St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

Project issues include the significant and unavoidable impacts, public comments received in the Draft EIR, and other issues not related to the approval of the tentative map, as noted above.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 2-7-2023 CORRESPONDENCE
The City has addressed three specific letters received as part of the public testimony from the last Planning Commission hearing (see attachments 17,18 and 20):
• Letter from the law firm of DP&F, dated 10-31-22, titled, “RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report, File #PL10-040” (Attachment 16a) • Letter from the law firm of DP&F, dated 10-31-22, titled, “RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040” (Attachment 16b) • Letter from the Napa County Bicycle Coalition, dated 11-1-22, titled, “Public Comment Re: Item 5.1: Hunter Subdivision Project EIR” (Attachment 19) The following letters were received immediately prior to the February 7, 2023 Planning Commission meeting:
• Letter from the law firm of Holland & Knight (representing the applicant), dated 2-2-23, titled, “Re: City of St. Helena, Unlawful Conditions on Hunter Subdivision Project” Response: Staff and the city attorney have reviewed the letter. In response to the first point raised in the letter, city staff is recommending a change to a condition to reflect the settlement.

The City is not persuaded by any of the other arguments raised. There is no improper exercise of discretion when conditions must be completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer because the city engineer’s decision rests on established objective industry and city standards. The engineer is satisfied if the applicant satisfies objective engineering standards.

Nor is this a valid basis for an unconstitutional-taking claim since the owner will be left with plenty of economic use even if the owner doesn’t get everything that it is asking for. • Letter from the law firm of DP&F, dated 2-6-23, titled, “RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report, File #PL10-040” (Attachment 26 to this report) Response: The response to this letter is Attachent 28 to this report. • Letter from the law firm of DP&F, dated “RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040” (Attachment 27 to this report) Response: The response to this letter is Attachment 29 to this report. • Letter from the Napa County Bicycle Coaltion, dated 2-7-23, titled, “Public Comment Re:

Item 5.1: Public Hearing - Hunter Subdivision Project” (Attachment 30 to this report) Response: The response to this letter is Attachment 31 to this report.

CITY COUNCIL HEARING 5-1-2023 CORRESPONDENCE
Responses to letters received after publication of this staff report will be attached to the agenda.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
After considering the project, staff report, supporting documents, technical studies and all testimony, written and spoken, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena Agenda Item #6.1.

recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final EIR, and approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

2. Adopt a Resolution approving the requested Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 for the Hunter Subdivision project.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 Hunter FEIR CC Resolution
Att 2 Hunter Subdivision CC Resolution
Att 3 Tentative Map 1-24-23
Att 4 1993 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Att 5 2019 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Att 6a Hunter Draft EIR
Att 6b APP A_NOP and Comments Received
Att 6c APP B_LESA Model
Att 6d APP C_CalEEMod Results
Att 6e APP D_Biological Resources Reports
Att 6f APP E_ Confidential Hunter Cultural XPI_Ph2 Report_5.15.2020_App B, C, D Att 6g APP F_Geotechnical Engineering Report
Att 6h APP G_Phase I ESA
Att 6i APP H_Hydrology Report
Att 6j APP I_Noise Model Outputs
Att 6k APP J_Water Neutral Report
Att 6l APP K_HunterSubdivision_TIS_04.06.21a_revNov2022 Att 7 Final EIR for the Hunter Subdivision Project 1-2023 Att 8 Project Site Location Map
Att 9 Project Site Aerial Photo 2022
Att 10 1993 General Plan Land Use Map
Att 11 2000 Zoning Map
Att 12 2018 Zoning Map
Att 13 Project Site Aerial Photo Oct 2009
Att 14 Trail System Map
Att 15 Hunter Subdivision Traffic Analysis Summary 10-10-22 Att 16a Attorney Letter EIR 10-31-22
Att 16b Attorney Letter TM 10-31-22
Att 17 Response to CEQA Comments 1-19-23
Att 18 Response to Subdivision Map Comments 1-26-23
Att 19 Letter from Napa County Bicycle Coalition 11-1-22 Att 20 Response to Bicycle Coalition Comments 1-19-23
Att 21 Hunter Public Comment from 11-1-22 Meeting Combined Att 22 Hunter Public Comment from 2-7-23 Meeting Combined Att 23 FAQs About the Napa River Levee
Att 24 FAQs About the Hunter Project
Att 25 Holland & Knight Letter, 2-2-23
Att 26 DP& F Letter, Project EIR 2-6-23
At 27 DP&F Letter, Proposed Tentative Map
Att 28 Response to DP& F Letter on the Project EIR
Att 29 Response to DP&F Letter on the Proposed Subdivision Att 30 Letter from Napa County Bicycle Coalition 2-7-23 Att 31 Response to Napa County Bicycle Coalition Letter of 2-7-23 Att 32 Memo re Flood Liability
Agenda Item #6.1.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

C O V E R S H E E T
TM1

T E N T A T I V E M A P

H U N T E R S U B D I V I S I O N

S T H E L E N A C A L I F O R N I A
1 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #6.1.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S
TM2
2 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #6.1.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

G R A D I N G P L A N
TM3
3 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #6.1.

GRADING SECTIONS AND DETAILS
TM4
4 CHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
··
··
·· JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #6.1.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

U T I L I T Y P L A N
TM5
5 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #6.1.

City Hall has Moved to 1088 College Avenue - Click here for Pictures and Details PRESS RELEASE | City Response to Online Misinformation About the Hunter Subdivision

PRESS RELEASE
TODAY’S DATE: May 26, 2023
RELEASE DATE: Immediate
TITLE: City Response to Online Misinformation About the Hunter Subdivision (Press Release 2023-45) CONTACT: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
[email protected] , (707) 967-2783
ST. HELENA, CA – The City of St. Helena is committed to ensuring accurate information is available to the public, particularly in matters pertaining to community development and planning. In response to recent online misinformation regarding the Hunter Subdivision project, the City of St. Helena is re-releasing the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents to provide accurate details to the community.

The Hunter Subdivision project, which had its most recent public hearing during a special meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 1, 2023, aims to provide additional housing options within the City of St. Helena, helping the City meet its state-mandated housing needs. The Hunter Subdivision project includes 87 homes, comprised of 51 single family homes, 25 multi-family units and 11 accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Unfortunately, the project has been subject to misleading information disseminated through various online channels, most recently on NextDoor and with a petition on Change.org that includes an outdated FEMA flood map and other incorrect information. Recognizing the need to counter this misinformation, the City continues to take proactive measures to ensure residents have access to accurate and up-to-date information. This includes providing information on a special page of its website at cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/hunter-subdivision.

Among the factual errors in the text of the Change.org petition is a statement that, “FEMA no longer uses the concept of ‘100-year flood zones.’” This is incorrect, as noted on FEMA’s own website regarding their new “Risk Rating 2.0” process. Under the heading of “What’s Not Changing Under Risk Rating 2.0” is a statement that FEMA’s flood insurance rate maps (which show 100- and 200-year flood zones, along with other flooding information). This section states that “… critical flood mapping data is necessary and essential for communities. It informs floodplain management building requirements and the mandatory purchase requirement.” The Change.org petition also mischaracterizes FEMA’s Risk Rating 2.0 process, suggesting that FEMA has concluded that, “… the risk of catastrophic floods and failing levies in certain high-risk areas is so volatile as to be unpredictable.” This is not the case. In fact, the Risk Rating 2.0 is a program that uses modern technology covering a wide range of factors to more accurately set the price of flood insurance. According to FEMA, “FEMA is now able to equitably distribute premiums across all policyholders based on home value and a property’s flood risk, and set rates that are fairer and more equitable.”
“It is important for the community to understand that FEMA’s ‘Risk Rating 2.0’ system is simply a more holistic way of looking at flood risk,” said Joseph Leach, PE, Director of Public Works for the City of St. Helena. “Before version 2.0, the rating system was based on two primary factors, the elevation of the property and the elevation of flood water. With Risk Rating 2.0 many other factors are now included. These include flood frequency, types of flooding and the cost to rebuild. These factors and others are then used to set insurance rates. The system does not move away from flood zones, which are still mapped by FEMA and used to set flood insurance rates. This new system is much like how vehicle insurance policy prices are set. Those policies do not just look at the vehicle driven, but take a more holistic approach by considering the driver’s age, their driving record, the type and age of the car, how many miles per year are driven, etc. Risk Rating 2.0 is very much the same, but for flood insurance.” Another misrepresentation on the Change.org website is the FEMA map which uses an outdated FEMA map and shows conditions before the new flood control levee on the Napa River was installed. Additionally, it shows the Hunter Subdivision project boundary incorrectly and in the wrong location on the map. The city is republishing the correct map below which shows the most recent FEMA data (after the construction of the Napa River levee). It shows the Hunter Subdivision project as having a 0.2% or lower annual flood risk (a 1-in-500 chance in any given year) due to the presence of the levee.

More information about FEMA’s “Risk Rating 2.0” can be found at fema.gov/es/node/467888.

The FAQ documents for the Hunter Subdivision Project serve as a comprehensive resource, addressing common questions and concerns raised by residents. The FAQs provide clear and concise information on various questions, including:

Is the Hunter Project in a Floodplain?
How will the Hunter Project Comply with Water Neutrality Requirements? Will the Hunter Project affect emergency evacuation?
Will we lose access to trails and open space?
Will the Hunter Project provide affordable housing?
Will the Hunter Project create traffic congestion?
The City of St. Helena encourages residents to consult the re-released FAQ document as a reliable source of information on the Hunter Subdivision project. It can be accessed on the City's official website at cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/hunter-subdivision. In addition to the FAQ document, the page also provides an FAQ on the levees, a tentative project map and a video presentation.

The City suggests that persons concerned with the potential for flooding on the Hunter Subdivision site refer to the correct, updated FEMA maps, and the correct information on the Risk Rating 2 program, available online at fema.gov/flood-insurance/risk-rating The City Council is scheduled to have the final public hearing on this item on June 7, 2023 at 6 pm, at Vintage Hall.

Additional questions about the project can be directed to Eric Norris, Principal Planner, at [email protected] or Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director, at [email protected].

The City of St. Helena remains committed to upholding transparency, community involvement and accurate information dissemination. By re-releasing the Hunter Subdivision FAQ document and providing platforms for public engagement, the City continues to welcome an informed and inclusive decision-making process. #####
Please do not reply to this message. The email cannot accept inquires.

For more information about contacting the City of St. Helena, please visit our Contact Page: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/contact About St. Helena
Business Portal
Census 2020
Community News
Energy
Our History
Our Parks
Our Schools
Public Transportation
Residents
SHINE Newsletter
Spare the Air in the Bay Area
Visit St. Helena
Contact Information
Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

View City Directory to contact
department directly.

View Full Contact Details
Community
Your Government Our Community City Departments
Home | Contact Us | Select Language ▼
How may we help you?
City of St Helena | 1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574 Home Sitemap Staff Login a municode design Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA

A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
952 SCHOOL STREET #316 NAPA CA 94559
VOICE: (707) 681-5111
EMAIL: [email protected]
May 1, 2023
Via Email:
[email protected]
Mayor Paul Dohring, [email protected]
Vice Mayor Eric Hall, [email protected]
Council Member Anna Chouteau, [email protected] Council Member Lester Hardy, [email protected]
Council Member Billy Summers, [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo, [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa, [email protected] COMMENT re: Resolution to approve Tentative Map No. 2022-001 and certify the Environmental Impact Report - File #PL10-040 for the Hunter Subdivision project.

Water Audit California, an advocate for the public trust, objects that the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) does not comply with due process, the procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or public trust duties, and does not contain sufficient evidence of adequate supply of water. Further, the EIR does not consider a reasonable and environmentally preferable alternative.
(A) The EIR does not comply with due process or CEQA.

Public notice requires a reasonable opportunity to consider the business being considered. Notice shall be given of a meeting of a legislative body and that specifies the “business to be transacted or discussed.” This EIR has failed in that fundamental duty.

The agenda package for the subject EIR was posted on the CSH website late on the day on Friday, April 21, 2023. On Tuesday, April 25, 2023, at 7:13 p.m., Water Audit staff downloaded a reference copy of 3768 pages. Minutes later, on April 25, 2023 7:21 p.m., a Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
1 second copy was downloaded with a total of 3780 pages. This comment references a third copy downloaded on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, at 10:16 p.m., which also consisted of 3,780 pages.

Reference was made throughout this comment to the page numbers assigned to the April 26 documents.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023, at 9:22 a.m. Water Audit staff noted that the agenda packet had increased to 4,318 pages, with the additional pages inserted, not appended. For example, the Dudek Well Completion Table that was on page 625 of 3780 on April 26 version is now page 1163 of 4,318 in the April 30 version. Accordingly, the page numbering in this comment do not relate to the packet currently before council.

This conduct renders comments unintelligible, deprives the public of the ability to comment and is a violation of due process.
(B) Without a finding of sufficient water, this project cannot be built.

Water supply resiliency is a threshold of significance for land use change or development projects. An EIR must answer the question posed by CEQA, Section G, XVIII Utilities and Service Systems (d).: “Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
(a) The CSH water supply has proven inadequate for present needs CSH relies on surface water runoff and groundwater from three sources to supply municipal water needs. All are vulnerable to water shortages during periods of sustained low rainfall.

The EIR asserts that this project is within the CSH “Safe Yield” declaration of 2,150 acrefeet (“AF”). The definition of "safe yield" is:
“The safe annual yield of the St. Helena water supply system is that quantity of water which can be reliably delivered on an annual basis through most rainfall years, including a Dry Year (rainfall of 22" to 25.9") without undue hardship on water customers through water shortage restrictions. It is recognized that the safe annual yield, as so defined, could place significant hardship on water customers in a Critically Dry Year (rainfall at 21.9" or less) or in periods of two or more consecutive Dry Years.”
In making this determination, the CSH is departing from the principle that sufficient water must be available even in the event of multiple dry years. The California Constitution allows a city to make and enforce ordinances and regulations that do not conflict with the state's own general laws. However, where there is direct conflict between municipal and state law, the state law prevails.

While the City may chose to inflict upon its own citizens the burden of inadequate water by adroit definition, to pass CEQA muster the applicant and the City must establish that Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
2 objectively there is sufficient water, even in multiple dry years. The facts and the EIR do not and cannot carry this burden. 1
(i) State Water Project transfer from City of Napa.

CSH was originally entitled to purchase 1,000 AF of water from the State Water Project North Bay Aqueduct through the Kern County Water Agency, but the mechanism for delivery of the water allotment did not exist. CSH was reluctant or unable to install the necessary engineering works. In 2006, the City of Napa purchased the City’s 1,000 AF entitlement in exchange for agreeing to deliver to the City 400 AF. EIR 728 A December 2011 Amendment increased CSH allocation from 400 acre-feet to 600 acre-feet.

However, these are nominal amounts. The actual deliveries are determined by the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) depending on each year’s hydrologic conditions. The full entitlement amount would typically only be available during very wet years. The Department of Water Resources estimates that 62% of SWP contractors’ entitlements would be available in a normal year, 29% would be available during a single-dry year, and 5% available during a multi-year dry period. EIR 729
Fortunately, because of extraordinary water management by the City of Napa, CSH has been able to skirt catastrophe in drought conditions. See the CSH Water Reports., which show Napa transfers in excess of 600 AF in 2019 and 2020, drought years. (ii) Surface water collection at Bell Canyon Reservoir
Beginning in the 1960s, Bell Canyon reservoir has been the City’s main water source, by collecting rainfall from a watershed to the northeast. While in the past the Bell Canyon Reservoir has been able to produce the largest portion of the City’s water supply, recently that has not been the case. Bell Canyon production at 379 AF in 2022 was less than half of 2019 at 836 AF. In 2022, both the water transfer from the City of Napa (392 AF) and Stonebridge (467 AF) were greater than Bell Canyon’s contribution (379 AF).

These figures are drawn from CSH’s published public Water Reports. The EIR 725 does not cite to a record and are not in full accord with the facts. For example, the EIR states Stonebridge 2020 production to be 302 AF, while the Water Report is 363 AF. More significantly, the EIR omits entirely the years of 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Given climate driven change, historical reference to Bell Canyon production in the safe yield calculation is of little practical use.
(iii) Groundwater extraction by Stonebridge
The City owns and operates two groundwater wells, collectively known as the Stonebridge Well Complex (herein “Stonebridge”). The City sees Stonebridge as a flexible water source in the system, using groundwater to balance system flows based on availability of water in Bell Canyon.
1 In Exhibit H it is asserted that an average sufficient supply is 100 gallons per person per day.

Under Phase II restrictions CSH residents have been rationed to 65 gallons per person per day.

Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
3 The EIR states: “The City currently restricts the use of groundwater from these wells with the goal of limiting extraction to 450 AF per year for long term sustainability.” EIR 729 “In an agreement with the environmental advocacy group Water Audit California, the City is monitoring water levels with a goal of limiting extraction to 450 AF per year on average. (Napa Valley Register, 2021)” EIR 730 It is true that CSH agreed with Water Audit that it would measure water levels, however, when the City failed to perform, Water Audit sued. The inability to report the current cumulative proximate groundwater extractions required by this EIR is evidence of the City’s continuing failure.

See also: “Furthermore, the City’s groundwater would only account for a minimal amount of water use on the Project site, as the City currently limits the use of groundwater from the City’s wells in an agreement with the Water Audit.” EIR 750 Without citation to the record, the EIR asserts: “The Water Audit’s complaint does not ask for changes to existing water uses.” EIR 2579
There was and is no agreement between Water Audit and CSH regarding Stonebridge production of 450 AF per year, and there is no Napa Register article to that effect. Water Audit’s position is that the City shall do no harm to the public trust, and the City was unwilling to agree.

The litigation made clear reference to the injury caused to the public trust by CSH groundwater extraction. For example, it cited LSCE graphics presented to the Watershed Information Council in 2015:

Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
4 At paragraph 46 of the litigation:

In 2016, LSCE recommended that Napa County install additional monitoring of groundwater/surface water interactions in areas where data was lacking. No additional monitoring was installed. Although the CSH knew that its operation of the Pope Street wells was causing dewatering of the Napa River, no effort to mitigate injury to the public trust was undertaken. Further, the CSH permitted and authorized additional 31 groundwater extraction proximate to the recognized salmonid habitats of Bell Canyon, York, and Sulphur creeks without consideration of the potential impacts on the public trust, including but not limited to the Farmstead project and wells for Anomaly Wines, Beckstoffer and the St.

Helena Public Cemetery.

At paragraph 47, Water Audit avowed: “Consultants hired by the CSH to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Hunter Subdivision twice falsely cite an agreement with Water Audit. No such agreements exist.”
Nevertheless, these false assertions persist.

Among the numerous Prayers for Relief was: “CSH must modify its operation of the Pope Street wells to reasonably mitigate injury to the public trust.” Clearly the litigation sought to diminish current excessive extraction.

Water Audit dismissed the CSH litigation at the request of prominent local leaders in the hope the City would change its conduct without continuing legal compulsion. The dismissal was made “without prejudice,” a legal term meaning that Water Audit can file renewed litigation if CSH does not comply with its public trust duties.
(b) CSH has been in a persistent state of water emergency.

In 2011 CSH adopted a policy and mechanism for dealing with a potential “water emergency.” A Phase I emergency was to be declared when storage reached 60%; Phase II was declared with storage reached 39%. Minimum permissible “Fire Storage” is 25%, so when a Phase II emergency is declared, the useful volume remaining is only 14%.

By way of incomplete but illustrative example of the impact on residents, during a Phase I emergency citizens may not add any water consuming appliances and must have City Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
5 approval for any appliances replaced. Replacing an existing residential dishwasher during a Phase 1 emergency is subject to City approval.

In October 20202 the City declared a Water Shortage Emergency, because the water in the Bell Canyon, the supply capacity of the Stonebridge wells and the water available from the City of Napa was not sufficient to meet the City’s projected demands. In November 2020, when Bell Canyon storage reached 39%, the state of emergency was elevated to Phase II. The city did not downgrade from Phase II to Phase I until a year later, at the end of December 2021.

During a Phase II emergency residents are limited to 65 gallons per person per day, a third of the community’s pre-emergency unconstrained consumption.

As of the date of this comment, CSH has announced it anticipates dropping the Phase I emergency restrictions in July 2023, well over two years3 after they were first imposed. “The current water rate structure includes a drought period surcharge that begins once the City implemented the Phase I Water Regulations. … Drought rates are 6% higher than non‐drought rates.”
This hearing is being held while CSH residences may not replace a dishwasher without approval and while they are already paying a premium due to the state of water emergency.

Prima facie there is insufficient water in CSH for new development.

Emphasizing the current fragility of the City’s water system, in the recent past the City has been unable to take delivery of water from the City of Napa in sufficient volume because the Rutherford pump station deferred maintenance led to a system failure. For months the Bell Canyon water treatment plant has had to rely upon contract workers because the City is unable to attract qualified staff. In February 2023 the City lost from 10-15% of its capacity when a Stonebridge well pump failed without a spare in inventory. Citing “significant deferred maintenance,” Public Works Director Joe Leach said “Our water system continues to pose challenges.” Truer words were never spoken.

Until the existing challenges are overcome, the City cannot commit to any additional demand.
(v) The 1976 well is legally deemed abandoned, and cannot be used for this project.

Although the EIR proposes to use site pumped groundwater, “the Project does not require obtaining a well drilling permit.” EIR 2580, 3762. “[T]here is an inactive groundwater well located in the northern portion of the Project site that may have been historically used to provide construction water for the City’s Flood Protection Project and was used in the past for agricultural irrigation. The Project proposes to use this well for the irrigation of public and private landscaping and all other outdoor uses, which are estimated to require 17.16 AF per year. EIR 2580, EIR 627
2 Otherwise reliably stated to have been de facto imposed on July 1, 2020 – See staff notes to 2022 Water Report
3 By some measures, three years.

Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
6 See also: “The Project site contains an inactive groundwater well adjacent to proposed Lot 19 in the northern portion of the property identified as Parcel B … This well may have been historically used to provide construction water for the earth moving activities associated with the City’s Flood Protection Project and may have been used in the past for agricultural irrigation.

The existing condition of the well is considered inactive; however, as it was not being used at the time the Notice of Preparation was released. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed for the Proposed Project noted that the well was inoperable at the time of the site visit (Appendix G).” EIR 623 For the sake of clarity, this engineering work will be referred to as the “1976 well.”
A well analysis is referred to in the EIR as “Appendix L.” However, “Appendix L” was not appended to the DEIR in the Agenda Packet iterations. Reference herein is to Appendix L from the Draft EIR posted on the City’s CEQA webpage.

Appendix L narrative asserts that the 1976 well was tested by 24-hour pumping. That assertion was false. By referencing the pumping report, one can see that while pumping took place over the course of a day, the pumping was not continuous. <<>> It remains unknown how the well would perform under 24-hour sustained load.

Appendix L fails to acknowledge4 that the wetlands survey did not include the well, as it was on a different property at the time the survey was performed (land then owned by the City.) If, as logic and topography imply, the 1976 well is in a wetland, then there are special concerns that have not yet been considered. A well should be located outside areas of flooding. This well in located proximate to a drainage ditch and collection pond, the latter intended to flood in high water. Good practice requires that the top of the well casing shall terminate above known levels of flooding caused by drainage or runoff from surrounding land. For community water supply wells, this level is defined as the:"...floodplain of a 100-year flood..." or above "...any recorded high tide...", (Section 64417, Sitting Requirements, Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.) Surface drainage from areas near the well shall be directed away from the well. If necessary, the area around the well shall be built up so that drainage moves away from the well. Appendix L does not consider this subject.

Appendix L states that the screening on proximate monitoring wells is “unknown,” while a previous report by the same consultant was able to confidentially state the facts. It is only in the absence of that information that the consultant was then able to assert that the 1976 well does not draw from the Napa River. Had the proper reference been made, the only conclusion that could have been made was that water extracted from the volcanic rock zone in this location does deplete surface water flows.

Finally, Appendix L fails to acknowledge that by state law and municipal ordinance, the 1976 well is deemed to be abandoned, and the failure to destroy it is a continuing misdemeanor.

Given the proven connectivity to Stonebridge, this is a serious matter of public health.

Abandoned water wells can act as conduits for surface and subsurface pollution to enter groundwater supplies. Once polluted, groundwater is no longer drinkable.

CSH Ordinance 13.16.020 (E) states: “The city desires to require the location, construction and repair of water wells and other water systems to conform to California State 4 In fact, the Applicant implies the contrary.

Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
7 Department of Water Resources Standards as noted in DWR Bulletin Numbers 74-81 and 74-90 and as required in California Water Code Section 13801.” Water Code 13801 states in part that each city shall “adopt [an] abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds the standards contained in Bulletin 74-81. The DWR publishes Combined Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90 (Water Well Standards). Part III, Section 21 reads: “A well is considered 'abandoned' or permanently inactive if it has not been used for one year, unless the owner demonstrates intention to use the well again.” Part III Section 22 states “All "abandoned" wells and exploration, or test holes shall be destroyed. The objective of destruction is to restore as nearly as possible those subsurface conditions which existed before the well was constructed taking into account also changes, if any, which have occurred since the time of construction.”
Health and Safety Code § 115700 provides that a well is considered 'abandoned' or permanently inactive if it has not been used for one year, unless the well owner properly maintains an inactive well as evidence of the intention for future use. Proper maintenance required to keep a well from becoming abandoned includes a notice to the local health officer of an intent for future use. No such notice has been given. The well site has not been kept clear of weeds and brush and has not been protected from flooding or run-off from adjacent lands.

Whether the well is capable of operation is irrelevant. By the process of law the 1976 well is deemed abandoned and it must be destroyed forthwith. Until this is done, the owner is guilty of a misdemeanor, and the City is acquiescent in the crime.

Assuming that the pump production rates are valid, it would seem an easy matter for the Applicant to simply drill a new well. That would pose a problem, however, as a new water availability study would have to consider its impact on the adjacent water course and the cumulative extractions of proximate wells as a matter of law. It is unlikely that a permit would be granted to drill a new well, even in permissive CSH.

Consultant RSA+ acknowledged in 2019 that a well interference study was necessary for the EIR, asserting that “It is assumed this has been performed under Dudek.” It had not.

The Dudek “well completion” analysis is prima facie inadequate. Although it makes narrative reference to “well completion reports,” no such records are appended or referenced.

Wells discussed are not identified by their DWR number. The extraction from numerous large proximate wells are not considered, including but not limited to the Stonebridge wells. The narrative cites no sources.
(vi) Contemporaneous LSCE reports contradict earlier works of sustainability.

The EIR repeatedly asserts that increasing groundwater extraction by this project will be of no consequence as the SGMA process has deemed the status quo groundwater condition is stable and sustainable. In support of this proposition the EIR makes reference on thirty-two occasions to LSCE works published for the County and GSA in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017. (for limited example, at EIR 515, 523, 539, 621 & 622).

Fortunately, it is unnecessary to challenge each citation (although for the record, such challenge is made) because the most critical facts are those that were not presented. Omitted in its entirety is the most recent and pertinent of LSCE’s work, the Groundwater Sustainability Annual Report – 2022 (March 2023) (“LSCE 2023”).

Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
8 In order to assess the groundwater condition, it is necessary to establish objective criteria. LSCE 2023 states that undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater levels occur when groundwater levels at (1) 20 percent of the groundwater levels at (2) representative monitoring sites are (3) below the defined minimum threshold (4) in the fall (September through October) (5) for three consecutive non-drought years. Note that this is a far more lenient standard than water insufficiency in drought years.

LSCE 2023 states that CSH and four other sites have fallen below the minimum threshold in non-drought years. The recurring and extended states of emergency speak adequately to the groundwater condition during drought.

LSCE 2023 asserts that there is injury to groundwater dependent ecosystems as a result of excess groundwater pumping and illustrates problem by illustrating the adverse surface water / groundwater interface caused by Stonebridge pumping.

LSCE 2023 admits that earlier representations that groundwater pumping was in sustainable balance were in error and now acknowledges that for five of the last seven years the sub-basin was over drafted beyond its sustainable limit, resulting in cumulative water storage loss.

LSCE 2023 concludes that one of the undesirable results of ground water depletion is injury to groundwater dependent ecosystems protected by the public trust. It concludes with multiple plans to remediate the injury, none of which contemplate the effects of further depletions of surface flows by additional extraction. Amongst government agencies, only CSH is considering such counter-productive conduct.
(C) The EIR fails to consider a reasonable and environmentally preferable alternative.

It is a distinction without a difference in terms of environmental injury whether water is extracted on the Hunter site or extracted at Stonebridge. The Stonebridge wells are hydrologically connected to the Hunter wells. To draw an analogy, Stonebridge and Hunter are but two different straws among many other straws sucking from the same glass of water. While there has been inadequate cumulative impact analysis, it is manifestly evident that the metaphorical glass is empty, and the public trust is dying.

The Napa River proximate to the Pope Street wells, June 2021 Image by Dr. Amber Manfree for Water Audit California
Agenda Item #6.1.

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
9 In January 2023 Water Audit proposed to the City an alternative to dewatering the Napa River: a transfer of surplus waters in the Rector Reservoir equal to the extraction from Stonebridge. See attached correspondence. An engineering working group from several jurisdictions, including water department staff from CSH, have been diligently considering the proposal (together with other components of resiliency) for the last several months. They have tentatively concluded that there are no significant technical obstacles to the process.

CDFW has opined that the transfer would be environmentally preferable to continued groundwater extraction and agreed that the owner of Rector could have environment credit for that facility’s environmental obligations.

The primary obstacle is political intransigence. CSH has never acknowledged this alternative in public, instead continuing to extract from overdrawn public trust resources. This project merely exacerbates the problem.

It is submitted that it is a failure of CEQA process and an abuse of discretion to not consider this environmentally preferable alternative.

In conclusion, the EIR should not be certified. The project should be rejected as being incapable of conforming to CEQA water requirements, or at a minimum, the substantial deficiencies discussed above require remediation and recirculation following the Applicant’s submission of all of the necessary information for consideration of the whole of the Project.

Respectfully,
/S/ William McKinnon
William McKinnon
General Counsel
Water Audit California
cc: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney, [email protected]
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk, [email protected] Agenda Item #6.1.

Water Audit California <[email protected]>
Re: [External] Potential water transfer agreement
2 messages
Paul Dohring <[email protected]>
To: Water Audit California <[email protected]>
Cc: "Gerard, David@CalVet" <[email protected]>, "Freeman, Brendon" <[email protected]>, "Weightman, Craig@Wildlife" <[email protected]>, Anil Comelo <AComelo@cityofsthele Joseph Leach <[email protected]>
Hi Bill,
I enjoyed talking to you recently and leaning more about the general concept of a potential transfer of water to increase St. Helena’s water supply. Just to be clear, I conveyed my general interest in your proposal becau are always looking to augment our water supply. I don‘t have the benefit of many important details at this juncture, and I do not have the authority to formally “engage in a conversation regarding purchasing water from DV offset the City’s Stonebridge wells production.” Of course I would like to learn more about the process, conveyance possibilities, logistical challenges, engineering issues, and cost details going forward. I have passed on general proposal to our City Manager and Public Works Director, and I will leave it up to them to consider its merits and viability and make recommendations to our city council. I certainly want to explore all water supply a for our city, and wish to keep communications open, but I do not want to get too far out in front of our city staff or city council. Thank you.

Paul
Paul J. Dohring I St. Helena Mayor
[email protected]
Tel: (707) 942-1298
Sent from my City of St. Helena Issued iPad
wells. Downstream
proposal f
f, knows your
reach downstream
extended
water year at a
5937 obligations.

We suggest th
. The original report
On Jan 18, 2023, at 10:47 AM, Water Audit California <[email protected]> wrote:

Greetings, David
It's hard to believe, but almost two years have passed since we last communicated. I hope you and yours are well.

Some things are different now, but unfortunately some things remain the same. Rector Reservoir is full, but the City of St Helena still dewaters the Napa River by its operation of the Stonebridg of the Rector Dam remains a losing reach, stubbornly resistant to rewetting. Expert opinion is that rewetting more than two miles of the mainstem Napa River would be of greater impact than a the Rector reach.

Please consider the following. Let me assure you at the outset, Water Audit will in no way profit from this transaction, although if this works it would be nice to get a producer's credit for the reco I have spoken to City of St Helena Mayor Paul Doring, (copied on this email) and he would like to engage in conversation regarding purchasing water from DVA to offset the City's Stonebridge understanding is that this would be a paper transaction only, and that there would be no engineering or construction work involved. The City of Napa's Mayor Scott Sedgley has, in t community's interest, agreed to allow a senior member of his staff, Joy Eldredge, Napa's Deputy Utilities Director, to take lead on technical issues. She is known to your and CSH engineering systems, and her opinion on water transfer valuation is well respected. CDFW have agreed to participate and have endorsed the concept of the water transfer as a substitute for bypass into th the dam.

Assuming that CSH agrees to reduce Stonebridge operations proportionately, Water Audit is prepared to stipulate that the transfer would constitute DVA bypass pursuant to FGC 5937 and defe period (matching the term of the transfer agreement) any litigation regarding the Rector or Stonebridge reach. My understanding is that present good practice is to plan the quantum of deliverie time after consideration to the water available. Put another way, it will be a fundamentally different agreement than with the Town of Yountville and the Veterans Home.

The net effect is that DVA would be able to generate market rate revenue from its environmental releases to offset the costs of its monitoring programs as well as simultaneously satisfying its F Additionally, the DVA will be brought into the evolving process of coordinated regional water management, which offers the agency substantial peer benefits in changing climatic and regulatory this be a prototype effort, with continuous monitoring, review and revision as lessons are learned.

The Rector system was inspected, reviewed and reported in the spring of 2018 by Guy J. Schott, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Wate are available on request. Consistent with / part of his reporting:

Rector Reservoir
Owned by State of California Department of Veterans Affairs Safe yield: 1,670;
Existing Deliveries: DFW <575 AF; Veterans Home & Yountville 740 AF Nominal surplus to safe yield: 355 AF
Maximum delivery surplus: 2,200 AF
Stonebridge extractions: 400-600 AF

1.) Photos of Rector Reservoir (2018)

2.) SWRCB 1970 Water license.

5.55 cfs direct diversion (X365); 1,767 AF to storage each year, diversion 10.01 to 05.31; total permitted deliveries (dir.&indir) 3,518 AF; maximum storage 4,400 AF

3.) Rector water distribution network showing intertie to Napa/Conn pipeline. Shows raw water distribution to County yard and CDFW Silverado.

4.) December 2000 Department of Water Resources Yield study.

Bathymetric study AF; dead pool 487 AF; carry over storage 2,768 AF; safe yield 1,670 AF. The (unauthorized) raising of spillway elevation offset 54 years of infill on storage capacity.

5.) Storage capacity curve, NET of dead pool.

DVA should have real-time monitoring from 2018.

6.) Veterans Home and Town of Yountville Consumption etc. 1989-2000 Total production during reporting period <740 AF. Note the following is more recent.

7.) ALL DELIVERIES
Note "system losses" ranged up to 22%. Since Water Audit litigation they have been in mid to low single digits.

8.) WATER USED BY CDFW FROM RECTOR RESERVOIR 2005-2017
NOTE: Low CDFW demands from June to October annually. 2017 is an anomaly caused by experimental flows made as part of DVA study. Otherwise <575 AF.

Attachments • Scanned by Gmail
I hope that I have persuaded you to meet and discuss the possibilities. Brendon Freeman, the Executive Director of LAFCO, (Local Area Formation Commission) is completely neutral in this pro Mr. Freeman Agenda Item #6.1.

available to all parties to secure answers to any questions and to coordinate scheduling. He is copied on this email, and his telephone contact numbers are 707.259.8645 (office) and 707.363.1783 (cell) Let's do a good thing here.

Bill
William McKinnon
General Counsel
Water Audit California
[email protected]
530.575.5335
WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA - A California Public Benefit Corporation 952 School Street #316, Napa, CA 94559 / phone: (707) 681-5111 Water Audit California <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:03 PM To: Paul Dohring <[email protected]>
Cc: "Gerard, David@CalVet" <[email protected]>, "Freeman, Brendon" <[email protected]>, "Weightman, Craig@Wildlife" <[email protected]>, Anil Comelo <[email protected]>, Joseph Leach <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Eldredge, Joy" <[email protected]> <Attorney/client information redacted>
Good afternoon Paul
Thank you for your email.

As we discussed, this activity does not fall within my usual practice, so please forgive me if I inadvertently do not properly follow protocol. For the record, I do not have authority to speak for anyone. I do not have the authority to compel an agreement. In fact, one could argue that Water Audit should have nothing to do with solving CSH water problems, but as a matter of corporate philosophy we prefer to proffer reasonable solutions when we see them. We appreciate you considering our idea.

I have had preliminary collegial conversations with Ms. Eldredge about this proposition, and from those conversations have some been given some comfort about its viability. "It's not a mad idea," would be a fair characterization. She properly advised that she could not formally participate without her supervisors' instruction, so I went to see Mayor Sedgley, who agreed to take care of whatever was necessary for her to provide temporary guidance to this project. I am most grateful to both of them for being willing to go above and beyond to help solve this problem. Given my understanding of the engineering works, the City of Napa may be a necessary party to any deal here. For the record, by his courtesy Mayor Sedgley in no way bound the City of Napa to any further agreement of any kind. Assumably your staff will engage in appropriate conversations, and technical questions will be resolved. Respectfully, that is not the first order of business.

My communications with DVA on this topic have been professional, and as indicated in my January 18th email, my last was almost two years ago. While acknowledging some merit to this idea, as you have, naturally their first question was "Do you speak for CSH?" Clearly and obviously, I did and do not. At the time CSH counsel was unwilling to discuss the topic. Understandably, for that and other good reasons at the time, the possibility died on the vine. Time has passed, CSH has new leadership, and yet the problem of Stonebridge wells persists, so we are trying again to daylight this prospect for consideration with as little controversy as possible.

Please note: unless you have a willing seller in the DVA the deal is a "non-starter" without further discussion. Respectfully, everything else follows.

As no one should ever characterize my conversation with you as in any way binding on CSH, similarly, no one should ever characterize my communications with DVA as binding on that agency.

It would seem efficient for DVA and CSH representatives, without the authority or intent to bind anyone, to meet and see if there's any possibility to be pursued. If not, then there is no waste of time. If so, staff can do what needs to be done to assess logistical, conveyance and engineering matters. I have great faith in engineers to find solutions.

A different order of business seems unfair to Ms. Eldredge and the City of Napa. While CSH may wish to pursue the matter, unless the DVA is onboard the exercise is a waste of time.

Thank you for getting this ball rolling.

Bill
[Quoted text hidden]
Agenda Item #6.1.

- 1 -
Response to Water Audit California’s Comments on Hunter Project Subdivision EIR Water Audit California (“Commenter”) submitted a May 1, 2023 letter regarding the environmental impact report (”EIR”) for the Hunter Subdivision Project (“Project”). However, a review of the letter confirmed that, in primary part, the letter does not concern the Project EIR.

The City has prepared the following response to those comments in the letter that do concern the Project EIR.

Comment #1
Commenter asserts that, due the Agenda packet’s length and the timing of its posting online the Commenter was not given a “reasonable opportunity to consider” the Agenda packet for the City Council’s May 1, 2023 hearing regarding the Project and EIR.

Response #1
Compliant with State law, the Agenda and supporting material for the City Council’s May 1, 2023 hearing were posted on no later than Friday, April 28 2023 – at least 72 hours before the meeting. As to Commenters concerns about the length of the supporting materials for the Agenda, the City notes that these materials were primarily copies of the Draft and Final EIR – which had been available on the City website since September 2021 (Draft EIR) and October 2022 (Final EIR).

Comment #2
Commenter contends that the well pumping information in Appendix L to the Draft EIR “false” because the pumping was not continuous and thus it is “unknown how the well would perform under 24-hour sustained load.”
Response #2
Regardless of the validity of Commenter’s claims (which are unsupported by any explanation), even if correct, Commenter does not provide any substantial evidence as to why it would be relevant to the EIR’s analysis if the on-site well could operate continually for 24 hours.

Comment #3
Commenter suggests that the on-site well is located in a wetland and thus further study is required.

Response #3
First, Commenter’s speculation is incorrect. Second, even were it correct the on-site well is existing and such that any impacts of its construction, decades ago, are not impacts of this Project.

Agenda Item #6.1.

- 2 -
Comment #4
Commenter asserts that “water extracted from the volcanic rock zone [from the on-site well] does deplete surface water flows.”
Response #4
Commenter provides no substantial evidence, only lay-opinion and speculation. Nothing in this comment provides a basis for revising the EIR’s expert analysis of the use of the on-site well for a portion of the Project’s water demands.

Comment #5
Commenter asserts that the on-site well is abandoned. Further, Commenter claims that the water from the on-site well is polluted.

Response #5
In addition to being a legally permitted well, substantial evidence in the EIR regarding the pump test, which is acknowledged by the Commenter, confirms that the on-site well is operational.

Further, Commenter provides no evidence that the well is abandoned. Indeed, the original application for the project, filed with the City in 2010, not only mentions the then-current use by the City of water from the on-site well, but also expressly calls for the use of the on-site well to provide landscaping water for the project. Accordingly, the record confirms the ongoing intent to continue use of the legally permitted on-site well. Further, as detailed in the EIR, no water from the on-site well is proposed for consumption. Rather, as has always been the case for use of the water from the well, it is to be used for landscaping/irrigation.

Comment #6
Commenter opines that the “Dudek ‘well completion’ analysis is prima facie inadequate” without reference to “well completion reports” based on a Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) “number.” Commenter further asserts that the “extraction from numerous large proximate wells are not considered, including but not limited to the Stonebridge wells.” Response #6
The County Well Permit is included in Appendix L of the DEIR. CEQA requires an EIR to consider the environmental conditions as they currently exist. Whether or not there is a DWR identification number for the on-site well is not an environmental concern under CEQA. The well is permitted, and is not abandoned (see Response to Comment #5, above). The EIR’s groundwater impact analysis (see Impact 3.9-2, beginning on page 3.9-41 of the DEIR) considers impacts to the groundwater sub-basin as a whole, including the Stonebridge Complex wells.

Comment #7
Commenter objects to the EIR’s citation to “LSCE works published for the County and GSA in 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017” and asserts that the EIR should have discussed LSCE’s March Agenda Item #6.1.

- 3 -
2023 Groundwater Sustainability Annual Report. Commenter then states that analysis of the March 2023 Report would have led the City to reach a different conclusion as to the Project’s potential impact on groundwater.

Response #7
Other than providing Commenter’s non-expert summary of what the Commenter contends is in the March 2023 Report, Commenter provides no substantial evidence as to why the EIR’s determinations regarding groundwater in any way call into question by the March 2023 Report.

The 2022 water year sustainability report for Napa County, which was published in March of 2023, does not disclose any information not already disclosed in the EIR, namely that 2020 and 2021 were very dry years and in 2022 rainfall was average. Given this pumping from County wells was high in the last 3 years but subsidence is within acceptable limits (less than 0.2 feet).

Further, March 2023 Report is only a snapshot and does disclose the current status of groundwater in the County. Specifically, on May 30, 2023 the Napa County Board of Supervisors voted to end the State of Local Emergency due to drought conditions in Napa County, thus terminating the emergency powers of county officials set forth in Resolution No. 2022-29. Since October 1, 2022, Napa has received nearly 32 inches of rain, exceeding average annual rainfall.

Despite a particularly wet winter, eight of the past 10 years have been characterized as dry to very dry conditions. The wetter winter of 2022-2023 has achieved a notable recovery in groundwater levels since 2022. As well, in February of 2023, the City approved a Resolution (1) Memorializing the Termination of the Phase II Water Emergency in November 2021, effective December 2021; and (2) Confirmation of Staff's Proposal to Provide a Recommendation for the Termination of the Phase I Water Emergency at a Council Meeting in July 2023.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena
“We will conduct city affairs on behalf of our citizens using an open and creative process.”
City of St. Helena = 1480 Main Street, St. Helena, CA 94574 Phone: (707) 967-2792 = Fax: (707) 963-7748 = Website: www.cityofsthelena.org

FIRE DEPARTMENT
1480 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Phone: (707) 967-2880
www.cityofsthelena.org
June 6, 2023
RE: Hunter Project EVA from Levee Road to Road A
Upon recent examination of the Hunter Subdivision project, the St. Helena Fire Department has determined that the proposed EVA connecting the Levee Road to Road A is no longer required.

In 2018 the EVA was a proposed recommendation by a former Fire Prevention staff member who believed that additional egress for the residents of the Hunter Subdivision and additional access for emergency vehicles would be necessary.

However, we have determined that the current tentative map provides adequate egress and emergency vehicle access without an EVA.

Post 2018, the one-lane levee road became a designated evacuation route for tenants of Vineyard Valley. For this reason, the proposed EVA would be inaccessible for emergency vehicles during an evacuation. Emergency Vehicle access to the levee road is still present at the end of Adams St.

Additionally, the EVA provides no benefit to the residents of the Hunter subdivision, as Roads A and B provide better egress to either Pope St. or Adams St. via Starr Ave.

Based on the updated designation for the levee road, it is the Fire Department’s determination that the proposed EVA connecting Road A to the Levee Road is not required.

Best regards,
John Sorensen Alec Vidler
Fire Chief Fire Inspector
Agenda Item #6.1.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION
Request by Ben and Kelly Vanzutphen to
subdivide a 16.9-acre parcel to establish
51 single-family residential lots and one
parcel for future multi-family development
(Tentative Map #2022-001)
City Council June 26, 2023 Page 249 of 4069
Agenda Item #6.1.

Presentation Summary
• Project Description
• Location and Setting
• Changes to Conditions of Approval
• Brief overview of issues addressed in the staff
report

• Planning Commission Recommendation
Agenda Item #6.1.

Final Public Hearing
Reminder that tonight’s City Council is the final
public meeting for the proposed Hunter subdivision.

State law imposes a limit of five public hearings on
housing projects. Tonight’s City Council meeting is
the fifth public meeting.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Project Description
The proposed project being considered by the City
Council is a Tentative Subdivision Map to
subdivide a 16.9-acre parcel of land in the eastern
area of the city, east of the existing terminus of
Adams Street.

The proposed subdivision would create 51 lots for
single family homes, and a separate parcel (lot 52)
on which multi-family attached housing units would
be built.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Project Description
The Applicant proposes to construct a total of 87 singleand multi-family homes and accessory dwelling units:
• Single Family Homes: 51 units
• Attached Multi-Family: 25 units
• Accessory Dwelling Units: 11 units
• TOTAL: 87 units
The overall residential density of the project, including all residential types, is 5.15 units per acre (87/16.9 = 5.15).

Agenda Item #6.1.

Project Description

Agenda Item #6.1.

Project Description

Agenda Item #6.1.

Project Description

Agenda Item #6.1.

Future Required Approvals
Several future applications would be needed to be approved:
• Affordable Housing Agreement (City Council)
• Approval of Final Map/Subdivision Improvement Agreement (City Council)
• Design Review (Planning Commission)
• Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family Housing (Planning Commission)
The public will be notified of the above items and invited to the hearings.

The only application before the Commission at this time is the Tentative Subdivision Map and the Final EIR.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Project Location & Land Use

0.3 Miles

Agenda Item #6.1.

Project Location & Land Use

Agenda Item #6.1.

Changes to Conditions of
Approval

Agenda Item #6.1.

Emergency Vehicle Access
Staff recommends deleting the proposed levee access road from Street A to the road atop the levee:

Agenda Item #6.1.

Emergency Vehicle Access
The Fire Department has reviewed the need for the EVA and determined that it is not needed:
1) The EVA is not needed for emergency vehicles
2) Residents of the Hunter subdivision will use public streets to evacuate
3) Post 2018, the levee road has been a designated evacuation route for the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community

Agenda Item #6.1.

Changes to Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends deleting the following condition:

69. EVA: From Street A to levee: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the emergency vehicle access road (EVA) shall be improved to provide an all-weather access road (paved) from Street A up to the existing levee road to the north. The width of the EVA shall be a minimum of 21 feet from face of curb to face of curb within an overall 25 ft. wide dedicated EVA.

The EVA shall accommodate emergency vehicles (must provide for turning radii to accommodate fire vehicles as per the Fire Department requirements.) Turning templates shall be provided with the improvement plans during the plan check process to ensure the EVA can accommodate Fire Department apparatus.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Changes to Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends revising the following conditions:

88. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all City-required intract drainage improvements as shown on the proposed Tentative Map related to storm water for the project shall be installed by the project developer at it’s the developer’s expense. Drainage improvements shall be designed and funded by the developer in accordance with the Design Criteria utilizing the rationale method and any applicable adopted City drainage plans.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Changes to Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends revising the following conditions:

90. Post-development flows storm water discharge from parcel 009- 030-057 shall not exceed the pre-development discharge including the projected build-out, expressed as 30% undeveloped pervious and 70% impervious drainage watershed. Applicant shall prepare an analysis to show compliance with this COA. Refer to COA #90 #91 for additional requirements of the analysis.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Changes to Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends revising the following conditions:

91. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide to the City an analysis of the capacity and condition of existing drainage facilities downstream of the development (including any detention/retention ponds), including recommendations for offsite drainage improvements, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Site grading and drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans. In the unlikely event that the downstream facilities require improvements, the applicant and the City shall enter a Funding Agreement as a means of reimbursement from whereby the applicant is reimbursed for said improvements by the City.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Changes to Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends deleting the following condition:
124. Access to the levee road is restricted for public use and only granted to emergency vehicles and emergency egress for Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park residents. Signage prohibiting its use by the public is recommended. Public access will be granted at the discretion of the Authority Having Jurisdiction during emergencies/evacuations.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Changes to Conditions of Approval
Staff recommends adding the following condition:
125. Prior to Final Map approval, remove the designated emergency vehicle access from Street A to the levee road.

The Fire Department’s memo (attachment 13 to the staff report) explains why the emergency access is no longer needed.

The removal of the EVA does not affect the validity of the EIR. The EVA was not assumed to be part of the evacuation system for residents of the Hunter subdivision.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issues Discussed in the Staff
Report

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue 1: Emergency Evacuation
• Commentors expressed concern that the addition of new homes in the area would hinder the evacuation of persons in the area (and particularly in the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community) during an emergency.

This issue has been raised many times in public comments on the Draft EIR and the proposed project. Staff understands the concerns expressed by residents. However, staff’s conclusion, based on consultation with the St Helena Police and Fire departments, is that the addition of new homes will not negatively affect the ability of the area to evacuate in time of emergency.

See Final EIR Master Response #1, “Emergency Evacuation”

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Levee Safety
• Commentors expressed concern about the design and maintenance of the adjacent levee. Commentors have suggested that the levee’s integrity is being compromised by the presence of gopher burrows, which they assert results from what they believe is an inadequate program of inspection and maintenance.

Detailed responses to these and other comments related to the levee and its design and maintenance are included in Attachment 3, Final EIR Master Response #3, “Napa River Flood Protection/Levee.”
Records of levee inspections verifying that the levee has been inspected for rodent burrows are available on the City’s web site.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Affordable Housing
• Commentors expressed concern that housing in the proposed project “will not be affordable.”
The project is conditioned to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. As required by the St Helena Municipal Code, 20 percent of the homes in the project will be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. There will be no restrictions on the price of the remaining units or on the proposed ADUs.

By providing both market-rate and affordable units, the proposed Hunter Project represents about one-third of the 256 housing units allocated to the City in the current 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Letters from Attorneys
• The City received two letters on April 30, 2023, from a law firm (DP&F) representing opponents of the proposed project commenting on the Tentative Map and the EIR. The letters are provided as Attachment 4 to this staff report.

Staff’s response is that none of the comments provide any substantial evidence as to the adequacy of the EIR for the Hunter project or the ability of the City Council to approve the Tentative Map.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Spanish Language Outreach
• Some commentors and City Council members expressed concern that there was no specific Spanish-language outreach associated with the Hunter project.

The City currently does not have a policy requiring that public notices for development projects be provided in any language other than English. All noticing and materials for the Hunter project comply with current City requirements. However, in an effort to reach the broadest audience, the legal notice materials and mailed notices were bilingual for the June 26th

meeting.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Status of the Onsite Well
• Commentors, including attorneys representing project opponents and Water Audit California, have suggested that the existing onsite well is not available to be used as proposed to irrigate outdoor landscaping in the proposed project.

Based on a review of the correspondence and relevant state law and the historic use of the onsite well, it is staff’s understnaidng that the onsite well has never been abandoned. The well is fully operational, and was verified in 2021 to be able to be pumped at levels exceeding the proposed usage.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Statement of Overriding
Considerations
• Councilmembers asked on May 1 what would happen if the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) were not adopted, and whether the project’s benefits in fact outweigh its impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled.

If the SOC is not adopted, arguably the project approval could not proceed, the tentative map would not be approved, and development of housing at the project site would not occur. This could in turn lead to a number of potentially adverse outcomes, including legal challenge of the Council’s decision and issues with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (which enforces compliance with state housing law).

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Future Applications
• Councilmembers asked at the hearing on May 1, 2023 about future applications which will need to be approved before the project can be developed, and whether additional information is available about these applications.

If the Hunter Tentative Subdivision Map is approved, additional approvals are required before homes can be built:
• Affordable Housing Agreement (CC)
• Final Map/Subdivision Improvement Agreement (CC)
• Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family (PC)
• Design Review of Homes (PC)

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Extension of Adams Street
• Commentors asked why the applicant is not required to either build or contribute to the extension of Adams Street to Silverado Trail.

The extension of Adams Street to Silverado Trail is one of two alternatives included in the General Plan to connect downtown to Silverado Trail.

To date, a special study has not been undertaken and the City Council has not made a choice about the appropriate route to connect downtown to Silverado Trail.

The Hunter project is not required to provide the connection to Silverado for several reasons, as discussed in the staff report.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Water Neutrality/Water Use
• Commentors have expressed concern that the Hunter project will negatively affect the City’s water system by adding demand for Cityprovided water. These include questions about projected water use and the ability of the project to achieve water neutrality.

The issue of the City’s Water Neutrality requirements has been considered and is the subject of extensive discussion in prior staff reports, the project’s Draft EIR, and the Final EIR.

Staff’s conclusion is that the onsite well can be used as proposed, providing about half of the water savings needed to fully offset the project’s water use.

Conditions of approval require the installation of water-conserving projects elsewhere in St. Helena to achieve the rest of the required water savings.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Proposed Accessory Units
• Commentors asked whether the City would require that the proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (to be built with 11 of the single family homes) are to be rented to low-income households.

The proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) will not be counted toward the project’s required affordable housing. Because the ADU units will not be part of the required affordable units, the City will not require that these units are rented to low-income households (consistent with City practice for other ADUs). The use of the ADUs will be up to the owners of the homes with

which they are built.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Water Use Projections Too Low
• Comment asked whether the City would ensure that water use does not exceed projections.

The City meters water use per household, but to date has not implemented any type of program which would flag homes with excessive water use. The projected per-person water use for the project is about three times higher than the statewide average. The likelihood that water use will exceed projections is very low.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Will City Monitor Water Use?
• Comment asks whether an in-lieu fee to offset projected water use is too low and would not achieve enough mitigation. The comment also asks if an in-lieu fee would be adjusted if water use was higher than projected.

The proposed conditions of approval do not allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to offset the project’s water use. Condition of approval #73 requires that the developer build and bring on line one or more projects that would reduce water use in the city or provide additional supply.

Water use projections for the project are conservative and not likely to be exceeded. There is no current process in place to provide for penalties or fees if water use projections are exceeded.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: In-Lieu Fee for Water?
• Comment asserts that an in-lieu fee to offset projected water use is too low and would not achieve enough mitigation. The comment also asks if an inlieu fee would be adjusted if water use was higher than projected.

The proposed conditions of approval do not allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to offset the project’s water use. Condition of approval #73 requires that the developer build and bring on line one or more projects that would reduce water use in the city or provide additional supply.

Water use projections for the project are conservative and not likely to be exceeded. There is no current process in place to provide for penalties or fees if water use projections are exceeded.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Change.Org Petition
• In late April, 2023, an online petition in opposition to the Hunter project was posted on the web site Change.org.

After reviewing the information in the petition, staff prepared and circulated a press release correcting several factual errors. The press release is included in the attachments to the June 26 staff report.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Issue: Water Audit CA Comment Letter
• On May 1, 2023 (the date of the previous City Council hearing), Water Audit California delivered a letter commenting on and raising concerns about the CEQA process which has been followed for the Hunter project and the adequacy of the analysis of water use and water neutrality.

Staff’s response is included in the attachments to the June 26 staff report.

Based on staff’s review, none of the comments raise any valid concerns about the adequacy of the EIR for the Hunter project or the noticing of the project.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Recommended Council Actions

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final EIR, and approving a Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

2. Adopt a Resolution approving the requested Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040, for the Hunter Subdivision project, and adding condition of approval #125 as presented at this hearing.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Questions?

Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Henry Gundling <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 9:33 PM
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Hunter Project and RHNA
Please distribute this to city council members:

The Hunter Project and RHNA
In 1968 Napa County citizens had the wisdom and foresight to implement the first Ag Preserve in the nation. Probably no one dreamt that it would be so successful, becoming both an agricultural oasis and the backbone of the local economy. To further protect the rural and agricultural nature of the county, and to more effectively manage regional development mandated by ABAG through its “black box” Regional Housing Needs Assessment process, the County and ALL of the cities in the County formed a “Sub RHNA” entity in 2014 through NCTPA (Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency) to gain local control over the allocation process. It enabled the County and its cities to determine amongst themselves the most appropriate locations for development within the county. As a consequence, in the 2015- 2023 RHNA 5th Cycle, Saint Helena’s allocation dropped to 31 units. In the spirit of the Napa County Ag Preserve and the Greenbelt Alliance there was a general recognition that it made the most sense to accommodate development in the larger urban areas and relieve pressure on smaller towns in the ag heartland. Sub RHNA was enormously successful.

Fast forward to a recent Saint Helena City Council that, out of incompetence, poor guidance or ulterior motive, voted to exit the Sub RHNA collaboration with the County and all its other cities. Incredible! As a direct consequence, Saint Helena’s RHNA allocation jumped to 254 units for the 2023-2029 RHNA 6th Cycle. While it is true there is a need for more low income and work force housing in the county, it is manipulative to use this self inflicted higher RHNA number as a lever to build more million dollar plus single family homes in Saint Helena on what is otherwise prime ag land. With Sub RHNA, there was no government mandated Saint Helena housing crisis, and certainly no mandate for a Hunter Project.

Instead, as with the original Ag Preserve, better angels had prevailed. In consultation with the County and its smaller municipalities, our larger cities assumed a greater development burden for the sake of us all; for ag preservation and open space, and to protect our economic foundation long term. Let us hope that a future Saint Helena City Council won’t make the same blunder as the recent one.

Separately, also regarding the proposed Hunter Project and its “Water Neutrality”, who can seriously say with a straight face that sucking half of the project’s water needs out of the ground just a few hundred yards upstream from the City’s existing groundwater wells WON’T have an impact long term on water availability for current residents. Ludicrous.

Henry Gundling
Saint Helena
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Joyce Armington
To: Erika Opp
Subject: [External] Statement re Hunter Project from Joyce Armington, 6 Del Monte Court, St. Helena Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:32:55 PM
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Kristi Pennington <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 9:51 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Objection to Hunter Project
I own a home at 1360 Grove Court and object to the proposed Hunter development in its entirety.

My objections are based primarily on (1) the recurring water shortages/restrictions which already compromise quality of life/green areas, and which would inarguably worsen under the burden of 50‐80 additional households; (2) loss of green space within the city ‐ the area in question is part of the largest, most tranquil and iconic park in St Helena ‐ losing it would be an irrevocable tragedy; (3) related to the foregoing, increased fire danger due to loss of that green‐space, our most effective in‐town, open‐space fire break; (4) the frightening traffic impact given 100 or more additional vehicles, the Pope Street bridge and the already extremely congested traffic in and through downtown. This would be a daily hardship and potentially tragic in the event of any evacuation.

For all these reasons, I strenuously object to the proposed Hunter development and trust City Council act responsibly toward those people it represents and vote this project down.

Please work to change the state housing mandates along with other California community. Do not allow this project at the expense of the quality of life of current residents.

Kristi Nelson Pennington
1360 Grove Court
St Helena
707‐548‐5711
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Elizabeth Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:32 AM
To: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Billy Summers Cc: Anil Comelo; Maya DeRosa; Cindy Tzafopoulos; April Mitts; Erika Opp Subject: [External] The Final Shoe
Greetings Mayor Dohring, Vice-Mayor Hall, and City Council members: Please consider the following:

Excerpt from St. Helena, California: Dealing with a Field-of-Dreams Levee, Residual Risk, and a Flood of Controversy Posted on July 17, 2016 by UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences by Nicholas Pinter The final shoe – probably the most problematic element of the St. Helena flood-control debate – is now dropping, five years after the levee’s completion. The current issue results from the unusual pathway of the levee, which sweeps well north and west of the neighborhoods previously flooded and includes 16.9 acres of undeveloped vineyard land. Undeveloped until now, that is. Just 17 days before the passage of Measure A, the mechanism that funded large-scale flood engineering throughout Napa County, much of the empty floodplain land behind the St. Helena levee was purchased by a private developer. On Sept. 8, 2010 the developer submitted plans to convert the empty agricultural land behind the levee into high-density residential development, including 87 new residential units[5]. This despite an explicit provision in Measure A that “none of these projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth.”
Please listen to the voices of the citizens of St. Helena. No one wants this development built for so many crucial and far-reaching reasons. You have heard them all. I realize you are all under a great deal of pressure from several places, and as Council Member Summers stated in the last meeting, this is a "political chess game".

That may be, but what is most important for St. Helena and the people that live here is NOT to build this development. We will ALL suffer the consequences.

Please do the right thing and vote NO.

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Green
Vineyard Valley
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Elizabeth Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:32 AM
To: Maya DeRosa
Cc: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Anil Comelo; April Mitts; Cindy Tzafopoulos; [email protected]
Subject: [External] Rebuttal to Press Release re Misinformation on Hunter project FYI: Please note the rebuttal of last week's Press Release by the author of online petition Angela Zivkovic which opposes the Hunter project and is now registering 983 signatures from the citizens of St. Helena.
"The city of St. Helena recently sent out a press release regarding alleged “misinformation” in the change.org petition (
https://www.change.org/p/save-the-city-of-st-helena-urge-city-council-to-vote-no-on-the-hunter-eir ), which has now been signed by 971 people. The press release states that the change.org petition is presenting non-factual and misleading information about the levee, flood risks, FEMA maps and new FEMA Risk Rating 2.0. I thank the city for providing the links to these resources and documents to all St. Helena residents. I am glad that we are finally having a real discussion about this. Here are the facts: 1) we are proposing to build a development behind a levee in a flood zone, which means there is a non-zero risk of flooding that could damage those homes, 2) regardless of whether you choose to believe the % risk rating based on the 100-year flood approach, there is a non-zero risk that a flood event that overwhelms the levee will occur, 3) levees fail, 4) there is not a documented risk score for this levee (see discussion below), and 5) in the event of a flood that damages homes those homeowners have a right to sue the city and state, and based on historical legal precedent, they will likely win. First, I would like to directly address the allegation that the petition provides misinformation because in it is stated that the concept of “100-year floods” is now out of date. That is simply a reasonable interpretation of what is stated in the Risk Rating 2.0 Here is the actual language from the https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FEMA_Levees-in-Risk-Rating-2.0_2_22.pdf On page 1: “Risk Rating 2.0 allows FEMA to calculate premiums more consistently for all policyholders, based on the value of their home and their property’s individual flood risk, by moving toward a graduated risk approach that expands beyond the binary depiction of flood risk centered around the 1%-annual-chance (100- year) flood event.” In other words, it was necessary to devise a more accurate system of assessing risk which “expands beyond” the %-annual-risk approach. The Risk Rating 2.0 system uses real data on screened levees to determine “overtopping frequency.” But for levees where this information was not available, assumptions were made in the following way (page 13, section 3.7.3): “Assumptions for overtopping frequency were required for levee systems that did not have available or reliable information from the LST, NLD, or Fathom. One of two assumptions was applied in these cases. First, if a levee system was identified as accredited on a FIRM, the assumed overtopping frequency was a 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood event. In situations where Fathom data estimated a more frequent overtopping for an accredited levee system, the 1% AEP overtopping frequency was still assumed. However, if Fathom estimated levee overtopping to be less frequent than the 1% AEP for an accredited levee, then the overtopping frequency derived from Fathom was used.

Second, FEMA assumed the levee overtopping frequency as a 2% AEP flood event for the remaining 57% of levees (and associated 10% of buildings in leveed areas).” In other words, the 1% or 0.5% risk of flooding is just a default assumption, not an actual assessment of real risk based on real data specific to the levee, in the case of unscreened levees. So the question then is, is the St. Helena levee one of the screened levees? The answer is no. According to the entry for our levee in the National Levee Database (NLD):
https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/#/levees/system/150005212841/summary Agenda Item #6.1.

2 our levee (system ID 150005212841) is one of 80% of national levees that have not been screened. Thus, under the Levee System tab the entries are “No Data Entered” or “Unknown” for all of the following fields:

Overview, Levee Performance and Potential Lost Benefits, and Incipient Overtopping Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP, or annual probability of the flood event that would load the Levee System to the top). In other words, there is no data available for the AEP for our levee. In the document https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FEMA_Levees-in-Risk-Rating-2.0_2_22.pdf on page 7 it is clearly stated that even for those 20% of levees that have been screened: “The NLD reports that these screened levees mitigate the risk for approximately 60% of all buildings behind levees.” So: our levee has not been screened, we do not have a probability rating of the levee overtopping, and even for a screened levee for which probability of overtopping has been established one can only count on risk mitigation for about 60% of homes behind the levee. So where does this leave us? It is up to each individual citizen to decide for themselves. The publicly available National Levee Database and FEMA Appendix D Rating Factor Tables have no risk ratings and probability data for levee failure for the St. Helena Flood Protection Project. We are being asked to take the city’s word for it that we know what amount of residual risk we are taking on by building more homes behind this levee. This “trust us” approach is also what is being asked of us when it comes to safety regarding evacuations during emergency situations. The FEIR does not provide a clear demonstration that every single resident of St. Helena could safely evacuate under a worst-case scenario situation (e.g. multiple fires start simultaneously, in the middle of the night, spread quickly due to high winds, with the power out (i.e. no functioning traffic lights), evacuations ordered for both Calistoga and St. Helena, and the Silverado Trail not a viable egress route). In my opinion, among the questions that must be answered in order to be able to vote on approving the safety of this development in an emergency evacuation are the following: A) How many vehicles can be safely evacuated from the entire city of St. Helena per minute? B) Which specific neighborhoods/streets will have the slowest egress because they are the farthest from Highway 29 and/or because they have special obstacles to making it to Highway 29 (e.g. several left turns into high-traffic streets, high-density apartment building)? C) How long will it take the LAST vehicle from these slow egress neighborhoods to evacuate down to a certain “safe” point on Highway 29? D) What are the projections and numbers for A-C) above if there were the current number of residents in town? E) And what are the projections and numbers for A-C) above if there were 400 more vehicles in the Hunter development needing to funnel into the traffic onto Hunt and Pope Streets? F) Exactly how many officers/volunteers would you need directing traffic to ensure that anyone already on Highway 29 from north of town actually stops and allows vehicles trying to turn onto Highway 29 from Spring Street, Madrona, Hunt, Pope, etc.? G) How quickly would this kind of traffic control need to be implemented and how much risk is there of a major collision blocking ALL egress in the time it takes to mobilize and coordinate the traffic control? H) What mitigations would be necessary to ensure that the LAST vehicle from a slow egress neighborhood makes it down to a specific “safe” point on Highway 29 south of town (e.g. How much could egress rates or egress time be improved if Highway 29 was widened/modified to accommodate the high traffic congestion in the worst-case scenario?). Given that there is a non-zero risk (whatever the number might be) of a flood event that damages homes and becomes a liability for the city, and that we have no clear assessment of how the development would actually affect evacuations during an emergency, why exactly should the citizens of St. Helena believe that this development project does not threaten our public health and safety? Why are we so desperate to build homes in a flood zone behind a levee? It just doesn’t make any sense." Angela Zivkovic
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Green
Vineyard Valley
Agenda Item #6.1.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 8, 2023
Mayor Paul Dohring
Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Council Members Anna Choteau, Lester Hardy, and Billy Summers City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Council Members Anna Choteau, Lester Hardy, and Billy Summers:

RE: City of St. Helena – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is to assist the City of St. Helena (City) with its decisionmaking regarding the Hunter Subdivision Project (Project). As you are aware, the State of California is in a housing crisis, and the provision of housing is a priority of the highest order. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recognizes the challenge of interpreting ever-changing housing and land use laws and appreciates the opportunity to provide technical assistance that may lead to better housing outcomes for the state, as well as the City of St. Helena.

HCD understands the City Council will consider the Project at the June 26, 2023 public hearing. HCD understands Ben and Kelly Banzutphen (Applicant) are seeking approval of a tentative subdivision map and certification of an environmental impact report to allow 1.) Development of 51 single-family residential lots with 11 accessory dwelling units on a vacant, approximately 16.9-acre parcel; and 2.) 25 multifamily residential units on 3.13-acres. The Project also includes an anticipated 20 percent of the proposed units will be set aside for lower-income households.

Housing Element Commitments
As the City is aware, the City Council adopted St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) on May 9, 2023. Under that Housing Element, the City must accommodate a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 256 total units comprising 104 very low-income units, 59 low-income units, 26 moderate-income units, and 67 above moderate-income units. The adopted Housing Element identifies the Project as essential to meeting the 256 units required by the 6th Cycle RHNA. The approval of the Project would contribute significantly toward meeting the City’s RHNA obligations.

Further, the Project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs Agenda Item #6.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Council Members Anna Choteau, Lester Hardy, Billy Summers

outlined in the City’s Housing Element. Specifically, the objectives in Implementation Program H-A state that the City will commit to approving and streamlining the Project.

Not meeting the objectives in Implementation Program H-A will require the City to identify alternative housing sites to meet its RHNA obligations.

It is important to note that the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element is currently under review by HCD for substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law and that HCD will continue to monitor the City’s progress toward implementation of the programs contained within the Housing Element to ensure the City meets its RHNA requirements.

Housing Accountability Act
In addition, the City should be aware that the Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Therefore, the City must consider its obligations under the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5). The HAA limits a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards that contribute to meeting housing needs. Please see the Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory available on HCD’s website.1 In sum, HCD supports the approval of the Project during this critical housing crisis and appreciates the opportunity to assist the City in meeting its statutory obligations in the decision-making process. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Jessica Evans at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.

[WE JD
June 2, 2023 JUN0 2 2025
Paul Dohring, Mayor
Eric Hall,Vice Mayor
Lester Hardy, Councilman
Anna Chouteau, Councilwoman
BillySummers, Councilman
AnilComelo, City Manager
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
1088 College Avenue,
St. Helena.Ca 94574

CITYCLERK'SOFFICE
CITYOF ST. HELENA
Dear Members of the City Council, AnilComelo,City Manager & Maya DeRosa.

Community Development Director
,Attached is a petition requesting public comment on the Planning Commissioners final report to the City Council in reference to the Hunter Project.

Respectf ly, Vq. j
Maria Villegas, Chairperson
ST.

HE
LE
NA

CITIZ NS FORUTURE ASUSTAINABLE
I Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission's report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
recommendation prior to the project being set for a hearing.

The May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and scheduled June 7, 2023, Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be
Maria Villegas, Chairperson St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future 5 / Agenda Item #6.1.

‘N N ‘WI.

Sh
(V)QLL
( Aohrr /1 ‘FT (7;
L) F?
SI
?n ,\ _S)m/Mary k l»§'/J4J_/ \‘19In‘}F
5 d
CALIFOR IA ACK 0 EDG T
Anotarypublicorother officercompletingthiscertificateverifiesonlythe identityoftheindividualwhosignedthe document to whichthiscertificateisattached,andnot thetruthfulness,accuracy,orvalidityofthatdocument.

CIVILCODE§ 1189
State of California } County of
On before me, , Date Here Insert Name and Title of the Of?cer personally appeared
Name(s) of Signer(s)
I certify under PENALTYOF PERJURYunder the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct. . _ Ct g 3‘a com.:s°s‘§?on°"'§'4’4192e ‘ WITNESS my hand and offl Iseal.
‘L: *’ MyComm.ExpiresMar21.2017
Si
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above
f Notary Public
0 Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.

Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:

Document Date: Number of Pages:

Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ___
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name:

El Corporate Of?cer
— Title(s):

D General
Signer's Name:

Cl Corporate Officer
- Title(s):

El Partner— D Limited El General
El Trustee El Guardianor Conservator D Trustee El :1 Other: El Other: _____________.__ Signer ls Representing: Signer is Representing: ©2019 National Notary Association I who proved to me on the basis ofsatisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose namels) is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/theirsignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. 1 F r,, F.J. CARRILLO CARLOS E " . Notary Public- California -»Signature
:U
0: (05 o/2/c or
V‘
I
»/ WW;
.1-
::Y» . £2?!’
9 6
3 0'
n(
QI
Vil
a Agenda Item #6.1.

:_. _mmn_m_.mno
an.oo:::m:no:
.mno33m:amn_o:

NS». m_umo_m_
_.oom_._< _u:_.m:m:n
man
mm_._:mo m
om._.__m_. 2?
_mm.o.mmuo38 m m U
0:30: 33:8
<
_m.d<.oo::n__3m: o::n=3m:
my _._m_m:mO?nmsm ‘on mm:m$_:mU_m _u:F=.m
_uo=:o: «:33»? man umnxonocaa
>38: ua=_o_§. En
333
Agenda Item #6.1.

/Ki w/8,95
wa w.N~.~Rw
Wis m--- .
_mpwmo
mNN
.n.

K... S
\u¢
W1F».¢\nu‘.m
.\. TM\\w\\w
m.§£w
m h...$:~m
mt u.«~\:~w

9. w_u._
Agenda Item #6.1.

my _._m_m:mQznmsm 3.. mm:m$.:m_u_o _u:.E..m ma

5. >nn3mm
,3 2:22
_...=.& 22.3
333
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lntervvest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to HMC § 16.16.070. ? Maria Villegas, Chairperson St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future Agenda Item #6.1.

:_. _mmqm..m8
oo=.3m:. o:
mno33m:n_m:o:

NS“ mumn_m_
um.._<_u:..m_._m:..
oo33m:am.._o:
mmcUQ.<_m_o:
mzso..o__o<<Eu
0: m:m__ax
m?mmmmiv
:30: 53:3
m_.n_<_ 00:30:39:
::o=3m:
we
.._m_m:mQznmsm 3.. mm:mS_:mc_m _u:E..m
_uo::o: w::==m..<man a3_63_:a_
>23: u2=_o=2. qon
Agenda Item #6.1.

b > _
» V
L “I
I
I
I I
’”‘f”;*/ 7527
H3
n
C
K.
0 mr_._m_m:mO=_Nm:m ..owmmcm~m_:m_u_m_u:E..m mE:uE3
>&.$m
_#__:2_ 223
moiwum
m.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Con
no e dme I‘ be a
Pe't n Mum
Thfue
pul he p»
at n
3 I I1
hJue.2
n-rvP etH
titio t R sche ulet e n 7, 0238 . elena Ci
u cil et'ng ec use it does ot compl wit law.
ti io S mary an Background
Hu te roj ct
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the CityCouncil p ior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing Q the l n i c i i n’ e ith ‘t the city council shall fix
the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) Tha di not a pe .instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on ay 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public a enda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on ay 1, 2023, Special eeting and the June 7, 2023 Special eeting.
is ail r to proceed as req ired by la has deprived t e
b ic of t op ortunity to revie a omment on the
egally and ed Pia ning ommissio eport and
Special eeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to H C § 16.16.070. 2 Maria Villegas, Chairperson St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future Agenda Item #6.1.

_.. mag
$._=o o: :3
..mm_.__m_. o=<
m_o:.m Etc:
33 15: am _mmnm_.m3
o33m_: 0...
mno==:m:nm:o:
mumo_m_
oum.._< _u:_.m:m3
0:32. 332.5
n
_m..n_<. 00:32.3»:
...:o=3m:
my _._m_m:mQznmsm 3.. mm:m~m_:ma_m_u:E$
_ua=_o: mE::.n«< 25 30.6355
>30: uozzoaon3..
333
Agenda Item #6.1.

m?Mm»
§
m
Um?
E.cm\\§
.\n\max
,. .
,.b...%a
K $5
ms Iww.K5
532..

Agenda Item #6.1.

my Io_m:m oanmam3.. mmcmgm. w.u:mE..m >3. / J
_uS..=.o
m
\£.C¢V\d GEN. hp». 0» J
N/ MNDHW .5382 22.6
{V7.-
Agenda Item #6.1.

.» o=_no:m3.. mm:m3_:uu_¢ 15:3
E..m > mama
\W ntxucw? Pu
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly p rsuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.

Mar
ia
VChairperso
nill
e
g
as
,
St. Citizen afor Sustainable Future
s Agenda Item #6.1.

... _mmn_m_.m8
oo33m:» o:
_.mno:=:m:am:o:
38 m_umo_m_
um_._< ucnmcmi
m

3.5 0: 3m
xamm_m_.22
_mm.o.mmco 3 13: cm
:30: 33:5
m..n<_oo::n_=:m:

32.3»:
my _._o_m:mOENo:m 3.. mm:m»m.:m_u_m _u:E..m
_.a=.o= m::=:m_.< 2... umnxnaocan
>30: _§=_o.§_ ‘on
Umzzoz # L
Agenda Item #6.1.

w»
my _._m_m:mOinmsm 3.. mm:m..m_:mo_m_ucE«m m.u:mE3 >nn_.mmm .;\\%,\zJZ

3.38.. znaw
_um::o: nu
Agenda Item #6.1.

.
u\\&\\$
m?mi b\\~w\N.w
mn05A Bm\NU\NN
Om
V
_WU9 .9/8&1 /mix
\ kkn
. % UMP\&_Q m».... MWmxxuxtu.
_m:mOENm:w 3.. mm:mEm:mU_m _uc.=.=.m >.E_.mmm
xx \>\\(w4\ >
»m_mz mi?
masmncqo
_:.=8.. 22.;
_um..:_o:#_ L
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission's report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by |ntenNest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.

Mar
ia
VChairperso
ill n
e
g
as
,
St. aCitizen for Sustainable Future
s Agenda Item #6.1.

m
_.=. _mmno_.m3
no==:m:~
0:
.mno:=:m:nm:o:
8 m_umo_m_
o_um_._< u:_.m:m3
_Tmo: :5
mm_m..n..<
m_o:.m $.90
3¢ mg. m
0:32. 332.5
<
m.d<.oo::o=3m:

32.3»:
m..._._m_m:mOENm:m3.. mm:mS.:mu_o _u:E3
_.2=.o= m::=:m..<3.. umnxmnocaa
>n=o: $35032. qoq
_um::o: ?m
Agenda Item #6.1.

$JN\
3x
F.P
v.u.x
q$.§
m.
n.
.4“ b
Uunm

3.32. zmim
7C {QM V
Ummzoztum
kmxcbs
Agenda Item #6.1.

msm ‘on mm:m~m_:mc_m_u:.Enm
>n.=mmm
N. ?§\o .\\\r
1 5/ mm?
.
_~
1:/.9
9190
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.

Mar
ia
VChairperso
iln
le
g
a
s,
St. Citize aSustainable for Future
ns
Agenda Item #6.1.

_. _mmn_m_.m 3
n.no:=:m3 0:
ooo33m:am:o:
8 muon_m_
_um_._< c:_.m:m_:

2.: o: Em
xn_.mm:_mo=<
mm_o:_mmoo
m: mg. m
:32. Bmmzzu
m.d<.no::n=3m:
m.
:n=3m:
mr_._m_m:mO:_No:m 3.. mm:mS_:mEm _u:E..m
....m:=o: m.==_.:m_.<man
_S..._a3§.__
>920: umamoama

3..
_um::o: tum
Agenda Item #6.1.

Um.» m\\.r¢t\NW
¢\_t Wwmuawx
E m:m%\mw
_u.=_a._22...»
.§\_ my
U930: ?m
Agenda Item #6.1.

mm:m$_:mc_m «:23 >233 /Q bum $6 %\¢
\3S«E.m A/A
e180 my

3.32. 22:»
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.

Maria Vil
leg
as,
Chair
perso
n
St. Helen
a
Cafor Sustainable Future
it
iz
e
n
s Agenda Item #6.1.

J
c_. _mmn_m..m3
oo33m:. 0:
moo33m:am:o:

BB mama».
_um_._< .u:_.m:m:.
moo33m:am:o:
mcUn=<_m_o:
mzzc..o__o<<_:m
30: m:m__ax
m
mqmmmmqc
:30: 33:8
<
m.d<.oo::n==_m:
::n=3m:

2. _._m_m:mQmnmsm 3.. mw:w»m_:mc_o «:23
_um::o: m::=,:m..< 2:. u%_a.o:.a
>30: u2=_o=2. 3.
333
Agenda Item #6.1.

2. _._m_o:mQmnmsm 3.. mm:mS_:mc_m _u:E..m mE:mE_.m >nn_.mmm Zdm. \§pb8u9¢nc/ £,<.o
_:_=§_
533
zmim
Agenda Item #6.1.

mr_._m_m:mo=_~¢=m ‘cu mm:m$.:m_u_m _u:.E«m m.u=m.:..o
>an_.wmm
1:32. zm3m
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission's report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.

Maria Vill
egas
,
Chai erson
St. Helena afor Sustainable Future
Agenda Item #6.1.

moo33m:amn_o
m:cq_<_m_o:
mniono__o<<_:m
c:o._ Em: 3
mam...§.__v
_mmn_m_.m no
o3_.:m:n o:
oo33m:nmn_o:
m.omn_m_
m.._<o_.__.m:m:n
0:30: Smmzsm
<
m_d<. oo::n=3m:

32.3»:
my _._m_m:mO=.Nm:m3.. mm:m3.:mU_o _.....::_.m
Vania: m::.=.:n_.< man umoxunocan
>23: u2=_o=2_ mos
33mm
Agenda Item #6.1.

Qffg
moizum
Agenda Item #6.1.

23.23 .0Sm§
W».

EMD.

3.3.2. mo?mum
223
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required bylaw has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.

Maria Vi
lle
ga
s,
Chairp
erson St. Hele
na
Ci afor Sustainable Future
tiz
en
s Agenda Item #6.1.

oo33m:n_m=o:
mmc_un=<_m.o:
mzsm.no__o<<E©
30: m:m__ax
mEm?mmmmwd
_mmam..m3
mo:=:m:no:
o3:.m:o_m:o:
m_umn_m_
um_._< uE.m:m_:
0:30: Bmmzsm
<
_m_.n_<. 00:30:39:

32.3»:
my
_._o_¢:m Qmnmzm ..o..mm:m»m.:mU_m _u:E_,m

35.0: m::=.,.m_.<man
umo_£_.o::n
>28: uomaosmn3.

33.5 Agenda Item #6.1.

3:3 H fl,
Nn\
?ak
m8 NW
MVC
m\mvNw
V N\mm
mmmmw
\r\\IL
giro
J 5. :c«V
r 4 :9 am $~_QAnCQJ\r,>,_
A/. ,W &\J\
. mLhu%\Q Em g
2 m_m:mO=_No:m 3.. mm:m3_:ma_m _ucE_.o Qua» u >333
»:\\.9\_3 $95 A?
m\ \\ Vo€:w _u m.3\
1:33.. zu=..m
Agenda Item #6.1.

mur
WxwN48‘
V \\uN&smw «on&wan
Umnm
,
mb?w
$.33
Agenda Item #6.1.

Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070. Maria ¢z@ Villegas, C Irperson St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future Agenda Item #6.1.

U]! J: u ‘q I U\. J.‘
:
_. _mmn_m«m 3
noo33m3 o:
.moo33m:nm:o:

NS... mc¢n_m_
_.o_...m_._< c_.__.m:m3
man
... m «Z m
mm:_m_. o:<
_mm_o:.m«mu
m» m:m=am
0:32. 38.3
m_.a<.oo::n=3m:
:n=_.:m:
mr_._m_m:mO?nmsm 3.. mw:m$_:mc_m _u:E3
122.0: m=:==m2 man amnxuqocza
>30: .§=.o_§_ qua

33.3 Agenda Item #6.1.

my _._m_m:mQznmzm 3.. mmcm?im m?smncqo >29. mam
_:__.$._ 22.3
No.33:

Agenda Item #6.1.

my _._m_m:mo:_Nm:m 3.. mmcmS_:mu_m _u:E«m m_n:mE_.m >...E_.mmm _..._..:$._ zmim
w9.m_u:

Agenda Item #6.1.

.1 Petition to Reschedule the June 7, 2023 St. Helena City Council meeting because it does not comply with law.

Petition Summary and Background
Hunter Project
The City Council has set a fifth (5th) and final hearing date of June 7, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City Code.

The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070, (“Atthe next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”) That did not happen. Instead, a fourth (4th) hearing was scheduled on May 1, 2023. No Planning Commission report and
recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by lnterwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the previous fourth (4th) hearing on May 1, 2023, Special Meeting and the June 7, 2023 Special Meeting.

This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the
legally mandated Planning Commission report and
Special Meeting thus are contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070. é Maria Villegas, Chairperson St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future Agenda Item #6.1.

_. .333 3
noo==:m.:
0:
.moo33m:n_m:o:

BB mumo_m_
.oum.._< ucsmcmi
mno33m:n_m:o:
mmc_on=<_m.o:
m::© ...o__o<<Em
30: m:m__ax
mqmmmmwd
0:30: Bmmzsm
m.d<.Oo:_._n=3m:
o::n=3m:
my _._m_m_..mO=_Nm:m 3.. mm:m$_:mU_m _u:E..m
_.2=_o= mE::.m_.< man a.....n.6_.o::a
>23: _8.=.o:2_ ‘on
403$
Agenda Item #6.1.

V
mxik
Q\ W\~.W\~w
M 3 my
Qmlmm
Q;_x&k m-2-» 50 W $1-
mwxxx
U\\\NVmw
my _._o_m:mO=_Nm:m 3.. mm:mS.:m_u_m _u:E..m m_n:m==m >.E3mm :92 Gas
.532.
mo3_um

22.5 Agenda Item #6.1.

@s
m..._._m_m:mQznosm 3., mmcm?im m_u:mE_.m >33
NUQQBShr‘J
\«.u\\\ N .\\v\\n\\\\\\$$.

U98
uU(.W_(9
V3332 zm:_o
3 3.0 m.m\?
Agenda Item #6.1.

June 25, 2023
To: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, Council members Chouteau, Hardy, and Summers. City Manager Anil Comello.

From: Pat Dell
I have sent my comments on the Hunter Development EIR to the Planning Commission previously so I will not repeat myself. I have concentrated my efforts in this letter on communicating with the City Council and City Manager on Affordable Housing, City fulfilling the FEMA requirements for maintenance and management of the components of the St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Control and River Restoration Project, safe evacuation in case of a natural disaster for Vineyard Valley residents as well as the persons who would be living in the Hunter development. The Planning Commission kicked the can down the road to you because they said it met the requirement from the state for affordable housing.

THIS IS NOT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. It is a development of homes for above moderateincome people. The City is required to build only 66 units of above moderate-income houses in the 6th cycle which is 8 years. Are you going to allow Mr. Hunter to fill that entire requirement and deny other builders based on having fulfilled your RHNA requirement? No attention has been given to the inclusionary housing ordinance which is crucial. I have watched this City avoid, fail, drag its feet, do surveys ad nauseum and not do a thing except help Our Town St. Helena to build the only housing for low income and working people that has happened in the 23 years that I have lived here. The City did have an Affordable Housing Committee several years ago whose members were authorized to issue an RFP for Affordable Housing Developers to submit a plan for about 35 units for the Adams Street Property. The Committee received several excellent proposals, the PC liked all of them but the mayor at that time refused to have any of them presented. This is not a primary issue for any City Council member or City Manager or something would be happening. Our Town St. Helena has between 40 and 60 units of affordable housing in the pipeline. You own with no mortgage the entire Adams Street property, the railroad property, the Main Street property. I have not heard or read of any action on your part to build affordable housing on any of those properties. You should have a St. Helena Housing Agency with staff that understands housing and you should be developing an association with an affordable housing builder such as Burbank Housing who know how to get financing.

I have reviewed the FEMA requirements for the City in the LOMR. I have reviewed the inspections of the components of the flood control project from 2015 to the present time. This is attached as an addendum because it is three pages long. I am also attaching the FEMA language in the LOMR. The flood project was completed in 2011 and certified in 2012. It took until 2015 to start inspections. When they were begun there were no emergency procedures, no operations or inspection records present. No refresher training. That remained true in 2016. When reading this I felt sorry for the staff member doing the inspection and submitting the report. He was crying out for help and getting none. I have attached a full review to this report so I will only say that although the project was built to FEMA and ACOE standards the City was and still is negligent in the maintenance of the project.

My comments regarding safe evacuation from Vineyard Valley and the Hunter Project are based on my experience as well as the MASTER RESPONSE section of the EIR in the library. This is a response to comments submitted by people who are concerned about the project. The St. Helena Police Department has made a judgement call pertaining to evacuation based on an emergency drill September 20, 2021.

Agenda Item #6.1.

This was not an adequate drill and no one in the SHPD is a traffic engineer. First of all, it was not a surprise. We were all informed ahead of time. Secondly and most importantly, it only included half of the homes in Vineyard Valley. The residents living on the east side went out over the levy. There are 125 homes on the east side of VV The homes on the west side were told to go out on Pope Street. There are 115 homes on the west side of VV. These people did not have the experience of driving out over the levee. If the emergency is at night there would need to be lights and temporary barriers to prevent people from driving off the levee. If the emergency requires evacuation of the east side of St. Helena it will be bumper to bumper. You have Stonebridge apartments, Silverado Orchards and Vineyard Valley, all high-density communities all trying to get in line on Pope St. Not to mention the people on Star, Meadowcreek etc. who will also need to get out. This is not a simple evacuation exercise solution to a very serious problem. Apparently the SHFD and SHPD recognized the danger was great enough that it required some emergency accommodation. However, none of them are qualified to determine whether there will be damage to the levee by building an onramp for access. This is a disaster waiting to happen and you must deny the building of this project.

Make Mr. Hunter an offer he can’t refuse and leave that property agriculture or a proper park for the east side of St. Helena.

Sincerely, Pat Dell
Agenda Item #6.1.

MAINTENANCE OF FLOOD PROJECT COMPONENTS
FLOOD PROJECT COMPLETEDC June 2011
FEMA ISSUED LETTER OF MAP REVISION ( LOMR ) IN JUNE 2012 FEMA requirements for maintenance of flood project components are as follows:

A. NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b)(7) requires communities to ensure that the floodcarrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained. This provision is incorporated into your community’s existing floodplain management ordinances; therefore, Responsibility for maintenances of the altered or relocated watercourse, including any related appurtenances such as bridges, culverts, and other drainages structures, rests with your community. We may request that your community submit a description and schedule of maintenance activities necessary to ensure this requirement.

B. FEMA further states “State/Commonwealth or community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction or may limit development in floodplain areas. If your State/Commonwealth or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, those criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements.

The above is to emphasize how important it is to have qualified people do required inspections and that the deficiencies noted are addressed in a timely manner. I do not find this to be the case in my review of inspection reports since they were started in 2015 three years after the LOMR from FEMA. The same deficiencies were reported year after year and up until the present.

I am satisfied that the City of St. Helena hired very capable people in the Mead and Hunt Engineering firm as well as Mitch Swanson as Geomorphologist. The project was built using the highest standards. It was not built by the ACOE because the City of St Helena would have been required to wait approximately ten years to even start the process. This information was provided to me by Eric Sklar who was on the City Council at the time of the development and construction of the project and he was most the most involved CC member working on the development and construction. The following are my observations after reviewing inspection reports from 2015 to 2023. 10-30-15 Josh Shaw and signed by Ste3ve Palmer
A. Erosion of levee embankment at top of outlet behind concrete.

B. Corrosion and rust on metal components
C. No operations or inspection records present. No refresher training.

D. Areas where ground is eroding toward base of structure – foundation concrete structure. 10-26-16 Josh Shaw and signed by Steve Palmer
A. Still no emergency procedures. No operations
B. Erosion by Sulphur creek by outlet gate.

C. Gophers present. Burrows control program not effective or non existent.

D. Concrete structure tilting and sliding.

E. Joint material erosion.

F. No operations or inspection records present. No refresher t raining.

Agenda Item #6.1.

G. Ground eroding at base of structure. ( I assume this is the flood wall. ) 10-17-17 Josh Shaw with signature of Steve Palmer.

A. No emergency procedures.

B. Trash, debris, weeds and small trees along levee.

C. Gopher holes present.

D. Areas of tilting, sliding and settlement. Needs repair.

E. Joint material eroding
F. Evidence of active seepage.
09-24-18 - Darren Gardell Signed by Steve Palmer
A. No emergency procedures.

B. Trash and debris on levee
C. Minor slope stability problem.

D. Erosion occurring on or near levee.

E. Existing animal burrows program needs to be improved.

F. Tilting and sliding that threatens structure integrity.

G. Ground erosion toward base.

H. Joint material deterioration.

I. Evidence of active seepage.

J. Pump station -NO maintenance and inspection records. 12-06-19 Erica Smithers
A. Minimally acceptable.

B. Excessive vegetation and trees too close to floodwall.

C. Dog feces thrown over wall.

D. Floodwall settled 3 inches in many locations.

E. Silicone within joints throughout floodwall failing.

F. Pumps inadequately maintained.

G. Sump pump overgrown with blackberry bushes.

H. A PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED.
04-10-20 Erica Smithies IDENTICAL REPORT
07-22-20 Erica Smithies IDENTICAL REPORT
11-05-20 IDENTICAL REPORT
12-01 20 Erica Smithies
a. Floodwall settling and polyurethane sealant cracking. b. Early signs of erosion Creekside of floodwall.
12-01-20 SOME REMEDIATION DONE
a. Weed abatement along floodwall, access points throughout flood project. b. New generator installed.

Agenda Item #6.1.

c. Contractor has begun cleaning discharge channel, removing invasive trees. d. Crews will utilize the basil treatment on bushes to mitigate any future issues. e. Work will be completed in the spring when access is permitted for such work. 03-05-21 Mark Rincon --- No indication of who did the inspection. Hard to believe it is the Department Head.

A. Unwanted vegetation growth along levee embankment, blackberry bushes etc. ( Still no permit? )
B. Erosion Creekside of wall. Being addressed as part of CIP-R19-03. ( when ? ) 07-07-2021
a. Floodwall settled 1.5 inches ( was 3 “ in 2018 )
b. Small trees and bushes encroaching on floodwall. ( I guess basil treatment didn’t work?) c. Polyurethane sealant – seams falling apart in wall. ( Was supposed to be budgeted for 2021 so why hasn’t it been done?)
d. Dog feces and yard clippings again dumped over wall. ( Did City notify Vineyard Valley Manager?)
e. Blackberry bushes returned near well pump.

Recommendations from 07-07-21 report
a. Public Works Engineer to obtain quote during 2021 budget to work on surface cracks in wall. b. Staff will reach out to Vineyard Valley Management about dumping dog feces, fish carcasses and yard clippings over wall.
c. Continuous animal burrowing in place that includes the elimination of active burrowing and filling of the existing burrows. ( If this is true then why are there photographs of burrowing still actively taking place. )
d. Floo9d debris buildup at discharge channel from October 21st heavy rain. ( This is 9 months later )
09-14-22 Mark Rincon Ibarra
a. Polyurethane cracking in floodwall still happening. Engineer to obtain quotes within the 2022 construction season. ( This has gone on for year after year after year.) b. Debris in discharge channel. Will be removed as part of RMA work. ( What is RMA) 02-14-23 Mark Rincon Ibarra - Taylor Hamilton
a. Gives an A to animal control. ( This despite continued photographing of holes from burrowing.)
b. Some brush and weed growth along floodwall.
c. Plywood, brush clippings, used cigar etc. being thrown over floodwall. d. Wall is still offset.
e. Early erosion base of wall at 17 and 19 Los Robles. ( This erosion first mentioned in 2016) f. Joint material deteriorating and cracking at MOST joints around floodwall.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Mary Stephenson
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Comment on Hunter Project EIR
Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 9:28:21 PM
Hello Cindy - can you please distribute this to the Council members and the appropriate staff? Thanks for your help.

I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen, not on behalf of any organization.

The proposed Hunter Project is an almost 17-acre neighborhood of 51 brand new 3- to-4 bedroom homes that will most likely be valued at or above $3,000,000 each.

Right next door, will be a much smaller 3.4 acre neighborhood of 24 two-bedroom homes which will be rented to income-qualified tenants. Even though both neighborhoods are part of the same development, there is a complete separation of the two communities, with no connecting streets. So a housekeeper or gardener living in the small rentals, would need to drive out of his/her community and into the big house community next door to clean the toilets and blow the leaves.

Can you please explain to me how this proposed site plan is consistent with the City of St Helena Municipal Code Chapter 17.146 which states that “affordable units shall be comparable in number of bedrooms, exterior appearance and overall quality of construction as the market rate units in the same residential project”? Or that “affordable housing shall be dispersed throughout the residential project, or subject to approval of the planning commission, may be clustered within the residential project when this furthers affordable housing opportunities”? Has the Planning Commission made a ruling that segregating the affordable housing in the Hunter Project is providing additional affordable housing opportunities? Is there an explanation anywhere in the project documents for this disparity?
The Final EIR for the Hunter Project dated October 2022 on the City’s website advises us to wait for the City to negotiate the inclusionary housing requirements during the Final Map approval process to determine how the 20% affordable housing requirement will be served. But the Tentative Map before the City for approval right now already segregates the smaller and much more densely-packed affordable rental units away from the market rate houses, which basically eliminates any hopes of providing an integrated community during the Final Map negotiations . Unless I am missing something, this appears to be a flagrant abuse of the City’s Municipal Code.

I understand that the City wants to approve this project. But agreeing to this purposeful separation of the haves from the have-nots, without explanation or rationale does not seem right to me. Particularly for a city that proudly professes its “commitment to advancing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion” [ Source: City of St Helena Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Strategy}. Is it possible for the Council and/or staff to address this issue in writing prior to, or include it on the agenda for discussion at the June 26 meeting? Thank you for your consideration.

Mary Stephenson
Agenda Item #6.1.

707 849 2583
Agenda Item #6.1.

Angela M. Zivkovic, PhD
1180 Starr Avenue
St. Helena, CA. 94574
City of St. Helena City Council
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
(707) 967-2783
[email protected]
June 21, 2023
Dear Members of the City Council of St. Helena,
I am writing a follow-up letter regarding the Hunter Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). I am writing to ask you to VOTE NO on approval of the FEIR. This FEIR does NOT adequately address the safety of CURRENT St. Helena residents in the event of emergency evacuation due to natural disasters (i.e. flood, wildfire). This FEIR does NOT provide evidence that the negative impact of the proposed development on public health and safety has been mitigated.

An update on the petition that I notified you about in the last letter: the petition on Change.org now has 1,045 signatures, fully 1/3rd of the registered voters of St. Helena, who agree that this FEIR should not be approved, and that the safety of St. Helena residents is at stake.

I am aware that you have received a letter dated June 8, 2023 from Shannan West, Housing Accountability Unit Chief from the CA Department of Housing and Community Development, “urging” the city council to comply with the Housing Accountability Act. I want to make sure and make it crystal clear that the citizens of St. Helena are aware that the Housing Accountability Act does NOT in fact mandate the building of homes if that development threatens public health and safety. One of the five legitimate reasons to NOT approve a housing development project is the threat to public health and safety. I am providing below two critical arguments why this threat to public health and safety clause can be invoked in this case.

With regard to sections H5, H6, P2, P3, R1 and R3 of the FEIR:
• Section H5: Emergency access
• Section H6: Wildland fires
• Section P2: Transportation hazards
• Section P3: Emergency access
• Section R1: Impairment of adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan • Section R3: Infrastructure-related wildfire risks
• Section Q2: Sufficient water supplies
The FEIR does not provide a clear demonstration that every single resident of St. Helena could safely evacuate under a worst-case scenario situation. 1) The worst-case scenario situation is a wildfire event that bears features of both the Glass Fire and the 2017 fires that ravaged the area. In this worst-case scenario the fires would all start simultaneously, in the middle of the night, and spread quickly due to high winds, with the power out (i.e. no functioning Agenda Item #6.1.

traffic lights). Evacuations would be ordered for both Calistoga and St. Helena, and the Silverado Trail would not be a viable egress route due to emergency vehicles fighting the fire on Silverado Trail on the East Side. Among the questions that must be answered in order to be able to vote on approving the safety of this development in an emergency evacuation are the following:
a. How many vehicles can be safely evacuated from the entire city of St. Helena per minute? b. Which specific neighborhoods/streets will have the slowest egress because they are the farthest from Highway 29 and/or because they have special obstacles to making it to Highway 29 (e.g. several left turns into high-traffic streets, high-density apartment building)? c. How long will it take the LAST vehicle from these slow egress neighborhoods (e.g. the farthest house within the Vineyard Valley community, a house at the end of a cul de sac) to evacuate down to a certain “safe” point on Highway 29?
d. What are the projections and numbers for a-c above if there were the current number of residents in town?
e. And what are the projections and numbers for a-c above if there were 400 more vehicles in the Hunter development needing to funnel into the traffic onto Hunt and Pope Streets? f. Exactly how many officers/volunteers would you need directing traffic to ensure that anyone already on Highway 29 from north of town actually stops and allows vehicles trying to turn onto Highway 29 from Spring Street, Madrona, Hunt, Pope, etc.? g. How quickly would this kind of traffic control need to be implemented and how much risk is there of a major collision blocking ALL egress in the time it takes to mobilize and coordinate the traffic control?
h. What mitigations would be necessary to ensure that the LAST vehicle from a slow egress neighborhood makes it down to a specific “safe” point on Highway 29 south of town (e.g. How much could egress rates or egress time be improved if Highway 29 was widened/modified to accommodate the high traffic congestion in the worst-case scenario?) 2) It is reckless and irresponsible NOT to conduct a more thorough evaluation, with real models and projections about egress times, before approving this FEIR. Whole families could perish if we do not do our job now of evaluating the real risks and hazards involved with adding a development of this size to an area of town that already has traffic congestion, in a town that has limited road infrastructure and high wildfire risk. The current FEIR does not adequately mitigate the safety concerns during an emergency evacuation. We live in a very unique geographic location that has limitations on the egress routes that can be taken, and at the same time, very high wildfire risks that are increasing with climate change. We may very well have already reached the maximum safe capacity of this town given the current limitations. It would be like loading more passengers on an airplane than you know can safely exit via the given number of emergency doors. Until we know with some confidence what that maximum capacity is considering the possible egress rates under the current infrastructure, we cannot possibly evaluate the real impact on public health and safety of any development that would add a substantial number of residents and vehicles.
3) Again, I just want to emphasize here that it is absolutely critical that any and all projections about the safety of egress out of town with the new development in place take into account a maximum possible number of additional people and vehicles that could be living there. Given that the proposed development is for 87+ units we must assume that there could be as many as about 400 people, and potentially 400 additional vehicles added to town. The proposed development does not and cannot limit the number of residents or vehicles allowed per household, nor does it limit or prohibit multifamily, or mixed adult households. An example is a household in which there are 2 adults and 5 children, 3 of whom are of driving age. This is actually a real example of a neighbor living close by. They have 5 vehicles and multiple pets, thus they could and probably would drive all 5 vehicles loaded up with personal belongings and companion animals in an emergency situation. Another example is a Agenda Item #6.1.

house that becomes a rental for 5 adult Culinary Institute students or harvest interns who each drive their own individual vehicle. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we know how many people are actually going to choose to live in each household of this development. In addition, the ADU and low-income housing requirements necessitate that there will be more than 87 units constructed in this neighborhood, again, highlighting the need to account for much higher total numbers of residents and vehicles than are being projected in the current FEIR. 4) Finally, I want to reiterate what others have communicated with you already, which is that a large number of home insurance companies have already pulled out of the state of California and will no longer provide insurance for any new homes and developments in the state. This is beyond the long list of insurance companies that already do not cover the city of St. Helena because it is considered to be in a high risk area.

The FEIR does not adequately address public safety with regard to the liability of a flood event. The city has sent out a public notice on this topic supposedly highlighting “misinformation” in my petition and in my letters. I sent in a letter to the editor at the St. Helena Star, and this letter was already forwarded to you. I just want to make sure to highlight the key points again here so that they are not lost:
1) As I mentioned in my previous letter, Dr. Nicholas Pinter, Professor in the UC Davis Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Associate Director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, wrote a very insightful and informative blog post on the topic of the St. Helena levee. I feel that it is absolutely necessary that each and every city council member read through this blog post carefully. In his blog he explains that even with a levee constructed to withstand a “200-year flood” there is residual risk. In other words, there is at least a 0.5% chance that a catastrophic flood event that overwhelms the levee will occur, but this could be higher given the unpredictability of climate change and given that we do not have an estimate of that risk because the risk estimation is not based on the current FEMA Risk Rating 2.0 but instead on the outdated risk rating system which FEMA no longer uses. This last statement is indeed correct for the following reason:
a. The Risk Rating 2.0 system uses real data on screened levees to determine “overtopping frequency.” But for levees where this information was not available, assumptions were made as stated on page 13, section 3.7.3
(https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FEMA_Levees-in-Risk-Rating2.0_2_22.pdf): “Assumptions for overtopping frequency were required for levee systems that did not have available or reliable information ... if a levee system was identified as accredited on a FIRM, the assumed overtopping frequency was a 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood event.” In other words, in the case of unscreened levees the % risk of flooding is just a default assumption necessitated by the fact that only a small minority of levees have been screened since the new risk rating took effect, not an actual assessment of real risk based on real data specific to the levee.
b. The St. Helena levee has NOT been screened. According to the National Levee Database (NLD):
https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/#/levees/system/150005212841/summary our levee (system ID 150005212841) is one of 80% of national levees that have not been screened. Thus, the entries for “Levee Performance and Potential Lost Benefits”, and “Incipient Overtopping Annual Exceedance Probability” (AEP, or annual probability of the flood event that would load the Levee System to the top) are “No Data Entered” or “Unknown”. c. What all this means is that NO ONE, not even FEMA, has a real number for the % residual risk that exists of overtopping of this levee. And this is not even taking into account the effects of climate change.

Agenda Item #6.1.

2) It is absolutely critical that the city council members acknowledge and realize that the levee WILL fail at some point. All levies do. It is just a matter of WHEN (not if) it will happen. The city council is responsible for evaluating the real financial risks and obligations that the city is taking on, given this reality. It is not an optional exercise to build financial projections around the financial liability and risks associated with this development. Given the implications of Measure A and CA Water Code Section 12748.3, as discussed in points 5) and 8) below, the city council is obligated to fully account for the legal and financial liability of the development before they take any actions to approve this project.
3) The city cannot guarantee that the levee has been maintained as required since its completion in 2010.

Maintenance records through 2015 demonstrate failures on multiple levels. There are pictures of dozens and dozens of gopher holes on the levee itself. Dr. Pinter will tell you that is a big problem. And there are lots of other levee maintenance issues. Certainly, the burden of proof in any potential legal case would be on the city to demonstrate that the levee was properly maintained, with anything less than a 100% perfect record being a problem. Legal precedent demonstrates that the CA courts are inclined to side with property owners who have suffered damages rather than with municipalities in such cases (again, please read Dr. Pinter’s blog post carefully). 4) The city WILL be liable when the catastrophic flood event occurs and the levee fails. As explained in Dr.

Pinter’s blog, there is already CA legal precedent that municipalities and the state can and have been liable for damages due to floods even when they were not involved in the construction of a levee that failed. In this case, the city of St. Helena is entirely responsible for its maintenance, and would therefore, without question, be liable. In other words, what is at stake here is the approval of a development whose residents would in the future have the full legal right and would likely win in a lawsuit against the city to pay for damages. This has already happened in this city before. The residents of Vineyard Valley, which was the first development that should never have been built inside the FEMA flood zone, sued the city of St. Helena after the 1995 flood. The city of St. Helena is still paying for this bad decision decades later, with deferred maintenance endangering the health of its residents and increasing the cost of living.
5) Furthermore, Measure A, which was passed to approve and finance the construction of the levee, has a specific provision that “none of these projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth,” meaning that the levies constructed throughout Napa Valley, including the levee in the city of St. Helena, were NOT intended to promote development behind those levies. This further strengthens any future Hunter development resident lawsuit; they can easily claim that the development should never have legally been built behind this levee. It is, in fact, questionable whether building the development behind this levee is legal.
6) I strongly suggest that the city council and mayor invite Dr. Nicholas Pinter to present and offer his expertise on levee safety. Dr. Pinter has previously expressed his expert opinion that construction immediately next to the levee (and in fact using the levee itself during the construction process) jeopardizes the internal integrity of the levee. Dr. Pinter can be contacted via his UC Davis e-mail:
[email protected]
7) I would also like to remind the city council members that before approving anything it is critical to ensure that the city has NO increased financial risks if there is a levee failure, topping, or breach. There are a number of CA court cases that say if you don’t maintain a levee you are liable for the damage.

The recent Pajarro levee failure is a case in point.
8) Finally, St Helena has agreed to indemnify the state of California when they accepted a grant of $9M.

Below is the statute memorializing that indemnification:
a. California Water Code Section 12748.3 specifically applies to St. Helena and the flood control project, which includes the levee. It states, in part, “(c) A county or local agency may receive the funds only if it enters into an agreement with the department pursuant to which the city or Agenda Item #6.1.

local agency agrees to indemnify and hold and save harmless the state, its officers, agents, and employee for any and all liabilities for damages that may result from the project. (d) For the purpose of this section, ‘liability for damages’ includes, but is not limited to, liability for damages, relating to the construction or operation of the project or the failure of the project to operate as intended.”
The current FEIR fails to adequately address the concerns cited above. The negative impacts of the proposed Hunter development on the health and safety of current St. Helena residents have NOT been mitigated. The Hunter development would have significant impacts on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated, which is one of five reasons why a housing development can be denied according to the Housing Accountability Act. It is the city council’s responsibility to vote NOT to approve the Hunter development FEIR and to protect the citizens of St. Helena.

Sincerely,
Angela M. Zivkovic
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Sandra Lowry
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] This is the letter I meant to send. Please forward to City Staff, City Manager, Planning Commissioners and City Council
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 11:45:15 AM
Since the Hunter project was first brought to the city for approval, two profound events occurred in Napa Valley
that changed everything for homeowners, businesses
and renters. We had two catastrophic fires in 2017 and
2020, with the fires coming down to the highway at
Silverado Trail at Pope Street, much too close to the
proposed development. This has resoundingly changed
the way homes in St. Helena are now able to be
insured, especially for customers with million-dollar
properties in high-risk areas. St. Helena is designated a high-risk fire zone.

Most mortgage lenders do require home insurance as a
condition of the loan. So, if you have a mortgage on
your house, it's safe to assume that fire insurance is
mandatory.

Over the past few months, the following insurance
companies no longer insure new properties in St.

Helena because we are designated a high fire-risk
zone. They are as follows: (these come from our local
insurance company MIV)
State Farm Travelers — Declined
JE Brown — Declined
Oregon Mutual — Declined
Safeco — Declined
Agenda Item #6.1.

Nationwide — Declined
Chubb — Declined
Hartford — Declined
CIG — Declined
Scottsdale — Declined
Bamboo — Declined
Foremost — Declined
Rivington — Not writing any new business in California
Insurance is outrageously expensive through the
California FAIR Plan — if you can even get it. "The
FAIR Plan ultimately is intended to be a short-term
solution for the marketplace. It is more expensive
because the majority of the risks are riskier," said Phil Irwin, public relations representative for the California FAIR Plan.

So why do all the above companies believe St. Helena
is a high-risk fire zone and the local fire department and the staff see no negative impact after all we have been through? Why would you build several dozen homes in
a high-risk fire zone? How are they going to insure
these homes?
“If the SOC is not adopted, project approval could not
proceed, the tentative map would not be approved, and
development of housing at the project site would not
occur. This could in turn lead to a number of adverse
outcomes, including potential legal challenge of the
Council’s decision, issues with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development
(which enforces compliance with state housing law),
Agenda Item #6.1.

and increase the risk that the City would receive future “builder’s remedy” projects (under the Housing
Accountability Act, cities that do not have a housing
element in substantial compliance with state law cannot deny certain housing projects, even if they are not in
compliance with the City’s zoning or general plan). For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council
adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.”
We must resist the rhetoric that the state will force St.

Helena, demanding that we build housing in a flood and
high-risk fire zone. This is not about compliance to
zoning or general plan, it is about safety. We can deal with this demand if and when it becomes an issue. We
have perfect legal grounds to back us.

This got me thinking about the staff. I understand they feel under pressure from the state to move forward with this project to fulfill state requirements. They are
required to tell us this. Again, the state can’t and won’t force St. Helena to build housing in an unsafe area.

Don’t let these proclamations become a scare tactic that undermines our common sense. Common sense tells
us that we should never build a huge development in a
flood and high-risk fire zone with one exit over a railroad track with an intersection rated F by Caltrans (this is one of the reasons why the mega-Safeway wasn’t built).

The thought of all the machinery and supplies and
workers coming down Main Street (or even worse,
winding their way through small neighborhoods with
streets where it is now difficult for two cars to pass).

Entering and exiting through Adam Street is
inconceivable and unsafe. Fire trucks and ambulances
could at best only deliver services in a delayed,
sporadic and counterproductive manner.

The response to this project is overwhelmingly negative.

I understand the staff interprets the flood zone ruling Agenda Item #6.1.

one way, while Ms. Zivkovic, a Ph.D. at UC Davis,
interprets it another way. I’ll put my money on Ms.

Zivkovic. Her petition clearly shows how 1,000 citizens are feeling about this project.

I understand the City Council is under pressure from a
variety of fronts. Big problems. No great solution.

Above all, as elected officials, I want to re-instill a sense of personal responsibility not only for your safety, but the future safety of your neighbors.

Susan Kenward
St. Helena
Agenda Item #6.1.

JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM June 23, 2023
Via Email:

Mayor Paul Dohring: [email protected]
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: [email protected]
Council Member Anna Chouteau: [email protected]; Council Member Lester Hardy: [email protected]
Council Member Billy Summers: [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo: [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa: [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project, File #PL10-040
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, Council Members, City Manager Comelo, and Community Development Director DeRosa:

As you know, we represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents.

In response to our April 30, 2023, letters discussing numerous concerns with the EIR and Tentative Map for the Project, on May 1, 2023, attorneys representing the applicant submitted a last-minute letter to the City. Staff also has recently posted additional responses to those letters in the Agenda Packet for the June 26, 2023, Special City Council meeting.

This letter provides additional information and responses related to the applicant’s counsel’s May 1 letter, to the City’s most recent Staff Report, to points raised at the May 1, 2023, City Council meeting, as well as expands upon the major points raised in our previous letters. The issues covered in this letter are those that we feel warrant additional explanation and comment due to the importance of the issues and the lack of the Project’s ability to address your constituents’ substantial concerns.

As discussed at length previously, we continue to disagree with the Applicant on numerous issues, particularly that the project has been illegally piecemealed in violation of City law and CEQA, and that the Housing Accountability Act does not change that. Overall, and as stated in our previous letters, it is abundantly clear from the record, the EIR, and the Staff Report that the Project is attempting to evade and ignore City, County, and State requirements to build a luxury housing project under the guise of addressing a statewide affordable housing crisis.

For the reasons articulated below, in addition to those covered in our previous letters, this Project should not be approved. The points covered in this letter are as follows: (1) the City cannot be forced to approve this Project to meet its obligations under its Housing Element or State law, nor does it need to; (2) the Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM Project has no stated benefits and as a result the City has no basis for adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; (3) in response to recent comments and in order to avoid the application of the City’s own safety standards, the project has changed again to be even less safe; (4) the City has failed to analyze impacts to groundwater and well resources pursuant to current State and Napa County groundwater requirements; and (5) subsequent environmental review is required to afford the public a chance to review the Project that is actually presented.

1. The City Council Must Exercise Its Independent Discretion: Approval of the Project is not required in order for the City to meet its obligations under the City’s Housing Element.

The City is being tremendously pressured to approve a project that essentially no one but the developer wants. The record is replete with evidence that neither the current residents, local NGOs that advocate for affordable housing, or even the City’s own recent Staff support the project as it fails to comply with the City’s general plan, its inclusive housing law, myriad aspects of City code and policy, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Napa County code and policy, and the California Environmental Quality Act. It puts the City and its residents at substantial financial and personal risk. Yet the tentative map under consideration is explicitly stated to provide “no direct fiscal impacts” 1 to the City.

Contrary to the applicant’s attempted fait accompli that “the City cannot comply with Housing Element Law without approving the Project,”2, the City is not required to approve this Project in order to meet its obligations under Housing Element Law. The Applicant’s implication that the City must approve the project is contrary to law. Nothing can force the City Council to do anything other than exercise its own independent judgment as to the sufficiency of the EIR and the compliance of the Project with the City’s municipal code and General Plan.
3 Further, the City’s newly adopted Housing Element (approved on May 9, 2023), contains an alternative to the Project: in the event the Project does not move forward “the City has also included surplus capacity of 116 units in the above moderate-income category to ensure capacity to meet the RHNA [Regional Housing Needs Allocation] is sustained throughout the planning period.” (Housing Element at 2-180.) This Project is explicitly not needed to meet the RHNA requirements.

We recognize that included in the Staff Report for the June 26, 2023 Special City Council Meeting is a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).4 But HCD is not a responsible agency for the Project, and in this context is merely advocating what appears to be a position that all housing projects must be good. As stated extensively previously, that is wrong. This Project must still comply with CEQA, the City’s code, policies, and water use regulations. As extensively documented, it does not. Further, this Project will not be helpful to the State’s housing crisis – if anything, it will take away an opportunity for a more inclusive, affordable, and better housing opportunity for the City.

Although the applicant claims this Project will assist with overall housing demand there remains no proposal for affordable housing. Staff directly rejected the proposal made four years ago which violated 1 June 26, 2023 Staff Report, at page 11.
2 May 1, 2023 letter from applicant’s counsel Holland & Knight, at pages 1-2. 3 Prejudging the Project due to outside influence would violate the Brown Act. Gov. Code § 54950 declares that the intent of the Brown Act is to ensure agency “actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
4 Item 6.1 of the Staff Report for the June 26, 2023, Special City Council meeting, pages 259-260.

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM the inclusionary provisions of the City’s code. Including a component of affordable housing in a Project that is segregated (in Lot 52) from the rest of the development is discriminatory and expressly illegal without approval of the proposed affordable housing plan by the Planning Commission. Approving the tentative map prior to that decision illegally revokes the delegated authority to the Planning Commission to first consider such a non-inclusionary proposal.

And finally, the Project proposes to include Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) and count those ADUs within the dwelling units to establish the Project meets the minimum density requirement. However, in the latest Staff report, it is finally acknowledged that there will be no requirement to use those ADUs for housing – affordable or otherwise. Rather, it is now expressly conceded that “the use of the ADUs will be up to the owners of the homes with which they are built.”5 By leaving the use of the ADUs up to the homeowners, these ADUs will just be detached offices or game rooms in the backyard of luxury homes, or perhaps an extra bedroom for guests. There is no evidence in the record, substantial or otherwise, that these ADUs will provide meaningful independent dwelling units.6 And again, as there is no use permit application for Lot 52, there is no evidence of how many units will actually be constructed there.

As such, there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the Project, as presented now, complies with the City’s objective minimum density requirements.

2. The City has not proposed nor made specific findings that the Project is beneficial and as a result has not fulfilled its obligations under CEQA.

There is no evidence in the record as to any benefits for the City resulting from the Project. While there is of course a general need for housing, and substantial external pressure being applied from nonconstituents to approve housing of any kind, the duty of the City Council is to the current citizens to find actual real benefits to the project that outweigh the significant unavoidable impact the Project will cause on the City. The City must identify, with reference to substantial evidence in the record, real benefits of the Project in order to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

CEQA requires “the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits . . . of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining to approve the project.”7In doing so, the Council is required to document such benefits, by stating “in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.”8
The most recent letter from the applicant attempts to address this issue, but instead of identifying specific, quantifiable benefits of the Project, the letter explains that the project is beneficial because it complies with the Housing Accountability Act.9 That is not a benefit. 5 Staff Report for June 26, 2023 meeting at page 8.
6 Health and Safety Code section 19970 defines “dwelling unit” as “one or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating.”
7 CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a).
8 CEQA Guidelines section 15093(b)
9 May 1, 2023 letter from applicant at pages 8-9.

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM

Fund resulting from the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map.” As such, and since the City has piecemealed the approvals, the decision before the City Council now has no fiscal benefit. And again, other than a generic suggestion that ‘all housing is good’, the City has not presented the public with any specific benefits of the Project that is actually proposed to support adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The draft Statement of Overriding Considerations still contains no specific benefits, only general platitudes. And the Staff Report concedes that any fiscal or housing benefits from the project can only come from future approvals.

Because there is no affordable housing agreement, there is no affordable housing benefit – the Staff Report makes clear that remains undecided. Even the latest housing element update acknowledges that the Project cannot be considered as “affordable” due to the lack of an affordable housing agreement. As such, in conducting the required balancing, there are no tangible benefits to the Project – which at this point is purely a tentative division of land and does not allow the construction of any housing – affordable or otherwise.

Without a complete Project to consider, there is no way to analyze any potential benefits. The applicant’s piecemealing of the Project in direct contradiction to the City’s Subdivision Code and CEQA renders any potential benefits from future required approvals purely speculative. There is no evidence cited in the proposed findings of anything other than prejudging that future approvals may lead to future benefits.

Such speculation lacks substantial evidence to support adoption of a statement of overriding considerations.

3. The EIR’s deficiencies support a finding that this project cannot be approved due to the project’s impacts on public health and safety under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2).

In yet the latest post-EIR significant change to the project, it now appears that the Project is going to abandon its previously proposed emergency access to and from the levee maintenance road. This configuration of the Project was not analyzed by the EIR.

The deficiencies in the EIR as to public health and safety, specifically, in relation to wildfire evacuation and response, warrant disapproval of the Project, contrary to the arguments presented in section 5 of the applicant’s counsels’ letter.
10 Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2), a local agency can disapprove a housing development project “if it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record” that “the housing development project … as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety….” As raised by countless commenters, such is the case here, because the Project is located directly adjacent to land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (“VHFHSZ”) that burned in the Glass Fire, yet was not analyzed as such.

CEQA requires an EIR to analyze “any significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected. For example, the EIR should evaluate any potentially significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts of locating 10 May 1, 2023 letter from applicant at pages 7-8.

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM development in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., ... wildfire risk areas), including both short-term and long-term conditions....”11
The EIR fails to adequately address the direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of the Project’s location directly adjacent to a VHFHSZ, and does not analyze the Project that is actually proposed, which no longer has emergency access to the levee evacuation road.
a. The EIR fails to adequately address the Project’s impacts to emergency access.

The City points to Final EIR Master Response 1 on the EIR’s analysis of emergency access issues (page 71 of the City’s Staff Report, June 9, 2023.) In that response, the City refers to its “Draft 2020 MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, which has not yet been adopted (DEIR p. 3.8-11).”12 The EIR therefore does not evaluate the impact of an actually adopted emergency response plan, so the ability to truly analyze this impact is limited. Instead of providing an alternate emergency response plan, the DEIR merely states that there is no adopted plan and vaguely describes what the new plan will include (see DEIR at 3.8-11):
• “The City’s Fire Department would review the site plans to determine if any additional road widening or access is recommended.” (DEIR at 3.8-20.)
• The EIR also states that the Proposed project “would not interfere with the preparation of the City’s emergency response plan or Napa County’s Emergency Operations plan,” (DEIR at 3.8-20), but does not go on to describe how it would not cause such interference.

Due to the proximity of the Project to a VHFHSZ (see our letter on the Project’s EIR dated April 30, 2023), the EIR must at a minimum explore the quantitative impacts to evacuation routes and explain how the population surrounding the Project would be able to get out easily in the event of a fire now that the emergency evacuation route originally included in the EIR has been jettisoned.

In considering “whether a project may interfere with implementation of an emergency response and evacuation plan, [a court is] primarily concerned that the public and decisionmakers understand the impact the project will have on the new residents’ ability to evacuate and on emergency personnel's ability to protect and service the residents and their property consistent with the adopted plan.”13 Here, the City neither provided enough information to understand the current emergency response and evacuation plan, nor did it provide the details to evaluate the Project’s impact on such plan. Worse, it now, at the last minute, appears to have abandoned a key piece of the plan.

In order to provide adequate and meaning environmental review under CEQA, the City should, for example, conduct a quantitative study to determine how long it would take to evacuate new residents of the Project in the event of a wildfire using the various evacuation routes, and should actually identify such evacuation routes.
11 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2(a); see League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63.
12 FEIR at 4-4.
13 League to Save Lake Tahoe at 136.

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM a. The Applicant claims that there is no flood risk for the Project area despite being directly adjacent to the levee.

The Applicant appears confident that there is no flood risk for the Project, contrary to direct evidence in the EIR. “The Project site is located adjacent to the southside of the Napa River and just upstream of the confluence of the Napa River and Sulphur Creek.”14 The Napa River has a history of flooding, and the Project site itself flooded in 2005.15 The Project is proposed to be built directly behind the levee which purportedly protects the site from flood impacts. However, as noted in our previous letters, as well as letters from other commenters, the City has repeatedly failed to maintain the levee. And, the City claims that it will continue “regular maintenance” of the levee, but fails to describe the specifics of such maintenance. 16
Despite the reality of the Project’s location, if the Applicant believes there is no flood risk, then it should have no problem procuring insurance for the homes it builds for the costs to replace them in the event the levee fails. Extensive prior commentary, including advice from the City attorneys, discusses that the City may be held liable in the event of flooding around, over, or through the levee. There is no reason for the City to accept that risk. This risk should be borne by the Applicant and the future residents of the Project, not the City and its residents. Given the ease with which developers tend to disappear once projects are completed, the City should add a Condition of Approval that the developer be required to post a bond for the replacement cost of each house at the time of sale, or otherwise guarantee the replacement costs of the houses in the event of a flood that is not contingent on the Applicant still being in business at the time of the disaster.
b. As previously pointed out, the levee maintenance road does not meet the required road and street standards.

As pointed out in our letter on April 30, 2023, the risk of wildfire impact on the City’s current residents is worsened by the failure to address the needed road improvements.17 The Project will obstruct emergency access for existing residents, particularly those in Vineyard Valley. We discussed that there is no evidence that the levee maintenance road is a suitable evacuation road for the Project, and that the levee maintenance road does not meet the City’s Fire Department Access Road Standards, which requires a 30- foot paved road with two feet of shoulders.18 The levee maintenance road does not even meet the lesser Road and Street Standards dictated by Napa County or CAL FIRE for safe evacuation from a property with more than four residences of a paved 20’ road with 2’ shoulders.19 Rather than addressing these needed road improvements, the Applicant has now apparently recognized that the Project as proposed and analyzed in the EIR does not comply with the City’s street standards. 14 DEIR at 3.9-5.
15 DEIR at 3.9-5.
16 Response to Comment #15, Staff Report for the June 26, 2023 City Council meeting at page 73. 17 Letter from Josh Devore, April 30, 2023, at pages 12-13. 18 See City of St. Helena Street, Storm Drain & Sidewalk Standards, available at:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/2491/publicworkscitystand ards_0.pdf
19 See Napa County Road and Street Standards, 2023 available at:
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20064/Napa-County-Road-and-Street-Standards---2023- PDF
Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM Instead of attempting to meet such requirements, the City has now apparently given the go-ahead to just delete the levee maintenance road for emergency access from the Project site. 20 Simply deleting the emergency access from the Project is not what was discussed in the EIR and leaves the current residents struggling to grasp what is really being proposed. It leaves the impression that rather than attempting to meet the City’s standards, the applicant has in fact now made things worse, as discussed more in detail below.
c. The City has changed its position as to whether the levee maintenance road is to be used for emergency vehicle access and evacuation access, so the public is left guessing what remain as viable evacuation and emergency access routes for the Project.

The DEIR, FEIR, and most recent Staff Report have created confusion over what the proposed emergency vehicle access (“EVA”) and evacuation routes are for the Project. The City continues to contradict its previous findings and statements, as evidenced below.

According to the DEIR:
“The Proposed Project’s tentative map is designed with three points of access; the extension of Star Avenue and Adams Street and an emergency vehicle access (see Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description) to facilitate the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles, including the City and County Fire Department’s apparatus and Proposed Project residents.”21
The DEIR goes on to say:
“As stated previously, the Proposed Project’s tentative map is designed with an emergency vehicle access to facilitate the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles, including the City and Napa County Fire Department’s apparatus. The City’s Fire Department would ensure the final site plans provide adequate emergency evacuation and would be consistent with the City’s emergency response plan, when it is prepared. In the event of a fire, there would be sufficient access for emergency vehicles to reach the Project site, as well as emergency evacuation access for residents. The Napa County Emergency Operations Plan does not include a vehicle evacuation plan, but in the event of a wildfire, City fire and police personnel would coordinate with Napa County to identify evacuation routes and set up temporary shelters for anyone asked to evacuate.”22 According to the FEIR:
“Roads that would provide emergency access near the Project site include Pope Street, Hunt Avenue, Starr Avenue, Adams Street, and Silverado Trail as well as the existing levee maintenance road that borders the northwest boundary of the Project site and the 20 Yet, because the Project does impact and propose alterations to the connection of the access road to the Adams Street extension, the levee road is still part of the Project and subject to the City’s Access Road Standards. The levee road thus still needs to be updated to meet the required access standards. 21 DEIR at page 3.8-20.
22 DEIR at 3.8-22.

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM adjacent City detention basin. The Vineyard Valley development currently has only one access to enter/exit the development from Pope Street. Emergency access is provided via the maintenance road adjacent to the northern boundary. . . If, for some reason, the levee maintenance road is closed residents of Vineyard Valley would exit using the access onto Pope Street.”23
Yet, according to the June 26, 2023, Staff Report:
“It should be noted that the City of St Helena Fire Department has determined (as discussed in the June [26], 2023 staff report) that the emergency vehicle access to the levee road is no longer needed and has recommended that it be removed from the proposed tentative map. If the City Council concurs with this recommendation, the easement and permit issues cited by the commenter would become moot.”24 “COA #69 is proposed to be deleted. As discussed in the attached memorandum from the City of St Helena Fire Department (Attachment 13 to [the Staff] report), the proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) from Street A to the levee road is no longer warranted, based in the availability of access to and from the Hunter subdivision on local streets and the designation of the levee road in 2018 as the evacuation route for residents of the Vineyard Valley mobile home community.”25
The DEIR and FEIR analyzed the Project including use of the levee maintenance road as an evacuation route for the residents of the Project and Vineyard Valley. Despite the repeated discussion in the EIR, staff has apparently now decided that the levee maintenance road is no longer needed as an EVA route. This conclusion is based on a June 6, 2023 memo from the City of St. Helena Fire Department with no supporting evidence.

So there is no ambiguity: residents of Vineyard Valley are genuinely and severely concerned that this Project is going to get them killed. This is not hyperbole. Abandoning an access point at the last minute in a clear effort to avoid the Fire Department’s Access Road Standards is nothing short of horrifying to the people that elected you to protect their interests.

Yet, according to the June 6, 2023 memo from the St. Helena Fire Department, the emergency access to the levee is no longer part of the proposed project. A significant change of this sort should be reincorporated into the original EIR (via the preparation of a subsequent environmental document and recirculation) with additional clarity as to the proposed routes for both evacuation and EVA. The confusion that currently exists, for a Project that sits directly adjacent to a VHFHSZ (contrary to Staff’s position that the property is “neither immediate nor adjacent” to a VHFHSZ26), is unacceptable, and puts the public in the surrounding community at risk.
23 Master Response No. 1, FEIR, page 4-3.
24 Response to Comment #13, Staff Report for June 26, 2023 Special City Council Meeting, at page 72. 25 Staff Report for June 26, 2023 Special City Council Meeting, Agenda item 6.1, page 14. 26 Response to Comment #11, Staff Report for the June 26, 2023 Special City Council Meeting at page 71.

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM This is a substantial, last-minute change, apparently designed to avoid improvement of the levee maintenance road to meet the City’s own fire access road standards. It puts the City’s current residents in even further jeopardy just to benefit the developer.

The Project would have specific, adverse impacts on public safety due to the Project’s failures to address EVA and identifying evacuation routes.

4. The EIR’s analysis of the project’s impacts on groundwater are insufficient and do not comply with current Napa County groundwater requirements.

As stated in our previous letters, but important enough to note again, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a)(1), the environmental setting for an EIR, “shall not include hypothetical conditions.” (CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a)(3))27. The DEIR rightly used a baseline existing water use of zero, stating repeatedly that the well on the Project site was not in operation.

Staff has now attempted to retroactively change that analysis, with no evidence to do so except a latecontrived hypothetical calculation of what might have been past groundwater use.28 Staff and the applicant’s counsel now claim that the existing well on the property is actually operable29 – but that is not what the EIR says, and in any event irrelevant both legally and factually.

There continues to be no evidence whatsoever that the applicant or Staff has consulted with the responsible agency for groundwater use. Staff continue to ignore the numerous public pronouncements of Napa County groundwater standards. In separate correspondence, Water Audit has also made clear that the project plainly fails to meet current groundwater legal requirements.

We also must regrettably note that at the May 1, 2023, meeting, counsel for the City misstated the Napa County standards for well abandonment. “A well is considered to be abandoned when it has not been connected for service to any structure and/or not used for a period of one year.” 30 The Project site well
was not used for substantially more than one year, as discussed in the EIR. While at the May 1 meeting, the City’s attorney noted some items that might suggest an intention not to abandon a well, those conditions only apply where the well owner has provided formal notice of the intent not to abandon the well. That did not happen.

The well will not be considered abandoned if all of the following occur: (1) the owner declares his or her intention to the director, in writing, to use such well again for supplying water or for other approved purposes, (2) the well has no defects in construction which would cause pollution or contamination to the ground water by surface water, (3) the well is covered with a safe well cover, (4) the well is marked so as 27 The Supreme Court has stressed the importance in CEQA of not using hypothetical conditions as a baseline: “An approach using hypothetical allowable conditions as the baseline results in ‘illusory’ comparisons that ‘can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,’ a result at direct odds with CEQA's intent.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 322, quoting Environmental Planning Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 358.)
28 Response to Comment #1, Staff Report for June 26, 2023 City Council meeting at page 66. 29 Response to Comment #2, Staff Report for the June 25, 2023 City Council meeting at page 67. 30 Napa County Code § 13.12.460(A).

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM to be clearly seen, and (5) the ground area surrounding the well is sloped away from the casing and kept clear of brush and debris. 31
Legally, the well is abandoned.

But there is no reason to be caught up in such technicalities, as the relevant standard for analysis under CEQA is simply the existing water use. The EIR analyzed that as zero. The project’s own consultant said that any increase is capped at Napa County’s allocation of groundwater.32 The current Napa County standard is 0.3 acre-feet per acre.33 There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. The Project simply is out of compliance.

The failure to consult with Napa County and failure to identify Napa County or its Groundwater Sustainability Agency as a responsible agency in reviewing the EIR is a clear failure to proceed as required by law and an abuse of discretion. Until Napa County reviews, provides input on, and approves the groundwater use for the Project, there is no competent evidence in the record to support a finding that the groundwater use as proposed is permissible.

Given that the Project plainly violates the groundwater limitations, at the very least, Condition of Approval 8634 requiring the Project to connect to the City’s reclaimed water system “if” it becomes available should be revised to require the Project to complete that system to the Project site and connect to it promptly.

5. Subsequent environmental review, allowing for sufficient public comment on all changes to the Project and the EIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 is required to incorporate the new information described above.

The changes described above, specifically, in relation to groundwater analysis and emergency access to the Project site warrant subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. The water baseline and groundwater/well analysis has substantially changed since the EIR was circulated to the public. In addition, in a last-minute change, the deletion of the levee maintenance road as an emergency access route, eliminating access to the Project from the east and north, is a substantial change to the Project, therefore warranting subsequent environmental review of this change.

The EIR should be revised and recirculated, so as to “allow the public a meaningful opportunity to comment” on the changes to the Project and possible additional impacts flowing from such changes.35

6. Conclusion
The Applicant’s failure to address the major concerns expressed above, yet again, continues to leave the public confused and at risk of suffering from the pitfalls of constantly changing and inadequate 31 Napa County Code § 13.12.460(B).
32 DEIR Ex. L.
33 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/25906/Well-Permit-Standards-FAQs---15-July-2022. See also the extensive discussion in our prior letters.
34 Condition of Approval No. 86, Staff Report for June 26, 2023 Special City Council meeting at page 197. 35 CEQA Guidelines sec. 15088.5(a).

Agenda Item #6.1.

June 23, 2023

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC | 1500 First St., Ste. 200, Napa, CA 94559 | 707.261.7000 | DPF-LAW.COM environmental review. The City must proceed as required by the current, operative law, and must comply with CEQA in all aspects of the Project.

This is likely the most consequential decision on the long-term future of the City that this Council will make during its tenure. There are no benefits to the tentative map that outweigh the Project’s significant impacts on the environment, and it present a specific and grave threat to the public and the City as a whole.

All that said, perhaps most practically, given that the Applicant has failed to apply for any of the other approvals necessary to actually proceed with the Project – including an affordable housing agreement, use permit for multifamily housing, and design review – there would be no prejudice to the Applicant in denying certification of the EIR and rejecting approval of the tentative map at this time.

As is made clear in the Staff Report, no houses can be built until all the other required approvals are obtained. The Applicant can come back for approval of its map and environmental documentation once it is actually ready to proceed with the Project. Until that time, any potential housing benefit is illusory.

The tentative map standing alone is merely a Trojan Horse attempt to tie the City’s hands on all the future discretionary approvals. The Council can, should, and indeed must reject this piecemeal approach.

Because the City Council is bound to follow the law, not the profits of a developer or the pressures of a state agency, the tentative map should be denied and certification of the EIR rejected.

Sincerely,

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC
Joshua S. Devore
JSD:emn
cc: Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Elizabeth Green
To: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Lester Hardy; Anna Chouteau; Billy Summers; Anil Comelo; Maya DeRosa; Cindy Tzafopoulos; April Mitts; Erika Opp Subject: Fw: [External] Letter to Shannan West
Date: Monday, June 26, 2023 9:27:32 AM
Attachments: Letter to Shannan West, re Hunter Development 6-21-23.pdf ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Elizabeth Green <[email protected]>
To: Elizabeth Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 at 09:23:36 AM PDT
Subject: Fw: Letter to Shannan West
Good morning all,
Below is a very powerful letter that was just sent from Angela Zivkovic to Shannan West, Chief of Housing Accountability, CA and an excerpt of great importance:
"I would also like to make sure you are aware of recent advancements with regard to the legal liability of ignoring climate change in development projects and point to you a report prepared by the Conservation Law Foundation entitled "Climate Adaptation and Liability" https://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GRC_CLF_Report_R8.pdf In other words, not just the city of Saint Helena but also the state of California could be sued for their part in promoting and pushing the approval of development projects in high-risk areas without properly taking into account the increasing risks of climate change."
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Green
Vineyard Valley
---- Forwarded Message -----
Agenda Item #6.1.

Angela M. Zivkovic, PhD
1180 Starr Avenue
St. Helena, CA. 94574
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
June 21, 2023
Dear Miss West,
I am aware that you sent a “Letter of Support” to Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall, and Council Members Anna Choutaeu, Lester Hardy, and Billy Summers, of the city of St. Helena, dated June 8, 2023, in which you are offering support for the approval of the Hunter Development, which would result in the building of 87+ housing units. I want to make you aware of the fact that this project would be building homes, including lowincome homes, not only in a FEMA flood zone, behind an unscreened levee, but also in a high-risk fire area where safe evacuations during emergency situations have not been fully evaluated. In fact, this development poses a threat to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated given current infrastructure limitations, and therefore should not be approved. I am writing to you because you should be aware of this. It is not only irresponsible but also amoral for state officials to be pressuring small municipalities such as the city of St.

Helena to build housing in a high-risk area that could lead to the loss of lives, especially and including the lives of vulnerable, low-income, underrepresented minorities and elderly. In our rush to provide homes for some people we must make sure that we do not displace and endanger the lives of others.

First of all, you should be aware that the proposed Hunter Development is located in a FEMA flood zone.

According to the official FEMA map of the city of St. Helena, the Hunter Subdivision project is clearly within a flood zone (https://map1.msc.fema.gov/firm?id=06055C0264E). A levee was constructed to protect the homes that already exist in this flood plain, many of which were already flooded, with lives lost during two flooding events that occurred in 1986 and 1995. However, Measure A, which was passed to approve and finance the construction of the levee, has a specific provision that “none of these projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth,” meaning that the levees constructed throughout Napa Valley, including the levee in the city of St. Helena, were NOT intended to promote development behind those levees.

Even if we decide to ignore this provision, which may be illegal to do, construction behind levees is a bad idea for many reasons. First, all levees fail eventually, thus building behind a levee always means that at some point homes built in that location will be subject to the dangers of flooding events. Second, when levees fail, the damage that results is worse than if there were no levee there in the first place (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160209162403.htm#:~:text=Levees%20often%20prevent% 20costly%20flood,not%20there%2C%20the%20study%20found). Third, at a minimum, we should know how much risk we are taking in the assessment of whether it is worth it to build behind a particular levee. In other words, it is important to calculate the residual risk that remains of a flooding event that would overtop the levee. However, the residual risk of levee failure for this levee is unknown. FEMA launched a new risk rating policy starting October 1, 2021 for any new projects (https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/risk-rating). This new risk assessment system was put in place because the old approach of evaluating risk was inadequate.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Instead of simply relying on historical projections and ratings based on the physical attributes of a levee at the time of construction, the Risk Rating 2.0 system additionally actually screens individual levees and rates their condition according a set of metrics. However, the St. Helena levee is not one of the 20% of screened levees in the National Levee Database (NLD). As such, the entries for “Levee Performance and Potential Lost Benefits”, and “Incipient Overtopping Annual Exceedance Probability” (AEP, or annual probability of the flood event that would load the Levee System to the top) in the NLD for the St. Helena levee are “No Data Entered” or “Unknown.” In the absence of these real risk evaluations for unscreened levees the old risk ratings of “100- year flood zone” and “200-year flood zone” are assumed as a default. This means that the real residual risk of levee failure, which takes into account the actual state and maintenance records of the levee, is not known for this levee. In addition to that, due to climate change, the real risk of occurrence of a catastrophic weather event that would lead to levee failure are also unknown. As has been illustrated by recent levee failures all around the country and the state, and as experts in the field will tell you, it is irresponsible to build housing, particularly low-income housing behind levees. It is just a question of when, not if a catastrophic flooding event will occur which will resulting in levee failure and flooding, with loss of life, as already happened here in this very location just 30 years ago. Movements are under way around the country to curtail development in flood zones (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/climate/flood-fire-building-restrictions.html). Again, because the St. Helena levee is an unscreened levee, there is currently no clear estimate of the % risk of a flood on any given year, nor of the ability of the levee to withstand a future potential catastrophic flood event.

It is not even clear whether the future residents of the Hunter development would be able to secure flood insurance under the new system, given how many insurance companies no longer insure homes in high-risk areas and have in fact even stopped insuring homes in the state of California (e.g. AllState, State Farm) (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-06-18/state-farm-allstate-wildfire-flood-insurance-californiaclimate-change-housing-rebuild).

In case you are thinking, well this is St. Helena’s problem, not the state’s problem: Professor Nicholas Pinter, Professor in the UC Davis Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Associate Director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, wrote a very insightful and informative blog post on the topic of the St. Helena levee. In his blog he explains the problem of residual risk of building behind a levee, and highlights the legal implications for not just the municipality but also the state: “Residual risk also can be borne by the governmental agencies that facilitate “field of dreams” levees. Legal liability came to roost in California in 2003, when the Court of Appeals found the state liable for $500 million in damages resulting from a levee break on the Yuba River in February of 1986, the same storms that flooded St. Helena. The case was Paterno v. State of California, and although the state neither built nor maintained the levee that gave way, the court found that it was responsible for inadequate maintenance and management of the system… In the Paterno case, the financial hit of that $500 million decision shook the financial structure of the entire state, such that California was forced to borrow funds from Merrill Lynch in order to pay the claims against it.” Secondly, you should also be aware that this housing development also threatens the safety of St. Helena residents with regard to safe evacuations during wildfire. The question is not whether the development would adequately provide access for the development residents out of the development area, but how the project will impact those residents once they leave the development, and the rest of the citizens of St. Helena who all need to evacuate via the same limited routes out of the city and out of the valley. Once the hundreds of additional residents occupying hundreds of additional cars actually drive out of the development, they are going to have to funnel into the existing roadways, which are already impacted and cannot adequately handle evacuation in an emergency situation such as a quickly occurring wildland fires or catastrophic floods. Perhaps you are not aware of the unique geography of the Napa Valley generally, and the city of St. Helena specifically.

The city of St. Helena is located in a narrowing portion of the valley, surrounded by mountain ranges on both sides, with high-risk wildland fire areas to the north, east, and west of town. There is effectively only one Agenda Item #6.1.

egress route out of town, south on Highway 29. With the Silverado Trail often not being a viable egress route due to fires and due to the fact that the only way across the Napa River from the part of town where the Hunter development would be built is across a historic bridge (the Pope Street Bridge), on which two vehicles can barely (and sometimes not at all depending on the vehicle in question) pass by each other. The Pope Street Bridge is not capable of handling even the current number of cars that need to be able to evacuate out of the area. The bridge is extremely narrow with no shoulder. This is an unsafe, inadequate exit route on the best of days, much less during an emergency situation. There is no infrastructure and funding capacity to replace the Pope Street Bridge, and even if there was, as I mentioned, the Silverado Trail is often not a viable egress route given that the last two devastating fires in the area burned all the way down to the trail (e.g. the Glass fire). There is also no infrastructure or funding to widen Highway 29 to increase egress rates, nor could it be done given the physical constraints of the railroad on one side and buildings on the other side of this portion of Highway 29 (called Main Street for the portion that runs through the city of St. Helena).

Third, it is critical to appreciate that climate change is happening and that the extreme weather events that lead to wildfires, floods and landslides are only increasing in both severity and frequency over time. The recent conclusion from the United Nations Glasgow Climate Change Conference (COP26) meeting is that even if all countries that pledged to fully implement changes needed to meet agreed upon greenhouse gas reduction goals are actually able to meet those goals, we are still on a trajectory to see increases in the earth’s temperature of at least 1.8 degrees Celsius (https://www.washingtonpost.com/climateenvironment/2021/11/09/cop26-un-emissions-gap/). This means that the recently experienced natural disasters in our area including wildfires, flooding, mud slides, and droughts, are only going to be more frequent, more extreme, and more unpredictable over the next 10-20 years and beyond. According to the National Interagency Fire Center the state of California faced over 8,000 fires that burned over 500,000 acres of land in 2002 (https://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2002_statssumm/fires_acres.pdf). In 2020 those numbers jumped to nearly 10,000 fires that burned over 4 million acres of land (https://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2020_statssumm/fires_acres20.pdf)! The state of California is facing unprecedented increases in wildfire incidences just in the last 20 years, at a time when the earth’s temperature has increased by less than 1 degree Celsius (https://www.climate.gov/newsfeatures/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature), while the best-case scenario projections for temperature change are on the order of 1.8 degrees Celsius over the next 20 years, strongly suggesting that the incidence and severity of wildfires is only going to increase. More fires means more evacuations and more people that need to be able to leave in a short amount of time in a limited geographic area with limited evacuation routes. The recent wildfires in Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley are a sobering reminder of what happens when wild, unpredictable winds coincide with extreme dry conditions and ignition sources. Due to climate change the “wildfire season” in California is increasing. More and more days out of more and more months of the year, from as early as April to as late as December, there are days when the combined conditions of extremely low humidity and high winds make this area ripe for fires to start (https://www.latimes.com/projects/wine-country-fires-california-sonoma-napa/).

I would also like to make sure you are aware of recent advancements with regard to the legal liability of ignoring climate change in development projects and point you to a report prepared by the Conservation Law Foundation entitled “Climate Adaptation and Liability” https://www.clf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/GRC_CLF_Report_R8.pdf. In other words, not just the city of St. Helena but also the state of California could be sued for their part in promoting and pushing the approval of development projects in high-risk areas without properly taking into account the increasing risks of climate change.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Fourth, it is imperative to note that the Hunter development disproportionately endangers the lives and safety of underrepresented minorities, low-income families and the elderly. The Hunter parcel is located on the East side of town, which already houses the most vulnerable citizens in our city, encompassing multiple low-income housing units and homes for the elderly who have a variety of disabilities making it more difficult for them to safely evacuate in an emergency situation. These are individuals who are not only at higher risk from injury but who are also less likely to be able to “evacuate early” as opposed to at the last minute once emergency shelters have been established, making the impact of urgent, last-minute evacuations even more important. They may also be hard of hearing, or have a multitude of disabilities that may make leaving quickly, or even hearing sirens and being aware of an emergency a problem. As examples of recent wildland fires both here in St. Helena, and in Napa as well as Santa Rosa have clearly shown over the last 6 years, wildland fires are increasingly wind-driven, fast-moving, unpredictable, and can occur in the middle of the night. The current roadways and infrastructure (i.e. bridges) are inadequate to ensure the ability of residents to safely evacuate in an emergency situation. This is especially true for the most vulnerable residents of St. Helena, all of whom live DOWNSTREAM from the proposed development and would have to compete with hundreds of additional vehicles trying to exit out of town ahead of them. These residents include low-income families from two large low-income apartment complexes, and a large number of elderly individuals in the Vineyard View 55+ community. The proposed development is not in the part of town where half of the homes are second homes that sit unoccupied most of the year. The East side of St. Helena where the Hunter parcel is located is the part of town where there are more people per square mile that need to be able to evacuate in an emergency. The FEIR for this proposed development already concedes that the one environmental impact that cannot simply “be mitigated” is the unavoidable impact on traffic. Phrasing it as a simple “traffic problem” makes it seem like just a minor nuisance. This is not about having to wait a few extra minutes to make a left turn to get to work on a Monday morning. This could mean the difference between a family being able to evacuate to safety in time, or not being able to do so because they are stuck in traffic with hundreds more vehicles all competing for egress via the same limited roadways at the same time. This is also an equity issue: the very people who are the most likely to have to wait until the last minute to evacuate and thus be in danger when traffic is backed up and they cannot evacuate from fire, are those who do not have the funds or ability to evacuate earlier than “necessary” because they cannot afford to simply pay for a hotel for days on end.

It is reckless and irresponsible to push this sort of development project in areas of the state that are at high risk of flooding and wildland fires. Whole families could perish and it will be blood on your hands for playing a part in pushing the city council to approve this development to meet some quota when real safety and real lives are at stake. It is your responsibility as a public official to make sure that the work you are doing on behalf of the state does not jeopardize the lives of citizens of this state and does not put the state at increased liability and financial strain. Are you sure that your letters urging the city of St. Helena to approve this highly controversial project are the right thing for you to be doing as a public official? I would like to make sure you understand that the citizens of St. Helena are aware that you personally, on behalf of the state of California, endorsed and supported the city to approve this project.

Sincerely,
Angela M. Zivkovic
Agenda Item #6.1.

Gayle DeRusha Davies
1 La Canada Ct
St. Helena,
June 25, 2023
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council:

Let me first acknowledge that I live and work on the unceded land of Onasatis people.

The Hunter Project is also required, per EIR, to make some degree of acknowledgement that they are working on (and profiting from) unceded land that was home to Onasatis people. We know from previous development of Vineyard Valley (and perhaps the levee?) that Onasatis remains have been found in the area of this project. The EIR process requires that this developer must have contact with a representative of the people indigenous to the land they plan to develop about their plans. Simply marking “Insignificant” on the Final EIR does not give anyone any indication that this requirement was fulfilled.

Upon inquiring, Suscol Intertribal Council told me that they had no record that this requirement had been fulfilled. This does not necessarily mean that the requirement was not satisfied, but I am asking that you please make certain this EIR requirement was satisfied and not simply marked “Insignificant” without the work getting completed. On May 1st, I gave applause to Councilman Hardy for several things he said, one of which being his discomfort with hearing so many people feeling unheard and feeling dismissed with numerous items simply marked “Insignificant” that were indeed significant to many voting, tax paying residents. I agree, but how much worse it would be if requirements were ignored yet “checked off”.

Health and safety is certainly significant. It is very puzzling to me how both fire and police chiefs could possibly determine that the Hunter Project would not have any significant impact on evacuation safety. When I inquired as to what information they used to make this determination, I was informed that they used the information gathered from the Vineyard Valley evacuation drill.

In that drill, 132 Vineyard Valley residents participated. There are 350 residents. Information from a drill that was a.) planned well in advance b.) in daylight c.) without urgency d.) only 37% participation bears no resemblance to an actual evacuation. The math of Hunter + Vineyard Valley residents using the levee during an evacuation do not add up to something insignificant.

For these reasons, I ask you to please challenge the conclusion that the Hunter Project will not compromise safety during an evacuation.

On the health side of Health and Safety, more and more evidence is provided to us by professionals, doctorate level in prestigious organizations (see below), that human health is greatly impacted by contact with open greenspace. How fabulous it has been to have this benefit in our city. The area where Hunter Project is has been the ONE place that qualifies as open greenspace that takes one out of cityscape and into a natural environment where one can Agenda Item #6.1.

get a healthy dose of benefits without having to leave town. The Hunter Subdivision will strip this true health resource from our community.

I am asking you to please not cheat us out of this essential health resource.

Interesting variety of credible sources of information of this health benefit here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6388234/
https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-open-space-conservation https://www.irvinestandard.com/2021/how-irvines-open-spaces-make-us-feel-happier-healthier-a nd-more-creative/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24933270-800-green-spaces-arent-just-for-nature-theyboost-our-mental-health-too/ Please vote to preserve the health and safety of the residents of St Helena.

Sincerely,
Gayle DeRusha Davies
Agenda Item #6.1.

City Council
You must deny the Hunter Project for the following reasons:

MEASURE A
SECTION 2. FINDING
G. None of the projects in the Plan are intended or designed to encourage population growth in Napa County. All of the projects are for flood protection, preserving ground water integrity, reducing sediment in the Napa River system, and for maintaining the reliability of the water supply for the existing Napa County populations as of the effective date of this Ordinance.

One of the reasons the voters in St Helena voted for this Ordinance was because it contained the statement that the project would not promote growth. This Ordinance would never have passed without that statement. The Hunter project certainly provides a large amount of growth.

The Hunter project also does not preserve ground water integrity, or reduce sediment in the Napa River. The project is planning on using the flood project detention basin which was built with Measure A money.

Measure A also states that the flood project also should maintain the reliability of the water supply for the existing Napa County populations as of the effective date of the Ordinance.

Adding three to four hundred people in the proposed project does not guarantee that there will be water available as stated in the Ordinance.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The proposed Hunter project will not satisfy the Cities Regional Housing Needs (RHNA) requirements nor will it be consistent with the St Helena Municipal Codes Inclusionary code Chapter 17.146 which states that the affordable unit shall be comparable in number of bedrooms, exterior appearance as the market rate units in the same residential project and that the affordable housing shall be disbursed though the residential property. The tentative map that is under consideration segregates the smaller lot with the affordable rental units away from the lot with the market rate housing. The Hunter project is NOT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING project and will not satisfy St. Helena’s RHNA requirements.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION
Safety of people leaving areas surrounding the proposed Hunter project (Stonebridge. Silverado Orchards, Star Avenue, Meadow Creek, Hunts Grove and even the New City Hall) will be compromised because that land is a fire break. There has been much publicity and money spent on fire safety from the City. Many of us are losing our fire insurance because of the fire danger To approve the Hunter development would be contrary to what the City, Insurance Companies, your resident ands the voters of St Helena have said and are still saying. We voted for you to keep us safe, so please vote no for us and keep us safe.

Grace D. Kistner
Agenda Item #6.1.

;
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: auntienora
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Hunter Project
Date: Saturday, June 24, 2023 5:48:45 PM
I have lived in St. Helena since the mid-eighties, and we didn't have enough water for the citizens of St. Helena then! At that time the population of St. Helena was 5,000! Today the population has increased to 6,000 plus more wineries, gyms, and businesses, yet our available water has not increased at all!
How very bold of you to charge us higher water prices and penalties and at the same time vote to bring more people into this city!!! THIS INSANITY HAS TO STOP! How many City Councils and Mayors do we have to live through before a City Council and Mayor understand the stupidity of adding more people to a city that didn't have enough water for 5,000 citizens in 1985 let alone 6,000 plus Hunter Project citizens in 2023 . . . and hasn't done anything to obtain more water!
I SAY ABSOLUTELY "NO" TO THE HUNTER PROJECT!
FIX OUR WATER PROBLEMS FIRST!!
P.S. How many consultants do we have to have before we get decent sidewalks on Main Street?? I know of two in the last few years!!! The money you spent on them could have gone a long way to fixing our Main Street sidewalks. Most senior citizens in this city avoid Main Street because the sidewalks are so very dangerous! No wonder the businesses are suffering! You have to do better than this!
N. O'Neill
Agenda Item #6.1.

560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Daniel R. Golub
415-743-6900
[email protected]
June 23, 2023
Via Email
Paul Dohring, Mayor
Eric Hall, Vice Mayor
Anna Chouteau, Council Member
Lester Hardy, Council Member
Billy Summers, Council Member
CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Housing Law Issues – Hunter Subdivision Project
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, and Councilmembers:

Holland & Knight LLP represents Dennis Hunter, Kelly and Ben Vanzutphen, and White Fang Properties, LLC (collectively, the “Applicant Team”) in connection with the Hunter Subdivision project located north of Hunt Avenue (APN 009-030-057) (the “Project”) in St. Helena (the “City”). Our West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law practice group focuses on enforcing recently reformed provisions of state housing law, in particular Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”). We write to remind the City of its obligations under state housing law in advance of the June 26, 2023 City Council meeting concerning the Project.

Please ensure that this correspondence is included in the record of proceedings related to the Project.

First, the Project is a protected “housing development project” under the HAA, as the City has acknowledged.
1 As such, the City’s discretion to disapprove the Project is heavily constrained.

Specifically, to disapprove the Project, the City would need to make written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that the Project “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” and that there is “no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact … other than the disapproval of the housing development 1 Report to the City Council (May 1, 2023 Hearing), at 7 (https://sthelena.civicweb.net/document/73337/Hunter%20Project%20- %20EIR%20and%20Tentative%20Map.pdf?handle=1E3AF87EBDF8430C96935C79A339A296).

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.”2 Suffice it to say, there is no evidence in the record to support such a finding, much less a preponderance of the evidence. Whatever concerns have been raised about the project, none of them rise to the level of identifying any “quantifiable” violation of any “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”3 There is therefore no lawful basis on which the Project could be disapproved or reduced in density.

The City’s obligations under Housing Element Law are equally relevant to its consideration of the Project. As you know, the City must accommodate a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of 256 units, of which the Project’s 87 units supply roughly a third. The City has consistently relied on these units to meet its RHNA obligations in the draft Housing Elements provided to the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

Housing Element Law requires that the City’s Housing Element “identify adequate sites for housing” and set forth an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level[.]”4 Here, the goal “is not just to identify land, but to pinpoint sites that are adequate and realistically available for residential development targets . . . .”5 The Housing Element must also contain “an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels,” and must “demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need.”6 The City’s failure to adequately address these requirements, both generally and with respect to the Project specifically, was central to HCD’s rejection of both of the City’s prior draft Housing Elements.7
As you are aware, on June 8, 2023, HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit provided a Letter of Support and Technical Assistance to the City (“HAU Technical Assistance Letter”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The HAU Technical Assistance Letter reminds the City of its obligations under both the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Element Law, concluding that “HCD supports the approval of the Project during this critical housing crisis and appreciates 2 Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). The HAA also clarifies that “It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(3). 3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A). 4 Gov. Code § 65583(a)(3). 5 Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 193. 6 Gov. Code § 65583(a)(5). 7 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appx. at 2 (“The element should provide an analysis demonstrating the likelihood of these [Hunter Subdivision Project] units being built during the planning period.”); HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element” (Apr. 7, 2023), Appx. at 2 (“The element should clearly indicate timelines and remaining steps to fully entitle this project and demonstrate the likelihood these units will become available during the planning period.”).

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

the opportunity to assist the City in meeting its statutory obligations in the decision-making process.”8 We expect HCD personnel to monitor the June 26, 2023 City Council meeting.

At its prior meeting concerning the Project, the City Council addressed the EIR’s conclusion that the Project would have significant and unavoidable environmental impacts on a single topical area: Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”).9 To be clear, the Applicant Team has consistently disputed this finding.
10 As the City’s own consultant admitted at the prior hearing, the EIR’s VMT impact finding exists only because the City chose to measure VMT relative to the City’s average VMT per capita, rather than regional VMT per capita.11 This optional policy choice, if applied consistently, will have the effect of declaring all housing in the City to per se have a significant and unavoidable impact, and thus to require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City could have easily avoided this issue by employing a regional VMT measurement, which is a more appropriate measure for the City. Moreover, the City’s decision to measure VMT in this manner – which is not necessary to comply with CEQA – is an unnecessary governmental constraint on housing supply, which Housing Element Law requires the City to disclose and then remove.12
In any event, assuming arguendo that the EIR’s conclusions are correct, the Staff Report’s recommendation to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations is also correct. CEQA provides for public agencies to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations where “specific overriding . . . legal . . . benefits” of approving a project outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental effects.13
At the May 1, 2023 hearing, the City Council ultimately continued the item to June 26, 2023, purportedly to further consider whether the benefits provided by the Project were sufficient to justify the proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations. The considerations previously identified in the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations are more than sufficient:

1. The Project provides needed housing to the City, particularly affordable housing.

2. The City, per the adopted 2015 Housing Element, has a jobs to housing ratio above the County average, indicating a need for additional housing. As of the most recent Housing Element Progress Report (April 2022), the City had not met its regional housing needs allocation for very-low or moderate income housing.
8 HAU Technical Assistance Letter at 2. 9 Report to the City Council (May 1, 2023 Hearing), at 12-13. 10 See Comment Letter 93 (Leslie R. Perry, “Comments to Draft EIR – Hunter Subdivision Project” (Nov. 1, 2021) (enclosing W-Trans, “Comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Hunter Subdivision Project” (Nov. 1, 2021); DKS, “Review of City of St. Helena’s Application of SB 743 Requirements Project #21082-000 of the Planned Residential Development” (Oct. 20, 2021)) (Planning Commission Report, pages 3006-3017); Pub. Res.

Code §21082.2(a).
11 City of St. Helena, Special City Council Meeting (May 1, 2023), at 2:34:30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sNV7B7U6HQ). 12 Gov. Code § 65583(a)(5). 13 Pub. Res. Code § 21081(b).

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

3. The Project would implement the City’s General Plan. The Project site is identified as a housing site in the City’s current General Plan, the current Housing Element, and the previous two iterations of the City’s General Plan.

4. The significant and unavoidable impact is related to VMT. Ultimately VMT per capita will be reduced by providing necessary housing in jurisdictions with a high number of jobs. As stated previously, the City of St. Helena currently has a jobs housing imbalance which the Project will help address.

5. The Project will pay development fees which will assist in needed infrastructure improvements in the City, including wastewater treatment and collection systems.

6. The Project would construct the extension of Starr Avenue and the partial extension of Adams Street consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element.14 While these considerations are more than sufficient, the Applicant Team provides the following comments with respect to the Statement of Overriding Considerations, in response to the implication that the Project may not provide sufficient benefits to justify an override, or that the City’s determination “may ride on the perceived community benefits”15 provided by the Project:
• The only VMT “impact” of the Project is, as the most recent staff report states, that “the number of miles that will be driven by residents of the proposed project exceeds the standard at issue.”16 But the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations itself acknowledges that “[u]ltimately VMT per capita will be reduced by providing necessary housing in jurisdictions with a high number of jobs. As stated previously, the City of St.

Helena currently has a jobs housing imbalance which the Project will help address.” That is to say, the City acknowledges that “ultimately” VMT will actually be reduced by approving the Project and other housing developments like it and that the Project will improve the City’s jobs-housing imbalance. To the extent that the Project has a VMT “impact,” it is an extremely attenuated and technical one. • As the draft Statement correctly notes, the Project will provide much-needed housing and affordable housing to the City, which has severely underbuilt for decades. To this end, we note that Generation Housing, the leading advocate for affordable and diverse housing in the North Bay, has submitted a letter in support of the Project, highlighting that the Project will “deliver a diversity of housing types across the affordability spectrum which will aid in affirmatively furthering fair housing and promoting upward mobility for lowincome families.”17 14 Report to the City Council (May 1, 2023 Hearing), at 13. 15 Email Correspondence from Anil Comelo, City Manager, “Hunter – Community Benefits” (May 15, 2023) (attached hereto as Exhibit B). 16 Report to the City Council (June 26, 2023 Hearing), at 9 (https://sthelena.civicweb.net/document/75375/Hunter%20Project%20- %20EIR%20and%20Tentative%20Map.pdf?handle=6B5D3DFF921F4A4AB033355222B81F80). 17 Generation Housing, “Support for Hunter Subdivision” (June 1, 2023), at 2 (attached hereto as Exhibit C).

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

• There are also several additional public and community benefits that the Applicant Team has already provided. Most notably, the Applicant Team engaged cooperatively with the City to facilitate construction of the levee adjacent to the Property, to protect the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community. Specifically, the Applicant Team cooperated with the City with respect to the land swap required to construct the levee, and provided the City access to the Applicant Team’s well as needed for that project. The Applicant Team’s voluntary cooperation with respect to the levee constituted a community benefit that the Project has already provided. This stands as an as-yet-unreciprocated benefit provided to the public and the community.
• Finally, as the most recent staff report notes, complying with the City’s obligations to comply with the HAA and with Housing Element Law constitute an additional and independent legal “benefit” of approving the Project.18 Please consider these other additional benefits as part of the reasons the Project warrants approval. The Project provides more than sufficient benefits to justify staff’s recommendation to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, particularly where the draft Statement acknowledges that approving housing like the Project will “ultimately” reduce, rather than cause, VMT impacts. The HAA only permits a city to disapprove an HAA-protected Project for violating objective “public health and safety” standards – not subjectively-established VMT standards – and CEQA gives the city no authority to do anything that housing law forbids.19 CEQA requires the City to disclose impacts and impose feasible mitigation (which the City has now done), but it would be plainly unlawful for the City to consider these benefits insufficient to override the single environmental “impact” identified in the EIR.

Finally, we note that on May 9, 2023, the City amended its General Plan to adopt the housing element that is currently under review by HCD (the “Adopted Housing Element”). While the Adopted Housing Element has not yet been certified as substantially compliant by HCD, it is nonetheless part of the City’s operative General Plan, and as such is legally binding and enforceable. “[T]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.”20 As such, disapproving the Project would be an act inconsistent with the City’s own General Plan. 18 See Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 733 (“A statement of overriding considerations—which is the finding described in subdivision (b) of section 21081—is to be used in situations where the public agency deems a project sufficiently important or desirable for reasons that override the normal obligation to mitigate significant environmental effects. One of those statutory reasons allows for considerations, conditions, or factors that are ‘legal.’”) (citing Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081, subds. (a)(3), (b), 21002.1, subd. (b); CEQA Guidelines § 15364).
19 Ibid.; see also 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064 (b) (“CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers granted to the agency by other laws”); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(e) (“The exercise of discretionary powers for environmental protection shall be consistent with express or implied limitations provided by other laws”) 20 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570 (quotation omitted) Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

Moreover, the Adopted Housing Element sets forth specific commitments to ensuring that the remaining approvals required of the Project are timely processed. Specifically, Implementation Program H-A states that the City will “Commit to streamlining review of Hunter Subdivision project to completion with the goal of Building Permit applications in 2025.”21 We note that this commitment was specifically referenced by HCD in the HAU Technical Assistance Letter. 22 The City’s commitment to streamline all future approvals is therefore legally binding, and the City is precluded from taking any actions inconsistent with this commitment. Despite these binding and enforceable commitments in the City’s adopted Housing Element, the June 27, 2023 Staff Report does not describe the remaining process as “streamlined,” stating instead that “[a]ll of the applications will require a public hearing or be considered at a public meeting of the approving body (Council or Planning Commission) at which the public will be able to provide written and oral comments.”23 The Applicant Team looks forward to the City’s cooperation in identifying meaningful pathways to reduce burdensome processes and accomplish the “streamlined” issuance of the remaining approvals to which the City has committed in its General Plan, as amended by the Adopted Housing Element.

We recognize that new housing can be unpopular, and that there is often substantial pressure on local elected officials to bend to that pressure. But it is precisely for this reason that the state finds itself in a generational housing supply crisis. And it bears repeating that in the application before the Council, the Applicant team has asked for nothing more than to subdivide their own private property in a manner completely consistent with the City’s own code and the City’s own plans. As the May 1, 2023 Staff Report notes, “the subject property has been designated since at least 1993 for development with Medium Density Residential Homes.”24 The Applicant Team proposes to do just that; an outcome that the City presumably wanted when it adopted the current zoning. In addition to being zoning-compliant, the Project is compliant with all objective standards set forth in the General Plan. Its environmental impacts have been studied exhaustively for more than a decade. The approvals before the City Council have been unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission. Approval of the Project is also indispensable to the City’s ability to comply with Housing Element Law. And, with the adoption of the Adopted Housing Element, approval of the Project is also required by the City’s General Plan. We therefore encourage the City Council to adhere to the recommendation of City staff, and the Planning Commission, and HCD, and to abide by its own zoning and General Plan, and approve the Project.

Very truly yours,
21 Adopted Housing Element at 1-10. 22 HAU Technical Assistance Letter at 2 (“Specifically, the objectives in Implementation Program H-A state that the City will commit to approving and streamlining the Project.”). 23 Report to the City Council (June 26, 2023 Hearing), at 6. 24 Report to the City Council (May 1, 2023 Hearing), at 1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

Daniel R. Golub
William Sterling
West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law Practice Group
Holland & Knight LLP
cc: Maya DeRosa, AICP, Community Development Director
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Department of Housing & Community Development
Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item #6.1.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 8, 2023
Mayor Paul Dohring
Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Council Members Anna Choteau, Lester Hardy, and Billy Summers City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Council Members Anna Choteau, Lester Hardy, and Billy Summers:

RE: City of St. Helena – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is to assist the City of St. Helena (City) with its decisionmaking regarding the Hunter Subdivision Project (Project). As you are aware, the State of California is in a housing crisis, and the provision of housing is a priority of the highest order. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recognizes the challenge of interpreting ever-changing housing and land use laws and appreciates the opportunity to provide technical assistance that may lead to better housing outcomes for the state, as well as the City of St. Helena.

HCD understands the City Council will consider the Project at the June 26, 2023 public hearing. HCD understands Ben and Kelly Banzutphen (Applicant) are seeking approval of a tentative subdivision map and certification of an environmental impact report to allow 1.) Development of 51 single-family residential lots with 11 accessory dwelling units on a vacant, approximately 16.9-acre parcel; and 2.) 25 multifamily residential units on 3.13-acres. The Project also includes an anticipated 20 percent of the proposed units will be set aside for lower-income households.

Housing Element Commitments
As the City is aware, the City Council adopted St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) on May 9, 2023. Under that Housing Element, the City must accommodate a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 256 total units comprising 104 very low-income units, 59 low-income units, 26 moderate-income units, and 67 above moderate-income units. The adopted Housing Element identifies the Project as essential to meeting the 256 units required by the 6th Cycle RHNA. The approval of the Project would contribute significantly toward meeting the City’s RHNA obligations.

Further, the Project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs Agenda Item #6.1.

Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Eric Hall
Council Members Anna Choteau, Lester Hardy, Billy Summers

outlined in the City’s Housing Element. Specifically, the objectives in Implementation Program H-A state that the City will commit to approving and streamlining the Project.

Not meeting the objectives in Implementation Program H-A will require the City to identify alternative housing sites to meet its RHNA obligations.

It is important to note that the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element is currently under review by HCD for substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law and that HCD will continue to monitor the City’s progress toward implementation of the programs contained within the Housing Element to ensure the City meets its RHNA requirements.

Housing Accountability Act
In addition, the City should be aware that the Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Therefore, the City must consider its obligations under the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5). The HAA limits a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards that contribute to meeting housing needs. Please see the Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory available on HCD’s website.1 In sum, HCD supports the approval of the Project during this critical housing crisis and appreciates the opportunity to assist the City in meeting its statutory obligations in the decision-making process. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Jessica Evans at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Anil Comelo <[email protected]>
Subject: Hunter - Community Benefits
Date: May 15, 2023 at 1:07:04 PM PDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>, Ken Hira
<[email protected]>, Thomas Jirovsky <[email protected]> Hello Ben and Tim,
I’m very pleased we had the opportunity to meet last week and discuss the project. As we shared on the call, we are looking for a way to ensure that there was no stone unturned as we prepare for the last meeting on your application scheduled for June 7th. It may be that the success of that outcome may ride on the perceived community benefits. To this end, the City has Kosmont consultants under contract and they have been asked to support City staff and you to explore possibilities. Kosmont is a professional group with lots of experience with helping developers and public agencies address such issues. I suggest that your team meet with Kosmont as swiftly as possible. Given the timing issues and my calendar, I suggest that you interact with them without me.

However, I have taken the liberty to send you an invite to connect with them and me on Thursday, May 25th at 1pm. I hope this time works for you.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Anil Comelo
City Manager
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574 àNew address Direct: (707) 968-2744
Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #6.1.

427 Mendocino Ave
Suite 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 900-4364
[email protected]
www.generationhousing.org
1 June 2023
Via email
Re: Support for Hunter Subdivision
Dear Mayor Dohring, Councilmembers, and staff:

We write today to express our strong support for the immediate approval of the Hunter Subdivision Tentative Map (“project”) and certification of the corresponding Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

Generation Housing is leading the movement for more, more affordable, and more diverse housing in the North Bay. We champion effective policy, sustainable funding resources, and collaborative efforts to create an equitable, healthy, and resilient community for everyone.

We face an unprecedented imbalance in the availability of homes, both for rent and for sale and across the affordability spectrum, relative to the number of jobs in the Bay Area region. Comments on the EIR for this project speak of concerns around the increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) that will be generated by the future residents. This position fails to recognize that the most sustainable outcome for St.

Helena and all communities is to build housing which allows workforce members to work where they live.

Earlier this year, Generation Housing released a report that evaluated the challenges born from high housing costs and record setting levels of cost burden.1 The information collected and analyzed for this report led us to the following realities of excessive time spent commuting:
+ Increased commute times significantly increase transportation expenditures, further limiting burdened households’ overall financial flexibility for other necessities, savings, and personal expenditures.
+ Increased commute time has deleterious health effects too: long commute time increases exposure to pollutants, reduces time to exercise, increases stress, anxiety, and depression, and negatively impacts sleep.
+ More time on the road also means less time parents can spend with their children, which we know can impact educational outcomes. + It’s a climate change issue. Migration away from centralized hubs in search of more affordable housing reduces access to public transportation and adds to overall vehicle miles traveled. Lower wage earners often drive older cars that tend to be more polluting, both increasing harmful greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to pollutants.
1 Making the Rent: The Human Price of Housing Cost Burden; https://generationhousing.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/03/2023_0322-Making-the-Rent-The-Human-Price-of-Housing-Cost-Burden.pdf Agenda Item #6.1.

427 Mendocino Ave
Suite 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 900-4364
[email protected]
www.generationhousing.org
The proposed project delivers 87 units of housing, which amounts to approximately one-third of St. Helena’s regional housing needs allocation for the 6th cycle. More importantly, the project delivers a diversity of housing types across the affordability spectrum which will aid in affirmatively furthering fair housing and promoting upward mobility for low-income families. The project will also promote healthy lifestyles by creating linkages to the Napa Valley Vine Trail.

For the reasons outlined above and so much more, we call on the City Council to immediately approve this project and ensure workforce families in St. Helena have a place to call home.

Respectfully,
Calum Weeks
Policy Director, Generation Housing
Agenda Item #6.1.

560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Daniel R. Golub
415-743-6900
[email protected]
June 23, 2023
Paul Dohring, Mayor
Eric Hall, Vice Mayor
Anna Chouteau, Council Member
Lester Hardy, Council Member
Billy Summers, Council Member
CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: CEQA Issues - Hunter Subdivision Project
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, and Councilmembers:

Holland & Knight, LLP (“H&K”) represents Dennis Hunter, Kelly and Ben Vanzutphen, and White Fang Properties, LLC (collectively, “Applicant Team”) in connection with the Hunter Subdivision in St. Helena (the “Project”), which will be heard at a Special Meeting of the City Council on June 26, 2023. This is the second of two letters we respectfully submit related to the Project; the other letter relates to housing law issues. Please ensure that this correspondence is included in the record of proceedings related to the Project.

These comments supplement material already in the record related to the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) the City of St. Helena (“City”) prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Specifically, the information contained in this letter responds to two comment letters the City Council received immediately prior to the first meeting to consider the project from Water Audit California (“WAC”) and St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future (“SHC”) (collectively “Commenters”).

The Staff report thoroughly explains the reasons that none of Commenters’ comments identify any legal insufficiency in the EIR that the City prepared and subjected to exhaustive review and comment. We write with additional comments in support of the position – endorsed by City staff and unanimously by the City’s Planning Commission – that the EIR be certified and a statement of overriding considerations be adopted.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

I. The On-Site Groundwater Well Is Not Legally “Abandoned” The EIR explains that an existing on-site agricultural well is proposed to be used to provide nonpotable supplies to the separately plumbed landscape irrigation systems throughout the Project site to irrigate public and private landscaping. The on-site well has sufficient capacity to meet the Project’s estimated landscape water demand of 17.16 acre feet per year (“AFY”). The Final EIR clarifies that (1) “there is an inactive groundwater well located in the northern portion of the Project site that may have been historically used to provide construction water for the City’s Floor Protection Project and was used in the past for agricultural irrigation.” (at 4-10), and (2) “The Project is proposing to use the existing agricultural well to irrigate the Project’s public and private landscaping.” (at 4-61, 4-268).

A main point of contention from Commenters is that the Project cannot rely on the groundwater well located on-site (which will supply water for the Project’s landscaping irrigation). For example, WAC opines that the question of “[w]hither the well is capable of operation is irrelevant. By the process of law the 1976 well is deemed abandoned and it must be destroyed forthwith.” Similarly, SHC claim that “there is no operating well on the property, and it has not been operating for a considerable period of time. The use of the well had been long abandoned.” Both of these statements are incorrect.

Health and Safety Code section 115700(d) – on which Commenters rely -- provides that “a 'permanently inactive well' is a well that has not been used for a period of one year, unless the person owning land in fee simple or in possession thereof under lease or contract of sale demonstrates an intent for future use for water supply, groundwater recharge, drainage, or groundwater level control, heating or cooling, cathodic protection, groundwater monitoring, or related uses.” (emphasis added). The California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) regulatory standards consider a groundwater well to be abandoned or permanently inactive if it has not been used for one year, “unless the owner demonstrates intention to use the well again.”1 Here, Applicant applied for the Project in 2010, at which time the groundwater well was operational and being used by the City. The “Project Description” included in Applicant’s application package, which the City’s Planning Department received on September 9, 2010, expressly stated that “[t]here is an existing well near the southeastern end of the property that is proposed to be maintained in place and used for irrigation of the project’s landscape areas. It is a high producing well that is also capable of supplying additional water to the project should it be found necessary.”2 The Project Description further explained that “[t]he groundwater well on 1 See, DWR Bulletin 74, Part III, Section 21; available at https://water.ca.gov/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Wells/Well-Standards/Combined-Well-Standards/Water-Destruction; attached hereto as Exhibit A, emphasis added.
2 See, Applicant’s Project Description, attached hereto at Exhibit B, at 1; emphasis added.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

the site previously used for irrigation of the grape vines is presently used by the City (free of charge) to start the landscape required by their flood control project”3 Thus, Applicant provided sufficient notice of an intent to use the groundwater well for a future purpose, and did so at a time when the well was operating. Commenters have not cited any decisional or factual support for their contention that the Project (or the EIR) cannot rely on the groundwater well as a source of water supply for irrigation purposes – only a faulty legal interpretation of the statutory framework.

Commenters’ position that the Project cannot rely on the groundwater well for non-drinking irrigation purposes is both impractical and runs contrary to their other comments alarmed at the City’s dependence on water from other sources (e.g., the State Water Project, Bell Canyon Reservoir), which are addressed below. If Commenters’ positions were adopted, it would lead to an absurd result in which an applicant would need to “destroy” (or “fill”) a perfectly capable water well, only to then re-construct and re-permit said well. This would lead to an inefficient use of private and public resources, and Commenters cite to no legal authority or precedent of this process being used in the City, Napa County, or anywhere else in California.

SHC are also incorrect in noting that the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Project site indicates that the groundwater well is “inoperable.”4 The Phase I did not opine that the well is incapable of being used (nor would it, as that would be an issue outside the scope of the ASTM standard for Phase Is). The Phase I consultants merely observed that “[a]t the time of the property inspection, the well was not in use.”5
Finally, it is important to note that none of this affects the ultimate conclusion in the EIR.

Regardless of whether the on-site well is operable (and it is), the City would require the Project to offset its demand on water pursuant to the Water Neutrality Ordinance, and compliance with this legal requirement should ensure no significant impacts regardless.

II. The Project Will not Lead to Well Interference and Negatively Impact the Bell Canyon Reservoir
Commenters opine that the Project’s water demand will interfere with other groundwater sources serving the City, including the Bell Canyon Reservoir. Specifically, WAC claims that “[w]hole in the past the Bell Canyon Reservoir has been able to produce the largest portion of the City’s water supply, recently that has not been the case.” WAC further claims that the EIR “omits entirely the years of 2021, 2022 and 2023.”
First, the EIR includes a comprehensive discussion of the Bell Canyon Reservoir and the role it plays in the City’s water supply mix. See, DEIR at 3.13-3. The EIR quantified the reductions in water supply from the Bell Canyon Reservoir in recent years, and explained that supplies have 3 Id. at 3. 4 See, Attachment 14h to Staff Report; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, EBA Engineering, March 8, 2018. 5 Id. at 16.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

declined in part due to water release into the Napa River to support fish habitat. In other words, the EIR fully acknowledges that supplies at the reservoir have declined in recent years – and none of the data WAC claims is missing from the EIR implicates its analyses or conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts on City water supplies.

Moreover, recent public reports presented to the City Council indicate that, in fact, groundwater capacity has increased at the Bell Canyon Reservoir in 2023. On February 14, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution memorializing the termination of the City’s Phase II Water Emergency in November 2021 (effective December 2021), and adopted a recommendation from staff to terminate the Phase I Water Emergency in July 2023 (upon the presentation of a confirmatory report).6 A staff presentation indicates that the Bell Canyon Reservoir “has a projected available capacity of 1814 AF in June 2024, which is “well above the 1431 AF level when the Phase I Water Emergency was declared in June 2020.”7 Based upon the assumptions associated with the current supply (i.e. rainfall, customer demand, etc.), the City is projected to have sufficient supply beyond June 2024.8 Lastly, the staff report confirms a pivotal point: “the City relies on water volume availability from all water sources, not just water levels at Bell Canyon to meet system demand.”
III. The March 2023 Groundwater Sustainability Annual Report Does Not Undermine the EIR’s Water Supply Analysis
Next, WAC attempts to cast doubt into the EIR water supply analysis by challenging the EIR’s omission of the 2022 Groundwater Sustainability Report from March 2023 (the “LSCE 2023 Report”).9 WAC states that the EIR references prior groundwater annual reports (from 2013- 2017), but fails to incorporate data from the LSCE 2023 Report – which was released just three months ago in March 2023. As noted in the most recent staff report, City staff have reviewed the LSCE 2023 Report and provided their expert opinion that it contains no significant new information altering the conclusions in the EIR. The following provides additional comments supportive of that conclusion.

First, the EIR analyzed the Project’s demand on groundwater resources, including the Project’s use of the on-site well, and concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. (Draft EIR, 3.9-40 through 3.9-43.) In doing so, the EIR described the current status of groundwater levels in the Napa Valley Subbasin based on prior LSCE reports, and expressly acknowledged how the Subbasin is prone to decreased water supplies during dry-year and multiple dry-year events:
6 https://sthelena.civicweb.net/document/71523/Phase%20I%20Water%20Emergency%20Disposition.pdf?handle=D AA7A51185A04B51A1E05EB6B909863D, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 7 See id..; City of St. Helena Water Update (Attachment 1) at 7. 8 Id. at 3. 9 https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/28114/2022-Napa-County-Groundwater-MonitoringAnnual-Report?bidId= Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

• “Based on an extensive analysis of historical monitoring data on groundwater levels, groundwater in storage, groundwater quality, and interconnections between groundwater and surface water, there have been no basin-wide significant and unreasonable effects with regard to chronic lowering of groundwater levels, reduction in groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, and land subsidence (LSCE 2016). The basin analysis report found that groundwater levels in the Napa Valley have been stable over the hydrologic base period (1988- 2015), and the prior historical period where data are available, with recognition that groundwater levels in some areas have been lower during dry water year types (LSCE 2016). … The 2020 annual report updated the total amount in storage of the Napa Valley Subbasin to 196,651 acre-feet which is a decrease from the year prior due to a very dry year; however, the report concluded that the basin continues to be managed sustainably despite the most recent fluctuation (LSCE 2021).” DEIR at

3.9-14; emphasis added.
• “Napa County releases annual reports that provide an update on basin conditions and makes recommendations necessary to continue to maintain and improve sustainable management. The most recent annual report finds that most of the groundwater levels in the wells measured have remained above minimum thresholds, however seven wells did record groundwater levels below their minimum thresholds including a well near the Project site (see discussion below).” “However, these thresholds are monitored for evidence of chronic declines and not necessarily as an isolated exceedance, as the annual report still determined that the Subbasin has continued to be managed sustainably through 2020 (LSCE 2021).” Id.; at 3.9-14 to 3.9-15; emphasis added.

Despite acknowledging that groundwater levels are susceptible of reduced capacities in the event of drought, the EIR nevertheless concludes that the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basis. Nothing in the LSCE 2023 Report diminishes the accuracy of that conclusion.

Second, viewed objectively, the LSCE 2023 Report does not indicate that groundwater supplies are in such a dire condition as WAC would have the City believe. The LSCE 2023 Report provides an update on groundwater conditions, water use, and Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”) implementation in the Napa Valley Subbasin. It notes that: “[t]he recent very dry water years’ conditions emphasize the susceptibility of the Subbasin to substantially reduced recharge and the propensity for increased groundwater pumping to meet water demands. Together, these water budget components result in significantly reduced groundwater storage during these very dry water years.” But it also goes on to note that “[t]he strong beginning of WY 2023 has shown excellent recovery with high levels of precipitation in December 2022 and January 2023.”10
The only undesirable event reported in the LSCE 2023 Report was that the seven-year average annual net groundwater extraction has exceeded the sustainable yield of 15,000 AFY. 10 LSCE 2023 Report at ES-8.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

Commenter notes this, but ignores the following prefatory remark in LSCE 2023 Report:
“Management actions underway include (but are not limited to) the Groundwater Pumping Reduction Workplan and the Napa County Vineyard and Winery Water Conservation Workplan.

These workplans, targeted to be completed in 2023, will help to curtail groundwater pumping and overall water use to enable the Subbasin to achieve the measurable objective established in the GSP of 10% reduction in average annual groundwater pumping.”11 Third, the LSCE 2023 Report offers only a “snapshot” of groundwater conditions following a historically dry period in California’s history. The LSCE 2023 Report is not demonstrative of historic conditions or future projections of groundwater supplies, including the improved state of groundwater aquifers in the City and Napa County following the 2023 wet season.12 IV. Current Status of the State Water Project
In a further attempt to diminish the legitimacy of the EIR’s water supply analyses, WAC appears to argue that the EIR omitted key information on the State Water Project (“SWP”) and the City’s reliance on deliveries therefrom. In particular, WAC claims that the “actual deliveries [from the SWP] are determined by the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”),” and “[DWR] estimates that 62% of SWP contractors’ entitlements would be available in a normal year, 29% would be available during a single-dry year, and 5% available during a multi-year dry period.”13 None of this information calls into question the adequacy of the EIR and its water supply analysis. The EIR contains a thorough discussion of the SWP, the City of Napa’s SWP entitlements, and the variability of such entitlements in wet, dry and multi-dry years (EIR at

3.13-6). While WAC is correct that SWP entitlements vary based on normal, multiple-dry, and single-dry years, the EIR itself acknowledged this very point. See, e.g., Table 3.13-6 (SWP Reliability Assumptions).

Furthermore, recent DWR public reports indicate that deliveries from the SWP are expected to be plentiful throughout 2023 and beyond. WAC ignores the current state and optimistic forecasts for the SWP. See, e.g.,:
11 Id. at ES-9. 12 See, e.g., Exhibit C (“December and January storms provided large quantities of rainwater that resulted in the overtopping of spillways at both Bell Canyon Reservoir and Lake Hennessey — a City of Napa water source for St.

Helena”; “Based upon the assumptions associated with the current supply (i.e. rainfall, customer demand, etc.), the City is projected to have sufficient supply beyond June 2024.”); Napa County News (May 30. 2023), available at https://www.countyofnapa.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=433, attached hereto as Exhibit D (“On May 30, the Napa County Board of Supervisors voted to end the State of Local Emergency due to drought conditions in Napa County, thus terminating the emergency powers of county officials set forth in Resolution No. 2022-29. …. Since October 1, 2022, Napa has received nearly 32 inches of rain, exceeding average annual rainfall. Despite a particularly wet winter, eight of the past 10 years have been characterized as dry to very dry conditions. While the wetter winter of 2022-2023 has achieved a notable recovery in groundwater levels since 2022, overall resilience and sustainability of Napa County’s groundwater resources remain a top priority.”) 13 WAC Comment Letter at 2.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

• January 26, 2023 – “DWR today announced that recent storms will allow the [SWP] to boost deliveries to 29 public water agencies serving 27 million Californians. Based on the amount of water captured and stored in recent weeks, DWR now expects to deliver 30 percent of requested water supplies – or 1.27 million acre-feet -- in 2023, up from the initial 5 percent announced on December 1.”14
• March 24, 2023 – “DWR today announced a significant boost in the forecasted [SWP] deliveries this year due to continued winter storms in March and a massive Sierra snowpack. DWR now expects to deliver 75 percent of requested water supplies, up from 35 percent announced in February. The increase translates to an additional 1.7 million acre-feet of water for the 29 public water agencies that serve 27 million Californians.”15 V. The EIR Was Not Required to Analyze Social Impacts Associated with Loss of “Recreational” Value of Project Site
Section 3.12 of the EIR (Public Services and Recreation) analyzed two recreation-based impacts under CEQA. Specifically, the EIR analyzed whether the Project includes recreational facilities or will require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which could have an adverse impact on the environment (Draft EIR 3.12-16 to 3.12-17), and whether the Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

The EIR concludes that neither of these impact areas will be significant impact.

However, SHC claims the EIR’s analysis of recreation impact is deficient under CEQA because “it wholly ignores that the site is currently used for recreation, and that recreation site will be lost as a result of the Project.”16 Response #22 of th Staff Report correctly refutes this comment on the basis that the project site is privately owned, is therefore not a public recreation area, and accordingly that SHC’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. Response #22 is correct. Further, even if SHC’s unsupported claims were true (the private site is used for public recreation), the loss of that unpermitted public recreational use would be considered a social – not an environmental – impact. Lead agencies need not analyze social or economic impacts of a proposed project, but can consider social or economic impacts in determining whether a physical change in the environment is significant. SHC’s concern (public annoyance in finding a new place for recreational activities) is not a recognized CEQA impact. 14 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2023/Jan-23/Recent-Storms-Allow-State-Water-Project-to-IncreaseExpected-2023-Deliveries, attached hereto as Exhibit E. 15 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2023/March-23/Harnessing-Series-of-Winter-Storms-CaliforniaIncreases-State-Water-Project-Allocation attached hereto as Exhibit F. 16 SHC Comment Letter at 12.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

VI. The EIR Analyzed an Appropriate Range of Alternatives; the City is not Obligated to Consider Every Alternative Proposed by Commenters
WAC contends that the City committed a “failure of the CEQA process and an abuse of discretion” by failing to consider “a transfer of suplus waters in the Rector Reservoir equal to the extraction of Stonebridge,” something that WAC purportedly proposed to the City in January 2023. WAC further claims that this is the “environmentally preferable alternative” to, presumably, the Project. The City was under no legal obligation to analyze this suggested alternative, which resembles a water policy for the City to make as opposed to a particular alternative to this Project.

In addition to analyzing the environmental effects of a proposed project, EIRs must consider and analyze project alternatives that would reduce adverse environmental impacts. An EIR must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project ... which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project....” (Guidelines § 15126.6 (a).) However, CEQA does not require lead agencies to consider specific alternatives that are proposed by members of the public or other outside agencies. Nor does an EIR need to consider every conceivable alternative to a project or alternatives that are infeasible. The range of alternatives considered in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason.” Accordingly, an EIR is not required to analyze alternatives that cannot achieve a project’s basic objectives.

Here, the EIR analyzes four alternatives: (i) No Project/No Build Alternative, (ii) No Project/General Plan Alternative, (iii) Park Preserve Alternative, and (iv) Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative. The EIR also establishes eight (8) project objectives, only one of which concerned water supply. Project objectives include, but are not limited to, “provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types, including multi-family, single family, and accessory dwelling units, affordable to a range of incomes ….”; “provide opportunities to contribute to the provision of workforce and affordable housing consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) …’; “Support alternative transportation by providing a pedestrian and bicycle linkage through St.

Helena …” The sole project objective related to water supply is “[m]inimize City water use by continuing the use of an existing on-site water well for irrigation of Proposed Project landscaped areas.”
The alternative posed by WAC would accomplish none of the EIR’s stated project objectives.

Thus, City is not required to endorse or analyze such an alternative.

VII. The City’s Statement of Overriding Consideration Satisfies CEQA and Represents Sound Judgment on Behalf of the City’s Decisionmakers
SHC claim the City’s draft “statement of overriding consideration” included in the May 1, 2023 City Council Staff Report was deficient under CEQA.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 23, 2023

As a preliminary point, SHC attempts to write new requirements into CEQA statute. Nothing in CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines requires statements of overriding considerations to “explain in detail” how project benefits outweigh significant and unavoidable impacts, or “identify real, quantifiable benefits.” CEQA Guidelines sections 15093(b)-(c) provide that [w]hen the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. Statements of overriding considerations focus on the larger, more general reasons for approving a particular project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes, and the like. Their purpose is to demonstrate local decisionmakers’ weighing of the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks.

That is precisely what the City did when it prepared a draft statement of overriding considerations in the May 1, 2023 City Council Staff Report. The draft statement finds that each of the social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually outweigh the Project’s potential unavoidable adverse impacts.

In short, the Project’s provision of additional housing opportunities (including affordable housing) constitutes a laudable social and economic benefit supporting the statement of overriding consideration. While SHC may favor different policies other than those furthered by the Project, that does not render the City’s statement of overriding considerations legally deficient under CEQA.

Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Golub
Kevin J. Ashe
Holland & Knight LLP
cc: Maya DeRosa, AICP, Community Development Director
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
Department of Housing & Community Development
Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT A
DWR Bulletin 74, Part III, Section 21
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT B
Project Description
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT C
Staff Report and Presentation
February 14, 2023 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item #6.1.

Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 14 Feb 2023
Agenda Section: CONSENT ITEMS
Subject: Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution (1) Memorializing the Termination of the Phase II Water
Emergency in November 2021, effective December 2021; and (2) Confirmation of Staff's Proposal to Provide a
Recommendation for the Termination of the Phase I Water Emergency at a Council Meeting in July 2023.

CEQA
Determination:

Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Joseph Leach, Public Works Director and City Engineer Reviewed By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

BACKGROUND
In response to the 2011 Safe Water Yield Committee recommendations and the 2015 State-mandated conservation requirements, the St. Helena Municipal Code Section

13.04 address various mandated conservation requirements and criteria for declaring water emergency phases. Section 13.04.220 establishes that at any time that the City Council finds and determines a water shortage emergency condition exists within the criteria of Sections 13.04.230 through 13.04.250, and that it is necessary to limit usage by the customers of the municipal water department, the City Council shall adopt a resolution setting forth the applicable phase.

The criteria for establishing Phase I Water Regulations, as determined by the Safe Yield Committee in its report dated March 17, 2011, shall be any or all the following:

1. The supply/usage balance, as calculated at the beginning of the fiscal year, is in deficit;

2. The volume of water to be delivered by the City of Napa in any fiscal year will not exceed four hundred (400) AF;
Agenda Item #6.1.