILLANO OLIVE FIELD DUG VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL 3 OLEA EUROPAEA 'TUSCAN BLEND' TUSCAN BLEND OLIVE 24" BOX VERY LOW MANAGED AT 8' X 8' - WELL 19 OLEA EUROPAEA 'TUSCAN BLEND' TUSCAN BLEND OLIVE 24" BOX VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL

FRUIT TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 1 CITRUS X LIMON 'EUREKA' EUREKA LEMON 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 2 CITRUS X AURANTIIFOLIA 'BEARSS LIME' BEARSS LIME 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 1 CITRUS RETICULATA 'OWARI' OWARI SATSUMA MANDARIN ORANGE 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 1 CITRUS X SINENSIS 'WASHINGTON' WASHINGTON NAVEL ORANGE 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL

SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 18 LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY 15 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL 40 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'IRENE' TM IRENE TRAILING ROSEMARY 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL 8 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL

PLANT SCHEDULE WATER SOURCE WELL
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 80 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 210 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 73 of 564 ends

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 81 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 211 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 74 of 564 ends

January 9, 2023
Berchtold Residence
2126 Madrona Ave.

Saint Helena, CA 94574
Design Review Project Statement
Proposed work: New Residence at 2126 Madrona Avenue
The applicant is seeking approval for the demolition of three existing structures totaling approximately 3,893 square feet and design review approval to construct a new single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit. The proposed residence is a one and partial two-story structure with a basement. The above ground living area of the main residence totals 7,950 square feet; above ground garage and storage areas total 1,754 square feet; and below grade basement space totals 6,457 square feet.

The proposed design is a product of multiple design iterations resulting from our collaboration with the Planning Department staff and neighbors. A primary goal was to minimize neighborhood impact by preserving views and maintaining the general character of the neighborhood, while satisfying the building program needs of the homeowners. Based on our communication with the Director and staff, as well as several of the neighbors, we have made a concerted effort to address their concerns and recommendations.

The design for the proposed residence consists of four bedroom suites; an open plan kitchen, dining and living area; two home offices; a 3-car garage; and support spaces. The basement houses an exercise area and recreation room, as well as storage, mechanical, and service spaces. The proposed design also includes an accessory dwelling unit (which is exempt from discretionary review but is shown for reference) and a new swimming pool and spa with cover.

The proposed home will be set with in the front and side 50ft. boundaries adjacent to Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive. The applicant plans to preserve as much as possible of the existing old vine vineyard and to maintain and enhance the agricultural nature of the property by adding an olive orchard, fruit trees, a vegetable/herb garden and cutting gardens. Proposed development includes removal of 0.66 acres of existing vineyard, additional 0.13 acres of new orchard and 0.5 acres expansion of existing non-agricultural use for home site. As proposed agricultural use will consist of 4.42 acres of vineyard and 0.33 acres of orchard, with one acre dedicated to non-agricultural use. The property owners are currently working with Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate the vineyard and produce wine. In addition, they will collaborate with local olive oil producers to create an estate olive oil sourced from proposed olive plantings.

This project is fully compliant with A20 zoning codes, and there are no requests for any code variances.

As noted on the proposed drawings, the exterior of both the residence and the accessory dwelling unit will be finished with combination of local stone and exterior cement plaster, with wood and metal accents.

The proposed color palette will employ natural earth tones to blend with the existing site and complement the neighborhood.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 82 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 212 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 75 of 564 ends

At its tallest point, the proposed structure is 29 feet high; however, its position on the site, orientation, and layered massing has been carefully designed to minimize its visual impact and to preserve views from neighboring properties.

The flat roof design will allow the owners to maximize the use of solar panels to minimize energy needs but keep them out of view behind parapet walls. The proposed landscape plan and planting palette is designed to meet water neutrality status.

The owners plan to provide on-site accommodations for full-time help, which will reduce the impact on the local housing market.

Since our initial Design Review hearing in October of 2022, we conducted two on site meetings with the neighbors as recommended by the Planning Commission. As a result of these meetings, we made following changes to the proposed project:
• Removal of two driveways along Fir Hill Drive as proposed during the first hearing. • Proposed ADU location is shifted 5 feet to the south and 15 feet to the east to further minimize impact on views from neighboring properties.
• Proposed ADU massing is changed. The roof line above the bedroom and living room was lowered by 2 feet.
• Proposed pool size and orientation was revised.
• Proposed bocce court was moved to a new location along east property line along with adjacent landscape to expand views from neighboring properties. • Increased capacity of the proposed storm water retention area. • Revised landscape plan and plant material list to reduce water usage. • Adjusted layout of the olive orchard along Fir Hill Drive to increase visibility at intersection with Madrona Avenue.

Sincerely,
Sasha Janev – Kroeger Janev Architects
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 83 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 213 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 76 of 564 ends

November 12, 2021
Sasha Janev
Kroeger-Janev Architects
1432 Main Street
St. Helena, California, 94574
Subject: Project Review of the Proposed Project for Historic Compatibility at 2126 Madrona Avenue, St.

Helena, Napa County, California.

Dear Sasha,
This letter and the attached DPR 523 form comprise the Historic Resource Evaluation of 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, Napa County, California.

Methodology
According to the St. Helena Star, the original house at 2126 Madrona Avenue was constructed about 1883.

Research has not revealed photographs or other documents such as architectural plans, and the property is not listed on the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. Brunzell Historical has therefore prepared this letter report and DPR 523 forms to evaluate the buildings on the property. Brunzell Historical personnel conducted a site visit on November 10, 2021. The site visit included collecting photographs of all elevations of the buildings on the property with a focus on the historic-era barn on the property. Research was performed using historic newspapers and ancestry.com as well as other websites. The property was evaluated according to the relevant criteria for historic eligibility and documented on DPR 523 forms as required by the California Environmental Quality Act as (CEQA). Because the property is over 50 years old, a potential projects trigger a requirement for historical evaluation according to current regulations. This work was completed pursuant to CEQA, all resources discovered during the field survey require evaluation for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The property was also evaluated for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility.

Summary of Findings
The 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 materials and features indicate alterations decades, substantial alterations outside the historic era. It lacks the architectural significance required for historic listing. Nor has research revealed historical significance or association with important historic persons. For these reasons, the property is not recommended eligible to the CRHR or the NRHP. Neither the house nor the outbuildings meet any of the required criteria for significance as described below and in the attached DPR 523 forms. Nor is the property recommended eligible as a City of St. Helena historical resource.

National Register of Historic Places
In conjunction with the following NRHP criteria, sites must be assessed for integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A site may be considered eligible to the NRHP if it retains sufficient integrity of the elements listed above and it:
(a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
(b) is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 84 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 214 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 77 of 564 ends

(c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; (d) yields, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the area/region.

California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR criteria are based on NRHP criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the 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 the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years will be evaluated. The CRHR also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Evaluation
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.

Criterion B/2: The property is not associated with the life of persons important to our history. The families that lived on the property participated in farming, carpentry, and other local pursuits. They were not significant contributors to St. Helena’s development, and research has revealed no important professional accomplishments or lasting impact on local history or on agriculture. It was a property that provided shelter for ordinary people and their families. Therefore, the property lacks the strength of association required for eligibility under Criterion B/2. The property is recommended not eligible to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.

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.

Page 85 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 215 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 78 of 564 ends

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.

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 86 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 216 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 79 of 564 ends

Page 1 of 10 ends

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial _____________________________________ NRHP Status Code
Other Listings _______________________________________________________________ Review Code __________ Reviewer ____________________________ Date ___________ P1. Other Identifier: 2126 Madrona Avenue
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Sacramento and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T__; R _ _; ___ ¼ of Sec ___; _ ___ B.M. c. Address 2126 Madrona Avenue City St. Helena Zip 94574 d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ; mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) 009-470-010-0000 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The property is located at the intersection of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive, which is about a quarter mile southeast of the denselydeveloped area of St. Helena. The semi-rural neighborhood is characterized by widely-spaced residential and winery development set within vineyards. The long, narrow parcel of nearly six acres is mostly planted to vineyards, with a house, garage, and ancillary dwelling clustered near Madrona Avenue. The one-story house has a rectangular plan and sits atop a raised basement. It features a medium-pitch hipped roof with medium eaves. There is a hip-roof dormer on the main (southeast) elevation which features a louvered vent. The dormer and house are clad in wide fiber cement lap siding with an applied wood grain pattern. The main entrance on the primary façade is sheltered by a projecting gabled entry porch with exposed rafter tails. Its roof is supported by square wood posts, and the balustrade is wood. The entrance is fitted with a partially glazed paneled wood door and wood screen door and accessed from the side via a tall set of wood steps with a simple open balustrade. There is a small door to the basement on the northwest elevation of the porch structure.

Fenestration consists of double-hung wood-sash and steel casement windows. A secondary entrance on the southwest elevation is fitted with a sliding-glass door. It is accessed via a multi-level deck; a flat-roofed awning topped with corrugated metal shelters the entrance.

There is a two-story addition at the rear of the house featuring a shed roof shed awning over its centered entrance, which is fitted with a partially glazed paneled wood door (continued page 3).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3. Multiple family property *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 1: 2126 Madrona Avenue,
southeast elevation, camera facing west, November 10,
2021.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
c1883, St. Helena Star
*P7. Owner and Address:

Michael K. Hubbard
2126 Madrona Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Kara Brunzell
Brunzell Historical
1613 B St
Napa, CA 94559
*P9. Date Recorded: November 10, 2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other
sources, or enter “none.”) none
*Attachments: NONE  Location Map  Sketch Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (list) __________________
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 87 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 217 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 80 of 564 ends

Page 2 of 10 ends

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2126 Madrona Avenue DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
B1. Historic Name: None
B2. Common Name: 2126 Madrona Avenue
B3. Original Use: residence B4. Present Use: residence
*B5. Architectural Style:
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Original construction, c1883 Garage/barn constructed behind the house, c1910s
Original partial-width porch enclosed, front stairs reoriented, steel casement windows installed, rear addition constructed, c1950 Sliding glass door and deck added at side, original cladding replaced with fiber cement, unknown dates after 1980 Original barn demolished, second garage/barn constructed, 2008 *B7. Moved?  No  Yes  Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9. Architect: unknown. b. Builder: unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area N/A
Period of Significance N/A Property Type N/A Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
(See Footnotes)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Kara Brunzell
*Date of Evaluation: November 10, 2021
(This space reserved for official comments.)
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 88 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 218 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 81 of 564 ends

Page 3 of 10 ends

Photograph 2: 2126 Madrona Avenue, southeast and northeast elevations, camera facing southwest, November 10, 2021.

Photograph 3: 2126 Madrona Avenue, northeast and northwest elevations, camera facing southeast, November 10, 2021.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 89 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 219 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 82 of 564 ends

Page 4 of 10 ends

Photograph 5: 2126 Madrona Avenue, northwest and southwest elevations, camera facing northeast, November 10, 2021.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 90 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 220 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 83 of 564 ends

Page 5 of 10 ends

A gravel driveway on the north side of the house leads to a double garage behind the residence. It has a front-gabled corrugated metal roof with exposed rafter tails. Cladding is primarily wide vertical boards, but there are areas of plywood and horizontal boards. Two vehicle openings on the north elevation are fitted with metal rollup doors. There is a large covered patio with shed roof attached to its east elevation. A human-scale entrance at the southeast elevation is fitted with a flat wood door.

Photograph 7: 2126 Madrona Avenue garage, northeast elevation, camera facing south, November 10, 2021.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 91 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 221 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 84 of 564 ends

Page 6 of 10 ends

A second garage is a few feet to the west has been converted to a dwelling. It has a front-gabled roof and it is clad in wide vertical board siding. Its sliding vehicle door is top-mounted and it has a human-scale entrance with a partially glazed paneled wood door. Windows are horizontal sliding-sash.

Photograph 9: 2126 Madrona Avenue second garage, southwest and southeast elevations, camera facing northwest, November 10, 2021.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 92 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 222 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 85 of 564 ends

Page 7 of 10 ends

B10. Significance (continued):

St. Helena
The first European to settle in the St. Helena area was Dr. Edward Bale, an English physician who received the Carne Humana rancho as a grant from the Mexican government in 1839. The huge land grant encompassed northern Napa Valley, including what would become the towns of Calistoga and St. Helena. California statehood in 1850 drew land speculators to Napa Valley, and in the early 1850s Henry Still purchased 100 acres on the north side of Sulphur Creek from Bale. In partnership with a Mr. Walter, Still erected the first building in St.

Helena in 1853, and by the middle of the decade Still and Walter were donating Main Street lots to anyone who would agree to open a business.1
Early agricultural activities in Napa Valley focused on cattle-grazing and grain production, but beginning in the late 1850s farmers began experimenting with wine grapes. St. Helena’s position as a center of agriculture was consolidated when the railroad arrived in 1868. By the 1870s, much of the land surrounding the growing village had been converted to wine production. St. Helena was incorporated as a city in 1876, and reincorporated in 1889.2
The population of Napa Valley doubled between 1870 and 1880, and by 1880, St. Helena was home to 1,500 residents. The St. Helena district (the area between Yountville and St. Helena) by this time had 7,000 acres of grapevines. As the nineteenth century progressed, St.

Helena became the upper valley’s most important shipping and commercial center. It also became more diverse as Chinese and then German and Italian immigrants arrived to work in the vineyards.3 Napa Valley was America’s premier wine region by 1890, but a downturn in prices and an infestation of the phylloxera root louse nearly destroyed the wine industry at the turn of the century. Many growers pulled out wine grapes in the early decades of the twentieth century, replacing them with prunes and walnuts. In 1919, the wine business suffered a further blow when the Volstead Act outlawed the

1 Lyman L. Palmer, History of Napa and Lake Counties, California, San Francisco: Slocum, Bowen, & Company, 1881, p. 55. 333; C. A. Menefee, Historical and Descriptive Sketchbook of Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino, Napa City: Reporter Publishing House, 1873, p. 186. 2 City of St. Helena, Historic Resources Inventory, Prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., August, 2006, p. 7; Palmer, p.335. 3 William F. Heinz, Wine Country, A History of Napa Valley, Capra Press, Santa Barbara: 1990, p. 162; City of St. Helena, p. 8.

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 93 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 223 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 86 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 #10.1.

Page 224 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 87 of 564 ends

Page 9 of 10 ends

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 #10.1.

Page 225 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 88 of 564 ends

Page 10 of 10 ends

Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 96 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 226 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 89 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 #10.1.

Page 227 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 90 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 #10.1.

Page 228 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 91 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.

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 #10.1.

Page 229 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 92 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 #10.1.

Page 230 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 93 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 #10.1.

Page 231 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 94 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 #10.1.

Page 232 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 95 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 #10.1.

Page 233 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 96 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 #10.1.

Page 234 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 97 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 #10.1.

Page 235 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 98 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 #10.1.

Page 236 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 99 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 #10.1.

Page 237 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 100 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 #10.1.

Page 238 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 101 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 #10.1.

Page 239 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 102 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 #10.1.

Page 240 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 103 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 #10.1.

Page 241 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 104 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 #10.1.

Page 242 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 105 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence

APPENDIXA

VICINITY MAP
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 113 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 243 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 106 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 #10.1.

Page 244 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 107 of 564 ends

21.043
Berchtold Residence

APPENDIX B

STORMWATER SKETCH
Agenda Item #5.2.

Page 115 of 195 ends

Agenda Item #10.1.

Page 245 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 108 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 #10.1.

Page 246 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 109 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 #10.1.

Page 247 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 110 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 #10.1.

Page 248 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 111 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 #10.1.

Page 249 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 112 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 #10.1.

Page 250 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 113 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 #10.1.

Page 251 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 114 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 #10.1.

Page 252 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 115 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 #10.1.

Page 253 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 116 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 #10.1.

Page 254 of 631 ends

Agenda Item #5.1.

Page 117 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

St. Helena City CouncilMay 17, 2023

St. Helena City Council
May 17, 2023