St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

3. The volume of water anticipated to be available prior to the next November 1st, as determined by the Director of Public Works, is not sufficient to meet projected demand through November 1st without demand reduction measures being implemented; or

4. Conditions requiring the establishment of a Phase II water emergency, as determined by the Director of Public Works, appear to be imminent.

St. Helena Municipal Code Section 13.04.010 establishes that the City shall calculate the water supply/usage balance as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year.

The supply/usage balance is the difference between the safe annual yield of the City’s water supply and the total current usage with total current usage being the average usage over the last five fiscal years. The balance is positive, or in surplus, when the safe annual yield exceeds total current usage. The balance is negative, or in deficit, when the safe annual yield is less than total current usage.

As noted above, the 2011 Safe Yield Committee determined the Safe Yield was 1,950 acre-feet of water prior to the 200 acre-feet water increase from the City of Napa which was adopted in the December 2011 Water Agreement Amendment. This 2011 Amendment increased the City's allocation from 400 acre-feet to 600 acre-feet. The current Safe Yield of the City's Water Supply is 2,150 acre-feet.

The annual Water Shortage Emergency (WSE) is determined pursuant to the analytical methodology created by the Safe Yield Committee as identified in its report dated March 17, 2011. This calculation requires compilation and evaluation of multiple data sources including: annual and monthly production volumes for Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant, Stonebridge Wells and Napa Water; monthly Bell Canyon water levels; operational water in the distribution system; water loss; and delivery to the water enterprise customers. The result of this analysis is the annual water supply/usage balance which then dictates if a water shortage emergency exists.

On June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-72 declaring a Phase I Water Emergency. Then on October 27, 2020, the City declared a Phase II Water Emergency with the adoption of Resolution No. 2020-107. The Public Works Director subsequently terminated the Phase II Water Emergency in November 2021, effective December 2021; however, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a resolution declaring as such. The City has remained in a Phase I Water Emergency.

DISCUSSION
When the Phase I Water Emergency was adopted via Resolution 2020-72 on June 23, 2020, the Public Works Director presented criteria to the Council, conforming to the Safe Yield criteria and St. Helena Municipal Code, to support the declaration. Attachment 1 includes annual water demand trends for the past 12 fiscal years, combined water source production over the past 12 fiscal years, and a 17-year summary showing Bell Canyon capacity levels in May, November, and December.

Agenda Item #6.1.

The three tables below show the criteria utilized to determine the necessity to continue or rescind the Phase I Water Emergency.

Bell Canyon Reservoir Capacity
Month 2019 2020 2022 2023
November 57.0% 61.7%
December 71.7% 100.0%
May 62.9% TBD
Water Production Trend (Bell Canyon, Napa Intertie and Stonebridge Wells) Values in acre-feet; Fiscal Year 2022-23 is through January 2023 Source 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23*
Bell Canyon 765 601 379 322
Napa Water 592 487 393 328
Stonebridge
Wells
300 576 466 162
Totals 1,657 1,664 1,238 812
Water Demand Trend (i.e. Water Billed)
Values in acre-feet; Fiscal Year 2022-23 is through January 2023 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23*
Water Customers
Demand
1,488 1,372 1,032 645
Percent Loss (Audit) 85% 85% 85% 85%
Water Demand 1,751 1,614 1,214 759
It should also be noted that on January 26, 2023, the Department of Water Resources issued a letter to entities with State Water Contracts that their “Table A” water supply would be available to increase (Attachment 2).

Finally, the Monthly Water Report for January 2023 (to be included in the February 28, 2023 Council agenda) includes the graph of Projected Water Supply for Bell Canyon Reservoir (Attachment 1, page 6). 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. While this projection is an estimate, the termination of the Phase I Water Emergency should conform to the recommendation of the Safe Yield Report and SHMC, which would dictate an evaluation after the end of the FY2022-23 in July 2023, with an evaluation of the Bell Canyon Reservoir capacity level at the end of May 2023.

Based on this information presented staff recommendations Council adopt a resolution:

Agenda Item #6.1.

1. Memoralizing the termination of the Phase II water emergency in November 2021, effective December 2021; and

2. Confirming staff's recommendation to bring a water update to the Council in July 2023 to allow for an evaluation of the Bell Canyon Reservoir capacity level at the end of the FY 2022-23 to determine if the corresponding analysis warrants adoption of a resolution terminating the Phase I Water Emergency.

FISCAL IMPACT
The current water rate structure includes a drought period surcharge that begins once the City implemented the Phase I Water Regulations. Drought rates are only applied to use charges (i.e. does not affect service/“base” charges). Drought rates are 6% higher than non‐drought rates. It is undetermined the order of magnitude, if any, the loss of revenue to be realized by the City since customer water use may change once the restrictions are rescinded.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt the attached resolution.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Presentation COSH Water Update_021423
Attachment 2 - DWR ltr SWP Table A Water_012623
Attachment 3 - Resolution_021423
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
Attachment 1
By: Joe Leach, PE
Director of Public Works
Public Works Department February 14, 2023 1

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
• Fiscal Year
water demand
incl. 15%
“system loss”
• FY2022-23 data
thru Jan 31
Last Phase 1 Emergency, 06/2020
2

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
• Fiscal Year
water
production
• FY2022-23 data
thru Jan 31
Last Phase 1 Emergency, 06/2020
3

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
• Combined
Water Source
Production since
FY 2011-12
• FY2022-23 data
thru Jan 31
Last Phase 1 Emergency, 06/2020
4

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
Last Phase 1 Emergency, 06/2020
• Bell Canyon
Capacity in
May, November
and December
since 2006
• FY2022-23 data
thru Jan 31
5

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
• Bell Canyon
Reservoir
Monthly
storage
• Projected
sufficient
supply (1814
AF) beyond
June 2024
6

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
• Prior to 2007 no City of Napa water was available
• Post 2011, the City has an annual allocation of 600 acre-feet from the City of Napa with the option to purchase an additional 200 acre-feet per year. • The 2011 Safe Yield Report assumes limiting the Stonebridge Wells long term average of 450 acre-feet per year. Well usage has been averaging approximately 382 acrefeet/year for the last 5 fiscal years. • In spite of significant staff turnover during the last several years, Water Operations staff continues to equitably balance the supplies.
• Bell Canyon has a projected available capacity of 1814 acre-feet in June 2024, well above the 1431 acre-foot level when the Phase I Water Emergency was declared in June 2020.
• It is important to note that the City relies on total water volume availability from all water sources and not just water levels at Bell Canyon to meet system demand. 7

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
Director of Public Works Recommendations:
• Adopt Resolution to terminate the Phase II Water Emergency retroactive to November 2021.
• Adopt Resolution directing staff to provide Water Supply Update to Council at a meeting in July 2023 to determine if there is need to continue Phase I Water Emergency or if termination is warranted.
• Continue to conserve Bell Canyon Reservoir water by minimizing water treatment operations at Louis Stralla and utilizing Stonebridge Wells and City of Napa water allocation, adhere to recommendations adopted in the 2011 Safe Yield Report and provide monthly updates to City Council. • Alert City Council of any changes to the City’s water supply and/or drought restrictions that may be set by the State that would impact the existing Phase I Water Emergency in advance of any regularly scheduled City Council meeting. 8

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena Water Update
Questions?
9

Agenda Item #6.1.

State of California DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES California Natural Resources Agency

CALIFORNIA STATE WATER PROJECT
DWR 9625 (Rev. 3/12) Page 1 of 2

NOTICE TO STATE WATER PROJECT CONTRACTORS
Date: January 26, 2023
Number: 23-03
Subject: Increase of State Water Project 2023 Allocation to 30 Percent From: Original signed by
Ted Craddock
Deputy Director, State Water Project
Department of Water Resources
Due to extreme weather and a series of atmospheric rivers from late December 2022 through January 2023, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is increasing the State Water Project (SWP) allocation from 5 percent to 30 percent of most1 SWP contractors Maximum Annual Table A amounts.

Based on currently available information, the 30 percent Table A allocation should be sufficient to eliminate all contractors’ provisional human health and safety (HH&S) allocations identified in the Notice to State Water Project Contractors 22-04, Initial 2023 Allocation.

In determining available SWP supplies, DWR has considered several factors including SWP contractors’ projected 2023 demands, existing storage in SWP conservation facilities, estimates of future runoff, SWP operational and regulatory requirements from the federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act, and water rights obligations under the State Water Resources Control Board’s authority. DWR may revise the SWP allocation if warranted by the year’s developing hydrologic conditions and available SWP water supplies.

DWR will utilize the 30 percent schedules submitted by the Contractors in October 2022 (as part of initial requests), including any subsequent updates that may have been 1 Attachment A presents these allocations.

Agenda Item #6.1.

State of California DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES California Natural Resources Agency

CALIFORNIA STATE WATER PROJECT
DWR 9625 (Rev. 3/12) Page 2 of 2
provided to DWR. If a contractor foresees any changes to their water delivery schedule, please communicate such changes with DWR in a timely manner.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact John Leahigh, Assistant Division Manager, Water Management, SWP Division of Operations and Maintenance, at (916) 902-9876.

Attachment A: Updated 2023 SWP Allocation Table
Agenda Item #6.1.

Attachment A
2023 STATE WATER PROJECT ALLOCATION
Updated
1/26/23

SWP CONTRACTORS
~

TABLE A
(Acre-Feet)
(1)

TABLE A

INITIAL REQUEST
(Acre-Feet)
(2)

TABLE A

APPROVED

ALLOCATION
(Acre-Feet)
(3)

TABLE A

PERCENT INITIAL

REQUEST

APPROVED
(4) = (3)/(2)
FEATHER RIVER ~ ~ ~ ~
County of Butte
Plumas County FC&WCD
City of Yuba City
Subtotal
27,500
2,700
9,600
27,500
2,700
9,600
16,500
810
3,840
60%
30%
40%
39,800 39,800 21,150
NORTH BAY ~ ~ ~ ~
Napa County FC&WCD
Solano County WA
Subtotal
29,025
47,756
29,025
47,756
11,610
19,103
40%
40%
76,781 76,781 30,713
SOUTH BAY ~ ~ ~ ~
Alameda County FC&WCD, Zone 7
Alameda County WD
Santa Clara Valley WD
Subtotal
80,619
42,000
100,000
80,619
42,000
100,000
24,186
12,600
30,000
30%
30%
30%
222,619 222,619 66,786

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
Oak Flat WD
County of Kings
Dudley Ridge WD
Empire West Side ID
Kern County WA
Tulare Lake Basin WSD
~
5,700
9,305
41,350
3,000
982,730
87,471
~
5,700
9,305
41,350
3,000
982,730
87,471
~
1,710
2,792
12,405
900
294,819
26,242
~
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
Subtotal 1,129,556 1,129,556 338,868

CENTRAL COASTAL
San Luis Obispo County FC&WCD
Santa Barbara County FC&WCD
Subtotal
~ ~ ~ ~
25,000
45,486
25,000
45,486
7,500
13,646
30%
30%
70,486 70,486 21,146 ~

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Antelope Valley-East Kern WA
Santa Clarita Valley WA
Coachella Valley WD
Crestline-Lake Arrowhead WA
Desert WA
Littlerock Creek ID
Metropolitan WDSC
Mojave WA
Palmdale WD
San Bernardino Valley MWD
San Gabriel Valley MWD
San Gorgonio Pass WA
Ventura County WPD
Subtotal
~ ~ ~ ~
144,844
95,200
138,350
5,800
55,750
2,300
1,911,500
89,800
21,300
102,600
28,800
17,300
20,000
144,844
95,200
138,350
5,800
55,750
2,300
1,911,500
89,800
21,300
102,600
28,800
17,300
20,000
43,454
28,560
41,505
1,740
16,725
690
573,450
26,940
6,390
30,780
8,640
5,190
6,000
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
2,633,544 2,633,544 790,064 ~
TOTAL 4,172,786 4,172,786 1,268,727 30%
Agenda Item #6.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
Resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Helena to: (1) Memorialize the Termination of the Phase II Water Emergency in November 2021, Effective December 2021
and (2) Direct Staff to Provide a Recommendation
Related to the Termination of the Phase I Water
Emergency at a Council Meeting in July 2023
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2020-72 established a Phase I Water Emergency and Resolution 2020-107 established a Phase II Water Emergency; and WHEREAS, based upon criteria established by the City of St. Helena Safe Water Yield Committee and Municipal Code, the Public Works Director ended the Phase II Water Emergency in November 2021; and
WHEREAS, the available water supply appears to be sufficient for the foreseeable future but additional confirming analysis is recommended at the end of the 2022/23 Fiscal Year as delineated in the Safe Water Yield report and St. Helena Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council terminates the Phase II Water Emergency retroactive to November 2021, effective December 2021.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby requires staff to provide a presentation and recommendation related to the disposition of the Phase I Water Emergency at a Council meeting in July 2023 with the intent to either continue or terminate said conservation requirements.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on February 14, 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Paul Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: _____
Council Member Anna Chouteau: _____
Agenda Item #6.1.

Council Member Lester Hardy: _____
Council Member Billy Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT D
Napa County News
State of Local Emergency expires due to drought conditions (May 30, 2023)
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT E
DWR News Release (Jan. 26, 2023)
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT F
DWR News Release (Mar. 24, 2023)
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

From: W Thompson
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Hunter Subdivision
Date: Saturday, June 24, 2023 5:11:38 PM
As a resident of Vineyard Valley I have reviewed the EIS and believe it addresses the impact that this project is expected to have. The location of the project extends the city’s development boundaries and minimizes the impact of scattered development in St Helena. The project is adjacent to other mixed use areas of St Helena and therefore makes a good addition to the city.

I support the project development.

Sincerely,
Bill Thompson
[email protected]
33 Redondo Court
St Helena. CA 94574
Agenda Item #6.1.

St Helena City Council,
I believe that the Hunter parcel is a buildable parcel…with all the entitled rights that it has carried with it from the day the City participated in its creation as a viable City lot in a certain zoning designation. I believe it can, (and existing in a region with a housing shortage, should) be developed.

The Planning Commission and City Council and Citizens of St Helena are not entitled to an inspired project. But they are entitled/required even to receive and approve a project that can demonstrate that it meets the standards of our code. See below section from Code: C. 17.146.050 Residential development project-Inclusionary/in-lieu fee requirements:

I believe this is an inspired and valuable piece of our code that we should take pride in. It makes clear that in no way should required/more affordable units be segregated and instead requires that they be integrated. Creating and weaving into our urban fabric varied housing opportunities should be seen as a vital and beautiful facet of meeting our infrastructure obligations. I believe it is a piece of code designed to make critical workforce housing solutions most successful. The Planning Commission provided no legal findings or rationale or even discussion to make the case that approving this method/configuration of parcel map “furthered affordable housing opportunities”. On that point, I do not believe it should have been approved. With the approval of this version of a proposed/tentative parcel map there will exist no plausible way to craft “after the fact” an inclusive approach. It is that simple. I understand it is a challenge create attainable housing for all the sorts of working people that the City needs to be sustainable and to thrive; and I appreciate the amount of effort that has been engaged in by City staff, Dudek, the Developer and even Planning Commission and City Council.

However, I believe it is worth the additional effort to get this project properly configured so that it can be most productive.

I believe we (as planners, developers, and as a City) should welcome the development of this legal parcel…as we are obligated and I also believe we should make no excuses or apologies for also requiring it to be developed legally and appropriately to the standards set forth in our code.

I agree with the HCD letter in saying to not reduce the density. I appreciate their support for housing and I would welcome and wholly support a project that would be more dense, but critically also, more integrated, textured and varied as our Code instructs and more critically, REQUIRES. That collaborative approach would be more beneficial for the fabric of town as a whole and also would make a more successful project for the developer. As with any project, until it can be demonstrated that it meets the standard or code, I do not believe it should progress to its next step.

Thank you for your consideration,
Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #6.1.

From: Vineyard Valley MHP
To: Public Comment
Cc: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Billy Summers; Cindy Tzafopoulos Subject: [External] Hunter Subdivision Project
Date: Monday, June 26, 2023 12:10:07 PM
Good Evening
I am Greg Reynolds, 290 Pope Street St Helena. I am the managing partner for Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park.

There continues to be a myriad of concerns we have about the Hunter Project. As our residents have come to understand more about the project, topics of impact are significant and across the board, from levee access and levee maintenance to vista and privacy concerns the electorate here in VV is not happy.

There are so many mitigating circumstances raised in today's current environment around water, fire safety, emergency response, and traffic to name a few that your job as City Council members makes it all the more critical that evidence doesn't get ignored. You have a tough job you need to forecast where a project like this takes the citizens of Vineyard Valley and the greater City of St Helena.

I will focus just on three issues
· Emergency Evacuation (Saving Lives)
· Water specific to Sewer Discharge
· Traffic
Vineyard Valley is a Retirement Community 55 and older approximately 218 homes When everyone is home, the park is home to 350 people, many are retired seniors.

After the last 7 years and recent years with the Glass Fire We have spent more time each year focused on fire suppression, readiness, and safety. This year again primarily in neighborhood outreach, fuel suppression and resident evacuation in the event of an emergency.

After the devastating floods of 86 and 95 the park was transformed with a significant investment in the Flood Wall Project. The design and building of that project attempted to mitigate the flood plain realities with the Flood Wall, the levee and holding pond and pumps. The deployment of that significant investment did not include the construction referenced here.The Hunter Project was not part of that plan and the safety it proposed to deliver.

We are very concerned that a safe evacuation and access through the back of the park will disappear with this project. We are concerned that the construction will undermine the levee and overwhelm the Army Corp Strategy put in place to protect our 350 residents and their homes. To build behind a levee was not the intent of this strategy.

We are concerned about water as many have commented.

We will comment in writing specifically about wastewater flows and what appears to be a plan to connect a portion of the Hunter Project to Vineyard Valleys waste water discharge sewer.

This is a City sewer that is documented to have significant issues when it does rain. The majority of the Hunter Project single family homes 46 out of 51 will be connected to the VV Agenda Item #6.1.

sewer. We will be getting most of this sewer flow. Considering the multi-family units as well almost 75% of the total project discharge is directed our way, the VV sewer is already overtaxed, this will clearly drown this infrastructure. As in other parts of the City this is unacceptable and expensive as the City spends and documents every clean up situation.

The traffic data clearly demonstrates significant challenges for our senior contingent. In the FEIR It is clear from the table the Proposed Project Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies would result in a Project VMT to be 15.2 % higher than the City wide VMT per capita. Final EIR concludes and clearly states that the Proposed Project has a significant and unavoidable impact, then it is our opinion that the council has an obligation to the citizens of St Helena to protect their environmental integrity and vote to deny acceptance of this project.

Thank You
Greg Reynolds
Vineyard Valley residents in support of this letter:

Denise Leonetti, 7 Redondo Court
Claude and Chantal Leruitte, 48 Laguna Seca Court
Mara Rankin, 7 La Cuesta Court
Fred and Ann Camacho,18 Del Rio Court
Jim and Mary McTiernan, 15 Laguna Seca Court
John and Celia Rehnberg, 1 La Cuesta Court
Judy Greene, 20 Redondo Court
Kristi Lyn Matthews, 14 Redondo Court
Jean Martin, 5 San Juan Court
Linda Wall, 6 Del Campo Court
Greg and Denise Nelson, 59 Laguna Seca Court
Carl and Patricia Myers, 3 San Ardo Court
Darryl Myers, 3 San Ardo Court
Chris Echols, 11 Del Rio Court
Barbara and Tom Ringenberg, 9 Los Robles Court
David Armington, 6 Del Monte Court
Bill Savidge, 7 San Lucas Court
Madeline DeMarco, 5 Del Campo Court
Gary Crosman, 5 Del Campo Court
Kevin and Karen Bradley, 6 San Juan Court
Betsy Holzhauer, 17 Los Robles Court
Rodney and Elizabeth Green
Nora O’Neill, 37 Laguna Seca Court
Sherry Powell, 4 La Canada Court
Diana Lavagnino, 7 Los Robles Court
Barbara Yost, 19 Del Rio Cout
Katalin Kádár Lynn PhD, 12 Redondo Court
Will and Kathy Canum, 12 San Lucas Court
Cathy Small, 9 Del Monte Court
James Wayson and Marianne Sylva, 8 Del Rio Court
Anne Gridley, 6 Laguna Seca Court
James and Janeen Dirienzo, 10 Redondo Court
Dorothe Gingerelli, 50 Laguna Seca Court
Linda Titus, 38 Laguna Seca Court
Andree Bryan, 39 Laguna Seca Court
Vivian and Kenneth Robison, 35 Redondo Court
Agenda Item #6.1.

Nancy Batt, 24 San Lucas Court
Paul Piazza, 49 Laguna Seca Court
Lauretta Cecchino, 5 Los Robles Court
Marsha Maxcy, 31 Redondo Court
Wendy Strachan, 53 Laguna Seca Court
Bette Antor,3 Del Rio Court
Mary and John West, 3 Laguna Seca Court
Dennis and Mariam Hansen, 5 San Lucas Court
Bob Childs and Nancy Carlson, 2 La Canada Court
Roger Collins, 55 Laguna Seca Court
Henk and Joyce Brok, 15 Redondo Court
John and Jerri Patton, 15 San Juan Court
Jeff Bernys, 5 La Canada Court
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Joe McGrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 1:10 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos; Joe McGrath
Subject: [External] Submission for Hunter Project
Hi Cindy:

Can you submit this letter for tonight's meeting.

Thx,
Joe
********************************************************************************************* Mr. Mayor, Council, and Staff,
With the pending decision on the Hunter Project, the City now faces an important and fraught decision.  As the council considers this matter, it will likely come to the conclusion that it has "no choice" but to approve the pending application and tentative map, either facing the wrath of many concerned citizens or a  precarious legal challenge by the Developer.

However the decision goes, it is imperative that the City acknowledge that both current and prior administrations have painted the City into the corner it now finds itself with two administrative decisions. 1) Re‐zoning the parcel to MDR post funding the levee.

My father was flooded out twice in Vineyard Valley. The need to re‐engineer the river bed north or the Pope Street bridge was real.  In his article "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), Nicolas Printer has articulated a three-point sniff test to justify construction of a levee to protect floodplain infrastructure if it is:
a) concentrated
b) high in value
c) pre‐existing
The Vineyard Valley mobile home park satisfied all three elements of the sniff test, and as such, justified its construction.

While one can argue that Vineyard Valley should have never been built in that location, it existed at the time the decision was made to fund the levee.

The decision to effectively rezone agricultural land (soon to be protected by a levee) to Medium Density Residential effectively turned a defensive and justified levee into what Printer calls a "Field of Dreams" levee. "Build it and they will come". And while we assure ourselves that the levee is build to withstand a 200‐yr standard with a .5% annual chance of being breached, even today, the New York Times asserts that the rainfall averages that have established these criteria are woefully outdated to a calmer climatic (ie pre climate change) history.

By zoning the land MDR, the City granted entitlement rights to the Developer in a high‐risk area. 2) Housing Element
Agenda Item #6.1.

2 The purpose of the Housing Element (HE) and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocations as legislated and regulated by the State of California is an attempt to equitably distribute the anticipated population growth of California to all the Counties and Municipalities of the State. The HE process however does not greatly distinguish the unique challenges of every community in California. In the case of St. Helena and other desirable second home communities, the Housing Element and RHNA processes severely miss the objective in the allocation of target numbers for the "above moderate" (ie. > 120% AMI) or "market rate" category of housing. In many communities of California, a new single family subdivision serving "market rate" would solve both workforce housing needs and RHNA  goals. In St.

Helena this is just not so. Placing goals on St. Helena to build more market rate housing without capping Average Median Income (AMI) restrictions regarding the  market rate development (eg.  200%, 300%...??) serves little purpose other than to open St. Helena up  for speculative development for more second homes. Surely that argument should be made to the State of California in our HE submission?
So now the State is arguing on behalf of speculative developers to build more second homes in our community that will do little to help the workforce housing shortage.

Moving Forward
While the City is now painted in a corner, it still has options. And it still has leverage. Due to the EIR's "unmitigated significant impact" regarding traffic, the City must make a statement of overriding consideration due to the sufficient benefit of the project to the community. The City should use this leverage to extract benefits beyond property tax receipts.

It seems at minimum that the City should trade a quantity of AMI deed‐restricted single‐family (SF)  homes integrated into the Single Family portion of the project for a quantity of deed‐restricted units in the Affordable Multi‐family portion of the project.  The deed‐restricted SF homes could perhaps be smaller parcels with smaller homes, and, or perhaps deed‐restricted beyond the 120% AMI cap that defines "affordable".  An effort such as this would at least make steps toward creating a more vibrant and integrated community that makes a small contribution toward the workforce housing shortage.

And perhaps we could thread the needle between community wrath and ongoing legal challenges.

At minimum, we should all reflect on past decisions and current policy that have shaped this predicament.

Joe McGrath
Agenda Item #6.1.

TO: City Council
FROM: Sandra McCorkle
I am writing to support the statement submitted by Josh Devore on behalf of St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future. I hope that the Council will carefully consider the statement of Overriding Considerations they are asked to adopt.

As Mr. Devore stated, the Project has no stated benefits and as a result the City has no basis for adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. There is no evidence in the record as to any benefits for the City resulting from the Project. 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.” 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.” The most recent Staff Report concedes that “there are no direct fiscal impacts to the General 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.

Thank you. Sandra McCorkle
1178 Meadowcreek Circle

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]; Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] Public comment for tonight"s meeting - June 26, 2023 Date: Monday, June 26, 2023 12:26:22 PM
Importance: High
Submittal for Public Comment to tonight’s City Council Special Meeting – June 26, 2023 – New Business item 6.1 – proposed Hunter/VanZuphten project tentative map Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to request the City Council, in keeping with your public pledge to operate in a transparent and informative manner, ensure that all questions during the Public Comment at the Hunter project City meeting tonight, be noted by the City Clerk and answered by City Staff or Council prior to the discussion and final vote taken.

As often heard by a frustrated St Helena public, the questions posed by residents during the Public Comment period are often not answered by the Council and City Staff prior to the Council vote.

While many of us realize that Council comments during that period are limited to allow the public uninterrupted time, the questions posed by your constituency should not go unanswered before a vote is taken, so we understand fully what the council is committing the taxpayers to. We voted you in to office to represent us in decisions that affect us, and we need to know how you resolve the public’s questions in your vote of yes or no. As you are well aware, the decision tonight is one that impacts all St Helena residents, and as you have seen over a decade of opposition, including over 1,000 signatures recently gathered to oppose the project, there needs to be clear and full answers provided before our elected officials vote on something that your constituency so widely and strongly opposes.

I will include my questions here, to ensure that they are included in the meeting and answers are provided to the residents of St Helena before the vote.

1. What is the evacuation route for residents in, and near, the Hunter/VanZuphten project in the event of a flood or levee failure? (Note: This is not a question about fire evacuation.) a. Please supply the basic information regarding: What is the projected timing of a levee failure evacuation? What were the numbers used for the number of people and number of cars to safely evacuate? Who did the evacuation modeling? Where can the Public find this report?
b. What is the flood evacuation route and projected timing specifically for the senior community of Vineyard Valley residents to safely evacuate, since they are situated downriver at lower elevations than the Hunter project housing?

2. In CA State Assembly Bill 1898, the City of St Helena agreed to indemnify the State of California for any damages resulting from the levee project. Is the city of St Helena liable for damages caused by levee malfunction or failure? If not, who is responsible for the liability? If St Helena is not liable, does the City have that in writing? Where can the public access that Agenda Item #6.1.

information so we are clear about our liability?

3. Did the project’s EIR include the allowable Density Bonus and legal ADU (accessory dwelling units) impacts such as water use, surface permeability and stormwater drainage, traffic, fire and flood evacuation timing, etc? (ADU’s legally allowed in the remaining 46 housing lots i.e., of the 57 housing lots, 11 will have an ADU, so there are 46 home lots that can also build ADU’s. If not, will there be another EIR since these additional impact may have made the project non-mitigatable in numerous ways if it had been included in the initial EIR as Dudek stated clearly in the Public Meeting at the St Helena firehouse on October 22, 2016, which was recorded.

4. What studies have been done to evaluate the impact of the use of the well on the project site specifically because the pre-existing vineyard covering the project site was NEVER irrigated.

There is no historic data for how that well will function and how it will impact the Napa River and the City water supply form the Stonebridge wells. Please provide the public information/report that evaluated that well’s impacts on:
a. The Napa River
b. The City water supply form the Stonebridge wells?
Thank you for your service, and for your commitment to ensuring that the City Council and Staff provide complete and transparent information to the St Helena public.

Ann Nevero
St Helena resident
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 26, 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: Response to Further Late Comments – 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”).
1 We write to respond to yet another last-minute letter from opponents of the Project,2 which urges
the City to violate both state housing law and the commitments made in its General Plan, as amended by its recently-adopted Housing Element. At the outset, we note that while the letter specifically purports to respond “to the applicant’s counsel’s May 1 letter [and] to points raised at the May 1, 2023 City Council meeting,” it was not provided until Friday, June 23, nearly eight weeks after those events. Aside from being discourteous to City staff, “late hit” letters raising CEQA issues are highly disfavored by the judiciary. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568 (“We cannot, of course, overemphasize our disapproval of the tactic of withholding objections, which could have been raised earlier in the environmental 1 We would like to take the opportunity to clarify a discrepancy in our prior letter, dated June 23, 2023. At Page 3, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1, the letter should have referred to “water sources serving the City, including the Bell Canyon Reservoir,” and at Page 4, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, should have said that “water levels have increased at the Bell Canyon Reservoir in 2023,” but due to an editing error the term “groundwater” rather than “water” was used. 2 Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, “Hunter Subdivision Project, File #PL10-040” (June 23, 2023).

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

review process, solely for the purpose of obstruction and delay.”). We note that the Council continued the prior meeting purportedly for the purpose of allowing staff sufficient time to respond to the opponents’ last round of objections. It is clear that there will be no end to these types of comments until the Council makes it decision, and this pattern gives rise to a strong inference that these perpetual comment letters are sent for the purpose of delay. It is for these reasons that the Legislature in the Housing Crisis Act has enacted a “five hearing limit” which requires a final vote at the upcoming hearing.

In any event, the letter fails on substance as well as timing, for the reasons that follow.

1. The City’s Discretion With Respect to Project Approval Is Heavily Constrained, and the City Cannot Feasibly Achieve Housing Element Compliance Without the Project.

As set forth in the Applicant Team’s June 23, 2023 correspondence regarding the Project, the City’s obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and Housing Element Law weigh strongly in favor of approving the Project. First, the City’s discretion to disapprove the Project is heavily constrained, requiring 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 project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.”3 Second, under
Housing Element Law, the Project’s 87 units supply roughly a third of the City’s total 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). 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”). To this end, HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit provided a Letter of Support and Technical Assistance to the City (“HAU Technical Assistance Letter”), reminding 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 the opportunity to assist the City in meeting its statutory obligations in the decision-making process.”4 The June 23, 2023 correspondence from Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future (“CSF”) begins by encouraging the City to disregard the City’s legal obligations. Contrary to CSF’s assertions, the City cannot jettison one-third of its entire 6th Cycle RHNA obligation and expect to be entitled to have its Housing Element certified – and the staff report and HCD guidance have well advised the City of the consequences of remaining out of Housing Element 3 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). 4 HAU Technical Assistance Letter at 2.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

compliance.
5 As we have detailed to HCD on several prior occasions, the Project is the only concrete proposal of any magnitude that appears in the City’s Housing Element site inventory.6 Nearly all of the remaining projections are speculative, and many are particularly unlikely in view of existing uses that show no indication of ceasing during the 6th Cycle. For this reason, the “alternative” referenced by CSF – the supposed “surplus capacity” identified in the City’s Housing Element – is no alternative at all. Those projections have not been accepted as satisfactory by HCD, which has twice rejected the City’s draft Housing Element to date. Yet CSF proposes that the City discard the only concrete development proposal on the horizon, in spite of the fact that it is zoning-compliant.

For the same reason, CSF’s comment that the Project “will not be helpful to the State’s housing crisis,” but will instead “take away an opportunity for a more inclusive, affordable, and better housing opportunity for the City” is misguided. Again, employing a classic NIMBY tactic, CSF proposes that the City disregard a real, concrete proposal in favor of an imaginary one. No such “more inclusive, affordable, better” proposal exists. The Project, which will comply with the City’s inclusionary ordinance and therefore contribute significantly to affordable housing, 7 does
exist. Nor does CSF explain why the imaginary “more inclusive, affordable, better” project it has conjured up will avoid the alleged CEQA impacts that it purports to identify elsewhere in the letter and which it claims makes the Project site entirely inappropriate for housing.

Nor has HCD taken the position that “all housing is good” – but the State Legislature and executive branch have certainly taken the position that “building no housing is bad.” Under Housing Element Law, all jurisdictions must build some housing, and HCD has advised cities that these statutory requirements will actually be enforced in the 6th Cycle. Under these laws, a city is not entitled to decide whether it will allow any housing to be built within its borders, but it has broad discretion to decide where it is built. And in exercising this discretion, the City zoned and planned the Project Site for housing, and then elected to adopt a Housing Element that places 5 If the City were to disapprove the Project as CSF suggests, then the Applicant Team – as well as other developers in the City – would be entitled to submit a “Builder’s Remedy” application for a different, more intense project on this property that would not be required to conform the City’s zoning and General Plan. The Applicant Team would prefer to avoid this outcome and simply develop a medium-density residential development project consistent with the City’s zoning, which is what it has proposed to do for more than a decade 6 Attached as Exhibits A and B are the Applicant Team’s November 28, 2022 correspondence to HCD detailing inadequacies with the City’s initial draft Housing Element, and HCD’s December 6, 2022 correspondence to the City confirming that the initial draft Housing Element failed to substantially comply with state law. Attached as Exhibits C and D are the Applicant Team’s March 9, 2023 correspondence to HCD detailing inadequacies with the City’s subsequent draft Housing Element, and HCD’s April 7, 2023 correspondence to the City confirming that the subsequent draft Housing Element failed to substantially comply with state law. Attached as Exhibit E is the City’s Adopted Housing Element. As it recognizes, the City has failed for years to meet is legal requirements to permit sufficient housing to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. 7 Although there are multiple pathways to comply with the City’s inclusionary ordinance, the default pathway, set forth in Chapter 17.146 of the City’s Municipal Code, is to ensure that 20% of all new dwelling units are affordable, at income levels commensurate with the City’s outstanding RHNA share. In any event, the Project will meet or exceed the requirements for low- or moderate-income housing as set forth in Section 65915 of the Government Code..

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

87 units – the Project’s 87 units – on the Hunter Subdivision site, and specifically committed to streamlining all remaining approvals for the Project by 2025. Those commitments are meaningful, both under Housing Element Law and because they are now incorporated into the City’s General Plan.8 So, contrary to CSF’s statements, Housing Element Law is deeply relevant to this determination. Moreover, to disapprove the Project now, while HCD’s review of the adopted Housing Element is still pending, would loudly communicate that the City has no intention of upholding any of the commitments set forth therein.

2. The City’s Discretion With Respect to Project Approval Is Heavily Constrained, and the City Cannot Feasibly Achieve Housing Element Compliance Without the Project.

Next, the CSF letter posits that the City has failed to identify any benefits of the Project. Again, they are incorrect. As discussed in the Applicant Team’s June 23, 2023 correspondence, the considerations previously identified in the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations are more than sufficient on their own:

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.

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.9 These are not mere platitudes, as CSF contends. The City does need additional housing and affordable housing. The Project supplies that. The City does have a jobs-to-housing imbalance.

The Project will help address that. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan (and 8 CSF was conspicuously absent from the Planning Commission and City Council debates concerning the Housing Element. If CSF did not want the Project built, it had ample opportunity to raise those concerns before the City repeatedly told HCD that it would put 87 units on the Hunter Subdivision site and then amended its General Plan to write those commitments into law.
9 Report to the City Council (May 1, 2023 Hearing), at 13.

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

indeed, with the adoption of the Housing Element, Project approval is required by the City’s General Plan). The Project will help reduce VMT impacts by correcting the jobs-to-housing imbalance. The Project will supply the City with development fees. And the Project will provide the extensions of Starr Avenue and Adams Street. Anyone who regards these contributions as only “general platitudes” should consider paying for them.

Moreover, the Applicant Team has already provided several additional public and community benefits. 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-yetunreciprocated 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. “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.’” 10 So, CSF is incorrect that the City’s compliance with the HAA is “not a benefit.”11

3. The Record Does Not Support Denial of the Project Under the HAA.

Next, CSF argues that the City should deny the Project under the very narrow ground to disapprove certain HAA-protected projects if they are able to make 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 the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households … .”12 CSF wrongly asserts that the Project presents such an impact because it is in CSF’s opinion near to land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. This rationale does not come close to justifying a finding under the HAA – a fact that is underscored by additional statutory text designed to curtail bad faith, NIMBY reliance on this provision to block all housing. 10 See Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 733 (citing Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081, subds. (a)(3), (b), 21002.1, subd. (b); CEQA Guidelines § 15364). 11 The City’s decision to follow the law would also have the effect of avoiding expenditure of public funds on legal fees – another public benefit.
12 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2); see also (j).

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

First, the statute itself elaborates that, as “used in this paragraph, a ‘specific, adverse impact’ means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”13 CSF conveniently admits this language. Presumably, that is because it is unable to identify any objective written public health or safety standard, policy, or condition that identifies being “near” a fire zone as a specific, adverse impact. (Contrary to CSF’s contentions, the nearest fire hazard area is not “adjacent” to the Project in any reasonable sense.) Nor does CSF present any evidence that the impact it alleges is “quantifiable.” Nor does CSF present any evidence that the impact it alleges is “unavoidable.” Moreover, and critically, there is no evidence that the impact identified by CSF is “specific” to the Project. To the contrary, the large majority of Napa County is designated as a fire hazard severity zone. If merely being “near” such land were sufficient to create a “specific, adverse impact,” then all of Napa County would functionally be exempt from state housing law. To the contrary, forecasting the potential mischief that could be caused by abuse of this law, the Legislature specifically provides in the HAA 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.”14 A condition that would apply to most of Napa County is, of course, not one that can be said to “arise infrequently.”

4. The City’s Staff Report and Applicant’s Letters Have Refuted All of CSF’s Groundwater Comments
CSF repeats what has now become a tired argument: the on-site groundwater well at the Project is “legally abandoned,” and thus the Project (and EIR) cannot rely on it for on-site landscaping irrigation needs, despite it being perfectly capable of providing water in that capacity. Both City Staff and Applicant have responded to this contention ad nauseam. See, e.g., Staff Report at Section 6 (Status of the Onsite Well); id. at Attachment 5, Responses 1 and 2; Applicant’s May 1, 2023 Letter re Hunter Subdivision Project at 9-10; Applicant’s June 23, 2023 Letter re CEQA Issues at 2-3. As stated multiple times, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the on-site well is not legally abandoned, but is fully capable of providing 17.16 acre feet per year (“AFY”) for public and private landscaping.

CSF also repeats an assertion that the on-site well is subject to new Napa County Well Permit Standards. The Staff Report correctly notes:
“The existing well on project site, which was originally permitted in 1976, remains operable (the well was once referenced in the EIR as “inoperable” because it was not in use at the time, but it was subsequently verified in the 2021 test of the well to be operable and capable of meeting projected needs). Because the well has an existing permit that, to 13 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2).
14 Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3).

Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

the City’s current knowledge, does not require modification, and because no increase in well use over historic levels is proposed, the evidence before the City does not suggest that a new well permit is required by Napa County. Giving this, the pumping limitations cited in the comment (which affect only new wells, or modified wells with new permits) would not apply.”15
CSF claims there is no evidence that the City coordinated with Napa County. In fact, the City released a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) on March 6, 2018 through April 9, 2018, and held a public scoping meeting on March 12, 2018. State and local agencies (including Napa County) were invited to the scoping meeting and provided with a copy of the NOP. In fact, on March 7, 2018, the Napa County Public Works Department submitted such a comment on the NOP. The City provided the County (as well as other state and local agencies) with the full ability to comment on the NOP (and its acknowledgment that the Project would rely on on-site water), and the Draft EIR’s analysis of the on-site water well. Nothing more was required under CEQA.

5. There is No Legal or Practical Reason to Recirculate the EIR Unfortunately but not surprisingly, CSF now requests that the City recirculate the EIR – after 11 years of public review - for additional public comment. Specifically, CSF contends recirculation is warranted due to what it calls “substantial” revisions to the “water baseline and groundwater/well analysis,” and it also demands that recirculation is required merely because the City has confirmed that the levee maintenance road CSF contends is inadequate is not necessary to serve as an emergency access route. Neither of these “changes” justify recirculation and additional public comment under CEQA.

Under CEQA, if a lead agency adds “significant new information” to an EIR after the close of public comment but before it is certified, it must recirculate the EIR for a new round of public comment.16 New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless it changes the EIR in which a way that “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment” on a significant environmental impact or a mitigation measure that the project proponent has declined to implement. a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.”17 The CEQA Guidelines describe the types of “significant new information” requiring recirculation, including disclosure of “[a] new significant environmental impact,” “[a] substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,” and the addition of a “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed.”18 15 See, Staff Report, Attachment 5, Response #2.
16 Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1
17 Id.
18 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088.5(a)(1)-(3).)
Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

Recirculation is not required simply because new information is added or deleted to an EIR, and courts have recognized that recirculation is intended to be an exception, not the general rule.19 Here, the only revisions that the Final EIR makes pertaining to the on-site groundwater well are non-technical edits to clarify the non-operating status of the well. See, FEIR at 3-3 (“However, since the well is currently not currently in operation it is likely that if the vineyard is not currently receiving artificial irrigation”); id. (“There is an existing well on the Project site that is presently not in operation (see Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality for more information on the existing well and groundwater resources). These are not “substantial,” as CSF claims.

The FEIR’s revisions to the on-site groundwater well do not introduce a new or substantially more severe environmental impact, alternative or mitigation measure. Nor have the baseline conditions changed pertaining to the EIR’s water supply analysis.

With respect to the levee maintenance road, no significant change has been made to the Project – and the change that has been made should be welcomed by residents of Vineyard Valley. The Staff Report includes a June 6, 2023 Letter from the St. Helena Fire Department, who has determined that reliance upon a proposed emergency vehicle access (“EVA”) connecting the Project to the levee road is not required because the Project provides adequate egress and emergency vehicle access without relying upon the levee road. The Fire Department’s letter does not undermine or conflict with the EIR’s conclusion that the Project will not cause a significant hazard risk; if anything, it bolsters that conclusion. CSF incorrectly assumes that the deletion of COA 69 (EVA: From Street A to levee) is a “substantial change” to the Project. This is incorrect, and neither City nor Applicant are proposing a substantial reconfiguration, design, or different spatial placement of the Project or any component thereof. It was CSF who argued that the levee road was inadequate by contending that the road failed to meet certain road standards. (In fact, the road standards CSF cited only applied to roads relied upon for fire apparatus access and there is no reason to believe the road is inadequate for emergency evacuation.) But to avoid any argument, and to be responsive to the issues CSF raised, the City has apparently reviewed whether the roads other than the levee road are sufficient to provide evacuation and emegency access. And as the Fire Department noted in its letter, the levee road has now been designated as an evacuation route for tenants of Vineyard Valley and so removing it as an EVA for the Hunter Subdivision should only be helpful in ensuring that Vineyard Valley tenants have sufficient evacuation routes. Now, the only “change” proposed is that the Fire Department has confirmed that the levee road need not not be relied upon for emergency access and evacuation purposes because there are sufficient other roads providing adequate emergency access and that in fact the future Hunter subdivision residents have better egress via Roads A & B and. Now, CSF seeks to use the City’s efforts to resolve CSF’s concerns against the City. But this is not a significant “change” in the Project or the circumstances, and does not warrant recirculation under CEQA. 19 South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316 Agenda Item #6.1.

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

6. Conclusion
The Applicant team respectfully requests approval of the Project.

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

EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item #6.1.

50 California Street, Suite 2800 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Daniel R. Golub
415-743-6900
[email protected]
November 28, 2022
Jamillah Williams
Melinda Coy
Department of Housing & Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
VIA EMAIL ([email protected]; [email protected]) RE: City of St. Helena, Initial Draft Housing Element
Dear Ms. Williams and Ms. Coy:

We understand that you are in the process of reviewing the City of St. Helena’s initial draft Housing Element, submitted to HCD on September 7, 2022. As you know, our West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law practice group focuses specifically on enforcing recently reformed provisions of state housing law, and in particular Housing Element Law. We have been engaged to represent Dennis Hunter in connection with the Hunter Subdivision project located North of Hunt Avenue (APN 009-030-057) (the “Project” or “Hunter Subdivision Project”). As proposed, the Project consists of 51 single-family residences (11 of which will feature accessory dwelling units), as well as a 25-unit affordable multifamily development with 5 very low income and 20 moderate income units. We submit these comments in response to the City’s initial draft Housing Element, which makes several commitments and representations regarding the Project.

To meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) responsibilities, the draft Housing Element would rely on the one hand upon a Project that the City has failed to bring up for a vote for 12 years, and on the other hand on a set of sites where any development is speculative at best and unlikely at worst. Neither of these bases provide an adequate foundation for the City’s compliance with its legal obligations to accommodate its fair share of the regional housing need.

The draft Housing Element depends on the Hunter Subdivision Project to produce a substantial number of the units that the City is counting on to meet its RHNA responsibilities. Remarkably, however, the draft housing element fails to disclose that the Project application has been has been pending since 2010, when the Project applicants first applied to subdivide the parcel, and that there is still, at this time, no commitment by the City to complete the required CEQA review and actually vote to approve the Project by any date certain. The Project application was Agenda Item #6.1.

accepted as complete in early 2011. For the next six years (2011-2017), the City conducted a CEQA analysis, only to abandon that analysis at the last minute, purportedly because the relevant consultant resigned. The City engaged a new consultant in 2018, but rather than simply completing the EIR begun in 2011, it elected to start over with a second EIR. Now, four years later, it is entirely unclear that the City is committed to concluding the CEQA process and moving the Project forward. Most recently, at a November 1, 2022 meeting, the St. Helena Planning Commission was scheduled to conduct a hearing on, and vote to recommend certification of, the Final EIR for the Project. At this hearing, the Commission voted unanimously (at staff’s recommendation) to continue the item “to a date uncertain in 2023.” In short, the City has repeatedly demonstrated its intent to forestall ever voting to approve the Project, and to otherwise frustrate the Project from proceeding, a pattern which continues to this day.

In view of this, it is astonishing that the Project features heavily in the City’s plans for accommodating its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation, as set forth in the draft Housing Element.

Specifically, the draft Housing Element uncritically includes as among the housing units it can be counted on to approve within the next cycle “87 units that are pending planning/entitlement approval under the Hunter Subdivision project[,]” an amount representing a significant portion of St. Helena’s total RHNA allocation (254 total units, with 162 low-income units, 26 moderateincome units, and 66 above-moderate units).1 In light of the Project’s history, the draft Housing
Element’s assertion that these units will be developed within the 6th Cycle is questionable at best. The City’s Housing Element should not be allowed to count housing units that the City has failed to actually vote to approve over the past 12 years, unless the certification of the Housing Element is contingent upon a firm schedule to actually vote on the Project.

The applicants were equally surprised to learn that the City has listed all 87 units as market rate units, despite the fact that the Project application clearly proposes that 25 of those units be affordable at below market rates to lower income and moderate income households.

Specifically, the draft Housing Element states: “While the Hunter Subdivision project is proposing approximately 25 affordable units, because the affordable agreements are not in place at the time of Housing Element, all unit credits were assumed to be above moderate.”2 To be clear, there is no serious dispute that the Project applicants intend to develop these 25 units as affordable housing. The applicants submitted a proposed Affordable Housing Agreement in 2019, although it has yet to be approved by the City Council. It is extremely rare, if not impossible, for a project to have “affordable housing agreements . . . in place” before project approvals, since such agreements are almost always recorded after project approvals take place.

If having a recorded affordable housing agreement in place is a prerequisite to counting units towards a City’s affordable housing RHNA targets, then few, if any, of the City’s sites can be counted on to produce affordable units.

1 St. Helena, “City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Public Review Draft” (June 2022), at 2-153, 1-7 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_Housing_Element_2022_06_29_RLc_Web.pdf). 2 St. Helena, “City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Public Review Draft” (June 2022), at 2-153- 154 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_Housing_Element_2022_06_29_RLc_Web.pdf).

Agenda Item #6.1.

The Project’s proposed 25 affordable units are far more concrete than many other affordable units that the City has projected in its sites inventory. For instance, the City projects that 57 affordable units (all low- or very low-income) will be developed across three City-owned sites (6 units at 1480 Main St., 20 units at 1572 Railroad Ave., and 31 units at Adams St.).3 These projections are, frankly, fanciful. Because commercial use is a primary use at 1480 Main St., the 6 affordable units at that site cannot be completed until commercial structures are developed, which in turn requires the demolition of an existing building. The same goes for the 31 affordable units projected for Adams St., where “residential uses are permitted on upper stories [i.e., above ground floor commercial uses] within the Central Business district.” The ground floor commercial uses that must first be developed do not exist, and the City’s analysis indicates that the parcel is currently leased to a vineyard, with no indication of the lease’s expiration date.

The 20 units projected for 1572 Railroad Ave., meanwhile, cannot be completed until active uses at the site (currently City Hall) cease and those buildings are demolished. Beyond the practical constraints associated with developing these units on sites with active uses, the City makes no effort to identify funding sources for any of these projections. And of course, no affordability agreements are in place for these 57 units, despite the fact that the City’s draft refuses to count the Project’s 25 affordable units for precisely that reason.

The same issues plague the City’s affordable (and market rate) unit projections for privately owned sites.4
The 20 affordable units projected at 821 Pope St. would replace a single-family residence, but the City gives no indication that that owner is willing to sell. The same is true for the 24 affordable and 24 market rate units projected for 1447 and 1515 Spring St., parcels that are similarly occupied by single-family residences with no apparent plans to sell. And while the City has indicated owner interest in developing 882 and 886 College Ave. (currently vacant) and Spring St. (currently a vineyard), there is no basis for accepting the City’s conclusions that development will occur at anywhere near the scale projected (30 units and 88 units respectively).

Here again, there is no affordability agreement in place for any of these projected affordable units. None of these sites even have active project applications, to say nothing of being near ready for final approval (as the Project is).

In view of these deficiencies in the City’s other identified sites, the City needs the Project’s 87 units in order to realistically accommodate its RHNA allocation. It is therefore particularly important that timely action on Project approval be a condition of counting the Project as part of the City’s plan to comply with Housing Element Law. In view of the City’s past (and ongoing) approach to the Project, and the size of the Project in relation to the City’s total RHNA allocation, we respectfully submit that the City’s Housing Element cannot be found substantially compliant with state law until at least the following actions are taken:
• First, the City should amend its draft Housing Element to provide commitments to ensure that the Project is actually developed in the 6th Cycle timeframe. The Housing Element

3 St. Helena, “City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Public Review Draft” (June 2022), at 2-156- 158 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_Housing_Element_2022_06_29_RLc_Web.pdf). 4 See St. Helena, “City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Public Review Draft” (June 2022), at 2- 161-170 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_Housing_Element_2022_06_29_RLc_Web.pdf).

Agenda Item #6.1.

statute provides that identified sites can only count for “the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site.”5 As such, HCD routinely requires draft Housing Elements relying on “pipeline” units to demonstrate that those units are actually likely to be built during the relevant period, and where necessary to “include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects[.]”6 This approach is appropriate here, given the City’s past course of conduct and the large share of the City’s RHNA allocation that the Project represents.

Specifically, the revised Housing Element should commit to holding a final vote on the Project EIR, and all other approvals necessary to commence development, in the first six months of 2023. Certification of the Housing Element should be contingent upon these actions being promptly taken within that timeframe.
• Second, the City should amend its draft Housing Element to address the Project’s decadeplus CEQA process as a governmental constraint. Housing Elements must contain both an analysis of “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels” and a schedule of actions that “[a]ddress and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove” such constraints.7 Given that the Project application was submitted in 2010, the City’s subsequent approach to the Project plainly reflects actual government constraints on the development of housing. And while the current draft Housing Element addresses the City’s land-use controls as government constraints generally,8
it makes no mention of the extraordinary
CEQA-related delays that have stalled the Project for more than a decade. The revised Housing Element should analyze the City’s CEQA practices as a constraint to housing, and further commit to mitigating that constraint.
• Third, the City should amend its sites inventory to correctly indicate that 25 of the Project’s 87 units will be affordable. HCD requires that sites inventories “specify whether the site or a portion of the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing.”9 The Project’s
25 moderate and low income units will not be available at market rates, and the City cannot use them to accommodate its market rate RHNA allocation. It must instead plan

5 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.2(c). See also Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(2) (inventory projections must take into account “the realistic development capacity for the site”). 6 HCD, “RE: City of Moorpark’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element” (May 9, 2022), at 5 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/venmoorparkdraftout050922.pdf). See also HCD, “RE: San Francisco’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element (Aug. 8, 2022) at 5 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sfrsanfranciscodraftout080822.pdf) (“[G]iven the element’s reliance on pipeline projects, the element must include programs with actions that commit to facilitating development and monitoring approvals of the projects … with a commitment to alternative actions … if assumptions are not realized.”). 7 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(5); (c)(3). 8 St. Helena, “City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Public Review Draft” (June 2022), at 2-129 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_Housing_Element_2022_06_29_RLc_Web.pdf). 9 HCD, “Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook” (May 2020), at 9 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf).

Agenda Item #6.1.

for market rate units elsewhere, to the extent necessary to meet its market rate RHNA allocation.
• Finally, in light of the highly speculative assumptions the City has made about the sites other than the Project site in the draft Housing Element inventory, the City must adopt a more reasonable and conservative projection about the number of housing units that can realistically be projected to occur on the sites in the next planning period.

As such, we request that HCD find that the draft Housing Element will not be found in substantial compliance with state law unless these amendments to the Housing Element are implemented. We further request that HCD inform the City that further obstruction of the Project will result in the decertification of its Housing Element. This approach is appropriate and sadly necessary in view of the City’s demonstrated history of frustrating housing, including affordable housing.

Should HCD require further information with respect to the Project or the City’s actions with respect thereto, we are happy to provide it.

Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Golub
William Sterling
West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law Practice Group
Holland & Knight LLP
Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT B
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
December 6, 2022
Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director
Planning Department
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear Maya DeRosa:

RE: City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of St. Helena’s (City) draft housing element received for review on October 5, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Holland & Knight, Generation Housing, and Nancy Dervin pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly Agenda Item #6.1.

Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director

available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 December 6, 2022

APPENDIX
CITY OF ST. HELENA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Enforcement: While the element includes analysis of fair housing complaints, it must describe the City’s compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations. For additional information, please see pages 28-30 on HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/index.shtml.

Concentration of Fair Housing Issues: The assessment of fair housing (AFH) demonstrated that there is a concentration of several fair housing issues within the east and southeast quadrant of the City. For example, this area has the highest concentrations of lower-income households, highest percentage of single-headed households, greatest percentage living below the poverty line, high exposure to environmental burdens, and is considered the only low-resourced area in the City. As a result, the analysis should address trends, past and current policy efforts, and their effectiveness, neighborhood investment or disinvestment, local data and knowledge, and other relevant factors, particularly relative to equitable quality of life, resources, and strategies to address any inequities in quality of life.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 December 6, 2022

2. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Housing Costs (For Sale and Rental Prices): While the element includes estimated rents and for sale housing costs for residents, it utilizes American Community Survey (ACS) data. The element should supplement census data with other sources (e.g., local knowledge) to better reflect current market conditions.

3. 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, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress towards Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): The element is crediting 87 above moderate-income units from the Hunter Subdivision Project towards the RHNA. However, HCD has received public comment indicating that the Hunter Subdivision project has been pending since 2010 and there are concerns about the City’s ability to process and approve this project during the planning period. The element should provide an analysis demonstrating the likelihood of these units being built during the planning period.

Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. In addition, the element could analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. The element included a siteby-site description along with some general information about the characteristics for each site. While the element included an analysis of some sites existing uses, it did not provide an analysis for all sites. For example, Sites 1, 2, 3, 11, and 13 included information on the existing use but provided no analysis on the likelihood for redevelopment. For example, Site 1 and 2 stated that development will occur upon the removal of the existing uses and structures. However, the element did not include any information on the likelihood that this will occur during the planning period. Additionally, Site 6 includes two parcels with separate owners and states that one of the owners is interested in developing pursuant to Senate Bill 9, however provides no description or analysis about the likelihood that the second parcel will redevelop. Sites 7 and 9 do not include any analysis of the existing uses or information about the likelihood for redevelopment. Lastly, Sites 5, 6, 10, and 12 analysis is entirely dependent on property owner interest. The element should either provide additional information on these sites such as the nature of meetings with property owners, the likelihood that the owner will redevelop during the planning period or additional information that indicates the likelihood for redevelopment.

To facilitate a complete analysis, the element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 December 6, 2022
sites identified. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to add or modify programs to further encourage and incentivize redevelopment of sites.

Lastly, HCD received a number of comments concerning sites identified in the inventory that have a low likelihood of redevelopment due to existing buildings in commercial districts and on privately-owned property. As noted above, the element should provide additional analysis and information demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment on these sites.

Realistic Capacity: The element is generally assuming 75-80 percent of maximum allowable densities on most sites. However, while the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element mentions realistic capacity assumptions were taken into account for sites selection but should demonstrate what specific criteria, trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

The element also assumes that Site 5 will be developed for 50 lower-income units.

However, this site allows a maximum allowable density of 26 units per acre and the site size is 1.8 acres equating to a total capacity of 46 units. While the site may have owner interest to develop beyond the maximum allowable densities, the element must either revise the capacity assumptions within the allowable densities or include a program to increase the sites allowable density.

The element also should analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses. This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/analysis-of-sites-andzoning.

Publicly-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the Cityowned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should provide support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 December 6, 2022
Replacement Housing Requirements: If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must include a program to provide for replacement. Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lowerincome households. The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in Gov. Code section. 65915, subdivision (c)(3).

Infrastructure Availability: The element included a capacity analysis for water, sewer and dry utilities. The analysis noted that there are some deficiencies in the current infrastructure system and additional upgrades will be needed to meet current demand such was the water distribution system, wastewater collection system, and storm drainage system. The element must include a program committing to actions and a timeline to make sufficient infrastructure available to accommodate the RHNA. Additionally, while the element included an analysis of infrastructure capacity, the element must specifically indicate if total infrastructure capacity (existing and planned) is available to accommodate the RHNA.

Environmental Constraints: The element describes a few environmental conditions within the City and indicates that the City certified a FEIR with the 2040 General Plan Update that described environmental constraints and mitigation measures. However, the element must specifically describe any known environmental constraints or any other conditions that preclude development on identified sites within the planning period.

Sites Inventory Electronic Form: Please note, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters – The element states that emergency shelters are required to provide sufficient parking for employees and one space per two beds pursuant to AB 139 (Statutes of 2019). However, pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision a)(4)(A), parking for emergency shelters should only be the number of spaces necessary for staff working in the shelter and no more than other uses in the same zones. The element should discuss compliance with this requirement or include a program, if necessary. Additionally, the element should describe any siting or spacing requirements imposed on emergency shelters.

Lastly, the element must include an analysis of the suitability and capacity of the zone(s) identified to accommodate emergency shelters. Specifically, the analysis should demonstrate whether the I and SC zone have sufficient capacity to accommodate the identified housing need for emergency shelters. For example, identifying the number of parcels, typical parcels sizes, whether the sites are nonvacant, and the potential capacity for adaptive reuse. Lastly, in analyzing the Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 December 6, 2022
suitability of these zones, the element should address proximity to transportation and services and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability. • Transitional and Supportive Housing - While the element indicates that the City permits supportive housing by-right in all residential zones, the element must specifically demonstrate compliance with AB 2162 (Statutes of 2018). Specifically, supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs, if necessary. • Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) – The element notes that ADUs are allowed in most residential zones. However, ADUs must be permitted in all zones that allow for residential uses including the AP Zone, mixed-use and commercial zones. The element should analyze consistency with this requirement and include a program, if appropriate. Additionally, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. This includes, but is not limited to, the definition of a cooking facility, definition of an efficiency kitchen, allowing both an ADU and JADU for conversions on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, separate conveyance of an ADU or JADU, and restricting bedroom count. The element must include a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance in compliance with state law.

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land-Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, transitional housing), as follows:
• Zoning – The element must include an analysis of all residential zones, especially those identified to accommodate a variety of housing types and the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) i.e., mixed-use, central business, overlay zones, etc., As part of the analysis, the element should identify all applicable land use controls including development standards, allowable densities, zoning, and any other relevant requirements. The analysis should evaluate these requirements for impacts on achieving maximum densities, cost, feasibility and supply (number of units) of housing. Lastly, the element should identify and analyze any minimum unit size requirements.
• Parking – The element notes that mobile home units are required to provide two spaces per mobile home unit in addition to centralized parking and multifamily housing is required to provide 1.5 – 2 parking spaces per unit. The element should Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 December 6, 2022
analyze these requirements and their impacts on cost, supply, housing choice and affordability and include programs to address identified constraints.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element briefly discusses the required permits for a typical single family, subdivision, and multifamily project. This is not a complete analysis and does not address the requirements. The element must describe and analyze the City’s permit processing and approval procedures by zone and housing type (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing. The analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single-family and multifamily developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings and any discretionary approval procedures. The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on approval certainty, feasibility, and housing supply and affordability. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/processing-permitting-procedures.

Additionally, the element indicates that multifamily requires a conditional use permit (CUP) and design review, however the element also states that multifamily is allowed by right and subject only to “routine approvals” and design review. The element must clearly detail the approval process for multifamily housing by zone. For your information, subjecting multifamily housing to an exception process such as a CUP in zones where multifamily housing is already allowed is generally considered a constraint. As noted above, the element must clarify what type of discretionary process and identify and evaluate any approval findings or decision-making criteria for this requirement. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. Based on a complete analysis, the element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.

Design Review: The element’s analysis of the design review process states that every development including an individual single-family home and multifamily housing must go through design review and approvals from planning commission which can take an average of three months processing time. In addition, the various approval criteria include subjective language related to the compatibility of design with the neighborhood and surrounding areas, compatibility with historical character, and designs that promote harmonious transitions. Design review processes that have little to no guidance or clarity and requiring findings related to character are generally considered a constraint. The element must analyze this process and the approval criteria for potential constraints on approval certainty, feasibility, supply and affordability. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to include or modify a program to address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

Local Ordinances: While the element included a discussion of the City’s inclusionary requirement, it must specifically identify and analyze any other locally adopted ordinances such as short-term rental ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 December 6, 2022
On/Off-Site Improvements: While the element indicates on and off-site improvements are listed in St. Helena’s municipal code, it must specifically identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and cost. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/constraints/codes-andenforcement-on-offsite-improvement-standards.shtml.

Fees: The element includes a hypothetical example of fees for single family and a multifamily project that focuses on detailing impact fees for each project type. However, a complete analysis should identify all fees and costs including permit processing and planning fees, development fees, exactions, and any other applicable fees and analyze as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For more information, please visit: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housingelements/building-blocks/fees-and-exactions.

Building Codes and Enforcement: While the element states that the City has authority to deem any structure unsafe, it should specifically discuss the City’s code enforcement process (e.g., whether code enforcement activities are compliant-based or proactive).

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
• Reasonable Accommodation – The element identifies approval findings for granting a reasonable accommodation including finding related to impacts on surrounding uses – essentially a CUP finding. However, reasonable accommodation should be a unique exception process from a CUP, especially given its importance in addressing barriers to housing for persons with disabilities. The element should include a program to amend the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance and remove constraints, namely the “potential impact on surrounding uses” approval finding. Additionally, the element should also indicate whether the City charges any fees to applicants filing reasonable accommodation requests. • Other Requirements – The element must also include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. Specifically, the analysis must describe any zoning code definitions of family and any spacing or concentration requirements for housing for persons with disabilities. • Residential Care Facilities of Seven or More – The element states that these uses are permitted with a CUP in high-density residential zones. For your information, excluding these uses from residential zones and/or subjecting the uses to a CUP is generally considered a constraint and programs should be modified as appropriate with specific commitment to allow the use in residential zones with objectivity and certainty.
• Residential Care Facilities of Six or Fewer – The element indicates that group homes of six or fewer are excluded from some residential zones. For your Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 December 6, 2022
information, these uses must be allowed in any area zoned for residential use. The element should include or modify a program to address this requirement committing to allowing these uses in any zone that permits residential uses.

5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Permit Times: The element must include an analysis of the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

6. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Special Needs Households: While the element includes data and a general discussion of housing challenges faced by special needs households, it still must provide an analysis of the existing needs and resources for each special needs group including extremely lowincome households, persons with disabilities including developmental disabilities, female headed households, and farmworkers. For example, the element should discuss the existing resources to meet housing needs (availability of shelter beds, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps.

C. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:
• Ongoing Programs: Numerous programs continue to indicate an “ongoing” implementation status. While this may be appropriate for some programs, programs Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 December 6, 2022
with quantified objectives or specific implementation actions must include completion or initiation dates resulting in beneficial impacts within the planning period. This includes but is not limited to Programs H-U, H-X, H-KK and H-P. • Timelines: The element includes two programs with timelines for implementation towards the end of the planning period (Programs H-S and H-I). Given the importance of these programs and to achieve beneficial impact throughout the planning period, the element should revise these programs to be implemented earlier in the planning period.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Shortfall of Sites (Program H-A): The element notes that several sites do not currently permit residential uses or have appropriate densities and will need to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA. While the element included Program H-A to rezone sites, the program should identify acreage, allowable densities, and anticipated units to be rezoned and must specifically commit to meet all requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, the program must commit to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. By-right means local government review must not require a CUP, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval.

Replacement Housing Requirements: The housing element must include a program to provide replacement housing. Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program must adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3).

Sites Identified in Multiple Planning Periods: While the element includes Program H-A to maintain an inventory to comply with Government code section 65583.2 (c), this program must commit to zone and allow for the following:

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 December 6, 2022
• sites must meet the density requirements for housing for lower income households, and
• allow by-right approval for housing developments that include 20 percent or more of its units affordable to lower income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).).

Nonvacant Sites Reliance to Accommodate RHNA: As the element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it should include a program(s) to promote residential development of those sites. The program could commit to provide financial assistance, regulatory concessions, or incentives to encourage and facilitate new, or more intense, residential development on the sites.

Examples of incentives include identifying and targeting specific financial resources and reducing appropriate development standards. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/identify-adequate-sites.

Publicly-Owned Sites: The element identified publicly-owned sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA. The element should include a program with numerical objectives that ensures compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provides incentives and actions along with a schedule to facilitate development of publicly- owned sites. Actions should include outreach with developers, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing and financial assistance.

Senate Bill 9 Implementation: The element relies on the implementation and usage of Senate Bill 9 to accommodate a portion of the RHNA, promote a variety of housing types and choices, and implement affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. While the element included program H-T to support lot splits, the element must include specific actions to implement and incentive the usage of SB 9. This includes but is not limited to establishing a compliant ordinance, development standards, incentives, and marketing and outreach to developers and property owners.

Program H-C – Water Sewer Priority: For your information, water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) While the element commits to granting priority water and sewer to developments with units affordable to lower income households, local governments are also required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. HCD recommends including a program, policy, or commitment to deliver the adopted housing element to water and sewer providers and include a cover memo describing the City’s housing element, including the City’s housing needs and regional housing need. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/priority-for-water-and-sewer.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 December 6, 2022
As noted in Findings B4 and B5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Program H-B (Growth Management System): The element notes that the City implemented a growth management system which likely violates SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act, 2019, Gov. Code, § 66300). The element included a program to remove the growth management system, however included the timeline has “ongoing.” The element should include a specific implementation timeline for when this system will be removed and implementation should happen earlier in the planning period (e.g., one year).

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs. Additionally, while the element did include programs to address fair housing issues and contributing factors, several programs will need to be revised with increased metrics, geographic targeting for place-based strategies, and implementation steps to facilitate meaningful change. Additionally, while the element included some programs for place-based strategies, these programs must include geographic targeting for the Southeast quadrant of the City, include actions that improve one’s quality of life related to housing, transportation, safety, education, recreation, infrastructure, etc., and quantified metrics that target beneficial impacts for people, households and neighborhoods ( e.g., number of people or households assisted, number of housing units built, number of parks or infrastructure projects completed). HCD will follow-up under a separate cover with additional information.

D. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element described various efforts to achieve public participation in the preparation of the housing element update, it should also describe how comments were considered and incorporated into the element.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT C
Agenda Item #6.1.

50 California Street, Suite 2800 | San Francisco, CA 94111 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Daniel R. Golub
415-743-6900
[email protected]
March 9, 2023
Jamillah Williams
Melinda Coy
Department of Housing & Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
VIA EMAIL ([email protected]; [email protected]) RE: City of St. Helena, Initial Draft Housing Element
Dear Ms. Williams and Ms. Coy:

We understand that you are in the process of reviewing the City of St. Helena’s subsequent draft Housing Element, submitted to HCD on February 7, 2023. Holland & Knight has been engaged to represent Dennis Hunter, Ben and Kelly 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” or “Hunter Subdivision Project”). As proposed, the Project consists of 51 single-family residences (11 of which will feature accessory dwelling units), as well as a 25-unit multifamily development, for a total of 87 units. 20% of the Project’s units will be affordable, pursuant to the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.

As you know, on December 6, 2022, HCD completed its review of the City’s initial draft Housing Element and provided its feedback to the City. That feedback detailed the changes required for the City to comply with State Housing Element Law. The City’s revisions, which were submitted on February 7, failed to address many of HCD’s comments.

The Applicant Team provides this letter to detail several of the remaining deficiencies. Although we know HCD looks at much more than a single development when reviewing a City’s Housing Element, it is no exaggeration that in this case, this single project is critical to the City’s compliance with Housing Element Law. First, with 87 total units, the Project represents more than one third of the City’s total RHNA allocation of 256 units. Second, the Project is the only pending residential development of any significance in the entire City.1 This matters because the City’s sites inventory is largely predicated on projects of comparable size; 7 of the 12 sites are 1 See Revised Housing Element at 2-194 (“Currently there is one single-family residence and four moderate-income units, not to exceed 120 percent of the AMI, that are approved and undergoing building permit processing. In addition, there are 87 units that are pending planning/entitlement approval under the Hunter Subdivision project.”).

Agenda Item #6.1.

projected for 20+ units, with the largest (Site 10) projected for 88 units.2 As such, the City’s treatment of the Project is the best, and possibly only, indicator of how the City is likely to treat comparably-sized projects proposed during the 6th planning cycle. It is for these reasons among others that members of the City’s Planning Commission emphasized in a recent hearing that HCD would be closely watching the City’s treatment of this Project as it considered the City’s compliance with Housing Element law.

As such, the Applicant Team requests that HCD consider and incorporate the following comments into its review of the City’s subsequent draft.

I. The City has not provided an analysis demonstrating a likelihood that the Hunter Subdivision Project will be built within the planning period.

Housing Element Law requires that the City’s Housing Element provide “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, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.”3

In its review of the City’s initial draft Housing Element, HCD wrote:

The element is crediting 87 above moderate-income units from the Hunter Subdivision Project towards the RHNA. However, HCD has received public comment indicating that the Hunter Subdivision project has been pending since 2010 and there are concerns about the City’s ability to process and approve this project during the planning period. The element should provide an analysis demonstrating the likelihood of these units being built during the planning period.4
In response to this feedback, the City supplemented its draft to add the following: “The Hunter Subdivision project is anticipated to receive planning approval in the near future. The Final Environmental Impact was released in October 2022 and the project is scheduled for hearing before the City’s Planning Commission in February of 2023.”5 This statement is misleading to the point of untruth. At this time, only one discretionary approval is before the City: a Vesting Tentative Map. The Planning Commission did certify the Final EIR for that Vesting Tentative Map at a recent hearing. That determination, however, must still be ratified by the City Council, and as of this writing, the City Council has conspicuously declined to schedule a hearing on the matter. This raises the concerning possibility that the City may delay such a hearing until HCD has completed its review of the Housing Element, so that its subsequent treatment of the Project will be less closely scrutinized.

Moreover, although the City’s revised draft states that the necessary approvals for the Project are “anticipated,” the City took the opposite tack at the February 7, 2023 Planning Commission 2 Revised Housing Element at 2-218, Table 57.
3 Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3). 4
HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appendix at 2. 5 Revised Housing Element at 2-195.

Agenda Item #6.1.

hearing. There, Planning Commissioners and City staff repeatedly emphasized that they were “only” voting on the Vesting Tentative Map, and not on other discretionary approvals that would be required for the Project, in an effort assuage the concerns of Project opponents. These remarks are summarized on the following slide, which was prepared by City staff and presented at that hearing:6
At a minimum, this approach indicates a reluctance to approve the Project, undermining the subsequent draft’s statement that approvals are “anticipated … in the near future.” Further, the two misleading sentences added by the City hardly supplies the “analysis demonstrating the likelihood of these units being built” that HCD required. If the City had provided such an analysis, it would have disclosed the fact that the City has subjected the Project to numerous onerous conditions that undermine the feasibility of the Project actually being built.

Many of these conditions are wholly subjective, and some of them seek to obligate the Applicant Team to perform core municipal functions on the City’s behalf.

Specifically, the Planning Commission’s approval of the Vesting Tentative Map was premised on 123 Conditions of Approval (the “Conditions”), which are attached hereto as Attachment A.

The Conditions are problematic for numerous reasons. For example, many of them afford impermissible discretion to City officials. See Exhibit A, Conditions 33, 44, 47, 55, 72, 97, 100, 101, 105, 108, 110, 116. Other Conditions simply require the Applicant Team to perform “to the City’s satisfaction” or otherwise leave the determination to “the discretion of the City.” See Conditions 40, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113. See also Conditions 35 (“the Final Map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director”), 118 (fire hydrants must be installed “to the satisfaction of the Fire Department”). These Conditions essentially vest City officials 6 See Planning Commission Hearing (Feb. 7, 2023) at 57:56 (https://www.youtube.com/live/N1RUOjqb4Z4).

Agenda Item #6.1.

with unbridled discretion to stall 1/3 of the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA, even if the units are technically “approved.” and should at a minimum have been disclosed to HCD.

The requested analysis would also have disclosed, for example, the City’s practice of applying a citywide VMT baseline average for residential uses, rather than using a regional baseline average, which OPR guidance supports.7 Notably, because the City employed a citywide baseline, the Project EIR treats the Project as though it will have significant VMT impacts despite the fact that it provides the lowest allowable density under the applicable Medium Density Residential zoning. This result would not have occurred if the City applied a regional baseline for calculating VMT impacts. Moreover, this result suggests that, if the City continues to employ a citywide baseline, essentially all new housing projects of any consequence will be considered to have significant VMT impacts, and require the City to prepare an EIR and adopt a statement of overriding considerations for each such project. This approach suggests the type of excessive CEQA processing against which HCD has warned as a potential violations of Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act.8 But at a minimum, the City’s practice must be disclosed and analyzed, both with respect to the Project and as a potential governmental constraint on the approval of housing Citywide.

Again, the City’s treatment of the Project matters. The Project represents 1/3 of the City’s 6th Planning Cycle RHNA. As Planning Commission Chair Ponte stated at the February 7, 2023 hearing, “This is probably the biggest open piece of land … left inside our development borders.”9
And yet the Project has been pending since 2010 – the 4th Planning Cycle. This history merits far more than a single paragraph in the City’s 400+ page draft, dismissing valid skepticism with misleading assurances that the Project “is anticipated to receive planning approval in the near future.”
Instead, HCD should not certify the Housing Element until the City has demonstrated its commitment to issue final approvals for a Project that can be feasibly be developed at this location.

II. The City has not provided an analysis demonstrating the redevelopment potential of the nonvacant sites in its housing inventory.

Beyond the Project itself, the City’s other projections remain inadequate, because they fail to provide the requisite analysis to support the Housing Element’s fanciful projections. 7 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, “Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA” (Dec. 2018), at 15 (https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf). 8 See, e.g., HCD, “Berkeley – Letter of Technical Assistance” (June 3, 2022) (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/docs/alaberkeley-ta-060322.pdf); HCD, “San Francisco – Letter of Inquiry and Technical Support” (Nov. 22, 2021) (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sfrsanfrancisco-loi-ta-112221.pdf). 9 See Planning Commission Hearing (Feb. 7, 2023) at 2:21:30 (https://www.youtube.com/live/N1RUOjqb4Z4).

Agenda Item #6.1.

a. City-owned sites.

Of the twelve sites in the City’s inventory, three – Sites 1, 2, and 3 – are owned by the City.

Collectively, the City projects that 57 units will be developed on these sites: 6 units on Site 1, 20 units on Site 2, and 31 units on Site 3. All are projected as 100% lower-income.10 In its responses to the initial draft, HCD stated:

The element must include additional discussion on each of the City-owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should provide support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. 11 The City did not comply with this direction. In fact, the City made only one site-specific addition, to Site 1 (6 units). Here, it added a vague statement that “While the Mixed-Use Zone could potentially support 100 percent commercial development, the City has identified this site as suitable for housing development with intentions to develop.”12 With respect to Site 2 (20 units) and Site 3 (31 units), the City made no effort to supplement its analysis or otherwise comply with HCD’s guidance.13 Thus, there is no support for the City’s capacity assumptions, no analysis of existing uses (Site 2 hosts City Hall, and Site 3 is leased to a vineyard), and no potential schedule for development.

Nor is there any commitment to rezone as needed to accommodate the projections. This is particularly relevant to Site 3, which is in the “Central Business” zone. Indeed, the draft indicates that “no land use changes are proposed as residential uses are permitted on upper stories within the Central Business district.”14 But given that Site 3 currently features no buildings, the City’s statement presupposes the build-out of enough multi-story commercial buildings to accommodate 31 lower-income units on the upper stories of those buildings. And yet, the City has provided no discussion of that process, or any support for the assumption that such development would occur during the planning period.

As such, the City failed to comply with HCD’s directions regarding City-owned sites, and its analysis remains deficient with regard to these 57 units. 10 Revised Housing Element, 2-218.
11 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appendix at 3. 12 Revised Housing Element at 2-197. 13 Revised Housing Element at 2-199-200. 14 Revised Housing Element at 2-200.

Agenda Item #6.1.

b. Privately-owned nonvacant sites.

Of the remaining nine sites in the City’s inventory, six are nonvacant, but instead have active uses. Addressing these sites in its responses to the City’s initial draft, HCD stated:

Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. In addition, the element could analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. The element included a site-by-site description along with some general information about the characteristics for each site. While the element included an analysis of some sites existing uses, it did not provide an analysis for all sites. For example, Sites 1, 2, 3, 11, and 13 included information on the existing use but provided no analysis on the likelihood for redevelopment. For example, Site 1 and 2 stated that development will occur upon the removal of the existing uses and structures. However, the element did not include any information on the likelihood that this will occur during the planning period.

Additionally, Site 6 includes two parcels with separate owners and states that one of the owners is interested in developing pursuant to Senate Bill 9, however provides no description or analysis about the likelihood that the second parcel will redevelop. Sites 7 and 9 do not include any analysis of the existing uses or information about the likelihood for redevelopment. Lastly, Sites 5, 6, 10, and 12 analysis is entirely dependent on property owner interest. The element should either provide additional information on these sites such as the nature of meetings with property owners, the likelihood that the owner will redevelop during the planning period or additional information that indicates the likelihood for redevelopment.15
Here again, the City’s analysis remains inadequate. In particular, the City’s projections with respect to Site 7, Site 9, and Site 10, which collectively total 156 units (more than half of the City’s total RHNA of 256), are speculative and unsupported considering the existing uses.

Site 7 (20 units; 10 lower-income and 10 moderate income).16 This 1.0 acre parcel is currently occupied by a single family residence. In its comments, HCD stated that the City’s analysis of Site 7 did “not include any analysis of the existing uses or information about the likelihood of redevelopment.”17 Despite HCD’s instruction to do so, the City did not update its draft to provide any discussion of owner interest in redevelopment.

Nor did the City provide any support for the seemingly-arbitrary affordability projections.

The City’s only addition explained its conclusion that the parcel is similar to other parcels that were recently redeveloped. However, with no discussion of whether the existing use is likely to cease during the planning period, the City has failed to demonstrate the property’s realistic potential for development.
15 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appendix at 2. 16 Revised Housing Element at 2-207. 17 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appendix at 2.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Site 9 (48 units; 24 lower income and 24 above moderate income).18 These two parcels total 2.4 acres and are both occupied by single-family residences. In its comments, HCD stated that the City’s analysis of Site 9 did “not include any analysis of the existing uses or information about the likelihood of redevelopment.”19 Here again, the City failed to provide the requested analysis. There is no discussion of owner interest in redeveloping (here, agreement from two separate property owners would be required).

Nor is there any support for the arbitrary affordability projections. As with Site 7, the City explained that Site 9 was similar to other properties that were recently redeveloped, but offered no support for the notion that the existing owners would support such redevelopment.

Site 10 (88 units; 44 lower income and 44 moderate income).20 This 4.4 acre parcel is an active vineyard. In its comments, HCD noted that Site 10 “is entirely dependent on property owner interest,” and stated that the amended housing element “should either provide additional information on these sites such as the nature of meetings with property owners, the likelihood that the owner will redevelop during the planning period or additional information that indicates the likelihood for redevelopment.”21 Here again, the City failed to provide the requested discussion of owner interest in redevelopment. Its only addition indicates that the City has “seen recent development of housing on properties with existing vineyards.” But without an analysis specific to this vineyard and this property owner, there is no support for the City’s assumption that these 88 units (themselves more than 1/3 of the City’s RHNA) will be developed in the 6th Cycle.

Moreover, all three of these sites were included in the City’s 5th Cycle sites inventory. This fact casts further doubt on the likelihood that they will be redeveloped during the 6th Cycle, much less at the intensities projected in the draft.

As such, the City should revise its draft to include an analysis demonstrating that redevelopment of the sites listed in its sites inventory is likely to occur in the 6th Cycle at the projected intensities. If (as seems likely) it is unable to do this with respect to the current sites, then it must either identify other sites or commit to programs that will facilitate the required development.

III. The City has not demonstrated that adequate water supply exists to accommodate the RHNA.

Gov. Code § 6553.2(b)(5) provides that the sites inventory must contain a “description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities[,]” and further specifies that “[p]arcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or 18 Revised Housing Element at 2-210. 19 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appendix at 2. 20 Revised Housing Element at 2-212. 21 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appendix at 2.

Agenda Item #6.1.

sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development.”
The revised draft’s discussion of the City’s water supply essentially concedes that the City lacks adequate water supply to accommodate its 6th Cycle RHNA.22 In relevant part, this discussion states:

The City has adequate water supply to meet current demand, however the effects of climate change will likely reduce water supply from current sources. The City needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more water savings in order to reliably meet future water demand. At the same time, the City recognizes that any new water supply, even if forthcoming, is likely to be expensive, potentially increasing the unit cost of potable water. The main emphasis within the General Plan (regarding water supply) is on conservation, seeking to reduce demand by all classes of users.

According to the City’s Water Shortage Emergency Ordinance, if the City’s water balance pursuant to the safe yield calculation is in deficit, then the City must comply with Phase I water restrictions. Most importantly, this requires that any new water demand, such as from a new residential project, must be completely offset by a reduction in current water demand, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.23 Although the City states that it “needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more water savings in order to reliably meet future water demand,” the Housing Element makes no commitment to obtain additional supply. Nor does the Housing Element commit to reductions in existing water usage.

Instead, the Housing Element indicates that the City will simply employ its existing policy of requiring all new developments to completely offset their water usage. Specifically, Implementation Program H-VV states that the City will enforce “requirements for water-efficient landscaping for new residential and commercial construction, as well as implementing the ‘Water Neutrality’ policy for all new development.”24 Thus, the City places the burden of reducing consumption entirely on the new developments that it is required to plan for and accommodate. If new housing cannot do so, then the City’s policy is that there can be no new housing. Obviously, this is inconsistent with Housing Element Law.

Housing Element Law mandates that that “[p]arcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water[.]”25 If they do not have sufficient water, they cannot be used to satisfy the City’s RHNA. But the City’s draft fails to analyze whether new developments can feasibly and realistically find the water offsets required by the neutrality policy. As such, if the City intends to subject all new development to a water neutrality policy, then it must first provide an analysis demonstrating why this policy does not render the projections in its sites inventory infeasible. If 22 Revised Housing Element at 2-150-152. 23 Revised Housing Element at 2-151. 24 Revised Housing Element at 1-39. 25 Gov. Code § 6553.2(b)(5).

Agenda Item #6.1.

it cannot do this, then the City must adopt a program committing to procure additional water to supply its RHNA. At the moment, the draft does neither.

Moreover, despite HCD’s instruction that a demonstration of realistic capacity required that estimates “must be adjusted as necessary, based on … the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities,”26 the revised draft made no effort to adjust its sites inventory estimates in view of the water supply issues the draft identifies. To the contrary, the City’s edits only reinforce the notion that it lacks sufficient water supply to facilitate the development promised in the sites inventory. Its additions to Implementation Program H-A, for example, state that “each site has the capacity to accommodate at least 16 units and will be available for development in the planning period where water, sewer, and dry utilities can be provided.”27
Further, the City is aware of demonstrated problems with its own water supply infrastructure, resulting in the waste of significant water supply that could otherwise be used to satisfy the needs of projected new development. The City must disclose that governmental constraint on new housing supply in the Housing Element, and adopt a program committing to reduce or eliminate it.

The current draft’s water supply discussion calls the entirety of the City’s sites inventory projections into question. To demonstrate that these parcels “have sufficient water,” the Housing Element should be revised to either (1) commit to procuring additional water supply to facilitate the City’s RHNA; or (2) explain why the water supply constraints disclosed by the current draft do not preclude development of the City’s RHNA. The revised Housing Element should also explain why the City’s program of applying its water neutrality policy to all new residential development does not render the projections in its sites inventory infeasible.

IV. The City has incorrectly allocated the Project’s 87 units.

Finally, the City’s draft incorrectly assigns all of 87 of the Project’s units as above moderate income, stating: “While the Hunter Subdivision project is proposing approximately 25 affordable units, because the affordable agreements are not in place at the time of Housing Element, all unit credits were assumed to be above moderate.”28
As an initial matter, the City’s position is wholly inconsistent with its sites inventory projections.

The sites inventory forecasts 204 lower income units and 69 moderate income units. No affordability agreements are in place for those projects either. In fact, those projects do not even exist. They are wholly speculative. Why the City would refuse to correctly allocate the Project’s affordable units simply because an affordability agreement is not yet executed, while confidently stating that the purely hypothetical units in its sites inventory will be affordable, is baffling. 26 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element” (Dec. 6, 2022), Appendix at 3. 27 Revised Housing Element at 1-10. 28 Revised Housing Element at 2-195.

Agenda Item #6.1.

In any event, the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance requires 20% of the Project’s units to be affordable. The Applicant Team intends to comply with this ordinance. The City’s Housing Element should reflect this.

The City should be required to correct its error before HCD certifies its Housing Element.

Accurate counting matters, for several reasons. First, overcounting the number of market rate units the Project will provide distorts the City’s other projections. The Project’s 20% affordable units will not be developed at market rates, and the City must therefore plan for those market rate units elsewhere.

Second, accurate counting matters for the No Net Loss requirements set forth in Gov. Code § 65863. If the City incorrectly counts the Project’s affordable units as market rate units, then final approvals cannot issue unless and until the City makes “a written finding supported by substantial evidence as to whether or not remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to” meet the City’s RHNA.29 Given the spurious nature of the City’s current projections, it is far from certain that the City would be able to make those findings, thus triggering the requirement to make additional sites available to replace those units.30 In practice, there is no statutory mechanism for the Applicant Team to compel the City to make those findings, even where (as here) the issue stems from the City’s own error. As such, it is critical that the City correctly allocate the Project’s 87 units in its sites inventory.

V. The revised draft remains out of compliance with State Housing Element Law.

For at least the reasons discussed above, the City’s revised draft Housing Element remains out of compliance with Housing Element Law, and HCD should decline to certify it until the following changes are made:
• With respect to the Project, the Housing Element should not be certified until it is demonstrated that the City will issue final approvals for a project that can be feasibly developed. Further, the City should amend its sites inventory to correctly reflect that the Project will consist of 20% affordable units, as required by the City’s own ordinances. • With respect to the remaining City-owned and privately-owned nonvacant sites in the sites inventory, the City should amend the draft to supply an analysis that demonstrates that development is likely during the planning period, specifically including a discussion of owner interest with respect to each privately-owned site. If it cannot do so, the City should instead either identify alternative sites where development is feasible, or commit to programs that ensure feasibility at the currently-identified sites. • With respect to all projected developments (including the Project), the City should amend the draft to address its water supply constraints, and should specifically either (1) commit to procuring additional water supply to facilitate the City’s RHNA; or (2) explain why the water supply constraints disclosed by the current draft do not preclude development of the City’s RHNA. Further, the City should amend the draft to explain why the City’s 29 Gov. Code § 65863(b)(2). 30 Gov. Code § 65863(c).

Agenda Item #6.1.

program of applying its water neutrality policy to all new residential development does not render the projections in its sites inventory infeasible.

Should HCD require further information with respect to the Project or the City’s actions with respect thereto, we are happy to provide it.

Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Golub
William Sterling
West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law Practice Group
Holland & Knight LLP
Agenda Item #6.1.

ATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

Planning Division: General Conditions

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Division: Final Map Conditions

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

Planning: Misc. Conditions

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

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

Planning: Flooding Conditions

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

Planning: Landscape Conditions

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

Planning: Construction Activities Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

Public Works: General Conditions

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.04.221).

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

17.116.030(G)(2).

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

Public Works: Fees

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

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

Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

12 Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

Public Works Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

Helena domestic water.

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

13.20.070 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

15 Public Works Drainage Improvements Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Works Final Map Conditions

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

Agenda Item #5.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT D
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
April 7, 2023
Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director
Planning Department
City of St. Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Dear Maya DeRosa:

RE: City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of St. Helena’s (City) revised draft housing element that was received for review on February 7, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. HCD considered comments from Holland and Knight; David Kellogg and Generation Housing; pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s December 6, 2022 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) (Program HA) shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c).

Agenda Item #6.1.

Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director

Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed.

Please be aware Chapter 654, Statues of 2022 (AB 2339), adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient and suitable capacity.

Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements. For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-andcommunity/ab2339-notice.pdf.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 1 April 7, 2023

APPENDIX
CITY OF ST. HELENA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildingblocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Enforcement: While the element discussed compliance with existing fair housing laws, it must also address any past or current findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements or judgements related to fair housing or civil rights. For additional information, please see HCD’s prior review and pages 28-30 on HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/index.shtml.

Concentration of Fair Housing Issues: The element was revised to briefly indicate that the east side of the City’s fair housing conditions are attributed to types of uses and zoning. However, to better formulate appropriate policies and programs, the element must still analyze trends, past and current policy efforts, and their effectiveness, neighborhood investment or disinvestment, local data and knowledge, and other relevant factors, particularly relative to equitable quality of life, resources, and strategies to address any inequities in quality of life. Please see HCD’s prior review for more information.

2. 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, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 2 April 7, 2023
Progress towards the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): The element is crediting 87 units from the Hunter Subdivision Project towards the RHNA. HCD’s prior review found that the City must analyze the likelihood that this project will be built and units will be available during the planning period. Additionally, the prior review found that HCD has received public comments regarding the City’s ability to process and approve this project in a timely manner. Further, this analysis is particularly important given that the project has been pending since the 4th cycle planning period and the project will help the City provide housing and build a portion of their RHNA. The element was revised to state that the project will receive “planning approvals in the near future” and the next planning commission hearing is in February. This does not address HCD’s prior review. 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. Lastly, the revised element is now crediting these units towards the City’s above moderate-income RHNA. However, HCD received public comments from the applicant indicating that 20 percent of the project will be affordable via deed restrictions in line with the City’s inclusionary requirements. The element could be revised to credit a portion of these units towards the City’s lower-income RHNA.

Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should include a program to monitor the progress of the project and take alternative action if the project is not entitled and permit are not issued in a timely manner.

Realistic Capacity: The element was revised to state that sites are assumed to develop at an average of 80 percent of maximum allowable densities and noted three projects that have developed between 50-100 percent of maximum allowable densities. First, while the element states that most sites were assumed to develop at 80 percent of maximum allowable densities, Sites 2, 4 and 5 have higher build out assumptions (e.g., 85-100 percent). The element should either adjust calculations in the inventory based on the analysis or provide a specific analysis supporting the higher assumptions.

Second, the analysis indicates that realistic capacity was based on past trends and notes three projects. However, the element should include all recent residential or multifamily projects to analyze all development activity by zone, size, allowable density, built density and affordability.

The element was revised to indicate that sites in the mixed-use zone do allow 100 percent commercial and that the City will implement Program H-P to incentivize residential development. However, to account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential development, the analysis should discuss recent trends for development in the pertinent zone, including how often 100 percent nonresidential uses occur, then, adjust residential capacity assumptions and add or modify programs, if appropriate.

Nonvacant Sites: The element was revised with additional site characteristics, including owner interest and referenced past projects that redeveloped to residential development with similar existing uses. However, in addition to property owner interest and development trends, the analysis should consider additional factors that are indicative of redevelopment potential. For example, several sites seem to have low underutilization e.g., existing densities vs. allowable densities, floor area ratio (FAR), low lot coverage, Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 3 April 7, 2023
etc., The element could quantify this factor for applicable sites and include additional local or regional examples supporting the trend that underutilized sites will redevelop at the densities and uses identified in the inventory.

Lot Consolidation: The revised element now indicates that Sites 8 and 9 are made up of several parcels. The element should include an analysis evaluating whether these sites will need be consolidated to develop at the densities that were identified in the inventory. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to add or modify programs with a commitment to facilitate and incentivize lot consolidation.

City-Owned Sites: HCD’s prior review found that the element must include an analysis supporting residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that would preclude development. The element was not revised to address this finding.

The element did reference that the City conducted feasibility studies for these sites.

Where appropriate, the analysis should incorporate more information regarding the outcomes of these feasibility studies to support the likelihood of development on these sites. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Sites Inventory Electronic Form: Please note, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

Infrastructure: The element was revised to state that adequate infrastructure is available contingent upon the implementation of infrastructure improvements identified in the City’s Integrated Utility master plan. However, the element must still include a program committing to actions and a timeline to make sufficient infrastructure and implement the necessary improvements to accommodate the RHNA. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: While the element was revised to include a list of all development standards by zone, it must evaluate lot coverage requirements and heights for impacts on achieving maximum densities, cost, feasibility and supply (number of units) of housing.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 4 April 7, 2023
Parking: The element was revised with an analysis evaluating the 1.5 parking space requirement for smaller bedroom types (i.e., studio and one-bedrooms). While the analysis found that these requirements are not a constraint on development due to the lack of available public transportation, requiring 1.5 parking spaces for a studio apartment is generally considered a constraint and can impact a project’s cost, supply (number of units), feasibility and ability to achieve maximum densities. The element should be revised with a program committing to reducing parking requirements.

Local Permit and Processing Procedures: HCD’s prior review found that multifamily housing is subject to a conditional use permit (CUP) and it is considered a constraint.

Additionally, HCD’s certification of the 5th cycle housing element on May 29, 2015 explicitly stated that for the City to remain in compliance, it must complete Program HE1.D which committed to eliminating use permit requirements for multifamily projects in the medium density residential district. Further, HCD’s records indicate that the City utilized state funding to remove or lessen discretionary review for multifamily housing (SB2 Planning Grants) and removing the use permit requirements for multifamily housing in certain zones (LEAP Planning Grants).

However, the element provides conflicting information. For example, the element’s review and revise section indicates that the City removed the CUP requirement for multifamily housing. Additionally, page 2-162 indicates that a CUP is a required permit, while page 2-160 notes that multifamily is only subject to design review. The element must reconcile this information and clearly indicate if multifamily housing is subject to CUP requirements and whether this constraint has been removed. If this constraint has not been fully addressed, the element must include a program committing to removing this constraint early in the planning period (e.g., one year).

Additionally, the element should address public comments on this revised draft submittal and discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify programs as appropriate.

Fees and Exactions: While the element now includes a listing of fees for a typical single family and multifamily development, the element should specifically evaluate impact fees e.g., parks and public safety for impacts on housing cost, supply, and feasibility.

Constraints on Housing For Persons with Disabilities: While the element now includes Program H-F committing to allowing group homes for seven or more persons similarly to multifamily uses, it must also commit to 1) allowing group homes of seven or more in all zones allowing residential uses and 2) permit these uses with objectivity and certainty similar to other residential uses of the same form.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 5 April 7, 2023
B. Housing Programs

1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised, as follows:

Replacement Housing Requirements: The housing element must include a program to provide replacement housing. Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing program must adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3).

City-Owned Sites: While the element includes Program H-L (City-Owned Sites), the Program should be revised based on the outcomes of a complete analysis as noted in Finding A2. In addition, the Program should include steps and milestones beyond a request for proposal, including complying with the Surplus Land Act, facilitating all necessary entitlements, assisting with funding, issuing permits and alternative actions to identify other sites within a specified time if development does not proceed as anticipated. Finally, the program should include numeric objectives, including affordability, consistent with the assumptions in the sites inventory.

Permanent Supportive Housing: The element now includes Program H-F (Municipal Code Updates) to incorporate objective design standards for ministerial design review of multifamily uses. However, the Program should clarify permanent supportive housing pursuant to Government Code section 65651 will also be permitted without discretionary action.

2. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element Page 6 April 7, 2023
accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding A3 the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

3. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City will need to add or revise programs. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends.

Additionally, as found in HCD’s prior review, programs still should be revised with increased metrics and significant and meaningful actions (beyond the RHNA) to promote housing mobility (more choices and affordability across geographies) and new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity and relatively higher income areas (e.g., missing middle housing types). Further, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element still must include significant and meaningful place-based strategies for community revitalization with actions targeting the southeast quadrant of the City to improve quality of life related to housing, transportation, safety, education, recreation, infrastructure, etc., and quantified metrics that target beneficial impacts for people, households and neighborhoods ( e.g., number of people or households assisted, number of housing units built, number of parks or infrastructure projects completed).

HCD will follow-up under a separate cover with additional information.

Agenda Item #6.1.

EXHIBIT E
Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Agenda Item #6.1.

This page is intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023

0.Introduction
Insert Cover over this page. Do not alter any Heading 1s underneath the covers.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 i
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. iii

1. Policy Document
Policy Document Contents .................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Organization of the Policy Document.................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Key Findings and Recommendations..................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs..................................................................................................................................... 1-9 Quantified Objectives........................................................................................................................................................................... 1-48

2. Needs Assessment
Needs Assessment Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-7

2. Review of the Existing Housing Element .................................................................................................................................. 2-34

3. Demographic and Economic Trends ......................................................................................................................................... 2-58

4. Population and Employment Projections.................................................................................................................................. 2-80

5. Housing Conditions.................................................................................................................................................................. 2-84

6. Housing Market Conditions...................................................................................................................................................... 2-97

7. Special Housing Needs........................................................................................................................................................... 2-108

8. Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints................................................................................................................ 2-130

9. Opportunities for Energy Conservation................................................................................................................................... 2-171

10. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types.................................................................................................................................... 2-173

11. Housing Resources................................................................................................................................................................. 2-179 Appendix A: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
AFFH Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................................A-1

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................A-5

2. Summary of Fair Housing Issues.................................................................................................................................................A-9

3. Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends....................................................................................................................A-14

4. Local Area of Knowledge .........................................................................................................................................................A-99

5. Sites Inventory Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................A-102

6. Contributing Factors...............................................................................................................................................................A-107 Appendix B: Comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element.................................. B-1 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 ii
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 iii
Introduction
Purpose of the Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as the local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include seven required elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as “housing-element law.” California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.

Although the Housing Element is one of seven required elements of the general plan, it has several unique requirements that set it apart from the other six. State law (Government Code Section 65580 (et seq.)) specifies in detail the topics that the housing element must address and sets a schedule for required updates every eight years. The housing element is also the only element reviewed and certified by the State for compliance with State law. Every jurisdiction in the State of California is required to submit a Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and certification.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element establishes a comprehensive plan to address housing needs in St. Helena over the eight-year planning period between January 31, 2023 and January 31, 2031. The Housing Element sets the community goals and policies surrounding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing units to meet the needs of St. Helena residents (present and future. St. Helena is a member of the Association of Bay Area Association of Governments and, therefore, is required submit an updated Housing Element to HCD by January 31, 2023.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 iv
Housing Element Update Components
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update consists of two parts; the Housing Needs Assessment, and this Housing Element Policy Document.

1. The Policy Document states goals, policies,
implementing program, and quantified objectives for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing.

The Policy Document is the action plan that reacts directly to the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and input
from the community. The City will implement the actions specified in the Policy Document throughout the planning period.

2. The Needs Assessment identifies and analyzes the
existing and projected housing needs, provides a list of sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation, documents constraints to housing production, and analyzes fair housing.

In short, the Needs Assessment provides the context for the City's housing action plan.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1 1.Policy Document
.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-1
Policy Document Contents
Organization of the Policy Document .................................................................................... 1-3 Key Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 1-5 Review of Existing Housing Element ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Demographic and Economic Trends ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Housing Conditions............................................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Special Housing Needs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints............................................................................................................................... 1-7 Sites Inventory and Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types ................................................................................................................... 1-7 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.................................................................................................................................................... 1-8 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs ..................................................................... 1-9 Goal 1 A Diversity of Housing to Meet Local Needs ......................................................................................................................... 1-9 Goal 2 High-Quality Neighborhoods with a Balance of Housing Types .......................................................................................... 1-20 Goal 3 Conservation of Existing Housing........................................................................................................................................ 1-29 Goal 4 Assistance to Support Affordable Housing .......................................................................................................................... 1-33 Goal 5 Resource Conservation........................................................................................................................................................ 1-40 Goal 6 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.................................................................................................................................. 1-43 Quantified Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1-48 Quantified Objectives by Type............................................................................................................................................................. 1-48 Quantified Objectives Summary Table................................................................................................................................................. 1-49 Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-2
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-3
Organization of the Policy Document
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Policy Document includes six goals, supported by policies and implementation programs that aim to address identified housing needs during the planning period. The goals, policies, and programs of the Housing Element establish a policy framework to guide city decision-making to meet identified housing needs. The Policy Document is organized under the following goal titles:

1. A Diversity of Housing to Meet Local Needs

2. High-Quality Neighborhoods with a Balance of Housing

3. Conservation of Existing Housing

4. Assistance to Support Affordable Housing

5. Resource Conservation

6. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Goals
The housing goals are articulated as general “end condition statements,” which describe a desired outcome or end state. The goals do not contain an action verb as they reflect a final statement of what the city hopes to achieve. Goals describe ideal future conditions for a topic and tend to be general and broad in nature. How the goal will be achieved is established via the applicable policies and programs.

Policies
Policies are statements on the position the City takes to implement a goal. Policies contained in the Housing Element are important statements as they provide a clear and unambiguous statement that guides a specific course of action for decision-makers to achieve a desired goal. Future actions and development must be consistent with these policies.

Programs
While many policies can be implemented as part of standard City operations, some policies require specific programs to assure their implementation. Housing programs define the specific actions the City will undertake to achieve the stated goals and policies.

For more information, please see the Policy Document Reader's Guide diagrams on the following page.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-4
Reader's Guide: Goals and Policies
Reader's Guide: Implementation Programs
Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-5
Key Findings and Recommendations
The following section summarizes the key findings in the Housing Needs Assessment and references the resulting programs.

Review of Existing Housing Element
Since the City of St. Helena adopted the Housing Element Update in 2014, the City successfully implemented a majority of the Housing Element implementation programs. Between 2014 and 2021, the City was successful in obtaining additional funding for affordable housing production, preserving existing affordable housing units, and promoting the expansion of multifamily and mixed use housing through the recent 2040 General Plan Update. The City also successfully implemented programs incentivizing and streamlining affordable housing development and revised development standards related to second units for state compliance. While the 2040 General Plan Update process required significant staff time and delayed implementation of some Municipal Code amendments, the City is currently (2022) undertaking a zoning code update that will address the remaining code amendments implementation measures during the 6th cycle. As the code update draws to its conclusion, the City will have more resources available to implement the remaining implementation actions, which have been continued and expanded in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Demographic and Economic Trends
Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to increase because of natural growth and the strong economy drawing new residents to the region. The population of St. Helena increased by 2.1 percent from 2000 to 2020, which is lower than the growth rate of the Bay Area. In 2019, St. Helena’s youth population under the age of 18 was 1,050 and senior population 65 and older was 1,636. These age groups represent 17.2 percent and 26.8 percent, respectively, of St. Helena’s population. Program H-A commits the City to providing sufficient housing sites to meet the needs of the population and Programs H-H and H-I address workforce housing.

Housing Conditions
Number of Homes. The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.

The number of homes in St. Helena increased, 4.4 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate for Napa County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. Program H-N, H-O work to facilitate higher density development, and H-P works to provide residential development opportunities in commercial areas through the implementation of mixed-use zoning.

Home Prices. A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all St. Helena residents to live and thrive in the community.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-6
• Ownership. The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $1 million-$1.5 million in 2019. Home prices increased by 118.2 percent from 2010 to 2020. Program H-GG works to increase affordable homeownership opportunities in St. Helena through the pursuit of mortgage credit certificates.
• Rental Prices. The typical contract rent for an apartment in St. Helena was $1,470 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 15.7 percent from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $59,160 per year. Programs H-DD, H-EE, H-FF, and H-HH work to assist the development of affordable housing. Program H-II includes a commitment to support the Housing Choice Voucher program and to support efforts to expending funding for the program.

Housing Type. It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 63.9 percent of homes in St. Helena were single family detached, 6.1 percent were single family attached, 6.2 percent were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 18.4 percent were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multifamily units. Generally, in St. Helena, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. Programs aimed at addressing the lack of affordable housing types include H-A, H-B, H-E, H-H, H-I, H-J, H-M, H-P, and H-W.

Cost Burden. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In St. Helena, 21.1 percent of households spend 30-50 percent of their income on housing, while 16.6 percent of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing. Lower-income, Latinx, and large households are disproportionally impacted by housing cost burdens. Programs including H-E, H-H, H-M, H-DD, H-EE, and H-FF work to reduce the costs of production or create more affordable housing opportunities by streamlining development approvals, incentivizing affordable housing types, generating funds, and reducing fees.

Special Housing Needs
People with Disabilities. In St. Helena, people with disabilities make up around 12 percent of the total population. Children (under 18) make up around 38 percent of the developmentally disabled population, while adults make up around 62 percent. Most of the developmentally disabled population reside with their parent, family, or guardian.

Senior Households. Senior households represent a higher percentage of the total households in St. Helena, at about 39 percent of households in the city. There is a large income disparity between seniors who rent housing and seniors who own their home. Most seniors who rent make 0 to 30 percent of AMI, and sixty-eight percent of senior households in this income category have housing cost burdens. By contrast, most seniors who own make greater than 100 percent of AMI; thirteen percent of senior households in this category experience housing cost burdens.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-7
Farmworkers. The number of permanent farm workers in Napa County has increased from 2,916 in 2002 to 4,290 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers decreased from 7,855 to 5,734. In St. Helena, the migrant worker student population totaled 20 during the 2019-20 school year, an increase of two students since the 2016-17 school year.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness. According to a Point in Time Count provided by the Chief of Police, there is one homeless person who resides in St. Helena. Countywide, many of the persons experiencing homelessness report chronic substance abuse or mental illness.

Programs H-E, H-H, H-I, H-BB, H-FF, H-KK, H-LL, H-NN, H-OO respond to the city's special housing need by streamlining development review, incentivizing development, or providing directly funding for construction or rehabilitation of housing for those with special needs.

Non-governmental and Governmental Constraints
The non-governmental constraints that restrict building in St. Helena include the price of land, cost of construction, flooding, conservation easements and long-term vineyard leases, and a lack of rental accessory dwelling units. The governmental controls analyzed in this section were land use controls, codes and enforcements, on-and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, and regulations affecting housing for persons with disabilities. The land use controls including zoning and current General Plan land use designations do not constrain residential development; however, some changes are necessary to streamline the design review process. Additionally, water and sewer access are constrained, and the City must prioritize service for proposed development that includes housing for lower-income households (Program H-C). Additionally, St. Helena must also amend the Zoning Code to allow for low barrier navigation centers, consistent with State law. See Program H-F for more information.

Sites Inventory and Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types Sites Inventory. In combination with the City’s pending projects and ADU development trends, the sites inventory provides adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements. St. Helena received a RHNA of 256 total units distributed across very low-income (104 units), low-income (59 units), moderate-income (26 units), and above moderate-income (67 units) categories. A total of 83 lower income housing units can be accommodated on City-owned properties and 332 total housing units can be accommodated on vacant and non-vacant sites. Multiple property owners of vacant and non-vacant sites are supportive of and interested in housing development on their properties. See Program H-A for more information.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types. St. Helena’s Zoning Code allows for a variety of housing types in the City including multiple-family units, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, manufactured and mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units. However, to comply with Section 65915 through 65918 of the California Government Code, St. Helena should amend the Zoning Code to reflect the new Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-8
maximum density bonus provisions that were adopted by the State in 2020. Program H-F commits the City to updating the Zoning Code for compliance with State law.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Earning Populations. In St. Helena, residents with low and moderate household incomes are concentrated in the eastern portion of the city. The Housing Element ensures available land to accommodate all income levels on sites located across the city. Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs H-A, H-B, H-N, H-O, H-R, H-S, H-U, H-V, H-W, and H-AA.

Insufficient Housing Stock for Farmworkers. Farmworker housing is a critical need in Napa County and St. Helena due to the presence of year-round agricultural production. The migratory and sometimes seasonal nature of farm work poses housing challenges for the community and are seen as an impediment for St. Helena.

Efforts to combat this impediment are outlined in Programs H-E, H-H, H-I, and H-KK.

Lack of Affordable Housing Types. There is a lack of diversity in housing types that restricts development of affordable housing in St. Helena. Local land use and zoning regulations perpetuate this deficiency by limiting the form of housing that can be developed on a particular site. Much of the residentially zoned parcels within the city are zoned low and medium density residential and are not compatible with the construction of duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and multifamily housing developments. The City is upzoning a number of parcels as a part of the Housing Element Update to allow higher density residential development. Efforts to further combat this impediment are outlined in Programs H-A, H-B, H-E, H-H, H-I, H-J, H-M, H-N, H-P, H-R, H-S, H-V, H-W, H-AA, H-DD, H-EE, H-FF, H-GG, H-LL, and H-NN.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-9
Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs
Goal 1 A Diversity of Housing to Meet Local Needs
To facilitate development of a variety of housing types to meet the full range of housing needs throughout our community, with particular emphasis on housing for our local workforce, people with special housing needs, and people with extremely low, very low, low, and moderate incomes.

Policies
HE 1.1 Maintain a sufficient supply of land zoned for residential development to meet the identified housing need at all income levels. [Existing Policy HE 1.1, modified] HE 1.2 Work with property owners and developers to facilitate development of new affordable housing throughout the community. [Existing Policy HE 1.2, modified] HE 1.3 Encourage the development of affordable housing and remove non-governmental development constraints, as feasible. [Existing Policy HE 1.3, modified] HE 1.4 Remove governmental constraints to housing. [New Policy] HE 1.5 Address workforce housing needs by supporting in-fill and mixed-use development near downtown. [Existing Policy HE 1.4, modified]
HE 1.6 Encourage innovative housing types and designs. [Existing Policy HE 1.5] Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-10
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-A Available Sites Inventory
The City will prepare a sites inventory and suitability analysis that identifies suitable sites for housing
development that allows targeted income housing
developers to have a clear idea of what sites are suitable for meeting the Regional Housing Needs of the City. To
accommodate the remaining lower-income RHNA of 156
units, the City of St. Helena will identify and rezone a minimum of 14 acres to the HDR zoning district, allowing exclusively residential uses and a minimum of 20 units per acre to a maximum of 28 units per acre by January 31,
2026. Rezoned sites will permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right pursuant to Government Code
section 65583.2(h) and (i) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households and will be selected from sites 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10 in the parcel listing (Table 58). As reflected in 11: Housing Resources, each site has the capacity to accommodate at least 16 units and will be available for development in the planning period where water, sewer, and dry utilities can be provided.

The City will maintain an inventory of parcels meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(c); that is, vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive
housing elements or nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element, that are identified to accommodate
housing for lower income households. This inventory shall be made available online. All previously used lower-income sites currently meet the lower-income density threshold (20 du/ac), however the City shall update the zoning code to allow by-right approval for housing developments that
Identify housing sites suitable to accommodate:
· Very low income: 104 units
· Low income: 59 units
· Moderate income 26 units
· Above Moderate income: 67 units
· Total: 256 units
Provide sites that proactively work to overcome
concentrations of lower- and moderate-income
earning populations; with the goal of facilitating
the development of 82 lower income units in the
western portion of the city
Provide sites appropriate for affordable housing
types
Commit to streamlining review of Hunter
Subdivision project to completion with the goal of
Building Permit applications in 2025. Evaluate
timeline at the end of 2025 and if determined
necessary, identify additional housing sites to
meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA requirements
HE1.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Within three
years of the
adoption
deadline
Publiclyavailable
inventory: by
2024
Hunter
Subdivision
Building
permits: 2025
Evaluate
timeline by
end of 2025

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-11
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
include 20 percent or more of its units affordable to lower income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) on these sites.

The City will consider AFFH in the identification of sites within the inventory and will work to provide sites that proactively work to overcome concentrations of lower- and moderate-income earning populations on the eastern
portion of the city.
[New Program]
H-B Growth Management System
The City will remove the Growth Management System
(GMS) from the Zoning Code.

Due to Senate Bill 330, the GMS cannot currently be
enforced. The City shall remove the GMS from the zoning code through the current Comprehensive Zoning Code
Update currently underway. The GMS has been removed
from the Draft Zoning Code, which is scheduled for
adoption in summer/fall 2023.
[Existing Program HE1.A, modified]
During the planning period, encourage the
development of:
· 4 very low-income units
· 4 low-income units
· 10 moderate-income units
· 10 above moderate-income units
Address the city's lack of affordable housing by
removing governmental constraints
HE1.1
HE1.4
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Implementatio
n: immediate
Revised
Zoning Code:
by 2025 (prior
to sunset of
SB 330)

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-12
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-C Water and Sewer Access
The City will continue to give priority access to water and sewer infrastructure to projects that include affordable housing units.

As required by State law, the City shall deliver the adopted housing element to water and sewer providers, including a cover memo describing the City’s housing element, as well as the City’s housing needs and regional housing need.
[Existing Program HE1.C, modified]
Establish specific procedures providing priority
access to water and sewer infrastructure to
developments with units affordable to lowerincome households, as required by State law Provide water and sewer providers with the
adopted housing element, including cover memo,
as required by State law
HE1.3
HE1.4
Planning
and Public
Works
Departments
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Water
and
Sewer
Enterpris
e Funds
Establish
procedure: by
2025
Provide
providers with
housing
element:
immediately
upon
adoption
H-D Road and Utility Improvement Coordination
The City will continue to work with private property
owners/developers to plan for road and utility
improvements necessary to support housing on sites
identified for lower-income housing, in the event these sites are developed. Funding for off-site improvements will be provided through development impact fees. The City shall annually evaluate funding levels and potential opportunities for use of the funds in line with this program. [Existing Program HE1.E]
During the planning period, encourage the
development of:
· 4 very low-income units
· 4 low-income units
· 4 units identified for seniors,
farmworkers, or persons with disabilities
HE1.2
HE1.3
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Throughout
the planning
period, as
needed
Evaluate
funding
levels and
opportunitie
s: annually

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-13
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-E Streamline Special Needs Housing
The City will apply streamlined ministerial review to housing developments that meet the needs of lower income
households and special needs groups, such as seniors,
people with disabilities, farmworkers, and homeless families and individuals.

The City shall evaluate the streamlined review policy every two years to identify constraints on special needs housing production.

The City shall provide priority processing to development applications that work to provide housing for residents with special housing needs. The City shall also support these applicants by providing technical support through the
entitlement process and shall provide additional density bonuses and modifications to development standards
(beyond State law) to special needs housing projects
proposed on the western half of the city, where fair housing issues are less concentrated. [Existing Program HE1.F,
modified]
During the planning period, encourage the
development of:
· 15 very low-income units
· 8 low-income units
· 6 units identified for seniors,
farmworkers, or persons with disabilities
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
Address the lack of farmworker housing in the city
Provide incentives that work to overcome
concentrations of affordable housing on the
eastern portion of the city
HE1.4 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Evaluate
constraints:
every two
years
Apply
streamlined
review:
throughout
planning
period

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-14
H-F Municipal Code Updates
The City will review and amend the Municipal Code, to
comply with State law to:
· Allow low barrier navigation centers for compliance
with Government Code Sections 65660 and 65668
(AB 101).
· Allow for residential care facilities of six or fewer in zones allowing single-family uses, subject only to
the requirements of single-family uses, in
compliance with State law (HSC § 1568.0831); and
permit facilities with seven or more beds in all
residential zones with objectivity and certainty
similar to other residential uses of the same form
· Update Chapter 17.144 (Affordable Housing) to
reflect new maximum density bonus tier framework
in compliance with California Government Code
Sections 65915 through 65918.
· Amend the Zoning Ordinance to define “family” as
one or more persons living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The definition
should not distinguish between related and
unrelated individuals and should not impose a
numerical limit on the number of persons that
constitute a family.
· Update parking requirements related to emergency
shelters for compliance with Government Code
section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)(A) to require only
be the number of spaces necessary for staff
working in the shelter and no more than other uses
in the same zones.
· Allow accessory dwelling units in all zones allowing
residential uses, including the AP Zone, mixed-use
and commercial zones.

Amend the Municipal Code for compliance with
State law by 2025
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city by removing governmental constraints to
housing production
Amend the inclusionary housing ordinance to
update in-lieu fees to reflect real costs of
developing affordable housing, provide incentives
to construct workforce housing, and provide more
on-site housing requirements for affordable
housing development
HE1.4
HE6.1
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
By 2025

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-15
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
· Update Chapter 17.116.030 (Accessory Dwelling
Units) for compliance with Government Code
section 65852.2.
· Update Chapter 173.200 (Reasonable
Accommodation) to remove discretionary finding
requirements that constrain development, including
finding #5, which considers impacts to surrounding
properties or uses.
· Incorporate objective design standards for singlefamily, small lot, and multifamily developments that provide a ministerial design review process
· Provide a by-right streamlined review process for
affordable housing developments meeting state
affordability thresholds, in compliance with SB 35
and SB 330.
· Allow permanent and supportive housing pursuant
to Government Code section 65661 without
discretionary action.
[Existing Program HE1.K, expanded]
H-G Safety Element Update
The City will, in accordance with SB 1035, update the
General Plan Safety Element to include any new information on fire and flood hazards, as well as climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. In accordance with SB 99 and AB 747, the updated Safety Element will also include evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios and to include information
identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. [New Program]
Update the Safety Element by 2024 HE1.4 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
2024

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-16
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-H Workforce and Farmworker Housing
The City will identify and adopt, as appropriate, incentives for development to address the housing needs of
“workforce” and farmworker households, with priority
given to projects in lower-density higher income on the western half of the city.. As part of this effort, the City will explore the feasibility of adding an above moderate-income workforce housing component to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and amend the Ordinance as
appropriate. [Existing Program HE1.H, modified]
Identify and adopt, as appropriate, development
incentives such as higher density and height
allowances, a streamlined design review process,
and financial incentives, including fee reductions
and waivers and contributions from the City’s
Housing Trust Fund, to encourage the
development of workforce and farmworker
housing, including additional incentives for those
projects in low-density high-income areas
Encourage the development of:
· 10 units identified for workforce or
farmworker housing during the planning
period
· 2 workforce housing developments in
low-density high-income areas
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
Address the lack of farmworker housing in the city
HE1.4 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
By 2025

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-17
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-I ADU Workforce Housing Incentive Program
The City will implement a program to provide financial
assistance for the development of accessory dwelling units in exchange for affordability restrictions that will provide workforce housing. Potential funding sources include, but are not limited to, Housing Trust Funds and Transient
Occupancy Tax revenues.

To encourage housing mobility and housing choice, the City shall provide marketing of the ADU Workforce Housing
Program (and financial incentives) targeted at low-density areas of the city, with particular emphasis on the western half of the city where fair housing issues and existing affordable units are less concentrated. As part of this effort, the City shall hold up to two multi-lingual engagement
events. [Existing Program HE1.I]
Establish an ADU Workforce Housing incentive
program
Market financial incentives to residents in LR and
MR zones, particularly on the western portion of
the City
in combination with Programs H-Q and H-R,
encourage the development of:
· 80 accessory dwelling units, targeting 60
on the western portion of the city
· 20 ADUs with affordability restrictions
during the planning period, including 15
within the western portion of the city.
· 15 ADUs near downtown
Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
Address the lack of farmworker housing in the city
HE1.4 Planning
Department
Housing
Trust
Funds
Transient
Occupan
cy Tax
State and
Federal
workforc
e
housing
programs
State and
Federal
grant
funding
Establish
program: by
2025
Provide
marketing and
engagement
events: 2025

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-18
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-J Non-traditional Housing Types
The City will encourage development of co-housing,
ecohousing, a ‘green’ manufactured home, and other forms of housing, and will ensure these housing types are
considered in the city’s streamlined approval process.

The City will evaluate and update, as appropriate, current zoning practices to remove constraints to non-traditional housing types. The City will also amend the zoning code to provide objective standards for residential development that work for a variety of housing types, including nontraditional housing types. [Existing Program HE1.J, modified]
Evaluate current zoning practices to identify
constraints to non-traditional housing types by
2025
Amend the zoning code to remove constraints and
provide objective design standards by 2026
Encourage the development of:
· 10 missing middle units on infill parcels
or in areas within the western portion of
the city, consistent with AFFH.
· 4 non-traditional housing units during the
planning period.

Address the lack of affordable housing types in
the city
HE1.5 Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Encourage
nontraditional
housing types:
throughout
the planning
period
Evaluate
zoning: by
2025
Amend
zoning: by
2026
H-K Non-Vacant Sites
The City shall adopt a policy(ies) to incentivize new or more intense development on sites included in the sites inventory as lower-income capacity, including sites 7, 9, and 11 (for sites 1 and 2, see Program H-L. Incentives may include, but are not limited to, reducing development standards,
providing flexible parking standards, priority processing, or deferred fees. The City shall engage property owners within six months of adoption to discuss constraints and potential incentives.

Adopt policies that Incentivize the development of
new or more intense uses on non-vacant sites
identified as lower-income capacity to meet the
RHNA.

Encourage the construction of 42 new lowerincome units on sites 7, 9, and 11, including 32 on the western portion of the city
HE 1.1
HE 1.2
HE 1.3
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Engage
property
owners:
within six
months of
adoption
Adopt
incentives:
2024

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-19
Implementation Program Objectives
Implements
What
Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timeframe
H-L City-owned Sites
The City will maintain compliance with the Surplus Land Act throughout the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning
period. The City will assess the appropriateness of and consider implementing the following: outreach
opportunities with housing developers, requests for
proposals, development incentives, fee waivers, priority processing, and financial assistance (when available) to facilitate and incentivize developers to develop housing units on City-owned sites.

The City plans to make 3 properties available through the Surplus Land Act process over the next two years for a
potential development of 57 lower-income units. The City shall conduct studies of City owned sites included in the sites inventor to determine the most efficient use for
housing. These include sites 1, 2, and 3. Through this
process, the City shall engage local affordable housing developers to determine site constraints and potential
policies to meaningfully incentivize affordable housing development on these sites. The City shall proceed with the findings for housing development by 2026. The City
anticipates two-and-a-half years to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (Fall 2026), and one-and-a-half
additional years for land use entitlements and development agreements (Spring 2028).

City owned sites included in the inventory (sites 1-3) shall be rezoned incompliance with Govt. Code Section
65583.2(h) and (i) within three years of the adoption
deadline (by January 31, 2026.

Engage local affordable housing developers
immediately
Study city owned sites to determine the most
efficient use for affordable housing development
within the first year following adoption
By 2026, implement an action plan to sell, or
release an RFP to develop, City owned land for
affordable housing development based on the
findings of the conducted studies. Through the
action plan, establish and implement a variety of
incentives to facilitation housing development.

Maintain compliance with the Surplus Land Act
throughout the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Planning Period
Make properties available through the Surplus
Land Act process
Target Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by Fall
2026
Target land use entitlements issuance by Spring
2028
Encourage the development of 57 lower-income
units in the northeast quadrant of the city near
transit opportunities, and where fair housing
issues are less concentrated, and walkability and
environmental scores are more positive
HE 1.1
HE 1.2
HE 1.3
Planning
Department
General
Fund
(staff
time)
Engage
developers:
immediately
upon
adoption
Conduct
studies: by
July 2025
Implement
action plan
and incentives
for City
owned sites:
by 2026
Rezone sites:
by Jan. 31,
2026

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-20
Goal 2 High-Quality Neighborhoods with a Balance of Housing Types To plan for a balance of housing types throughout the community. [Existing Goal, modified]
Policies
HE 2.1 Encourage higher density development. [Existing Policy HE 2.1, modified] HE 2.2 Promote higher density development opportunities in low density, high resource areas. [New Policy]
HE 2.3 Promote mixed-use developments. [Existing Policy HE 2.3] HE 2.4 Promote accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production. [Existing Policy HE 2.4, modified] HE 2.5 Allow duplexes to the extent required by State law in all single-family residential zones consistent with SB 9. [New Policy]
HE 2.6 Promote the development of missing middle housing with an area median income target of 120 percent (moderate income). [New Policy]
HE 2.7 Promote a balance of housing types and unit sizes throughout the community. [Existing Policy HE 2.6, modified]
Implementation Programs
Implementation programs for this goal have been included in a table beginning on the following page.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-21
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-M Incentives for Lower-Cost Housing
Types
The City will continue to provide incentives for
higher density housing and will explore possible
incentives for building attached market rate housing
units for rent and for sale. Incentives may include,
but are not restricted to, fast tracking development
applications, deferred development fees, reduced
parking and/or other city standards, and density
bonuses. [Existing Program HE2.A]
Encourage the development of 20 lower income units
during the planning period
Study potential incentives for attached market rate
units by 2027
Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.1 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
Throughout
the
planning
period
Attached
market-rate
housing
study by
2027

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-22
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-N Zoning to Facilitate Higher Density
Housing
The City will modify the Zoning Code to facilitate
higher density housing, consistent with the 2040
General Plan Update and Housing Sites Analysis,
and discourage the construction of oversize homes,
particularly within the western portion of the city,
consistent with AFFH.

The City shall revise maximum lot coverage to 55
percent and maximum height to 42 feet in the HR
zone and on key housing sites in the MR zone (see
Section 17.40.020(N)).

The City shall revise the zoning code to allow minor
modifications of up to 10 percent increase in lot
coverage standards and 5 percent (or two feet,
whichever is greater) in maximum height. Minor
modifications shall be approved by the Community
Development Director without a public hearing.

The City shall reduce parking requirements for
multifamily uses with three or more units to require
one parking space for studio or one-bedroom units.

The City shall revise Section 17.40.020 to allow
duplexes and triplexes and densities of 5.1 to 16
dwelling units per acres in the MR zone without a
conditional use permit. [Existing Program HE2.B,
modified]
Modify the development standards within the Zoning
Ordinance to encourage higher density developments
by 2026
Develop land use patterns that work to overcome
geographic concentrations of lower-and moderateincome earning populations Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.1
HE2.2
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
By 2026

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-23
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-O Exemptions from Minimum Density
The City will amend zoning regulations to prohibit
exemptions from minimum density requirements.
[Existing Program HE2.C]
Prohibit exemptions from minimum density
requirements
Encourage development patterns that work to
overcome geographic concentrations of lower-and
moderate-income earning populations
HE2.1
HE2.2
Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
By 2026
H-P Mixed-use Development Types
The City will amend the Zoning Code to create and
implement the development criteria set for mixed
use development within St Helena. [Existing
Program HE2.G, modified]
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create and
implement the development criteria set for mixed use
development by 2026
Encourage the development of 20 housing units in
mixed-use projects during the planning period
Explore and adopt, as appropriate, development
incentives such as higher density and height
allowances, a streamlined design review process, and
financial incentives, including fee reductions and
waivers and contributions from the City’s Housing
Trust Fund, to encourage employers to provide onsite employee housing Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.3 Planning
Department
General
Fund (staff
time)
By 2026

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Adopted, May 9, 2023 1-24
Implementation Program Objectives Implements
What Policies
Who is
Responsible
Potential
Funding
Source
Timing
H-Q Direct Assistance for ADU
Development
The City will continue to provide financial incentives, such as fee waivers and pre-approved plans, for
ADU development.

The City will also explore additional options such as
covering the cost of a feasibility consult or the
license fee for pre-approved plans, or capping total
fees.

The City will work with Napa Sonoma ADU to
provide public information regarding ADUs on the
City website, including a guide for homeowners
explaining the benefits and procedures for adding
an ADU and links to resources, including the ADU
Feasibility Calculator, Home Match Program, and
Standard ADU Plans Program. [Existing Program
HE2.J, modified]
Provide direct financial incentives to 10 ADU projects
in the planning period
Explore additional financial incentives by 2025
Provide informational materials and technical
assistance regarding the development of ADUs to 30
households in low-density western portions of the
city within the planning period
Address the lack of affordable housing types in the
city
HE2.4 Planning
Department
Housing
Trust Fund
General
Fund (staff
time)
Explore
additional
incentives:
by 2025
Provide
information
al materials:
by 2025
Engage
Napa
Sonoma
ADU:
annually