Agenda, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, April 23, 2024 (part 2 of 8)

4 • May 9, 2023: Formal adoption of the draft Housing Element by the City Council.

Attachments
1) Property Owner Notification – Opportunity Sites
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 226 of 1184 ends

July 27, 2022 City of St. Helena
Planning Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Property Owner
Address
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Planning for Future Housing in St. Helena – Your Property at Address Here and the City of St. Helena Housing Element Update
Dear Property Owner:

The City of St. Helena is updating its Housing Element, a state-mandated document establishing the city's long-term housing plan, which is updated at specific time intervals. The current update will cover an eight-year period, 2023-2031, termed the 6th Cycle. Part of the Housing Element involves designating areas of the city for new homes to accommodate the city’s fair share forecasted housing growth (also known as the regional housing allocation). To do that, and to comply with state law, St. Helena must look at various properties throughout the city that could feasibly and practically accommodate the over 250 housing units that the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) and the State has assigned St. Helena. Attached is an informational bulletin that provides additional information on the Housing Element update process.

Based on certain site criteria, your property has been identified as a possible site that could help accommodate future housing units. Please note that this is a state required planning exercise and as the current property owner you are in no way obligated or required to build any homes if your property is ultimately selected as a housing opportunity site as part of the Housing Element update.

Listing sites in inventory is simply how we demonstrate to the state that we have adequate sites with the right kind of zoning to accommodate our regional housing allocation, which is explained in greater detail in the attached bulletin. Property owners of sites listed in opportunity sites inventory will maintain complete control over whether or not their sites develop in the future.

Furthermore, being identified as a housing opportunity site does not necessarily mean that the current use on the site would be removed and replaced; in some cases, potential future housing could be added in conjunction with existing uses.

As the city continues to analyze potential sites, we would like to discuss the matter with you to answer any questions you may have regarding the site selection and long term housing plan process. We would also like to understand more about any constraints on the property, such as Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 227 of 1184 ends

long-term leases or plans for development, so that we can better understand your position regarding a potential change in land use on your property.

Please contact Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner, via email at [email protected] or via phone at (707) 968-2747. More information on the city's Housing Element update is available on the designated website st.helenahousing.com. The Housing Element update process will continue throughout the next year and there will be numerous opportunities for additional public participation and input.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachment: Newsletter #1
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 228 of 1184 ends

1 St. Helena Housing Element Update!
We are excited to announce that in February 2021, the City of St. Helena kicked off the update to the City’s Housing Element. The update is scheduled to take approximately two years, and throughout the process, we invite the public to be part of the planning process and provide input on how St. Helena should provide housing over the planning period (2023-2031).

NEWSLETTER #1: HOUSING ELEMENT OVERVIEW
sthelenahousing.com
Have questions? City of St. Helena
Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner
[email protected]
What is a Housing Element?
Since 1969, every jurisdiction in California has been required to have a Housing Element as part of their General Plan. Unlike other mandatory General Plan elements, the Housing Element must be updated every eight years and is subject to review and approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Major components of the Housing Element include a housing needs assessment, the identification of sites for housing at all income levels, a review of constraints to housing, and updated policies and programs to carry out the goals of the updated element.

The City’s current 2014-2022 Housing Element was adopted in 2015 and was part of the 5th Cycle of housing element updates in the State. This update for the 2023-2031 Housing Element is part of the 6th Cycle of housing element updates. Between the 5th and 6th Cycles, the State has passed over a dozen of new housing laws, many of which aim to lower barriers to building affordable housing. These will all be addressed with this update.

Another major addition to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update is the inclusion of an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis. This analysis will examine housing practices in the city to identify any areas that may perpetuate housing inequities in the community. Once identified, the Housing Element will create policies and programs to help work towards more equitable housing practices.

Visit the Project
Website to:
▪ Stay informed
▪ Find out about
upcoming
meetings and
events
▪ Sign-up for
email updates
▪ Share your ideas
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 229 of 1184 ends

2 Phase 1:

INITIATION
What to expect:
• Website goes live
• Newsletter #1
• City Council (CC)
and Planning
Commission (PC)
Joint Study Session
Phase 2:

HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE
What to expect:
• Community
Workshops #1-3
• CC/PC Joint Study
Session
• Public Review Draft
Housing Element
What does a Housing Element do?
The purpose of a Housing Element is to:
• Provide an assessment of current and future housing needs • Identify opportunities and constraints on housing production • Establish goals, policies, and programs to meet those needs • Update City practices and regulations to reflect new State laws Phase 3:

PUBLIC HEALTH AND

SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE
What to expect:
• Community Workshop #4
• CC/PC Joint Study Session
• General Plan and Zoning
Code Amendments
Phase 5:

HCD REVIEW AND

COORDINATION
What to expect:
• HCD Draft
Housing Element
• Meeting with
HCD
• Response to
HCD comments
Phase 6:

ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION
What to expect:
• Preparation of
environmental
analysis
• Addendum to
General Plan EIR
Phase 7:

PUBLIC REVIEW

AND ADOPTION
What to expect:
• Planning
Commission
public hearings
• City Council
public hearings
• Final Housing
Element
• Transmittal to
HCD
A Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:

Phase 4:

PUBLIC REVIEW

DRAFT HOUSING

ELEMENT
What to expect:
• Community
Workshop #5
• Newsletter #2
• PC Study Session
• CC Study Session PROCESS • Conserving and improving existing affordable housing • Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community • Assisting in the provision of affordable housing
• Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment • Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 230 of 1184 ends

3 What is RHNA?
In the process of updating the Housing Element,
each jurisdiction is required to accommodate its fair
share of the regional housing need. The Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the process
used to determine housing allocations for each
jurisdiction. As part of the RHNA, HCD determines
the total number of housing units needed across
California over the next decade. The Association of
Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (ABAG/MTC) is then tasked with
developing a methodology to determine the number
of housing units for which each Bay Area jurisdiction
is required to provide sites.

Under State law, the RHNA is assigned to the
following four income categories:
• Very low household income
• Low household income
• Moderate household income
• Above moderate household income
The household income for each of these categories is
based on a percentage of the Area Median
Income (AMI). The breakdown of these categories is
shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Income Categories
Income Category Percent of AMI
Very low <50%
Low 51-80%
Moderate 81-120%
Above Moderate >120%
In February 2021, ABAG/MTC updated their methodology for RHNA allocations to all Bay Area jurisdictions, which is expected to be finalized in Spring 2021. The City of St. Helena’s draft RHNA requirement is shown in Table 2. Table 2 also illustrates that St. Helena will be responsible for identifying housing sites that can support 223 more housing units than required in the 5th Cycle. Across the state, jurisdictions are facing similar challenges.

Table 2: 5th Cycle and 6th Cycle RHNA Comparison
Cycle Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA
Very Low Low
5th Cycle 8 5 5 13 31
6th Cycle 103 59 26 66 254
Change +95 +54 +21 +53 +223
The inventory and analysis of adequate sites is a labor-intensive and potentially controversial component of the Housing Element Update process. St. Helena will need to evaluate General Plan land uses and the zoning ordinance to determine whether there is enough land available to accommodate the assigned RHNA allocation for each income category. If unable to accommodate the RHNA, St. Helena will need to plan to rezone enough land to meet the RHNA obligation.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 231 of 1184 ends

4 Get Involved!
For the Housing Element to truly represent the community’s vision for the future, we need your help. The success of this planning effort will depend on the input of the community, and we have provided a range of ways to hear your ideas for the future of St. Helena. You can participate as much or as little as you like, from attending public meetings and community workshops to providing input online from the
comfort of your home.

Visit the Project Website
The project website (sthelenahousing.com) is the hub for timely updates with information on the status of the project, announcements of upcoming workshops and meetings, and
publication of key documents.

Sign-up for Email Updates
You can join the email list on the project website
(sthelenahousing.com). By signing up, you will be notified when the City releases new documents and announces
meetings, workshops, and other events.

Join Meetings and Public Workshops
Not only are these great opportunities to learn about the Housing Element update, but meetings and workshops are
also a great place to share your ideas and connect with the community.

Visit sthelenahousing.com for more information.

How can you make a difference?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 232 of 1184 ends

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
February 5, 2024
Maya DeRosa, Director
Community Development Director
City of Saint Helena
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
RE: Saint Helena Housing Element Implementation – Corrective Action Letter Dear Maya DeRosa:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the City of Saint Helena’s (City) obligations under the housing element and hereby issues its written findings that the City has failed to implement Program H-A (Available Sites Inventory) included in its housing element.

HCD requests that the City review this correspondence and provide a written response to these findings within 30 days and no later than March 6, 2024. HCD will review and consider the City’s written response before taking any action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivisions (i) and (j). As noted below, such action could include revoking HCD’s finding that City’s housing element is in substantial compliance with California’s Housing Element Law and/or referral to the California Office of the Attorney General.

State Housing Element Law
Pursuant to Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e)(4)(C), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c), and 65583.2, subdivision (c), shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline (January 31, 2024).

In addition, HCD must review any action or failure to act by a City that it determines to be inconsistent with an adopted housing element or section 65583 generally, and it must issue written findings to the City accordingly. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1).) HCD must give the City a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to these findings. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A).) If HCD does not receive a written response from the City within 30 days, or the response does not demonstrate that the program action has been implemented, then HCD will revoke its findings that the City’s Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 233 of 1184 ends

Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director

Page 2 ends

housing element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(B).)
Additionally, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General when a City takes actions that are inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Government Code sections 65583 and 65915, among other laws. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).) Findings
On September 25, 2023, HCD found the City’s housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. HCD based its compliance finding on, among other things, a commitment to implement Program H-A to rezone 206 units to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and make prior identified sites available one year from the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), in accordance with Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c), and 65583.2, subdivision (c).

Pursuant to an email communication received on February 1, 2024, the City expects to complete the necessary rezones by June 2024. Based upon this information, HCD finds that the City has failed to implement the required rezone program actions within the statutorily required timeframe.

Next Steps
HCD provides the City until March 6, 2024 to send a written response to these findings.

If you have questions, need additional information, or wish to schedule a meeting, please contact me at [email protected] or Fidel Herrera at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 234 of 1184 ends

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
March 26, 2024
Anil Comelo, City Manager
City of Saint Helena
1088 College Avenue
Saint Helena, CA 94574
RE: Revocation of Housing Element Compliance Finding – City of Saint Helena Dear Anil Comelo:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is hereby notifying the City of Saint Helena (City) that HCD has revoked, as of the date of this letter, its September 25, 2023 finding that the City’s housing element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). The City had adopted this housing element on May 9, 2023.

On February 5, 2024, HCD issued the City its written findings that the City had failed to implement Program H-A (Available Sites Inventory) included in its housing element pursuant to Government Code section 65583, and that this failure brought the City’s housing element out of substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. HCD provided the City with 30 days to respond to HCD’s written findings pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i)(1)(A).

On February 26, 2024, HCD received the City’s response to HCD’s written findings.

The City’s response does not demonstrate implementation of Program H-A. HCD thus finds that the City’s housing element is no longer in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. Consequently, HCD is revoking its finding of the City’s housing element compliance, as authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i)(1)(B). HCD’s determination of non-compliance will remain in effect until the City completes required rezone actions in Program H-A. Once the City completes this program action, a copy of the resolution or ordinance should be transmitted to HCD. HCD will review the documentation and issue correspondence identifying the updated status of the City’s housing element compliance.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 235 of 1184 ends

Anil Comelo, City Manager

Page 2 ends

HCD is committed to assisting all localities in achieving and retaining substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Reid Miller at [email protected].

Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 236 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
“We will conduct city affairs on behalf of our citizens using an open and creative process.”
City of St. Helena  1572 Railroad Ave., St. Helena, CA 94574 Phone: (707) 967-2792  Fax: (707) 963-7748  Website: www. cityofsthelena.org 1572 Railroad Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Phone: (707) 967-2792
Fax: (707) 963-7748
www.cityofsthelena.org
November 24, 2020
Jesse Arreguin, President
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Proposed RHNA Methodology and Subregional Shares
Dear President Arreguin:

The City of St. Helena would like to thank the ABAG Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) for its important work and for the opportunity to provide HMC with more insight on how the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Proposed Methodology dated October 2020 would affect a small, rural community like St. Helena. We have carefully reviewed the Proposed Methodology and submit the following comments as part of the public comment period on the Proposed RHNA Methodology and Draft Subregion Share:
• The St. Helena General Plan designates nearly 50% of the incorporated areas as agriculture and open space with an additional 15% being heavily wooded areas on steep mountainous slopes (designated Woodlands and Watershed), leaving relatively limited in-fill capacity for development at densities needed to accommodate the allocation targets under the draft methodology. • The recently adopted General Plan assumed up to 332 new housing units through year 2040 or approximately 15 units a year.
• The proposed RHNA assignment of 171 units over an 8-year planning period requires 21.375 units per year to be constructed, a 42.5% increase over the annual growth rate contemplated by the current General Plan. While St. Helena recognizes that all cities must share in the region’s need to build new housing, this is a faster growth rate than anticipated in the City’s planning documents. • The accelerated growth required by these RHNA assignments will escalate the need for expanded and updated infrastructure; how are small communities like St. Helena going to pay for this infrastructure? We will enthusiastically work with ABAG-MTC and other local governments to advocate for additional State funding to assist with expanded and updated infrastructure in support of affordable housing projects.
• Although St. Helena is served by the Vine, Napa County’s public transit system, this system is seldom used by those who have access to cars – in other words, it does not draw significant Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 237 of 1184 ends

2 numbers of commuters who either work in St. Helena or who live in St. Helena and work elsewhere. As a result, except where construction of low and moderate income housing enables workers to live closer to their place of employment, housing development beyond that contemplated by the City’s General Plan would increase VMT and traffic congestion, and would not support greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. • Small, rural, agricultural communities are not appropriate locations for “high-rise” residential housing which further limits their ability to increase density. • Our ability to assume more growth in the City became further constrained on October 27, 2020, when the City of St. Helena declared a Phase 2 water emergency. No new water connections are permitted during a Phase II emergency.
• The hills and mountains that frame the Napa Valley are in PG&E’s Tier 3 high fire risk zone and have proven to be high fire hazard areas as evidence by the Tubbs, Atlas, Hennessy (LNU Complex), and Glass fires of 2017 and 2020; this further limits our ability to accommodate additional growth outside existing urban limits.
• Placing homes near job centers and away from natural hazards (fire severity zones etc.) and preserving agricultural and open space areas should be given a high priority to avoid the inadvertent loss of farmland and open space and to reduce the significant cost of emergency mitigation and assistance.
• The aggregate total of St. Helena units in Table 5 should be 171, not 172. The proposed distribution by income category is:
o Very Low: 46
o Low: 27
o Moderate: 27
o Above Moderate: 71
• Upon the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020, a paradigm shift has occurred in urban centers around the world relating to commuting patterns and the density of cities identified as job rich centers. Many of the current telecommuting arrangements from Silicon Valley’s technology giants are expected to remain post COVID-19. The region is also experiencing an exodus of workers leaving the Bay Area for Sacramento and other more affordable areas outside the region which will have impacts for years to come. Has ABAG and the RHNA Methodology Committee considered how these demographic shifts may change the assumptions? • The City of St. Helena has faced extraordinary economic challenges this year due to the pandemic and the wildfires. Under these circumstances, it will be important for RHNA to avoid placing a disproportionate adverse financial impact on small, rural communities like ours.

The City of St. Helena appreciates this opportunity to review and comment on this very important housing growth strategy as our region prepares to begin the Housing Element update process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 238 of 1184 ends

3 Best regards,
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Planning and Building Director
City of St Helena
cc: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
Aaron Hecock, AICP, Senior Planner
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 239 of 1184 ends

St. Helena, CA 94574
Phone: (707) 967-2792
Fax: (707) 963-7748
www.cityofsthelena.org
July 7, 2021
Jesse Arreguin, President
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Final RHNA Methodology and Subregional Shares
Dear President Arreguin:

The City of St. Helena recognizes the significant milestone of the ABAG Executive Board approving the Final RHNA on May 20, 2021. We further recognize the State is in a housing crisis and HCD and ABAG are leading agencies on the forefront of planning for each subregion to meet this challenge. This letter serves the purpose to convey our concerns with the additional 83 very low and low income “equity adjustment” beyond the 171 units we received in October 2020. While we are not filing an appeal, we find that the 254 unit RHNA assignment poses a legitimate threat to the City’s safety and water supply as articulated further below.
• Fire Hazard: In 2020 the City of St. Helena experienced a local emergency as the Glass Fire consumed 67,000 acres of vegetation in Napa and Sonoma Counties as well as damaging 14 structures in the city limits. It was a sober lesson that the City cannot plan for additional housing growth in this PG&E Tier 3 high risk zone as our hillside areas contain high amounts of fire fuel.

Unlike many larger Bay Area cities that have no fire hazard areas which can therefore accommodate housing infill, St. Helena’s land availability is very constrained and consequently there is a very diminished land capacity that can be assumed for housing growth. Additionally, our relatively remote, rural location with limited emergency evacuation routes presents a particularly concerning safety hazard to both our existing and future residents. • Water Shortage: As communicated in our November 24, 2020 letter to ABAG, our ability to assume more growth in the City became further constrained on October 27, 2020, when the City of St. Helena declared a Phase II water emergency, which occurs when the projected water supply is not sufficient to meet projected demands from the City’s existing customers without significant conservation measures being implemented. This has had an immediate impact upon our development potential as no new water connections are permitted during a Phase II emergency. Since we submitted our last correspondence to ABAG related to the RHNA, our water emergency has become more urgent and residents are currently under water rationing requirements and subject to fines and penalties. A link to a recent article is noted below.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 240 of 1184 ends

2 https://napavalleyregister.com/community/star/news/st-helena-calls-on-water-customers-to-cutconsumption-by-30/article_108f155f-2693-5c3d-830a-35385325bfe4.html The City is in the process of conducting analyses of its existing water supply to better assess its ability to meet current and future demand, as well as exploring additional water resources including but not limited to developing recycled water infrastructure that can be used for irrigation and other non-potable purposes. While the current drought is the impetus for the Phase II emergency, it has raised significant concerns about the City’s ability to accommodate its existing users, let alone significant new development of the type contemplated by the City’s RHNA numbers. We find that our circumstances will result in a likely diminished ability to rely on our local groundwater supply to meet our current domestic water supply needs. This could put the City in an untenable position, stuck between our obligations and desires to both provide our fair share of housing within the region, and ensure the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents by ensuring an adequate water supply. • “Equity Adjustment” : In February 2021, ABAG released the updated Draft RHNA with the equity adjustment for 49 jurisdictions exhibiting above average racial and economic exclusion using a composite score based on the jurisdiction’s divergence index score (a measure of segregation) and percent of the jurisdiction’s households above 120% AMI. We were disappointed to find that our City was further penalized after articulating the many land and infrastructure constraints in our November 24, 2020 letter. We find the equity adjustment did not take into account the aforementioned special circumstances in the City of St. Helena.

In closing, the State of California envisions both wildfires and droughts getting worse with climate change. This is not just about a current drought or related increased fire risk, but reflects a long term reduction in water availability and growth in wildfire danger. Regionally, other larger communities in the Bay Area have a better ability to adjust to drought and have reduced issues with wildfire and we ask that ABAG consider this constraint in future RHNA methodology considerations. The City of St. Helena appreciates this opportunity to share our ongoing concerns with the RHNA assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Best regards,
Maya DeRosa, AICP
Planning and Building Director
City of St Helena
cc: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager
Aaron Hecock, AICP, Senior Planner
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 241 of 1184 ends

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4825 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95819
916 706 1374
i [email protected]
www.rinconconsultants.com
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
St. Helena Housing Element Update Preliminary Site Inventory The following report outlines the preliminary site inventory for St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.

This site inventory was completed consistent with HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook and following an analysis of RHNA credits, which included pending housing projects within the city and ADU trends expected over the next 8-year housing cycle. After determining RHNA credits, specific sites were considered for potential for housing development starting with City owned sites, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, such as environmental concerns, utility access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores.

Sites throughout the city were evaluated using the site requirements and site-specific constraints to compile a list of potential sites. The list of potential sites was presented at two separate focus group meetings (December 16, 2021 and January 27, 2022) and a community workshop (January 20, 2022) to collect feedback from interested parties and the community. Table 1 shows a summary of the total number of housing units that can be accommodated under this preliminary site inventory. The inventory provides enough sites to meet and exceed the City’s RHNA allocation and buffer requirements, especially for above-moderate units. Therefore, there is flexibility on the sites as the Housing Element Update continues through the process and HCD review.

Table 1 Summary of Housing Units
Lower Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Pending Projects 0 0 92 92
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Preliminary Sites 203 62 54 319
Total 203 62 218 483
St. Helena RHNA plus
20% Buffer
192 31 79 302
Surplus 11 31 139 181
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 242 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 2 ends

Site 1: 1480 Main Street (APN 009-211-016)
Current Use Fire Stations and Vacant Structures
Parcel Size 1.66 acres (0.9 acres available for redevelopment) Existing General Plan Land Use Central Business and Public/Quasi-Public Existing Zoning Public/Quasi-Public
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed-Use
Allowed Density 12 to 20 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 22 units
Income Category 22 Lower Income
Site 1 is a 1.66-acre property owned by the City of St. Helena located at 1480 Main Street. City goals are in line with mixed-use residential redevelopment of a portion of the site fronting Main Street. Current uses on-site include the St. Helena Fire Department on the northern portion of the site and a vacant one-story building on the southwestern portion of the site. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone change would be required to change the land use and zoning designation from Public/Quasi-Public to Mixed-Use.

Table 2 Site Summary
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 243 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 3 ends

The site developable area is assumed to be approximately 0.9 acres, with the removal of the vacant building on the southwestern portion of the site. A capacity analysis of the site assumed approximately 80% of the available site area would accommodate housing development (the remaining 20% of the site is reserved for potential landscaping and other site improvements required by the City’s development standards) and a 50% density bonus. Therefore, the site can accommodate approximately 22 lower income units under the maximum density under Mixed Use of 20 units per acre.

Site Capacity Calculations:
� �0.9 acres ∗
20units
acre � + 50% 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 � x 80% = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 244 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 4 ends

Site 2: 1572 Railroad Avenue (APN 009-193-002)
Table 3 Site Summary
Current Use City Hall
Parcel Size 0.93 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Public/Quasi-Public
Existing Zoning Business and Professional Office
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 30 units
Income Category 30 Lower Income
Site 2 is a 0.93-acre property owned by the City of St. Helena located at 1572 Railroad Avenue. City goals are in line with residential redevelopment of a portion of the site. This site is currently used as a temporary location for City Hall. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the land use and zoning designation to High Density Residential.

The entire 0.93-acre site is able to be redeveloped with the removal of the existing buildings. Therefore, the site can accommodate 30 lower income units, with the assumption the site would receive a 50% density bonus and that 80% of the site will accommodate housing (20% of the site is reserved for landscaping and other site improvements). The assumption that the site would be developed at the maximum allowed density of 26 units per acre for High Density Residential zoning and that 100% of the units would be lower income units is reasonable given this site is owned by the City.

Site Capacity Calculations:
� �0.93 acres ∗
26units
acre � + 50% 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 � x 80% = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮𝐮 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 245 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 5 ends

Site 3: 905 Main Street (APN 009-180-008)
Table 4 Site Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 0.27 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Mixed-Use
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Mixed-Use
Allowed Density 12 to 20 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 5 units
Income Category 5 Above Moderate
Site 3 is a 0.27-acre property located at 905 Main Street. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. In addition, the property owner has expressed interest in development of the site with housing. A zoning change would be required to change the zoning designation from Service Commercial to Mixed-Use, which would bring the property into conformance with the existing General Plan land use designation.

The site is vacant and the entire 0.27-acre site is able to be developed. Therefore, the site can accommodate 5 above moderate-income units, using a density assumption of 20 units per acre.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 246 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 6 ends

Site 4: Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane (APN 009-660-005) Table 5 Site Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.8 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Service Commercial
Existing Zoning Service Commercial
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 36 units
Income Category 36 Lower Income
Site 4 is a 1.8-acre property located on Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane. The property is a vacant site in a location prime for development along Main Street. Our Town St. Helena (OTSH) is currently in negotiations to develop property as an affordable housing project. The capacity analysis completed by OTSH indicated high density land use is appropriate for the site. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the land use and zoning designation from Service Commercial to High Density Residential.

The entire site is vacant and OTSH conducted a site analysis to determine a feasible number of units they could develop on-site, given its location and shape. It was concluded the site can accommodate 36 lower income units, which is a density of approximately 20 units per acre. OTSH intends to develop a 36- unit housing development with 100% lower income units.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 247 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 7 ends

Site 5: 709 and 741 McCorckle Avenue (APN 009-100-031, -032) Table 6 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 1.8 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Medium Density Residential Allowed Density 5.1 to 16 units/acre
Assumed Density 5.1 units/acre
Site Capacity 8 units
Income Category 8 Above Moderate
Site 5 is composed of two adjacent properties that total 1.8 acres located at 709 and 741 McCorkle Avenue. Both properties are underutilized with one single family residence and with large undeveloped space on each property. One of the property owners expressed interest in subdividing the property pursuant to SB9, which would allow each lot to be split into two lots with development of up to two units on each lot. The current zoning designation is Medium Density Residential and no changes to land use or zoning are proposed.

The sites are composed of two single family lots which can each be split into two lots with development of up to 2 units on each lot, pursuant to SB9, for a total of 8 above-moderate units (a net increase of 6 units). In addition, each lot could develop ADUs for a total capacity of 10 units. The capacity assumption assumes a total of 8 units (4 on each property), which is conservative given then underlying land use and zoning designation could allow redevelopment
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 248 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 8 ends

Site 6: 821 Pope Street (APN 009-503-001)
Table 7 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residence
Parcel Size 1.0 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 20 units
Income Category 10 Lower and 10 Moderate
Site 6 is a 1.0-acre property located at 821 Pope Street. The site is underutilized with one existing singlefamily residence and large undeveloped areas on-site. Land use designations and existing development surrounding the site consist of multi-family housing. The current zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

Development of the entire 1.0-acre site could accommodate 20 units, 10 lower income units and 10 moderate income units, with a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 249 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 9 ends

Site 7: 882 and 886 College Avenue (APN 009-070-043, -044, -045) Table 8 Site Summary
Current Use Vacant
Parcel Size 1.5 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Public/Quasi-Public
Existing Zoning A-20 (Agriculture)
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 30 units
Income Category 30 Lower
Site 7 is composed of three adjacent properties that total 1.5 acres located at 882 and 886 College Avenue. The site is adjacent to areas with existing multi-family development. All three properties are vacant and are owned by a single property owner who has expressed interest in residential development on these properties. The site’s land use and zoning designated are currently not consistent. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the land use and zoning designation from Public/Quasi-Public and Agriculture to High Density Residential The entire 1.5-acre site is able to be developed. Therefore, the site can accommodate 30 lower income units, a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 250 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 10 ends

Site 8: 1447 and 1515 Spring Street (APN 009-590-003, -010) Table 9 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residences
Parcel Size 2.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 48 units
Income Category 24 Lower and 24 Above Moderate
Site 8 is composed of two adjacent properties that total 2.4 acres located at 1447 and 151 Spring Street.

Both properties are underutilized with an existing single-family residence and large undeveloped areas on each parcel. The site is surrounded by single- and multi-family development and sites zoned High Density Residential. The current zoning designation is High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The site can accommodate 48 units, 24 lower income units and 24 above moderate income units, a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 251 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 11 ends

Site 9: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View Street (APN 009-441- 023)
Table 10 Site Summary
Current Use Vineyard
Parcel Size 4.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 88 units
Income Category 44 Lower and 44 Moderate
Site 9 is a 4.4-acre parcel located on Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street. The site is considered underutilized as it has a residential land use designation but is currently developed with vineyards. Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential uses on this residentially zoned parcel in the form of town homes, compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition, recent property owner inquiry for residential development of the site indicates opportunity for redevelopment. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required to change the zoning from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

The site can accommodate 88 units, 44 lower income units and 44 moderate income units, a density of 20 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 252 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 12 ends

Site 10: 1998 Spring Street (APN 009-391-031)
Table 11 Site Summary
Current Use Single Family Residence
Parcel Size 3.5 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Medium Density Residential Allowed Density 5,1 to 16 units/acre
Assumed Density 5.1 units/acre
Site Capacity 17 units
Income Category 17 Above Moderate
Site 10 is a 3.5-acre parcel located at 1998 Spring Street. The site is occupied by two existing singlefamily residences with large undeveloped areas. The site is underutilized with potential for redevelopment or additional units on-site. The site is zoned Medium Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The site can accommodate 17 above moderate income units, a density of 5.1 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the Medium Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 16 units per acre.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 253 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 13 ends

Site 11: 601 Pope Street (APN 009-502-011)
Table 12 Site Summary
Current Use Silverado Orchard Apartments
Parcel Size 2.9 acres (0.75 acres available for development) Existing General Plan Land Use High Density Residential Existing Zoning High Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Assumed Density 20 units/acre
Site Capacity 15 units
Income Category 7 Lower and 8 Moderate
Site 11 is a 2.9-acre parcel located at 601 Pope Street. The site is underdeveloped and is currently occupied by the Silverado Orchard Apartments on the northeastern portion of the site with a large vacant area on the southwestern portion of the site. There is opportunity to expand the existing high density housing development on-site or develop additional housing.

The site is zoned High Density Residential and no changes to zoning are proposed.

The 0.75-acre vacant portion of the site can accommodate 15 units, 7 lower income and 8 moderate income units, a density of 5.1 units per acre. This is a conservative estimate given that the High Density Residential land use designation allows a maximum density of 26 units per acre.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 254 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 14 ends

Sites Considered but Rejected
The following sites were considered to be included in the site inventory for the City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. However, due to various constraints and feedback from the focus group and community workshop, development of housing within the next 8 years was not considered feasible on these sites and they were not included in the site inventory. 900 Crane Avenue: The property owner expressed interest in housing on-site. However, this site has a large PG&E transmission line running through the center of the property that could prevent residential development of a certain size being constructed on-site. However, this site could be developed with housing in the future. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Industrial to Mixed-Use or Residential. The following policy is proposed to be added to the Housing Element Update to further incentivize housing development in the city: “Explore 900, 902 & 906 Crane Avenue as future housing sites (APNs 009-2800-034/038/039).” If housing is developed on-site within the next 8 years, the units will still count towards the City’s RHNA weather it is included in the site inventory or not.

Adams Street: This site is owned by the City and future City priorities for this site are unknown at this time. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Central Business to Mixed-Use or Residential which could eliminate the possibility of using the site as a future City Hall location or for hotel development. In the site inventory process, we want to identify sites that have the greatest probability of developing residential units during the 8-year Housing Element Cycle. Not including it as a Housing Opportunity Site in no way precludes residential development from occurring on the property in the future.
1340 Tainter Street: This site is owned by the Catholic Church and is developed with several structures.

No vacant space is available on-site for development of housing without the removal of the existing structures. There is no indication the Church is willing to sell the property. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Public/Quasi-Public to Mixed-Use or Residential. The following policy is proposed to be added to the Housing Element Update to further incentivize housing development on this site and others similar: “Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.”
1405 Charter Oak Avenue: This site is the City Corporate Yard. Due to environmental constraints, this site is not ideal as a Housing Opportunity Site. The site is located within the flood zone and Sulphur Creek crosses through the southwest portion of the site. Additionally, Charter Oak Road runs diagonally through much of the site, bisecting the site in half. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Industrial to Mixed-Use or Residential.

Bechstoffer Vineyards: This site is a 13.4 acre site with established vineyards, owned by Bechstoffer Vineyards. The property owner has not indicated they are willing to sell the property or develop housing on-site. The site is too large to meet the State’s assumptions regarding sites suitable for lower income housing, which include sites that are between 0.5 and 10 acres in size. At 13.4 acres this site exceeds the suitable range. Additionally, the site would require infrastructure improvements including utilities and roadway extensions that would make development of housing within the next 8 years not feasible.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 255 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 15 ends

591 McCorkle Avenue: This site is currently developed with a single-family residence and vineyards, and was used in the previous Housing Element (5
th Cycle). Development of housing on this site would require roadway extensions which could create traffic issues due to the site’s size (7.9 acres) and the number of units that would be built. This site is zoned Medium Density Residential and therefore meets the State’s assumptions for moderate and above moderate income housing, however it is not needed to meet the City’s RHNA numbers for those income categories as the inventory already has sufficient sites. 1255 Oak Street: This site is owned by the Grace Episcopal Church and is currently developed with several structures and parking lots. There is no indication the Church is willing to sell the property or develop housing on-site. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone of the property from Public/Quasi-Public to Mixed-Use or Residential. The following policy is proposed to be added to the Housing Element Update to further incentivize housing development on this site and other underutilized church sites: “Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.” Toogood Property (behind Gotts): This site is a challenging long and narrow 8-acre parcel. Sulphur Creek runs through the northern half of the property and much of the site is located within a designated floodway and 100-year flood zone. To include this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update, the City would need to provide an analysis of why the flood zone would not preclude development of housing in the near term. The site also has existing powerlines over the property which could indicate easements and be a barrier to housing development. In addition, the site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Industrial to Mixed-Use or Residential. 1301 Mitchell Drive: This site is owned by PG&E and is used as a staging site. There is no indication PG&E is willing to sell the property. The site is designated as a cleanup site and was remediated for hazardous materials from a manufactured gas plant that operated on the site from 1883 to 1926. In addition, the parcel is located within a 100-year flood zone. The site also has a large access easement across it to provide access to an adjacent parcel. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from Public/ Quasi-Public and a Rezone of the property from Central Business to Mixed-Use or Residential. 1817 Spring Street: This site was included in the previous Housing Element (5th Cycle) and therefore would require by right rezoning for projects with 20 percent or more affordable housing units. Based on State law, the site would also only meet above moderate or moderate income requirements for the site inventory, which the City has sufficient amounts of. This site could be added to the inventory if directed or needed as the Housing Element Update moves through the process.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 256 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 16 ends

Figure 1 Site Inventory Site Locations
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 257 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 17 ends

Figure 2 Lower Income Site Locations
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 258 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Housing Element Site Inventory

Page 18 ends

Figure 3 Sites Considered but Rejected
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 259 of 1184 ends

Site Inventory Tables
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 260 of 1184 ends

Site Address or Street APN Acres General Plan Current Zoning ProposedZoning Current Use
MinimumDensity Allowed
(du/ac)
MaximumDensityAllowed(du/ac)
RealisticAllowableDensity(du/ac)
MaximumCapacity
AssumedCapacity
AssumedLowerIncomeCapacity
AssumedModerateIncomeCapacity
Assumed
AboveModerateIncomeCapacity
Included in 5thCycle HE Capacity Assumption Notes Notes Community Workshop #2 Comments 1 1480 Main Street 009‐211‐016 0.8
Central Business and
Public/Quasi‐Public Public/Quasi‐Public Mixed‐Use Fire Station and vacant structures 12 20 20 68 22 22 0 0 No Site developable area assumed to be approximately 0.9 acres. Assumed 50% density bonus and 80 percent capacity. Will require General Plan and Zoning Amendments
This is a City‐owned site and City goals are in line with residential redevelopment of a portion of the site. Will require General Plan and Rezone to Mixed Use.
2 1572 Railroad Avenue 009‐193‐002 0.93 Public/Quasi‐Public Business and Professional Office HR Teen Center 16.1 26 26 48 30 30 0 0 No Assumed 50% density bonus and 80 percent capacity This is a City‐owned site and City goals in line with residential redevelopment of the entire site. Will require General Plan and Rezone to High Density Residential.
3 905 Main Street 009‐180‐008 0.27 Mixed‐Use Service Commercial Mixed‐Use Vacant 12 20 20 5 5 0 0 5 No Vacant and in a location prime for development along Main Street. Will require a Rezone to bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan.
4 Phelps property 009‐660‐005 1.8 Service Commercial Service Commercial HR Vacant 16.1 26 20 47 36 36 0 0 No Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 Our Town St. Helena (OTSH) is in negotiations to purchase property for an affordable housing project. Their capacity analysis identified high density as an appropriate land use, so the site will require General Plan and Rezone
5 709 and 741 McCorckle 009‐100‐031‐032 1.8 MDR MR MR Single‐family residence 5.1 16 5.1 29 8 0 0 8 No Conservative estimate, used 5.1 du/acre instead of 16 One property owner expressed interest in subdividing pursuant to SB9. Sites are both underutilized with single‐family residences and large vacant space. Units were estimated based on SB9 regulations which could allow up 4 units maximum on each current lot.

Not feasible for high density as one of the property
owners is looking to subdivide pursuant to SB9
6 821 Pope Street 009‐503‐001 1 HDR HR HR Single‐family residence 16.1 26 20 26 20 10 10 0 Yes Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 The site is currently zones High Density Residential and it underutilized with one single‐family residence and surrounding by existing high density residential development. Will require by right approval for projects with 20% affordable units since it was used in the previous housing element ` 7 882 and 886 College Avenue
009‐070‐043, 009‐
070‐044, 009‐070‐
045 1.5 Public/Quasi‐Public A‐20 HR Vacant 16.1 26 20 39 30 30 0 0 No Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 These are vacant sites adjacent to areas of existing multi‐family development. All sites are owned by a single property owner with interest in residential on these sites. Will require General Plan and Rezone 8 1447 and 1515 Spring Street
009‐590‐010
009‐590‐003 2.4 HDR HR HR Single‐family residence 16.1 26 20 62 48 24 0 24 Yes Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 These parcels are currently zoned High Density Residential but are underutized with single‐family residences and have opportunities to increase density. They will require by right approval for projects with 20% affordable units.
9 Spring Street (between Hudson &
Valley View) 009‐441‐023 4.4 MDR MR HR Vineyard 16.1 26 20 114 88 44 44 0 Yes Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 This is a vacant/underutilized site with vineyards currently zoned for residential uses. Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential on the site in the form of town homes which would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. There has been recent property owner inquiry for residential development on the site. The site will require by right approval for projects with 20% affordable units and a General Plan and Rezone for HDR.
10 1998 Spring Street 009‐391‐031 3.5 MDR MR MR Single‐family residences 5.1 16 5.1 56 17 0 0 17 No Conservative estimate, used 5.1 du/acre instead of 16 This is a large underutilized site with potential for redevelopment or additional units/density added to the existing single‐family residences. Potential vineyard lease on site 11 601 Pope Street 009‐502‐011 2.9 HDR HR HR Silverado Orchards Apartments 16.1 26 20 19 15 7 8 0 No Conservative estimate, used 20 du/acre instead of 26 on the 0.75 acre portion of the site
The site is currently zoned for High Density Residential and has a large undeveloped portion of the site. The site has existing high density, supportive housing and is an opportunity site to expand the existing use or develop new housing
319 203 62 54
Table 13: St. Helena 6th Cycle Housing Element Preliminary Site Inventory Total
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 261 of 1184 ends

Address or Street APN Acres General Plan Current Zoning Use and Reasoning for not Including 900 Crane Avenue 009‐280‐034 0.73 Industrial Industrial There are large PG&E transmittion line that run through the center of the property, which may prevent residential development within the next 8 years. If housing is developed on‐site, the units will still count towards the City's RHNA. The following policy is proposed for addition in the Housing Element Update to further incentive housing: Explore 900, 902 & 906 Crane Avenue as future housing sites (APNs 009‐2800‐ 034/038/039).

Adams Street 009‐150‐006 5.6 Central Business Central Business Future City priorities of the site are unknown at this time. Including this site as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element Update would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone of the property to mixed‐‐use or residential which could eliminate the possibility of using the site as a future City Hall locaton or for hotel development. In this process we want to identify sites that have the greatest probability of developing residential units during the 8 year Housing Element Cycle. Not including it as a Housing Opportunity Site in no way precludes residential development from occuring on the property in the future. 1340 Tainter St 009‐231‐004 0.6 Public/Quasi Public Public/Quasi Public Non‐vacant Church owned site; no indication that the Church is willing to sell the property. The site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone. In addition, the site is currently developed with a number of structures that inhibit the development of housing near‐term. The following policy is proposed for addition in the Housing Element Update: Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.
1405 Charter Oak Ave 009‐180‐012 4 Industrial Industrial City Corp Yard. HCD wants City's to consider feasibility of sites with environmental constraints, and this site is a challenging site that is located within flood zone.

Beckstoffer Vineyards 009‐180‐034 13.4 HDR HR
Vineyards. The site is too large to meet State lower income unit assumptions (no sites greater than 10 acres), and the site would require infrastructure improvements such as utilities and roadway extentions which is likely not feasible during the next planning period. Furthermore, the property owner has given no indication that they are willing to sell the property.
591 McCorkle 009‐070‐003 7.9 MDR MR
Single family residence. Used in previous housing element. Site not needed to meet above/moderate income unit numbers and would require roadway extensions and could create traffic issues due to site size. 1255 Oak Street 009‐233‐021 3 Public/Quasi‐Public PQP
Non‐vacant Church owned site; no indication that the Church is willing to sell the property. Including this site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone. In addition, the site is currently developed with an existing use and structures that could be considered to inhibit the development of housing near‐term.

The following policy is proposed for addtion in the Housing Element Update: Prioritize underutilized and/or vacant church sites for future housing opportunities.

Toogood Property (behind Gotts) 009‐180‐036 8 Industrial Industrial This is a challenging long and narrow parcel next to the creek that is in a designated flood zone. The Housing Element would need to provide an analysis of why the flood zone would not preclude development of housing near term. In addition, the site would require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone 1301 Mitchell Drive 009‐263‐005 1 Public/Quasi‐Public CB This site is owned by PG&E and is used as a staging site. The site was remediated for hazardous materials and has a large access easement across it for access to an adjacent parcel. Furthermore, there is no indication that PG&E would sell the property.
1817 Spring Street 009‐322‐010 1.5 MDR MR
The site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and therefore would require by right rezoning for projects with 20% or more affordable units. Also, based on State law, the site would only meet above moderate income requirements for the inventory, which the City already has sufficient amounts of. We can include if needed.

Table 14: St. Helena 6th Cycle Housing Element: Sites Considered But Not Included Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 262 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-202
Site 10: Spring Street between Hudson Avenue & Valley View Street (APN 009-441-023) Table 54 Site 10 Summary
Current Use Vineyard
Parcel Size 4.4 acres
Existing General Plan Land Use Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning Medium Density Residential
Proposed Land Use and Zoning High Density Residential
Allowed Density 16.1 to 26 units/acre
Site Capacity 114 units
Assumed Capacity and Income
Category 44 Lower Income and 44 Moderate Income units
Site 10 is a 4.4-acre parcel located on Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street. Recent property owner interest in residential development of the site indicates opportunity for housing. Additionally, Focus Group meetings showed interest in High Density Residential uses on this residentially zoned parcel in the form of town homes, which is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The site is considered underutilized as it has a residential land use designation but is currently used as vineyards. As previously discussed, the City has seen recent development of housing on properties with existing vineyards.

Site 10 has greater development potential than the recently developed vineyard parcels since it is located on a residentially zoned parcel, while the 500 Mills Lane and 601 Fulton Lane projects were located on parcels with a land use and zoning designation of Agriculture and therefore are only allowed to develop one housing unit and one ADU per parcel. A General Plan Amendment and zoning change is proposed to change the zoning from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 263 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-203
The entire 4.4-acre site is able to be redeveloped. Based on allowed density under High Density Residential, 114 units would be permitted. However, a total of 88 units, 44 lower income units and 44 moderate income units, is assumed in order to accommodate adequate off-street parking capacity. The site is currently underutilized and does not meet the maximum density allowed under the Medium Density Residential Zone (16 units/acre) or the minimum density allowed under the proposed land use change to High Density Residential (16.1 units/acre) with a current density of 0 units per acre. The site currently has no on-site development and would be allowed 45 percent lot coverage, or approximately 86,000 square feet of building footprints.

This site was included in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is considered non-vacant, therefore requiring byright approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 264 of 1184 ends

Residential Land Use
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 265 of 1184 ends

Density Examples
Cottages on Greene - East Greenwich, RI
Lot: 0.85 Acres
Number of Units: 15
Density: 17.7 du/ac
Cottage Court
Townhouse
505 E. Bayshore - Redwood City, CA
Lot: 2.54 Acres
Number of Units: 56
Density: 22 du/ac
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 266 of 1184 ends

Density Examples
Multiplex - 27 units/acre
Lincoln Avenue Apartments - Calistoga, CA
Lot: 2.89 Acres
Number of Units: 78
Density: 27 du/ac
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 267 of 1184 ends

!"#$%&"
'(!")$!
*"+
,'
!"&
%#-!

#"
-
$%.
/0
$"#!
0%
"*
1&# ("*

'
"*#
%-!,"%#-!"/

2 3&/
"&
$+%

".$%/
*"/
&#+$!
"&#$(
&0"$!
-#
'#"$% !
*"+
,'

!"&
%#-!

#"
-
$%.
/0
$"#
&"#+%-0"
$(.
'&

4 0 %
'()!
#%$
!"&-!'(%#$
-
+%#$"!
#%-!," +2
5678(

!"&
%#-$&+(, 9&'%
":
+
$;7"*$!
/"
$
<0#
%.!"&
%#-/
:
$
%#$!
"&#$(=#%
"*)!%

%#>
'%*"#
29!

$&+(*"&#+$!
%#!

%-80%
+/
:
$
=,&%'+#-
*"+
,'
!"&
%#-!
+#"
* $"#
&"#+%-!"/

25#+%"
/
:
$=!"/

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 268 of 1184 ends

!

"

#

%&

' !

( '

) *

+

-!

.

!
-/

!
01

.

%

4

, ! !

"

#

!
"
!

5

"
!

4!

,
2

/
6

7-

!

!3

89:;<=>?@A 9=B?C;D@ =
'E
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 269 of 1184 ends

D
D
D
D
D
D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
D
D
D
D
This document shall not be used for
construction unless signed and sealed for
construction. Sheet No.

Original Size
Title
Project
Client
Drawn Designer
Scale
Plot Date: 5 November 2023 - 1:47 PM Filename: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Santa Rosa\Projects\561\12560056\Tech\Survey\Fire Station\12560056 V-TOPO.dwg ANSI D
Date
Plotted By: Richard Maddock
Project No.

Sheet of
Reuse of Documents
This document and the ideas and designs incorporated
herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD and shall not be reused in whole or in part for any other project without GHD's written authorization. © 2023 GHD
Drafting
Check
0 1"
Bar is one inch on
original size sheet
Design
Check
No. Issue Drawn Approved Date
Project
Manager

CITY OF ST HELNA

PROPOSED SUBDIVIISON
1256056
1 GHD Inc. 11-1-2023
330 Hartnell Avenue Suite B
Redding California 96002 USA
T 1 530 242 1700 W www.ghd.com
Topographic Survey
V-001 1
R.A. MADDOCK
R.A. MADDOCK

AS SHOWN
DATE

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

THIS SURVEY IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED

UNDER MY DIRECTION AND MEETS THE NATIONAL MAP
ACCURACY STANDARDS.
0 30' 60'
N

SEWER LINE W/SIZE AND FLOW DIRECTION

ABBREVIATIONS

DRAIN LINE W/SIZE AND FLOW DIRECTION

AC ASPHALTIC
CL
CO
CONC
DI
FH
FL
MH
RW
SBL
SD
SS
TC
W
WM

CONCRETE

CENTERLINE

CLEAN OUT

CONCRETE

FIRE HYDRANT

FLOWLINE

MANHOLE

RIGHT OF WAY

SET BACK LINE

STORM DRAIN

SANITARY SEWER

TOP OF CURB
WATER

WATER METER

WATER LINE W/SIZE
GS
RCB

GROUND SHOT

REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX

GR GRAVEL

TN TOP OF NUT

CB CATCH BASIN

EL ELEVATION

INV INVERT

DRAIN INLET
LEGEND

SEWER MANHOLE

FIRE HYDRANT

DRAINAGE INLET (SQUARE)

STORM MANHOLE

WATER VALVE BOX

GUY WIRE/POLE

WATER METER

TELE/TV SERVICE

SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE

OTHER PROPERTY LINE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
FENCE
S
D

IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE

SEWER CLEAN OUT/SEWER SERVICE

HOSE BIB/WATER SERVICE

STREET LIGHT

TOP BACK OF CURB

MANHOLE

RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

OLD FILED MAP LINE

FLOW LINE

MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED

GAS SERVICE/CONNECTION
GV
SET 3/4" CIP STAMPED LS 9265

DIMENSION POINT, NOTHING FOUND OR SET

UTILITY POLE

ELECTRIC METER/SERVICE

BENCHMARK

ELECTRIC CABINET

ELECTRIC MANHOLE

PARCEL INFORMATION

ORIGINAL PARCEL
OWNER: CITY OF ST HELENA
TITLE REPORT: OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE - ORDER No. 2202074043-PL SIZE: 1.74 AC
ZONING:

APN: 009-211-016

PROPOSED PARCELS
PARCEL 1:

SIZE: 0.80 AC
PARCEL 2
SIZE: 0.94 AC
*FORMAL LOT SPLIT PENDING.

Housing Element Opportunity Site #1 - 1480 Main Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 270 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Phelps Family Holdings, LLC March 20, 2024
c/o Phelps Partnership
PO Box 9594
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #5 (APN 009-660-005) - Main Street between Mills Lane and Dowdell Lane.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE: Service Commercial (SC) to High Density Residential (HR)
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE: Service Commercial (SC) to High Density Residential (HR)
Property Owner,
The Community Development Department of the City of St. Helena is hereby notifying you that the General Plan land use and zoning map designations of your property is changing as described above.

The City’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted in May 2023 and certified by the state in September 2023. Following adoption and certification of the Housing Element, the City is required to update the General Plan and zoning map to be consistent with the changes committed to in the Housing Element. As your property was identified as a Housing Opportunity Site requiring a General Plan and zoning map change to accommodate additional housing units, the City is now required by the state to make the changes described above. You can find more information on the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element by visiting the city webpage at www.cityofsthelena.org/; then click ‘City Hall’; then click ‘Community Development’; then click ‘Planning Division’; then on the left side of the page select ‘Housing Element Update (2023-2031)’ where you will you will find a pdf of the adopted Housing Element and supporting documents.

The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena will hold a public hearing regarding these changes on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 6 pm, in Vintage Hall at 465 Main Street, in order to receive public comments on the General Plan and zoning map updates. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. I can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at (707) 968-2747.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 271 of 1184 ends

Sincerely,
Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St Helena
Existing General Plan and zoning designation – Service Commercial (SC) Proposed General Plan and zoning designation – High Density Residential (HR) Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 272 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
St. Helena Montessori School Inc. March 20, 2024
880 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #8 (APN 009-070-043, 044, 045) – 882 through 886 College Avenue.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE: Public and Quasi-public (PQP) to High Density Residential (HR)
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE: Public and Quasi-public (PQP) to High Density Residential (HR)
Property Owner,
The Community Development Department of the City of St. Helena is hereby notifying you that the General Plan land use and zoning map designations of your property is changing as described above.

Sincerely,
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 273 of 1184 ends

Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St Helena
Existing General Plan and zoning designation – Public and Quasi-public (PQP) Proposed General Plan and zoning designation – High Density Residential (HR) Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 274 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Janet Keene, ETAL March 20, 2024
2112 Hounslow Drive
San Jose, CA 95131
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #10 (APN 009-441-023) – Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE: Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR)
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE: Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR)
Property Owner,
The Community Development Department of the City of St. Helena is hereby notifying you that the General Plan land use and zoning map designations of your property is changing as described above.

Sincerely,
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 275 of 1184 ends

Aaron Hecock, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St Helena
Existing General Plan and zoning designation – Medium Density Residential (MR) Proposed General Plan and zoning designation – High Density Residential (HR) Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 276 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
1637 Spring Street LLC March 20, 2024
PO Box 539
St. Helena, CA 94574
Sent Via Certified Mail

NOTICE OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND

ZONING MAP CHANGE
Re: Housing Element Opportunity Site #11 (APN 009-600-018) – 1637 Spring Street.

Sincerely,
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 277 of 1184 ends

Page 278 of 1184 ends

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS SUMMARY: APRIL 2, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION

TOPIC AREA QUESTION RESPONSE
Site #10 Development Could Site #10 develop different than described in the Housing Element?
Property owners of opportunity sites maintain complete control over whether or not their site develops and how it develops in the future irrespective of zoning changes. There are currently no legislative or other means to compel a private property owner in this process, meaning the City can’t force or otherwise require that they build housing or require that the housing be built to a specific density. If the site is rezoned to High Density Residential, a developer could develop the site at any density range between 16.1 and 28 dwelling units per acre.

Site Selection 1) What other options were considered that might be a better fit and impact fewer homeowners in the
community?
2) It is surprising that such a project is not
proposed for the east side since that is where all
the services are (Safeway, pharmacy, gas etc.) and
would limit traffic immensely versus this large
amount of new residents having to cross the
highway for everything.
1) Vacant and underutilized sites throughout the city were considered as potential for housing development (see the Preliminary Site Inventory attached to the staff report for more information (Attachment 11)).

Site selection for the residential site inventory started with City owned sites where residential development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residential use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residential development or residential development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, utility or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realistic capacity assumptions. Sites identified for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, amenities, health care facilities, and grocery stores. 2) Many of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located on the east side of town, however, the state recognizes that residents with low and moderate incomes are concentrated in the eastern portion of the City. The state of California has strict requirements for what can and can’t be included as a housing opportunity site and the City is required to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) mandates aimed at overcoming patterns of segregation and fostering inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. Several policies in the City’s adopted Housing Element require that the City promote and incentivize housing in the western portion of the City to comply with AFFH including Policies H-A, H-N, H-V and H-00. Specifically, Program H-A requires 82 lower income units in the western portion of the City, which Site 10 helps fulfill.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 279 of 1184 ends

Traffic (increase, safety,
parking, infrastructure)
Has a traffic study been completed for impacts
related to development on Site #10?
Individual project’s environmental impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis as they are submitted (as applicable).

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, the City determined that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the 2040 General Plan update is of continuing informational value. The EIR estimated new development for residential, commercial, office, industrial, hospital and hotel uses throughout the city and sphere of influence and evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with an estimated total buildout of 400 new dwelling units. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update (including the RHNA assignment of 256 units) are within the scope of the previously certified Final EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 exist. Based on the information and analysis provided in the EIR Addendum, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified Final EIR were necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum (Attachment 20) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 was appropriate. The proposed updates to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map are solely intended to bring the General Plan and Zoning Map into conformance with the adopted Housing Element and are consistent with the changes analyzed in the EIR Addendum.

Property Values How will the city make up for losses in property values related to the development of Site #10?
Designating sites as suitable for housing falls within the City's authority to regulate land uses. Pursuant to state law, the City can change the land use designation or zoning for a property as long as it doesn't violate some other law or legal requirement (e.g., inverse condemnation).

Contrary to some public opinion, research has shown that affordable housing has no negative impact on the price or frequency of sales of neighboring homes (see Attachment 14 to the staff report).

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 280 of 1184 ends

Utilities (water, sewer,
etc.)
What is the plan to address impacts to water and
sewer given the high number of units proposed by
these changes?
Please refer to the response to traffic issues above, to Section 3.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the General Plan EIR available on the City’s website, and to EIR Addendum (Attachment 20) Section 6.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) for more information related to this question.

The City’s Water Neutral Policy for Development ensures that future water demand does not exceed the current demand, for which the City has sufficient entitlements and resources. New development must offset any new water demand with water conservation retrofits or in-lieu payments for the City to conduct retrofits of existing facilities or homes. The City plans to increase the wastewater treatment plant permited capacity from 0.5 million gallons per day to 0.65 million gallons per day by 2030, which would have sufficient capacity to accommodate buildout under the General Plan.

The City is not requiring that any units be built. As required by the state of California, we are demonstra�ng that we have the capacity to accommodate our Regional Housing Needs Alloca�on (RHNA).

Fire (safety, evacuation,
home insurance)
The development of Site #10 will require a second
point of egress separate from Spring Street to
accommodate emergency service vehicles as well
as for general distribution of residential and service
related vehicle trips.

Any proposed development on Site #10 will be evaluated to ensure compliance with state and local laws. The City has an adopted Safety Element that describes evacuation routes within the City. Fire safety/evacuation improvements are continually be discussed and analyzed.

Missed HCD Deadlines Why did the City fail to meet HCD’s Housing Element Deadlines?
HCD’s deadline for an adopted and certified Housing Element was May 31, 2023 (120 days after January 31, 2023). The City submitted its first draft of the Housing Element to HCD on September 20, 2022 leaving time for revisions, adoption and certification prior to HCD’s deadline. The City ended up receiving three rounds of comments from HCD (from a different reviewer each time).

Coupled with HCD’s lengthy review times, comments and required revisions changed throughout the process making it impossible to meet required deadlines. The City of St. Helena is not alone in this experience, it has happened to countless cities and counties all over the state including the fact that no jurisdiction in Napa County had a certified Housing Element prior to the May 31, 2023 deadline.

RESPONSE TO ORAL COMMENTS SUMMARY: APRIL 2, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION Default Density Is the minimum default density of 20 units/acre mandatory?
Yes. The state requires that a site be able to accommodate a density of 20 units/acre in order to qualify for low-income units to meet the City’s RHNA obliga�on. Only High Density Residen�al and Mixed-Use zoning designa�ons can accommodate this density, therefore, only these zoning designa�ons can be used for low-income units to meet the City’s RHNA obliga�on.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 281 of 1184 ends

Number of Affordable
Units in the City
How many affordable units does the City currently
have out of the 256 required?
The City’s 256 unit RHNA obliga�on is for the 6th Cycle Housing Element which is for the years 2023-2031. Any units constructed outside this �me period do not qualify towards the current 256 unit alloca�on. No affordable units have been constructed since the 6th Cycle begun in 2023.

Site #10 Vacant and
Underu�lized
How is a farmed site considered vacant and
underu�lized?
For the purposes of the Housing Element, Site #10 is not considered vacant as it is currently a vineyard. However, the site is considered underu�lized as it has been designated for residen�al uses for decades but is s�ll used as a vineyard.

View Changes How would backyard views change if Site #10 is developed?
Site #10 has been designated for residen�al uses since the 1975 General Plan and has been zoned Medium Density Residen�al since the early 1990s; it is not a protected vineyard and has been available for development for decades. Atachment #13 to the staff report shows several different density visualiza�ons from other ci�es that provide example of how development on the site could look.

Challenge RHNA Number Why is the City not challenging the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Alloca�on?
The City raised concerns and objec�ons to its RHNA numbers on two separate occasions (see Atachments 9 and 10 to the staff report). The City expressed concerns about strains on infrastructure and the costs associated with those, the appropriateness of “high-rise” residen�al development, fire threats in our surrounding hillsides, and more. Despite these facts, the Associa�on of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) rejected the City’s request.

May 2023 Mee�ng
No�fica�on
Why were we not no�fied of the May 2023
Planning Commission and City Council mee�ngs?
For no�cing in which the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing no�ce is greater than 1,000 (i.e., General Plan Amendments such as the Housing Element), only a no�ce in the newspaper is required. No General Plan or zoning designa�ons were changed with adop�on of the Housing Element. For General Plan Amendments and rezonings that change the land use designa�on of specific proper�es, including applicant ini�ated amendments, no�fying all neighbors within 300 feet of that/those specific proper�es is required.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 282 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 9:14 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Public Comment, Planning Commission, Item 5.3 (March 5, 2024) -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 10:26 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Public Comment, Planning Commission, Item 5.3 (March 5, 2024) As was established by LAFCO, and confirmed by John Tuteur, and to my stunning surprise, the land in and around Bell Canyon is within City Limits (and not in the County). The updated zoning map should clearly so reflect, as indeed was promised to me by the City some years back. Alan Galbraith, St. Helena Mayor, 2014-18.

Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 283 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street Rezone
Hello
It’s my understanding that with the new laws in California we are not able to consider lack of parking and traffic and water issues in issuing permits to build. To even consider the properƟes on Spring street for high density is negligent by the city council. The school traffic alone should have been considered along with the “Cut-through” traffic avoiding Hwy

29. It appears we have no say nor choice in our city development.

It will be interesƟng to see what developers benefit from this rezone! Since Site 10 is for sale and was when put on the list!
Thanks,
Laura Keir
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 284 of 1184 ends

From: debra lunardini
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 10:03:17 PM
Re: Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

My name is Debra Lunardini.

Being a third generation Californian born in San Francisco, I grew up with Napa Valley as my backyard. I’ve spent much of my life visiting the valley as a child and as an adult. It was always a treat to get out of the city and spend time with family and friends in the wine country.

Ten years ago I was able to accomplish a lifelong dream and purchase a small 2 bedroom, 1 and 1/2 bath mid century track home in Saint Helena located at 2081 Spring Street. When I saw this house it was quite plain but had a beautiful view across the street of a vineyard, barn and water tower and was next door to a 150 year old ‘Old Vine’ Zinfandel vineyard. It was idyllic. The peace and quiet of living in this beautiful country setting was something I had always dreamed of. It was what originally brought me to St Helena.

I personally designed every detail of every inch of this home. Completely remodelling it using Saint Helena contractors and sourcing all materials locally. Over several years of hard work I created my dream house. I’m an upstanding citizen and an avid believer of shopping at small locally owned businesses and purchase everything I possibly can from our local shops.

When I purchased the house my real estate agent explained that ‘vrbo’was not allowed. I was pleased to hear this as I had no intention of having strangers renting my home and was relieved to know that this quiet, peaceful single family residential neighborhood would remain the same.

I completely understand that things can change. I also understand the need for affordable housing is important.

However changing this to a high density site while proposing an 88 unit monstrosity, on a little over 4 acres is completely out of character with the existing surrounding neighborhood. I know this is quite a difficult balancing act, however these high density proposals would be detrimental and change the character of our local community and ultimately make our city less desirable as a tourist destination.

Sincerely,
Debra Lunardini
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 285 of 1184 ends

Hello,
I am a partial owner along with my three siblings of site #10 of the housing element which is a vineyard located on Spring St. between Valley View and Hudson Street. We also own the residence located at 1933 Spring Street adjacent to the vineyard. Both are currently up for sale. We are adamantly opposed to the "upzoning" of the vineyard property to high density residential. As owners we have not received any public notifications addressed to us regarding this proposal. Even with this meeting on the calendar we still haven't received any notification to us as the owners. We only found out about this through word of mouth. Is this normal to upzone and aggressively devalue a property without even contacting the owner?? Seems anything but transparent.

We have owned this property for over ninety years. In the 1950’s a portion of the property was sold by our family with the intention of it being developed as the current day Valley View subdivision. In that 91 years we have seen the property rezoned from AG to low density then to Medium Density. We did not contest any of those changes as they seemed appropriate for future development. We have done our part in rezoning and selling property for development in this community. Now the move to High Density, which greatly reduces the value of the property from a development aspect is not acceptable to us. Are we to assume this is a thank you for our 91 years of excellent stewardship of the land?
I see there are additional sites available in the community i.e. Adams St. by the library and Bank of America property just to point out a couple. Of all the sites selected #10 has more single family homes attached to the property line than all of the other sites combined! As a matter of fact, there are vineyards within a 500-yard radius of site #10 that have little to no neighboring homes that were not included. No vineyards between White Sulfur Springs Rd. and Grayson Avenue were selected at all.

It appears this site was selected as a result of ease and convenience and not for being feasible or realistic. We inquired as to why it was selected but there was no concrete answer given. We agree with medium density zoning as it is applicable to style and the needs of the neighborhood and the community. This is why we never contested it. Now that we are just finding out about this request, we have been told by city staff that the Planning Commission will sign it and the City Council will follow suit. We hope this public comment isn't just for show as we would have voiced our concerns earlier and advocated for our property, but we never solicited for our input. Seems as if this was done behind the scenes and everybody's mind is made up without input from the people that own the property or those directly affected.

Additionally, the city placed the residence at 1933 Spring St. (adjacent to site #10) in the historic overlay. As I understand it all modifications to the house are discretionary as the historic overlay designation will "preserve the character" of the neighborhood. So how is a high-density development (potentially three-story apartments) directly next to the historic home preserving the character of neighborhood or the historic home? I also noticed this week a house exactly like ours located at the corner of Fir Hill and Madrona Ave. which I believe was built by the same builder during the same era and looked the same as ours was bulldozed. Why is it that some people in this community can level their historic home to the ground and others need discretion to do anything to it? Once again, I can't begin to understand the thought process or rationale with that decision only to go back to site #10 being selected as a means of ease and convenience. In short, Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 286 of 1184 ends

the city committed property to the state via the housing element but failed to do their due diligence in receiving input from the people affected the most by the decision.

I looked back at previous meetings regarding the issue that we were never made aware of as well and I see that there were no comments received opposing the matter. Please ask yourself in all honesty, in a city like ours, if 30 plus homes/homeowners were aware that the city was wanting to make their vineyard view into multi-family housing for rent that someone would have commented if the public notification process was working. I know we would have been there.

I thank you and appreciate your time and consideration in the matter.

Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Quaglia, Janet Keene,
Cynthia Quaglia, Debra Mills
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 287 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Linda Reiff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 1:08 PM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission March 5 2024 Agenda Item 5.3 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am the owner of the property directly across the street from 1933 Spring and its vineyard, which apparently you are considering re-zoning to high-density housing.

I did not receive any notice from the city on this matter and I have not found any other neighbors of the property who were given notice either. Isn’t this required? The property you are considering is in agriculture which is considered a core community value. The city apparently recently rezoned it to medium density housing and now wants to make it high density housing which would severely impact the agrarian nature of the neighborhood. Why did you not engage with the neighbors on this matter before even considering such a thing? While I understand the city is under pressure from the state to approve more housing, this is not the location where it should be done. The traffic impacts alone would be substantial and given this is the route to two of our public schools, it would be dangerous for children.

I respectfully ask that you not re-zone the property and instead engage with all neighbors about the future of the site. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Linda Reiff
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 288 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Carolina S. Centola <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 2:05 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring
I hereby oppose to re‐zoning 1933 Spring St. to build 88 units.

It will be a total disrupt to town, traffic and safety for our kids.

Kind regards,
CSC
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 289 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Hilary Wayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 2:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Re-zoning in St. Helena
Hi there,
I’m wriƟng in to oppose the re‐zoning at 1933 Spring Street in St. Helena. This is not an ideal locaƟon for many reasons.

The traffic and congesƟon alone in the towns thoroughfare would be incredibly disrupƟve to this community. I am in favor of high density development in out town but this locaƟon is terrible. This would really negaƟvely impact the neighborhood and should be stopped.

Thank you.

Hilary Wayne
St. Helena resident
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 290 of 1184 ends

Good evening Saint Helena City Council,
My name is Stefano Particelli. I am a 3rd generation resident of Saint Helena. My family has owned and operated a business here since 1960. I stand before you with regret and shock to learn of the planning commission’s proposal to rezone the residential areas of site 10 and 11 from medium density to high density.

I have had the pleasure of raising my three sons, Dante, Luca and Marco in my hometown. Our home is located on Hudson Avenue and for the past eight years, I have watched my children play in a backyard privileged with a vineyard view, ride their bikes around the block freely with little worry of traffic congestion and safety. This is what I did when I was a child. It is the only town I know.

When we purchased our home, we understood the possibility of development in a medium density zone, not high-density apartment buildings. There are nearly 90 family homes that would be directly and negatively impacted by this zoning change. Of the high-density sites identified in the housing element, this one has more homes around it than all of the other sites combined.

There are many reasons you should vote against this proposal.

I’m here to ask for your consideration in preserving the best parts of our community by finding an alternative high density housing solution.

Thank you.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 291 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ian Devereux White <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:13 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] OPPOSITION: GPA 2024-001 / ZMA 2024-001 Hello,
I am writing in STRONG opposition to the zoning request at tomorrow nights meeting where the vineyard space between Valley View and Hudson would be approved for development. That area already has traƯic and safety issues as it’s where all the kids and families travel to school and our infrastructure is maxed out as it is in what is a wonderful small community.

Please do not allow this to happen to our community.

Thank you,
Ian White
Father, coach, resident
1365 Sylvaner Ave
ST. Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 292 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Tina DeGeorgio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Opposed - Saint Helena Rezoning (Spring Street/Valley View) Importance: High
Dear Planning Commission,
We are so stressed out when we heard about the proposal for rezoning the subject property. This proposal will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be interrupted greatly,

3. Increased traffic - The traffic is already so busy especially during rush hour. The additional 88 plus households will add hundreds of additional vehicles traveling in our neighborhood plus more trucks and school buses. The area roads were not developed for such high density traffic.

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the small town special place, that we have preserved for years, to a mini San Francisco.

5. Privacy - our property’s back door is facing the vineyard with no obstructed view of the vineyard. With this proposed rezoning it will definitely put our property in the same low income housing category.

6. St. Helena will be forever transformed. Our City is rich in history and tradition. This needs to be protected not squandered. Vineyards are the backbone of St. Helena, removing this vineyard is destroying our city. Rezoning will destroy the lifeblood of our city. We cannot erode our precious farmland.

7. Vineyards need to be protected not removed. We are a land locked city, we cannot make more land, or vineyards, once removed it cannot be replaced. Save our vineyard! Thank you in advance for hearing our concerns. We are always available to discuss this important issue by phone at 713.859.5981, or in person.

Thank you,
Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 293 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Stefan Blicker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:51 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring St. High density plan
Hello, Stockton St. residents here- my comment about the proposed plan is that this would be a dangerous and expensive mistake. Too much traffic (all parents and children) already exists due to the school proximity- this high density plan would exacerbate this situaƟon tenfold. Spring St is not the place for so many units at once, and the city has other relaƟvely unused properƟes (Library ?) Vote no!
Stefan Blicker
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 294 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Joanne Blicker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:59 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring
I am wriƟng to oppose the proposed high density development the city is discussing. We are located at 1243 Stockton and already have so much school traffic on this small street. Not safe to add even more. I am sure there are beƩer locaƟons that you could consider. I am voƟng please don’t or no! Joanne Blicker
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 295 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Herta Peju <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 4:24 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] DEVELOPMENT VALLEY VIEW AND HUDSON - OPPOSE RE-ZONING Respecƞully to the City of St Helena, I’m wriƟng to you So that you consider carefully the consequences of allowing this large housing development At this parƟcular address, so close to the St Helena Elementary School and others.

Imagine the traffic created by such a density housing ……. I’m sure you are aware.

Our children and Grandchildren ( who live on Sylvaner) walk this are freely and will not be able to do any longer.

This will change the character of the small town feel of this unique community.

I urge to vote NO.

Thank you.

HB
Herta Behensky Peju
PEJU Province Winery and Vineyards
8466 st Helena Hwy - p o box 478
Rutherford ( Napa Valley) Ca. 94573
Peju.com
Calmereestate.com
M: 707 480 5195
O: 707 963 3600
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 296 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ana Canales <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 5:43 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning of 1933 Spring Street
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

We request that you do not approve the above listed address for high density zoning. Unlike the other high density complexes in town, this is not at end of a street but rather in the middle of a busy thoroughfare. This locaƟon will adversely affect traffic paƩens to both the high school and primary school.

Certainly medium density zoning for this lot would be more appropriate.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Ana Canales and Bruce Streblow
1219 Stockton Street, SH
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 297 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Lily Cronwall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 6:48 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street
While we need addiƟonal housing in this small unique town, a large high density development doesn’t belong in this single family neighborhood. Please reconsider how this change will impact the current community.

Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 298 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Kimberly Labry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 8:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Concerns of 1933 Spring Street
To the Planing CommissionI am a resident of Napa Valley and my daughter aƩends school in St Helena. We were made aware of the potenƟal build of a high density housing complex at 1933 Spring Street and it is of huge concern for my family and the community. It would negaƟvely impact the community with increased traffic and cars- and put risk to our children and the small community we all call home.

We oppose this happening and would hope the planning commission will take the comments of the residents into account when evaluaƟng this.

Kimberly Labry
916-759-6288
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 299 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Lisa Empting <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:10 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning
Hello,
I am writing to you because I oppose the rezoning at 1933 Spring Street between Hudson Ave and Valley View. We live across the street and never received anything from the city on this matter. This area is already a very high traffic area, as locals use it as a back road to and from school and work. Also, many children use it to bike/walk to school and activities. I have three small children and have concerns of all the current traffic. Turning this area into high density would deeply affect Saint Helena residents, negatively. Not to mention, loosing agriculture, the core of our community.

I kindly ask for your consideration to find an alternate place to rezone for high density. Perhaps an area that is not so heavily populated and an are that doesn’t already have existing heavy traffic.

Many thanks for considering the safety of our children in this small community.

Thank you.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 300 of 1184 ends

1 City of Saint Helena Planning Commission
Regular MeeƟng Tuesday, March 5, 2024 @ 6PM
Vintage Hall Board Room – Second Floor
465 Main Street, Saint Helena
David Prueter
1118 Valley View Street, Saint Helena
[email protected]
330-206-0094
March 4, 2024
Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission:

I write regarding Public Hearing Agenda Item 5.3 of the City of Saint Helena Planning Commission Regular MeeƟng scheduled for Tuesday March 5, 2024.

Agenda Item 5.3 includes a Staff recommendaƟon that the Planning Commission adopt a resoluƟon recommending that the St. Helena City Council: “Adopt an Ordinance approving an Amendment to the General Plan (GPA 2024-001) UpdaƟng General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001) to idenƟfy zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporaƟng these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Map.”

The Planning Commission’s adopƟon of the proposed resoluƟon would violate the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code and the California Government Code.

Title 17 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code (hereinaŌer “Zoning Code”) provides that Amendments to the General Plan require a properly noƟced public hearing in compliance with SecƟon

17.04.080 of the Zoning Code (hereinaŌer “Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement”). (See Zoning Code

17.06.040). Likewise, amendments to the Zoning Map and text require a properly noƟced public hearing in compliance with the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement. (See Zoning Code 17.07.060).

The Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement provides, in relevant part:

NoƟce shall be given by the following, except as provided below in subsecƟon C, Special Provisions:
a. Mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.
(Zoning Code 17.04.080). (See Addendum to this leƩer regarding subsecƟon C, Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement).

GPA 2024-001 is an amendment to the General Plan and therefore requires a mailed noƟce under

17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. ZMA 2024-001 is a Zoning Map Amendment and therefore requires a mailed noƟce under 17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. On informaƟon and belief, the city failed to provide proper noƟce according to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 301 of 1184 ends

2 the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code. For at least the same or similar reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate California state law. (See e.g., Ca. Gov. Code §§ 65853, 65854, 65091). Accordingly, I respecƞully request that the Planning Commission deny adopƟon of the proposed resoluƟon.

The City is aƩempƟng to use the 2023-2031 Housing Element to improperly rezone land and avoid compliance with the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code The ResoluƟon currently before the Planning Commission, states that the “California state law (Gov. Code § 65300.5) requires horizontal and verƟcal consistency for General Plans and zoning ordinances.” (ResoluƟon, Recital 10). ResoluƟon Item A.3 further provides that the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 2024-001) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001) do nothing more than “bring the maps into conformance with the City’s adopted and cerƟfied 2023-2031 Housing Element…” Finally, in reference to the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 2024-001) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001), the Planning Commission Report states that “[t]he changes noted above [i.e., rezoning of Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11] are limited to clean-up items intended to bring our General Plan and Zoning Map into conformance with our adopted and state cerƟfied Housing Element, consistent with state law.” (See Planning Commission Report, page 3, lines 12-14). Despite the deliberately passive language of these recitaƟons, the Ordinance being proposed by the Planning Commission is anything but a simple “horizontal and verƟcal” integraƟon “limited to clean-up items.” Rather, the Ordinance is a de facto rezoning for which, as set forth above, state and local law requires a properly noƟced public hearing in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

Put another way, it appears that the City developed an update to the Housing Element which it is now using as a Trojan Horse to impose drasƟc and undesirable rezoning on neighborhoods, evading the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement. While a memorandum (hereinaŌer the “Memo”) released by the Senior Planner to the Planning Commission on March 4, 2024 (the evening before the Planning Commission MeeƟng) provides a self-serving account of the Housing Element process, I ask the members of the Planning Commission the following quesƟons, at least with respect to Site 10 (the largest proposed rezoning, impacƟng the most members of the community):

1. Can you reasonably agree with the asserƟon in the Memo that the Housing Element process included “a robust community engagement program tailored to ensure community and other stakeholders were engaged in the process and are given ample opportuniƟes to provide input” when, as evidenced by the Public Comments submiƩed to the Planning Commission within the last few days, many homeowners living adjacent to Site 10 (including the Site 10 property owner) were unaware of the proposed rezoning?

2. Is a Focus Group of five (5) people, consisƟng of only city officials and a fair housing advocate, sufficient and representaƟve of the community and inclusive of the people impacted most by the proposed changes?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 302 of 1184 ends

3 3. If the City truly “aƩempted to make the process extremely transparent and open for public parƟcipaƟon” (as the Memo states), how did only “30 people sign[] up to receive housing element update emails” over the course of three years?

4. Although the Memo refers to “workshop and study sessions” (the aƩendance at which is unclear), can you reasonably conclude that such sessions were effecƟve at accomplishing the stated public parƟcipaƟon objecƟves when, as evidenced by the Public Comments submiƩed to the Planning Commission within the last few days, many homeowners living adjacent to Site 10 (including the Site 10 property owner) were unaware of the proposed rezoning?

5. Although the Memo alleges that a leƩer was sent to the property owner in July 2022, the City admits that “this leƩer did not idenƟfy a specific zoning change.” Is one leƩer, sent only to the property owner, and which fails to inform the property owner of the proposed rezoning truly adequate, and does it not unreasonably omit those in the neighborhood impacted by the rezoning?
I respecƞully submit that the City’s efforts to include the community in the Housing Element process were, at best, seriously ineffecƟve and unsuccessful, and, at worst, intenƟonally decepƟve and insincere. The City’s acƟons to rezone land—presented now under the guise of a simple “clean up” to be consistent with the Housing Element—suggests that the City was aware that if it had engaged the community in good faith during the Housing Element process that it would have encountered resistance, making the Housing Element process more challenging. While I understand the need for the City to adopt a Housing Element in compliance with state mandates, the City has done so in a manner for which all evidence shows a failure to secure sufficient public parƟcipaƟon. Although the City may find saƟsfacƟon in its ability to appease the California Department of Housing and Community Development, it has done so by unfairly sacrificing the consideraƟons and prioriƟes of its own community members and neighborhoods.

IrrespecƟve of whether the City’s efforts for public engagement during the Housing Element process were sufficient, importantly, the Memo is silent with respect to any aƩempts to comply with the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code. As set forth above, the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 2024-001) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA 2024-001) currently before the Planning Commission require a properly noƟced public hearing in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site. As set forth above, on informaƟon and belief and as further evidenced by the Memo’s silence on the topic, the city failed to provide proper noƟce according to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code as it is a de facto rezoning, not merely a simple clean-up. For at least the same or similar reasons, the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed resoluƟon would violate California state law. (See e.g., Ca. Gov. Code §§ 65853, 65854, 65091). Accordingly, I respecƞully request that the Planning Commission deny adopƟon of the proposed resoluƟon.

Sincerely,
David Prueter
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 303 of 1184 ends

4 Addendum
GPA 2024-001 and ZMA 2024-001 are not subject to the Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code.

The Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement provide:

Special Provisions. The following special public hearing noƟce provisions shall apply to the adopƟon of a General Plan, General Plan element, substanƟve text amendment of the General Plan, substanƟve text amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, and any project, including a General Plan land use map amendment, for which the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing noƟce pursuant to this Title is greater than 1,000:

1. Placing a display adverƟsement of at least one-eighth page in a newspaper determined to be a newspaper of general circulaƟon in the City; or

2. Placing an insert with any generalized mailing sent by the county or City to property owners in the area affected by the proposed ordinance or amendment, such as billing for City services.

The public hearing noƟce required pursuant to this SecƟon shall be in lieu of that required by subsecƟon B, NoƟcing Procedures, except for the applicant and property owner. (Zoning Code 17.04.080, emphasis added)
On informaƟon and belief, neither GPA 2024-001 nor ZMA 2024-001 is subject to the Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code because the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing noƟce pursuant to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement is not greater than 1,000. Specifically, with reference to the sites idenƟfied in amended Figure 2.1 of the General Plan (GPA 2024-001; Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11) and the sites idenƟfied for rezoning in the Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA2024-001; Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11), none individually or in combinaƟon, would require greater than 1,000 noƟces when counƟng the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site. Moreover, to the extent the Planning Commission asserts that the number of property owners who would be sent a public hearing noƟce pursuant to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement is greater than 1,000 for GPA 2024-001 and/or ZMA 2024-001, at least ZMA 2024-001 is sƟll not subject to the Special Provisions because the Special Provisions apply to “the adopƟon of a General Plan, General Plan element, substanƟve text amendment of the General Plan, substanƟve text amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, and any project, including a General Plan land use map amendment,” of which ZMA 2024-001 (a Zoning Map Amendment) is not one.

Because GPA 2024-001 and ZMA 2024-001 are not subject to the Special Provisions of the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement of the Zoning Code, GPA 2024-001 and ZMA 2024-001 require a mailed noƟce under 17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. As set forth above, on informaƟon and belief, the city failed to provide proper noƟce according to the Public Hearing NoƟce Requirement in the form of mailed noƟce to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested noƟce of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 304 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Celine Birch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:43 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Oppose high density zoning-1933 Spring St To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Saint Helena and I oppose the rezoning of 1933 Spring St as high density.

Thank you,
Celine
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 305 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Nancy King <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:20 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Quaglia Property
How is it possible that we were never notified by the city that our backyard view of over 30 years would go from vineyard and the western hills to 3 or 4 story apartment buildings? My husband and I oppose this decision and totally disagree with the way it is being processed.

Nancy and Doug King
1143 Hudson Ave, St Helena, CA
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 306 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Melinda Kearney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:59 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission March 5, 2024 Agenda Item 5.3 Dear St. Helena City Council,
I am writing as a homeowner and a fence-sharing neighbor of 24 years to parcels 10 and 11 on Spring Street between Hudson Ave and Valley View.

It is my understanding as an owner of a property within 300 feet of a parcel up for a change that I would receive direct notice of any rezoning proposals. And as a member of this community, I would have the opportunity to express my point of view on this project before it's decided. To date, I have not received any direct information from the city regarding this proposed change. Why is this? I am opposed to the proposed change from medium density to high density housing on this parcel. There are over 30 homes and properties directly affected by this proposed change, with the potential to devalue our properties, change our quality of life and negatively affect pedestrian safety in an area already impacted by high traffic flow to schools and Hwy 29 bypass.

We have a unique and special town for many reasons, and while I endorse and understand the need for housing especially for our workers, I believe there are other properties that would have less negative impact and a more positive outcome with thoughtful consideration, planning and community input.

We all deserve and have the right to know of proposed changes that would have impact on our properties.

Why did we not receive notice?
Thank you.

Melinda Kearney
707-287-4113
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 307 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Elaine Honig <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 9:03 AM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission March 5 2024 Agenda Item 5.3

Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I live at 1248 Stockton Street and am writing to offer my support for rezoning 1933 Spring St to high density housing. We need housing in town, and the east side has complained that they have to carry the burden of new development. This location is perfect for more west side housing, and you have my full support.

This site will bring more affordable housing to town, enhance our town with more people who can support our businesses. Please don’t let the complaints of a few people outweigh the need of the many.

Sincerely,
Elaine Honig
Founder & CFO
STUDIO 4Forty
707-479-2055
[email protected]
www.studio4forty.com

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 308 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maxine Angell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:20 AM
To: Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: [External] Opposed to Rezoning 1933 Spring Street Dear Planning Commission;
I am a 32 year resident of Saint Helena and live one house away from the proposed zoning change to 1933 Spring Street from
moderate density to high density housing. I am opposed to rezoning this property and shocked that neighbors were not notified to provide feedback or input into the proposed rezoning. I heard about the rezoning, three days ago from my neighbor who I saw in the yard, yet this change
would have a permanent, deleterious effect on the charm, peace and quiet of the neighborhood.

I am also concerned, that despite promises from city administration and staff to provide communication and resident participation in the democratic process, that these decisions are made by consultants and city employees, with no resident participation and then presented
for approval. How can community development exclude residences bordering the property and the neighboring residents?
I am supportive of the need for affordable housing in St. Helena, yet I do not support 144 units on 4 acres in a quiet, residential neighborhood.

The proposed rezoning will lower my property value and change the quiet, peaceful character of the neighborhood. Valley View Street is used to bypass the freeway and is too congested, as it is. There are many areas of town that are more suitable for a high density project such as the one
that is proposed, some have been previously identified, some not.

I ask the Planning Commission not to adopt the resolution and to provide notice to all residents who would be impacted by the changes before voting on this or any other measure. I believe there needs to be more engagement with residents and more transparency from city a staff and administration about how these issues are advanced within city government.

Sincerely,
Maxine L. Angell
2101 Spring Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 309 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Woody Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:33 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Housing Element- Public Comment 3/5/24 To whom it may concern,
My name is Woody Davis. My wife and I are very fortunate to live in St. Helena, a block away from my childhood home that I grew up in. We have a 1-year-old that we are excited to raise in St. Helena and grow up in the same town as I did.

My wife stumbled across the recent proposal that suggests multiple sites have their zoning adjusted, mostly in favor of increasing the housing density from its current zoning, in the biweekly e-agenda for this meeting.

While I am all for more housing if need be, the planning commission should not make irrational decisions and hide things from the community. Proposed sites 10 and 11 stand out to me. They are in the middle of single-family neighborhoods and existing vineyards, making St. Helena the community it is. Every other site is neighboring multi-level commercial or residential sites (or at least in view of one).

Site 10 is the one that stands out the most. Yes, I have a lot of stake as it is my backyard. But I also grew up in this neighborhood and have fond memories of riding my bike and playing within this block.

Bringing high-density housing will severely impact this already busy cut-through on Valley View and surrounding streets.

Per CC&Rs we can’t build our house over a story and a half but the city is okay with 3 story-high, high-density housing units towering over the perimeter of our lot, which is quite contrary to our regulations.

Even property owners, like us, within 300 feet of the site have never been notified of the proposed change. The city has not been transparent with this change and even property owners like Mr Quaglia haven’t been inaccurately notified of the rezoning. The city posts via its new newsletter initiative and social channels about downtown updates, filling potholes, and getting electric city vehicles, but not this, which has a much larger impact.

Lastly, see below. This is an email correspondence between Maya and me. I asked about zoning changes but because I did not use the correct project names she refused to acknowledge changes were being proposed. To me and others I have asked, this seems irrational and I don't understand how she couldn't acknowledge changes were going on within a separate project for the same address.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 310 of 1184 ends

2 Thank you for your time and I hope you make decisions as if this was your home too.

Woody Davis
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 311 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: David PEARSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 11:10 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Low Cost Housing Project
Dear City of St Helena,
I am a resident of St Helena since 2004. I live with my family at 1450 Hudson Avenue.

I have been informed of the plans to transform vineyard land on Spring and Valley View into low-cost housing.

Please know that I am opposed to this project moving forward.

While I am supportive and understanding of the need for low-cost housing in St Helena and Napa Valley, I am quite surprised and very concerned by this decision in particular. It seems to me that there are other areas in St Helena that are much more spacious and more appropriate for this kind of project. But most concerning is the fact that there has apparently been no notice given to residents immediately impacted. If this is accurate, that residents have not been advised and given the chance to publicly comment, then it is crucial that the proper procedure be respected.

Pending this clarification, I am strongly opposed to moving forward with this project.

Sincerely,
David Pearson
David Pearson
President
Joseph Phelps Vineyards
St. Helena, CA 94574
Mobile- (707) 531-3872
Email - [email protected]
Web - www.josephphelps.com
######################################################################################### ##
"Le contenu de ce message peut etre protege et / ou confidentiel. Si vous avez recu ou avez des raisons de croire que vous avez recu ce message par erreur, s'il vous plait, supprimez le sans le lire et avisez immediatement l'expediteur.

The contents of this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you have received or have reason to believe you have been sent this email in error, please delete it without reading it and notify the sender immediately."
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 312 of 1184 ends

2 ######################################################################################### ##
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 313 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mcknz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezone 1933 Spring St property
To
Planning Commission/City Council
In response to the necessary public notice to those that live 300 feet within a property considered for development/ change:

The previous notices, stating property being was considered for meeting the states housing mandates for 2031, never informed us that this particular property would be rezoned!! We as residents should have had a direct communication stating the zoning was changing to “High Density”.

We would have provided further comment and strongly disagreed to this move.

Therefore, this matter needs to be fully reviewed and the opportunity for all to express our concerns now knowing the full facts.

This matter needs to be delayed to allow the City’s requirements to their citizens be met! We are strongly opposed to the rezone due to all of the items most of the folks have noted. This area is already heavily impacted by traffic and congestion within the main path of two schools and used to transport folks off highway 29 through town.

I understand areas off Dean York , were taken out of consideration because the views would be blocked? Hardly a valid reason when Spring St views will be blocked the lighting alone for this many units will blind us all (we never did get shields on the intrusive LED lights PGE put in!) and the traffic pattern that already exists in the area. It’s a freeway of speeding cars throughout the day.

Based on the new state laws, it’s my understanding, once this is rezoned the commission and councils will have very little, if any, say in the control of the development.

There are better more suited areas!
Thank you
Brian Schleicher
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 314 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Sally and Sam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: [External] Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 To Whom it may concern,
Re: Planning commission: Zoning Map amendment Site 10 change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential
We are opposed to the "upzoning" of the 1933 Spring Street property to high density residential, and would like the commission to consider the environmental impact of putting 88 units on a 4 acre parcel would do at this location, in addition to the additional traffic load, and changing the overall character of the neighborhood in this area.

As residents who own property on Valley View, we have not received any notification addressed to us as residents living in close proximity to this proposal, and or knowledge of reasonable attempt at outreach to the surrounding residents to garner comment and feedback on the proposal.

We would respectfully request that the proposal is rejected.

Sincerely
Sam and Sally Burton
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 315 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jessica Hague <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:01 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment: Planning Commission Meeting March 5th: Agenda Item 5.3 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am a 14-year resident of 1154 Hudson Avenue and strongly oppose rezoning Site 10:Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street and Site 11:1637 Spring Street from Medium Density to High Density. Further, I remain consistent in my opposition to rezoning when these 2 sites were identified and rezoned from Low density to Medium density 8 years ago.

The city’s opportunity sites selection process has disproportionately affected existing residential areas along Spring Street while ignoring larger vacant parcels along other east-west artery streets like Madrona Avenue and Sulphur Springs. I believe that the city can find way to maintaining the character, and safety of our existing residential neighborhoods, while seeking to create new residential development opportunities. The infrastructure along Spring Street, Valley View and Hudson Avenue is inadequate to support a high density residential zone. Spring at Hudson, Valley View at Hudson is currently unsafe for pedestrian crossing, and lack safe and ADA-compliant sidewalks.

The city has an opportunity to explore the potential for other westside sites north of Spring Street and south of Grayson Avenue, such as vineyard parcels along Crane Avenue, Fir Hill at Madrona, Madrona at Hudson Avenue, Sulphur Springs. The city was called upon to do so 8 years ago, and I find it extremely disappointing that instead of heeding the call from concerned citizens at the time, they have simply doubled down on previous decisions to meet the state requirement.

From MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 2024 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Aaron Hecock, Senior Planner RE: Housing Element Public Participation Process Summary Opportunity Sites SelecƟon
Vacant and underuƟlized sites throughout the city were considered as potenƟal for housing development. Site selecƟon for the residenƟal site inventory started with City owned sites where residenƟal development is in line with short-term City goals, then vacant and nonvacant sites zoned for residenƟal use, and lastly sites that could be rezoned to accommodate residenƟal development or residenƟal development at a higher density. Several constraints were considered for each site, including environmental concerns, uƟlity or infrastructure access, feasibility of redevelopment during the next planning period, and realisƟc capacity assumpƟons. Sites idenƟfied for lower income housing must meet certain density and site requirements, including a minimum density of 20 units per acre, parcel size between 0.5 and 10 acres, and access to high performing schools, jobs, ameniƟes, health care faciliƟes, and grocery stores.

Respectfully,
Jessica Hague
Jessica Hague
Vice President, Consumer Sales & Marketing
FROG’S LEAP
707-968-2503 Direct
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 316 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street
Not in favor of rezoning.
-Resident of Saint Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 317 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: bonnie storm <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 5:44 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 spring Street
I am a resident on Tainter Street. I feel this high density proposal belongs somewhere else.

Bonnie Storm
Sent awkwardly from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 318 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Gemma Hanna <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:46 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Planning Commission, Rezoning, April 2 I am a resident of Saint Helena and am strongly opposed to the rezoning of 1933 Spring Street to high density. As a high school student in St. Helena, it would negaƟvely impact traffic geƫng to school and increase the chance of accidents.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 319 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:12 AM
To: Xinia Gamero; Aaron Hecock
Subject: FW: [External] Opposed to Rezoning

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Thank you, your comment has been received and will be included in the agenda packet for 4/2 when this item is on the next Planning Commission agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:22 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Subject: Opposed to Rezoning
Below is a copy of our note sent to the Planning Commission:

Dear Planning Commission,
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 320 of 1184 ends

2 We are so stressed out when we heard about the proposal for rezoning the subject property. This proposal will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be interrupted greatly,

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the small town special place, that we have preserved for years, to a mini San Francisco.

Thank you,
Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Tom DeGeorgio
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 321 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Rita Cervone <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 10:43 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] DEVELOPMENT VALLEY VIEW AND HUDSON- OPPOSE RE-ZONING Importance: High
Respecƞully submiƩed to the City of St. Helena,
As the Great Aunt of my 3 Great Nephews who live on Hudson St. I am Adamantly Opposing this high density rezoning. It will bring even more traffic dropping the children to and from school, and impact many children that bike or walk to school. This will change the footprint of our small town that is unique to our community.

I am urging you to Vote NO.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rita Cervone
St. Helena Resident
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 322 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Allison Hackett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 11:27 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] In Opposition of Rezoning on 1933 Spring Street Hi there,
I am in opposition of the potential rezoning on 1933 Spring Street for high-density housing.

Thanks,
Allison
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 323 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 11:40 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Spring St.

Public Comment
-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Crowley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:57 AM
To: cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Spring St.

Please reconsider high density housing in this area.

Joan Crowley
707-477-8039
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 324 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Katherine Salinas <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment - Quaglia Vineyard 1933 Spring Street.

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed high-density rezoning in our community - Quaglia Vineyard 1933 Spring Street. While I understand the need for development, I believe that this particular proposal will have significant negative impacts on our neighborhood, especially concerning the safety of our children, the commute to school for many families, and the unique charm of Saint Helena.

The potential consequences of increased traffic due to the rezoning not only impact the safety of our children on their way to and from school but also have the potential to diminish the visual appeal of our beautiful town. The character of our community is deeply intertwined with its landscapes and green spaces, we must consider the long-term impact on these elements before making decisions that alter the fabric of our town.

Another concern is the potential increase in traffic that would result from this rezoning. Spring Street already has congestion and traffic during drop-off and pick-up times. Many students in our community rely on biking as their mode of transportation to school. The increased traffic associated with high-density development could create unsafe conditions for these young cyclists, posing additional risks to their well-being.

I strongly urge you to consider the potential consequences this rezoning may have on the safety and quality of life for the families in our community. I believe that a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to development, with due consideration for traffic management, would better serve the long-term interests of our neighborhood.

Thank you for your time, I trust that you will carefully weigh the concerns raised by the community before making any decisions on the proposed rezoning.

Sincerely,
Katherine Salinas
CEO

Meuse Gallery
1331 Main Street,
St. Helena, CA 94574
d-707-968-5942
c-831-224-3717
[email protected]
www.meusegallery.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 325 of 1184 ends

2 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 326 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Stephanie Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:04 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning proposal for 1933 Spring
To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to make clear my opposition to the rezoning of 1933 Spring to high-density housing. I grew up on Olive Ave and attended school in town, primarily walking or biking to and from school and home for the majority of my childhood, and playing in the streets with friends in the neighborhood. Spring and Valley View are already heavily impacted by traffic for both schools on Greyson and west-side residents avoiding main street traffic. Adding 100 units on that property would increase traffic and decrease visibility on Spring and the Valley View intersection as parking would certainly overflow onto Spring. The increased risk to the children and teens who rely on the green belt on Valley View to get to school would be a travesty, and a contradiction to the recent investments in street safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The appeal of raising a family in a small safe town is the freedom and independence it affords the kids, an aspect of my childhood I am incredibly grateful for and want for my nephew growing up in the same neighborhood. I am a young single professional and am acutely aware of the issues related to housing in the Valley, but do not believe this type of development is the solution. There are other areas in town that could more appropriately sustain this type of development, but I believe the primary focus of the city should be addressing the number of vacant homes and storefronts in town. Putting 100 units in the middle of a working-class neighborhood when there are hundreds of vacant mansions will only serve to increase the revenue and inequity issues in the community while detracting from the appeal to both residents and tourists.

Thank you for your consideration,
Stephanie Davis
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 327 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Megan Particelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: [External] Rezoning the Quaglia vineyard
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:13 AM Megan Particelli <[email protected]> wrote:

To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Megan Particelli, long time resident of St. Helena. I am emailing to share my opposing position in regards to rezoning the Quaglia vineyard on 1933 Spring Street into a high-density housing complex, turning the now vineyard into approximately 100 housing units on 4.4 acres. The city did not notify any residents including the owners of the property. Additionally, the many children and families in the surrounding area would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, with unsafe biking conditions for students who bike to school.

Thank you,
Megan Particelli
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 328 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Brittany Payton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 3:25 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street Rezone
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed rezone at 1933 Spring Street. I am a homeowner at 1106 Valley View which backs up directly to the proposed site that you want to put at least 88 units on a mere 4 acre property. I am greatly opposed to this rezone change for many reasons. First off, this parcel is right in the middle of many homes and on a busy street that is already a main road to get to two schools. This location makes absolutely no sense in putting in that many units. There is no parking on Spring Street already and having this many cars would seriously exacerbate the situation. Not to mention the noise, the lights, the water issues - all in the middle of a residential area.

After reviewing the other sites around town that would make a lot more sense to put this many units on, I am even more firm in my belief that putting in 3 story apartment buildings in this area is ludicrous. Turning this parcel into a high density will greatly impact all of us that have already been living here for years - for us homeowners that moved to this area because of the quiet and the peaceful surroundings. This place is not the right area for apartments - please consider looking elsewhere in town that would not put that many units right on top of the neighbors that have been here for a long time.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider 1933 Spring Street (site 10) and leave it alone as is. This is not the right space for high density zoning - and I know I'm not alone in my thoughts.

Best,
Brittany Anderson
1106 Valley View Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 329 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mike Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezone
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning of 1933 Spring Street. I am a 3rd generation resident of St Helena and reside with my wife at 1106 Valley View Street so our backyard overlooks this proposed site. I think many can agree that having more housing available for residents to both live and work locally is needed. I can also understand the challenge of making this happen due to the pressure of state-mandated legislation under CEQA. That said there are obvious flaws with this proposed site, as well as others.

The rezoning of the 1933 Spring Street site to high density makes no sense. First, residents surrounding the area would lose privacy and property value, especially considering that the high-density builds would necessitate 2 or 3 story buildings which clearly have no place being in this part of town surrounded almost exclusively by one-story homes. It is completely out of character for this part of town.

Second, though I am sure many have brought up this issue, would be both the amount of traffic and parking issues that would be created by another 1-2 cars per unit. Considering that this could be approved for 88, or more units, this already busy neighborhood would be inundated with traffic. There are already traffic and safety issues up and down Spring Street and Valley View because of the amount of vehicles and those that travel well over the posted speed limits.

Third (and to be somewhat solution oriented), of the sites in consideration there are at least three that would easily be a better fit given their proximity to Highway 29, businesses downtown, bus stops, Safeway, gas stations etc. They would also have less impact on surrounding homeowners that would be directly adjacent to the site. Sites 1, 5 in particular and even site 8 with access to the Trail and 29. Even finally finding something to do with the always-contested Adams Street project could be a better option. Each of these areas would be much more appropriate for high-density housing.

Finally the sheer disregard of the planning commission not notifying residents with the affected area astounds me. The owner of 1933 Spring Street wasn't even notified. I only happen to hear about it by word-of-mouth from a passing neighbor, as was the case for nearly all of us.

Sincerely,
Mike Anderson
--
Mike Anderson
707.337.9168
[email protected]
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 330 of 1184 ends

From: Maya DeRosa
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Aaron Hecock
Subject: FW: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 9:14:30 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Xinia, please post this comment to the PC agenda.

MAYA DEROSA, AICP

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2024 9:13 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [External] Opposed to Rezoning
Subject: Opposed - Saint Helena Rezoning (Site 10 1933
Spring Street/Valley View)
Dear Planning Commission,
This letter is a supplement to my previous note dated March 5, 2024 (see attached).

While we are not opposed to low income housing, my wife and I believe that the current proposal is detrimental not only to many residents of St. Helena, but to the City itself. We believe this is a very slippery slope that will forever change our city in a negative way, the proposal will have a detrimental impact on parking, water, sewerage and other services. High density, low income housing will require infrastructure that currently does not exist in our City. Low income residential housing will require nearby service providers such as Walgreens, CVS, fast food chains and other lower cost service providers that also do not exist in our City. St. Helena has prided itself for being a small town with no large corporate chains no tall buildings, and no big city issues.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 331 of 1184 ends

As a homeowner, we are of course concerned about our home values.

We are also concerned about losing our cities lifeline – grape vineyards. Vineyards and grape growing, have been the
cornerstone of St. Helena for well over 100 years. The vineyards and wine makers have long been our cities golden jewel. They not only bring revenue to the city; they bring worldwide notoriety by producing world-class wines. Once a vineyard is removed, it is lost forever. We are a land locked City, we cannot create more land. Removing vineyards is a monumental mistake. St. Helena will become the next San Francisco. Houses on top of houses.

It starts with one miss placed project.

Finally, I am concerned that our due process rights have been violated by not providing proper rezoning notices to neighbors within 300 yards of the project.

Thank you in advance for listening to our concerns, we are happy to meet with you at anytime.

Tom & Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View St.

St. Helena
713.859.5981
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Tina DeGeorgio <[email protected]>
Date: March 5, 2024 at 10:46:59 AM GMT+11
To:[email protected]
Subject: Opposed - Saint Helena Rezoning (Spring
Street/Valley View)
Dear Planning Commission,
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 332 of 1184 ends

We are so stressed out when we heard about the
proposal for rezoning the subject property. This
proposal will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are
as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood
properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be
interrupted greatly,

3. Increased traffic - The traffic is already so busy
especially during rush hour. The additional 88 plus
households will add hundreds of additional vehicles
traveling in our neighborhood plus more trucks and
school buses. The area roads were not developed for
such high density traffic.

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the
small town special place, that we have preserved for
years, to a mini San Francisco.

5. Privacy - our property’s back door is facing the
vineyard with no obstructed view of the vineyard.

With this proposed rezoning it will definitely put our
property in the same low income housing category.

6. St. Helena will be forever transformed. Our City is
rich in history and tradition. This needs to be
protected not squandered. Vineyards are the
backbone of St. Helena, removing this vineyard
is destroying our city. Rezoning will destroy the
lifeblood of our city. We cannot erode our precious
farmland.

7. Vineyards need to be protected not removed. We
are a land locked city, we cannot make more land, or
vineyards, once removed it cannot be replaced.

Save our vineyard!
Thank you in advance for hearing our concerns.

We are always available to discuss this
important issue by phone at 713.859.5981, or in
person.

Thank you,
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 333 of 1184 ends

Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Tom DeGeorgio
On Mar 6, 2024, at 5:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Subject: Opposed to Rezoning
Below is a copy of our note sent to the Planning
Commission:

Dear Planning Commission,
We are so stressed out when we heard about the proposal for rezoning the subject property. This proposal
will negatively impact all of our property and neighboring properties. My immediate concerns are as follows:

1. Devaluing our property and our neighborhood properties,

2. Tranquility of our neighborhood will be interrupted greatly,

4. Safety - St.Helena will be transformed from the small town special place, that we have preserved for years, to a mini San Francisco.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 334 of 1184 ends

6. St. Helena will be forever transformed. Our City is rich in history and tradition. This needs to be protected not
squandered. Vineyards are the backbone of St. Helena,
removing this vineyard is destroying our city. Rezoning will destroy the lifeblood of our city. We cannot erode our precious farmland.

7. Vineyards need to be protected not removed. We are a land locked city, we cannot make more land, or vineyards, once removed it cannot be replaced. Save our vineyard!
Thank you in advance for hearing our concerns. We are
always available to discuss this important issue by phone at 713.859.5981, or in person.

Thank you,
Thomas and Tina DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA.

Tom DeGeorgio
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 335 of 1184 ends

From: Pierre Birebent
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning of vineyard block at 1933 spring st Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:15:56 AM
The city keeps developing housing on every green lot in St Helena.

This town has enormous water and traffic problems.

Those, needs to be addressed and solved, before thinking of changing zoning , and building more housing.

Those tiny vineyards in town ( in the middle of the wine country ), should be preserved and cherished, and could be use for school projects, and ,or, public or private labels promoting the city of St Helena.

I strongly oppose the rezoning and development of what is called lot 10.

Thank you
Pierre Birebent
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 336 of 1184 ends

From: John Livingston
To: Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: [External] 1988 Spring Street rezoning
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 10:23:27 AM
To the Planning Commissioners'
I'm writing to express my objections to your recent communication and notification of rezoning of the 1933 Spring Street property. It is startling to learn of the commissions missed deadlines to the state and lack of the legal and timely notification to about 100 impacted families of rezoning this property to high density. This malfeasance now jeopardizes state funding, risks decertification and an unregulated Buildings Remedy. Moreover the introduction of potentially 200 or more families in multi storied housing in the midst of a residential community of single family homes destroys the character of this community, devalues the homes and overwhelms the existing infrastructure for traffic, utilities and safety.

Scaling back to the previous zoning of medium density could still be done without compromising the future housing responsibilities of the city and produce a more compatible develolpment of site 10.

Respectfully,
John and Diane Livingston
1148 Hudson Ave.

St. Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 337 of 1184 ends

From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
To: Xinia Gamero
Subject: FW: [External] Public comment for the April 2 Planning Committee Meeting Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 1:18:02 PM
Xinia, please note that Pat Kenealy is providing a public comment (below) as a St. Helena citizen and not as a City Council Member.

Cindy
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue *NEW ADDRESS
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

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

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

From: Pat Kenealy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 4:55 PM
To: cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Public comment for the April 2 Planning Committee Meeting Dear Planning Commission:

We are writing you to OPPOSE the rezoning of Site 9 (Spring Street between Hudson Ave and Valley View Street) from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.

We drive on Spring Street daily, bike on it weekly and have a 6-year old son who uses it to go Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 338 of 1184 ends

to and from school, playground, park, etc.

Allowing high-density housing in such an already-busy traffic area is a terrible idea. It is immediately adjacent to two key street crossings used by school children and others, and abuts the already overcrowded sections of Spring Street and Valley View that locals -- and increasingly visitors -- use to "go around" downtown traffic.

Spring Street and Valley View already have speeding problems and congestion and parking problems, and any high-density development would make these worse.

There are plenty of "edges" of Saint Helena, and higher density neighborhoods that would be better sites for greater density.

We support the most of the rest of the zoning changes you're considering at this meeting but OPPOSE this reckless, dangerous increasing of Spring Street density.

For safety's sake, don't increase density where Saint Helena already feels too much like any other Bay Area suburb. Please don't encourage some developer to change the existing combined residential / agricultural use of Site 9 to high density housing that could fit in better elsewhere in town.

Sincerely
Tracy Kenealy
Pat Kenealy
2995 Spring Street
Saint Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 339 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Patti Antonaccio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:09 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment on rezoning Spring St
Dear City of St Helena,
I live close to Spring St and close to the proposed rezoning from medium density to high density. I walk Spring Street almost every day and drive it as well. In the mornings, when the school children are going to and from school, there are so many cars, I now wait quite a while to be able to enter the Spring street from Hudson Ave. I can only imagine how bad it would be if the zoning is changed to high density! We have all 4 private schools on the west side with many parents/etc. taking their children to and from the schools on the west side. There are not many artery streets to take all this extra traffic. And the danger to cars and walkers along the Spring Street artery.

I am opposed to the rezoning to high density from medium density. Medium density fits with the character of the neighborhood. High density apartment buildings would be out of character along with too many cars in a very compact area with few artery streets. Even with new medium density housing in the area, this will add a lot more cars at the 2 commute times during the day but not as many as high density.

Thank you for your time.

Patti
Patti Antonaccio
1100 Hudson Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 340 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Courtney Shifflett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 3:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Rezoning
Hello,
I am a full time resident of St Helena and I am writing to express my strong belief that the zoning at 1933 Spring street should not change. That area is already so congested trying to get to our children’s schools.

More units in that area will only bring more issues with traffic and seems like a very unsuitable location for high density. I very much object to the rezoning of this property. Thank you.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 341 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jenny Wagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 4:12 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment - Spring Street
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing today in opposition of the proposed re-zoning of 1933 Spring Street. I was born and raised in St. Helena and feel fortunate to be raising my children in the same town.

The local community has been left out of the Housing Element process. The re-zoning of 1933 Spring Street has been a total shock to residents of St. Helena, including myself.

How could one think that Spring Street is an appropriate space to build a three-story 100+ unit housing complex? There are many issues that need to be addressed, including - safety, traƯic, parking, water… the list goes on.

I drive my three children to the Primary School every morning, passing 1933 Spring Street. The intersection of Spring St. and Valley View is heavily traƯicked before and after school. Many children walk or ride bikes, and cross the street right there. This is no safe place to add 100+ high density housing units.

Aesthetically, this proposed housing complex would be a burden to the established residential neighborhood that exists. It would be very sad to see this historical vineyard in the middle of St. Helena be ripped out to be replaced by high density housing. This town has been built on agriculture and it would be a shame to re-zone Spring Street for high density housing.

Thank you,
Jenny Clark
Jenny Wagner
Emmolo Winemaker
Main Office: 707.963.4204
[email protected]
wagnerfamilyofwine.com

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 342 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jack Oliver <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 6:30 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Attachments: 2023 - 2031 Housing Element - certified Sept. 25, 2023 269.pdf Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to express our hope that you do not rezone 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. Open space and historic vineyards are what gives St. Helena and this neighborhood its charm. The listing for the property even calls it the “Soul of Spring Street” for 90 years. Vineyards are what drive our local economy. They generate jobs in the vineyard, income to suppliers and produce the wine that makes our town and region famous. Putting high density housing in this neighborhood does not seem to fit with its characteristics nor consistent with the General Plan. The traffic and street parking will create many blind spots for cars turning onto Spring street and make it very dangerous for young students to bike and walk to school. The traffic coming out of a high-density location will already impact the back-ups at Spring and Main during rush hours.

The city has many other vacant, unproductive, and dilapidated sites that need improving and seem more suitable for high density housing. Plus, these sites are closer to traffic lights and the Hwy 29 transportation corridor. Why not improve and encourage investment in these non-productive locations as identified in the Housing Element such as sites 5, 2, 1 and the much-studied site 3? Let’s not crush the “soul” of Spring Street, let’s preserve and nourish it.

Sincerely,
Jack and Kate Oliver
1248 Hudson
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 343 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Certified, September 25, 2023 2-209
Figure 49 Residential Site Inventory Map
Figure 49 Residential Site Inventory Map
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 344 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jeffrey Earl Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 7:12 PM
To: Jack Oliver
Cc: Public Comment
Subject: Re: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Excellent letter. Im copying it and sending it in as well—saying i concur.

John Livingston told me there was a meeting coming up. Can you tell me when it is? We don’t seem to be gettings any correspondence on this.

J
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Jack Oliver <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to express our hope that you do not rezone 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. Open space and historic vineyards are what gives St. Helena and this neighborhood its charm. The listing for the property even calls it the “Soul of Spring Street” for 90 years. Vineyards are what drive our local economy. They generate jobs in the vineyard, income to suppliers and produce the wine that makes our town and region famous. Putting high density housing in this neighborhood does not seem to fit with its characteristics nor consistent with the General Plan. The traffic and street parking will create many blind spots for cars turning onto Spring street and make it very dangerous for young students to bike and walk to school. The traffic coming out of a highdensity location will already impact the back-ups at Spring and Main during rush hours.

Sincerely,
Jack and Kate Oliver
1248 Hudson
<2023 - 2031 Housing Element - certified Sept. 25, 2023 269.pdf> Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 345 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jeffrey Earl Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 7:49 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Jack Oliver; Diane Livingston; Aaron Baraak; Mike Shifflet; Mike Norman; Dave & Susan Wight; Cory Empting; Alexander Avetoom
Subject: [External] Spring Street zoning change
Besides the environmental damage this project will do to the creek, streets and traffic, I strongly support the words of my fellow citizen and neighbor, Jack Oliver We are writing to express our hope that you do not rezone 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. Open space and historic vineyards are what gives St. Helena and this neighborhood its charm. The listing for the property even calls it the “Soul of Spring Street” for 90 years. Vineyards are what drive our local economy. They generate jobs in the vineyard, income to suppliers and produce the wine that makes our town and region famous. Putting high density housing in this neighborhood does not seem to fit with its characteristics nor consistent with the General Plan. The traffic and street parking will create many blind spots for cars turning onto Spring street and make it very dangerous for young students to bike and walk to school. The traffic coming out of a high-density location will already impact the back-ups at Spring and Main during rush hours.

Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 346 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Carmen Policy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:01 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Gail Policy
Subject: [External] Housing Element Site 10 - Spring St. between Hudson Ave. and Valley View Street (009-4411-023)
Please accept this email message as our formal comment concerning the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting on April 2, 2024, dealing with the change of zoning for the caption property on Spring Street. We own a house on Hudson Avenue which is occupied by family members. This residence is in the center of a community neighborhood which possesses the qualities that St. Helena strives to create and hopefully maintain. Families abound and the area bustles with children who walk the streets and ride bicycles to schools. The density that exits is already heavy for Wine Country standards but seems to work well. Spring Street has become a somewhat busy thoroughfare which is a connection to various parts of downtown plus serves as an option to avoid Main Street. It also feeds traffic heading to and from the High School, Crane Park, Farmer’s Market and a great number of social and athletic events. The traffic can be heavy and distracting at times and will definitely increase unreasonably as the Site 10 property becomes more developed.

This particular site is already zoned for medium density and the neighborhood seemed willing to accept that fact rather than try to reverse it for reasons that were explained by the City. We actually did not know that this plan was going to be considered and thought it had been abandoned. However, we are now faced with the proposition that the still existing plan is to enhance the density of the area to a high level which will have an exponentially negative impact on everything that occurs with this level of expansion. We will be facing width, breadth, height and density issues that will negatively impact the entire area which is already impacted by its proximity to surrounding facilities and traffic patterns. This plan in effect takes a well-functioning and admirable neighborhood into a state of urban crush. St. Helena is not the city of Napa nor do we want to be. We understand the so called State Mandate is a factor but our City leaders should be certain to protect our community from the potential harm of bureaucratic and impersonal over reach. Please remember that the area you are affecting is the main residence for those who occupy these houses. The plan to create high density zoning for the site in question has the effect of putting a “high rise” effect in the center of a neighborhood…..it just doesn’t fit or work.

Thank you for accepting and considering this comment.

Gail Policy
Carmen Policy
1112 Hudson Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 347 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: William Wagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 9:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezoning
Hello,
My name is William Wagner and I reside at 1160 Hudson Avenue in Saint Helena.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to 1933 Spring Street being re-zoned for high-density housing. While I understand the dire need for more housing in California and Napa County, this particular location is a horrible choice for several reasons.

1. It will entirely ruin the character of the neighborhood.

2. We already have a traffic problem in this neighborhood, due to people taking Valley View as a shortcut to downtown. Adding 100+ more residential units will make the congestion unbearable, not to mention extremely dangerous for the many children who live in the neighborhood and walk and ride their bikes to school.

3. If there is a fire, trying to evacuate that many more people would be dangerous and will jeopardize lives.

4. We already have a water shortage, this many more units will make it critical.

5. There are far better sites in the city for high density housing.

Also, and very importantly, this whole decision was snuck by the residents with zero public notice and no opportunity to even comment on the rezoning.

I strongly urge you to keep the zoning as-is and keep it at medium density.

Thank You,
William Wagner
1160 Hudson Ave.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 348 of 1184 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 349 of 1184 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 350 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: elaine chan lund <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:22 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 - 1933 Spring St Rezoning
Dear members of the St Helena Planning Commission,
We reside on Hudson Ave with our children. I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of Site 10 - 1933 Spring St for high-density housing.. While we acknowledge the necessity for increased housing and lend our support to the current proposed medium-density plan, we firmly believe that rezoning this particular location to high density is unsuitable.

Site 10 - 1933 Spring St is situated within a well-established residential neighborhood, surrounded by predominantly single-story homes. Introducing a high-density housing complex into this area would be highly disruptive and fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood.

My opposition about this rezoning stem from several considerations. Firstly, safety concerns arise from the potential influx of residents and vehicles into an area not designed to accommodate such density.

Increased traffic congestion would not only pose risks to pedestrians and cyclists but also compromises emergency response times in critical situations. Additionally, the existing infrastructure, including roads, parking facilities, water, and sewer systems, may not be equipped to support the demands of a highdensity development.

Equally concerning is the impact on privacy that a multi-story complex would inflict upon current residents. This intrusion on privacy is unacceptable and would diminish the quality of life for those already living in the neighborhood.

Furthermore, no other proposed site carries the same magnitude of impact as 1933 Spring St. Rezoning this location would have far-reaching consequences for the surrounding community, affecting not only current residents but also future generations.

In light of these concerns, I urge the City Council to reconsider the rezoning of 1933 Spring St for highdensity housing. Instead, I implore you to explore alternative sites that are better suited to accommodate the necessary growth while preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods.

Thank you for considering my viewpoint on this matter. I trust that you will make the decision that best serves the interests of our community as a whole.

Sincerely,
Elaine Lund
1166 Hudson Ave
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 351 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: LAURA KEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 6:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 Housing Element
In follow up to my previous email in regards to the rezoning for the housing element of site #10 Spring St., Hudson Avenue in Valley View, I’d like to offer the following addiƟonal remarks; The city has been neglecƞul in their responsibiliƟes to the ciƟzens, especially those most affected, by not providing proper noƟficaƟon that a final decision to rezone Site#10 was made last year. All we received was a general noƟce in 2020 (during Covid) that there was a process to update a zoning ordinance. We were not properly noƟfied at that Ɵme nor was there any noƟce of direct rezoning of 1933 Spring St. along with the aƩached vineyard in 2023 or prior to submiƫng to the State a plan to rezone the site.

Since this area was already zoned for medium density we fully expected this property may be on the list for consideraƟon for the Housing Element. Therefore, having not received a noƟce, and being within the 300 feet of the project we expected the zoning would remain the same and we had Ɵme to bring our concerns to the city.

I find it irresponsible to the ciƟzens that live in this area that the city would idenƟfy a site, not directly noƟfy us in 2020 nor in 2023 that it was being considered for a high density residenƟal rezone, knowing full well that was the plan and was necessary to meet the total amount of required housing units. At the very least we should have been noƟfied in October 2023. I feel this was likely done on purpose as it’s hard to believe an oversight of this magnitude, that affects so many people, was a “NoƟcing glitch”
It’s apparent that the city’s efforts to noƟfy were not forthcoming throughout the process, up to and including March 5 agenda being posted, as no one directly affected, including the owner of the property, were aware this rezone was taking place and being voted on and probably approved on March 5 2024! Now we the people that are directly affected have not been given adequate Ɵme to voice our concerns and offer our input as to possible other soluƟons.

We have just now received a noƟce that rezoning is going to take place on this property, way aŌer the known fact!! 16 units per Acre at 30 feet in height is more density than any small town neighborhood should have to absorb. We are doing more than our part in meeƟng the State mandated housing for the city as currently zoned at Medium Density.

Therefore, I strongly feel that the city should get the housing element approved by finding parcels, or adding to other parcels, 24 addiƟonal homes and not overburden one parƟcular area in the city that is already zoned medium density. I believe you have 88 homes designated at Site 10. Based on maximum numbers per acre, not counƟng the exisƟng house, that’s 64 units at MD. More than enough for us to bear in our neighborhood.

We realize that the city is not responsible for the loss of value of our homes, I’ve been informed it could be as much as $400,000 per home. At medium density Over 30 homes will immediately be financially impacted by any development of this property, along with enduring years of construcƟon. High density makes it worse. Are any other sites imposing the same financial burdens on residenƟal properƟes? Does the east side have four schools and the traffic they bring? Is 42feet in height something Saint Helena wants in a residenƟal area? I would again, highly recommend you consider leaving this site (#10) at medium density and allocaƟng the addiƟonal 24 homes either onto other sites appropriated or by finding another site that will meet the addiƟonal 24 home requirement. Possibly annex land in a more appropriate locaƟon for apartment style living. This will allow the city to meet the required cerƟficaƟon, avoid default and allow the ciƟzens, that should have received their noƟce in a Ɵmely manner, Ɵme to offer their input, ideas and find possible remedies to avoid the detrimental effects the city’s plan will impose to each and everyone of us.

Thank you for your Ɵme.

Thanks,
Laura Keir
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 352 of 1184 ends

2 Thanks,
Laura
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 353 of 1184 ends

Patrice Ferguson and John E Camp
1250 Spring Brook Court
St. Helena, CA 94574
March 29, 2024
To: City of St. Helena Planning Commission
Email: [email protected]
We are writing to express our great concern for the recommendation of City Council regarding the rezoning of the property at 1933 Spring Street from medium density to high density. We are adamantly opposed to such a rezoning.

First, we are surprised that we have only learned of the proposal and the process of adding the approval to a meeting to take place next week on April 3, 2024. We were completely unaware of the potential rezoning until neighbors brought it to our attention less than a week ago. I understand that the notice process has been subverted with attempts to cure past problems when the entire intention of the process is to provide meaningful information to stakeholders and interested residents. The swiftness of the City’s actions denies all of us for the opportunity to be heard and participate in decisions that affect all of us.

From what we can tell, the decision to “rezone” from medium to high density has been what appears to be a “cramdown” to residents and the community of St. Helena without consideration of the enormous impact to the Spring Street and surrounding neighborhoods, schools, traffic, safety, water and sewer that would result from the change. We are shocked by the possibility of adding hundreds of units in low rise structures on Spring Street with the enormous problems this would create. We understand that there are other sites that would lend themselves to better transition to the type of housing the City seeks to approve. The selection of 1033 Spring Street to rezone to high density should be denied especially in light of alternatives available to the City that would be more appropriate.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 354 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: LINDA REIFF <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 1:40 PM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: [External] Public Comment on Planning Commission April 2 2024 Agenda Item 5.1 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,

I received your letter and background materials regarding the potential rezoning of 1933 Spring Street on March 23, which is 10 days before the Commission is scheduled to vote on the matter.

As a property owner directly across the street, this proposal would have a massive negative impact on my property, and those of 100 other homeowners in the immediate neighborhood.

This is a small town where such a major decision with irrevocable impacts needs thorough review and meaningful conversations, which has not occurred. Further, proper notice to allow time for study and comment is required by law. If the City moves forward with this proposal my neighbors and I will have been denied that right.

I understand that the City has put itself in a precarious situation with the State. I also understand there are enough housing numbers within the other sites to meet the State requirements.

Therefore, in order for the City to meet the State requirements without denying its citizens their rights, the only choice the City has at this time is to remove the rezoning proposal for 1933 Spring Street and resubmit the plan to the State with the remaining sites.

Thank you in advance for resolving this matter.

Sincerely,
Linda Reiff

On 03/04/2024 1:07 PM PST Linda Reiff <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am the owner of the property directly across the street from 1933 Spring and its vineyard, which apparently you are considering re-zoning to high-density housing.

Page 355 of 1184 ends

2 While I understand the city is under pressure from the state to approve more housing, this is not the location where it should be done. The traffic impacts alone would be substantial and given this is the route to two of our public schools, it would be dangerous for children.

I respectfully ask that you not re-zone the property and instead engage with all neighbors about the future of the site. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Linda Reiff

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 356 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Bryan Sandoli <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 2:14 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We’ve always valued this community and moved here knowing it was a safe home for our family and future generaƟons.

We understand and appreciate how communiƟes evolve. We have faith that the respecƟve planning commissions approve development with the proper foresight and panning to ensure all aspects have been veƩed and calculated to maintain the highest level of safety and wellbeing of its residents. Safety is obviously one of our highest prioriƟes. Living on Spring Street the last 12 years across from 1933 Spring, we have noƟced firsthand the dramaƟc increase of traffic to the point it is overly dangerous entering and exiƟng our driveway. Unsure when the traffic studies were conducted for the medium density zoning, but all signs show they are dated for today's congesƟon related to the increase in residents, students and tourists by-passing main street. Introducing a high density development project on Spring Street without thorough traffic and environmental studies is irresponsible, grossly negligent and detrimental to our lives and community. The city has several site opƟons that are more viable from a safety/traffic standpoint which also are in greater need of development. These sites all have less of an impact than that of Site 10 without quesƟon.

It's disheartening to learn from members in the community that the city has missed the Housing Element deadlines and associated grace period placing the community out of compliance. Given its poor planning and foresight, the planning commission has exposed us to potenƟal loss of state funding, possible decerƟficaƟon and triggering the ulƟmate penalty of the Builder's Remedy. If the State elects to decerƟfy the Housing Element, the Builder’s Remedy would blatantly disregard any traffic and safety concerns and change the core fabric and safety of our neighborhood and community on Spring Street.

We urge for Site 10 to remain medium density and to eventually develop it wisely for generaƟons to come...

Thank you,
Bryan Dante Sandoli
Spring Street Resident
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 357 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Elizabeth Sandoli <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 3:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Dear City of Saint Helena,
My name is Elizabeth Sandoli and I grew up across from 1933 Spring Street. I learned how to drive a car on that street. I had to endure hectic mornings and afternoons when school would begin and conclude. So I cannot imagine how much worse this beloved street’s traffic will become if you follow through with this surreptitious plan. Putting in high-density housing will create an adverse environment for young children growing up in the surrounding neighborhood and will extrapolate the current safety issues. We the community do not appreciate how this plan came to be without our knowledge and now we are supposed to deal with the consequences. The ramifications of this 566.67% increase in density will impact the lives of the future children of St. Helena. I do not doubt that there will be a positive correlation between an increase in population in the area and an increase in car-related injuries in the area. So, if I were in your shoes, I would stay under code 16.32.060 C that “all streets shall be designed and constructed to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare, and to meet the relevant standards outlined in the public works and fire department specifications, and CalTrans standard specifications.” And according to my sources, you have not completed a traffic study for the area. Therefore I do not believe it would be wise to carry out this agenda that will impact the future of this town. Please protect my prospective children by taking the Spring Street site out of the equation. There are many other sites where your agenda would be able to be executed that are exceptionally more conducive to the lives and safety of the citizens of your town. I urge you to eliminate site 10 from your consideration so I can have assurance that my children can grow up in the same “bubble town” that I was lucky enough to have.

Sincerely,
The girl who grew up on 1918 Spring Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 358 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Karen Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 3:57 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning of 1933 Spring Street: Health and Safety Concerns I would like to comment on the traffic and safety issues surrounding Site 10 of the General Plan's Housing Element to voice my opinion on why NOT to allow it to be rezoned to high-density.

First and foremost, the traffic situation on Spring Street and Valley View already poses significant congestion and dangers during the commuting hours before and after public school hours to and from Grayson Avenue. In addition, Spring and Valley View are used as a thoroughfare for traffic looking to bypass the increasing gridlock traffic on HWY 29/Main Street. We live just in from the corner of Hudson and Spring and the amount of traffic that exceeds the speed limit
The dangers include children who walk and bike to school from the residential neighborhoods west of Allyn and Hudson. There is already a steady stream of cars and semi-trucks that utilize this "thoroughfare" making it a safety hazard. If future-thinking traffic studies are not conducted, the number of additional cars trying to enter Spring Street from 1933 will add to the already dangerous setting we watch from our porch every morning and afternoon. This isn't even bringing into the discussion of the years of construction issues that will be inevitable.

Anecdotally, living at 1918 Spring Street for 14 years, we have been backing into our driveway because we simply cannot back out of it safely. Each day, we drive home on the side of the street for traffic to subside in both directions and then back into our driveway quickly before another car either comes from Valley View or Hudson at speeds nearly impossible to safely complete the task.

I am aware of the different points being made by citizens of our community and will be present at the meeting on 4/2/24 to support the overwhelming opposition to what has been quietly happening without proper studies or information sharing to the neighborhoods most affected.

Sincerely,
Karen
Karen Williams
To help protect your privacy,
Microsoft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Sent from Front
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 359 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Matthew Heil <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 3:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Maya DeRosa; Aaron Hecock; [email protected]; cityclerk; Xinia Gamero Subject: Re: [External] Agenda Item 5.1 Ordinance Approving General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments
Attachments: SH Montessori Letter to City re. 3 Parcels.pdf Chairperson John Ponte
Members of the St. Helena Planning Commission
Maya DeRosa, Planning Director
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
March 29, 2024
Re: Opportunity Site #8
Dear Chairperson Ponte, Planning Commissioners and Planning Director DeRosa:

On July 17 2018, St. Helena Montessori wrote a formal letter indicating an interest and openness to provide workforce housing for the school's employees and potentially other workers employed in St. Helena on the property owned by the school located at 882, 884 and 886 College Ave (APN# 009-070-043, 009-070-044 and 009-070-045). Please find a copy of that letter attached.

At that time, the City of St. Helena Zoning Ordinances would have allowed for a project with 8-22 units on that 1.5 acres of property if the land was indeed re-zoned MR: Medium Density Residential as per the request.

The city's proposal to up-zone the aforementioned property to HR: High Density Residential with a target of 30 units is far more ambitions a project than the school was contemplating at the time or is in a position to execute at this time.

We would like to work with city staff to masterplan a solution on this property that would meet the objectives of the school and the city with a housing project that meets the size and scope necessary to fulfill those objectives.

Please feel free to contact me at the school should you have further questions regarding this matter at [email protected] or (707) 738-5291.

Sincerely,
Matthew P. Heil, Director of Development
On behalf of the Board of Trustees
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 360 of 1184 ends

2 Matthew P. Heil
Development Consultant
St. Helena Montessori
880 College Ave
St. Helena, CA 94574
707.963.1527 office
707.738.5291 cell
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 361 of 1184 ends

Mayor and City Council Members
Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Noah Housh, Planning & Community Improvement Director
City of St. Helena
1480 Main St.

St. Helena, CA 94574
July 17, 2018
Re: City of St. Helena General Plan Update – Rezoning Request, APN#s 009-070-043, 044, 045 Dear Mayor and City Council,
The St. Helena Montessori School (SHMS) would like to thank the City Council and our City Manager for seriously exploring a much-needed housing strategy for our community. SHMS is acutely aware of the need for work force housing, as a majority of our staff must find affordable housing outside the City of St. Helena. We applaud the work that has been done and the completion of the White Paper – “Stabilize, Maintain and Improve Access to Housing” goal presented to the Council on June 26th. Also, we realize that the Council will be taking “one last look” and providing policy direction to finalize our General Plan Update on August 14, 2018.

SHMS owns three ag residential lots adjacent to its campus on College Avenue. Currently these three one-half acres lots are zoned A-20 which may be developed only with a single-family house and an ADU on each lot. The three lots are within the Urban Limit Zone and currently have City utility services stubbed to each of the lots. Our Board of Directors believes that it would be in the best interests of the School and the community if the lots could be re-zoned Medium Density Residential which would provide the SHMS the opportunity to develop affordable workforce housing that would serve its staff and the community.

St. Helena Montessori School would at this time formally request that the City include a rezoning of parcels APN# 009-070-043, 009-070-044 and 009-070-045 from A-20: Agriculture to MR:

Medium Density Residential when providing policy direction to finalize the General Plan Update.

Please feel free to contact me at the school should you have further questions regarding this matter at [email protected] or (707) 738-5291.

Sincerely,
Matthew P. Heil, Director of Development
On behalf of the Board of Trustees
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 362 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: carolyn troyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comments from Marc & Carolyn Troyan for the April Planning Committee Meeting To the City of St. Helena,
My husband and I are the owners of 1134 Valley View. We are writing to ask the planning commission to reconsider the rezoning of the vineyard property on Spring street from medium to high density. When we moved our family to St. Helena and joined the community, we were excited to join a vibrant community and amazing school district. We have been overjoyed at the people that we have met and have been giving back through volunteering at St. Helena High school and becoming active members of the local Soroptimists chapter and joining the local chamber of commerce along with being small business owners. When we purchased our property many years ago we knew that there was a chance someday we would have homes behind us and were aware of the zoning change to medium density. The latest development to impact over 40 single homeowners with a high density development in their backyard vs. in another more developed area of town makes little sense to our family. Our vineyard and mountain views will be replaced by apartments and a fence. The impact and loss in value to our property is massive and will have a significant impact on our future plans to retire in St. Helena and continue to give back to the community. I also see a huge impact on our community:
1) Water usage - what is the plan to address this given the high number of units proposed by the change? 2) Sewage and waste treatment usage? We already have issues along spring and other streets and can our current infrastructure handle this additional load?
3) Traffic - valley view is an essential road to two of our schools and I worry about the traffic impact for our families.
4) Decreased value of our properties - how will the city make up for the massive loss we will experience in $ and value of our property?
Finally what other options were considered that might be a better fit and impact less homeowners in the community? As others pointed out there are other sites controlled by the city with less total impact than the one proposed on spring street.

I want to thank the planning department for meeting with me and explaining how hard it has been to find suitable solutions to the demands from the state. However, I feel taking some more time to figure out a better solution and involve the community in a deeper way feels like the right thing to do. Also given all the infrastructure issues we currently face, a more detailed plan from the city would be great to address the areas above.

We ask with all our hearts that you consider the impact you are having on the residents surrounding this area and the massive impact this will have on our community and the value of our properties. Let's keep valley view with some view of the valley.

Thanks for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Carolyn & Marc Troyan
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 363 of 1184 ends

2 --
Carolyn Troyan
CEO & President, Leadership 360
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.leadership-360.org/
LinkedIn
Phone: +1 (415) 812-0690
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 364 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Danielle Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 11:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public comment for item 5.1 on 4/2
Please see the following comment for item 5.1 on the upcoming 4/2/2024 planning commission agenda.

I am wriƟng to state my opposiƟon of the rezoning of site 10 although what’s more concerning than this rezoning is the incompetence and lack of compliance of the city. I’m truly baffled how far this has gone and that the rezoning noƟce to residence was passed off as a glitch.

We need accountability and transparency from our city officials. Residents deserve to be informed and involved in the decision-making process.

It's Ɵme for the city to step up and do beƩer for the community.

Get it together St. Helena.

Regards,
Danielle
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 365 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Rita Hellewell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 12:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Christopher Hellewell
Subject: [External] Rezoning of 1933 Spring St.

I would like to comment in advance at the upcoming meeting on April 2nd, as I will be traveling out of town on business and cannot attend.

My husband and I are full time residents of St. Helena, and we are extremely unhappy with the way this matter has been handled, putting many in a situation where they must choose between two bad options all because the town failed in its responsibility to give timely and accurate information about the steps they were undertaking.

Your sleight of hand to rezone the parcel from a medium density to a high density lot without even informing the public (or the owner, from what I understand) is highly concerning to say the very least. You missed many deadlines and then referred to the failure to inform residents as a "glitch." This decision directly affects the property and character of a highly residential area with some 30+ families, and will impact the broader area in ways that have not been addressed. This area has always been a low to medium density area, and the impact of this plan to build a three-story, 100+ unit on traffic, water, sewer , parking, fire and health and safety has not been addressed. It is completely out of keeping with the neighborhood.

We strongly object and ask that the City not rezone the property, and be held accountable for its failure to inform residents of plans that so personally and profoundly impact them and their property. The citizens of this town should not pay the price for the failure of the council to act.

Sincerely,
Rita & Chris Hellewell
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 366 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Philippa Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 9:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment for April 2nd commission meeting From: Philippa Ward <[email protected]>
Date: March 30, 2024 at 12:50:58 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comment for April 2nd commission meeting
To- St. Helena City Planning Commission
With regard to the potential upzoning of 1933 Spring Street vineyard from Medium Density to High Density Zoning. I am strongly opposed to the potential of well over 100+ units being built at this location. It is wholly inappropriate to have up to 3 stories and that many units built at this location. The surrounding home owners would suffer in its shadow as they are required to abide by CC&R’s limiting them to 1 story. This city does not have the capability of servicing that many units in one location. We do not have the water, the safety personnel, the sewer capabilities nor the ability to manage the traffic that would result from this potential development.

I also strongly object to the way the residents as well as the owner of this property were noticed, or rather not noticed, until March 21st for an April 2nd meeting. I understand that there is pressure from the state to certify the housing element our city greatly needs and the alternative to not adopting our general plan is dire. These proposed upzoning sites should have been entered into our general plan and new zoning when it was being redrawn and thoughtful discussion could have been had. The requirement for the state housing element is not a surprise and should not be treated as one.

I would encourage thoughtful consideration about what the High Density Zoning of 1933 Spring Street would do to that portion of town. There are more appropriate places that can tolerate high density than a historic vineyard surrounded by single story medium density homes. Please object to the upzoning of site 10.

Regards,
Philippa Ward
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 367 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Erin Przybylinski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 7:40 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in regards to the current proposal for high density low income housing on site 10 on Spring Street. I fully support the need for low income housing, but I do not support the current plan for a high density three story 100 unit at this location. I encourage you to amend the plan to medium density and individual units,
Thank you for your exploration of this matter,
Erin Przybylinski
1184 Hudson Ave.

St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 368 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 9:38 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Housing element
In respect to the rezone and development of Site 10 in the Housing Element Considering the proximity of the Saint Helena area, especially the west side of town, to High Fire Risk areas per map linked below the safety of the residents in case of fire should have kept this property from being considered for zoning change and should not have been considered at all for development.

The City of Saint Helena along with Calistoga should have done more to fight SB 9 and 10 and filed for exempƟon. If nothing else fought the County to find more safe areas for development.

By adding hundreds of new homes up valley, in high fire prone areas, with limited evacuaƟon routes, will cause deaths and endanger the safety of its ciƟzens Thank you Brian Schleicher Saint Helena hƩps://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 369 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Doug King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezoning
To the City of Saint Helena, Planning Commission, and City Council Members, As a 30 year homeowner and resident on Hudson Avenue I am writing to urge the City to exclude 1933 Spring Street (Site 10) from the list of sites being considered for rezoning to High Density Residential. This change would drastically alter the historic character of the neighborhood which has been fundamental to the general plan of St. Helena since its inception. This change would create numerous public safety issues and impose negative impacts on the many residents of the area. High density housing would create numerous traffic issues including traffic jams at already congested intersections (Spring and Main, for ex.). Parking would become a challenge and access to Spring Street (already with many visually obstructed corners (Hudson and Spring, Allyn and Spring) would lead to public safety concerns. These are frequently traveled routes for children to schools and parks in the immediate area, and for residents walking for exercise, pets, and downtown visits.

This parcel has been zoned as Medium Density in the most recent General Plan, and is bordered on all sides by existing Medium Density housing, as zoned in the G.P. Converting this parcel from Medium to High Density overtly contradicts the obvious intent and nature of the original General Plan design. It will greatly impact this important area of Saint Helena in many and significant ways.

To consider this change because of pressures from State mandated reforms should be done with rigorous deliberation and maximum input from the community. This does not appear to have been the case. This is a very troubling realization. Changing this parcel to High Density may seem like a quick solution to an immediate challenge but it will create irreversible problems in the long term. I urge you to keep the 1933 Spring Street Street Parcel in the current zoning of Medium Density Residential in order to preserve the character of Saint Helena and protect the best interests of our residents.

Sincerely,
Doug King
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 370 of 1184 ends

Dear City of St. Helena,
I am wriƟng to express my strong opposiƟon to the proposed rezoning of our residenƟal area to accommodate low-income high-density residenƟal developments. As a resident and stakeholder in this community, I believe this rezoning would have detrimental effects on the neighborhood's character, traffic, safety, livability, and overall well-being.

Firstly, our residenƟal area has been carefully planned and developed to provide a balanced environment for families and individuals seeking a certain quality of life. Introducing highdensity housing, parƟcularly designated for low-income residents, may disrupt the harmony and dynamics of our community. It could potenƟally strain exisƟng resources such as schools, healthcare faciliƟes, water, sewer, and transportaƟon infrastructure, leading to overcrowding and increased traffic congesƟon.

Moreover, the sudden influx of high-density housing could negaƟvely impact property values for exisƟng homeowners. Studies have shown that the introducƟon of low-income housing in predominantly medium-density residenƟal areas can lead to decreased property values due to perceived changes in neighborhood desirability and safety concerns.

Furthermore, while I understand the importance of providing affordable housing opƟons, rezoning the Spring Street area for high-density development is not the only soluƟon. There are alternaƟve strategies and locaƟons that can be explored to meet the needs of low-income residents without compromising the integrity of established neighborhoods like ours.

AddiƟonally, I urge the city to consider the long-term implicaƟons of this rezoning decision.

Once the character of our neighborhood is altered, it may be irreversible, affecƟng generaƟons to come. We must prioriƟze sustainable development that respects the needs and preferences of current residents while also addressing the city's housing challenges.

In conclusion, I respecƞully request that the city reconsider the proposed rezoning of our residenƟal area to low-income high-density residenƟal. I believe that preserving the character and integrity of our neighborhood is crucial for maintaining a thriving and cohesive community.

Thank you for considering my concerns and those of other residents who share similar senƟments. I am available to discuss this maƩer further and welcome the opportunity to contribute to construcƟve dialogue on alternaƟve soluƟons.

Sincerely,
Greg Scheinfeld
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 371 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maxine Angell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:19 AM
To: Public Comment; Maya DeRosa; citymanager
Subject: Fw: [External] Opposed to Rezoning 1933 Spring Street for 4/2/24 meeting Dear Planning Commission;
This e-mail is supplement to my e-mail dated March 5, 2024 that is attached below.

On March 22, 2024, I received an undated notice from the City of St. Helena regarding a hearing to adopt an ordinance approving a
General Plan Amendment. This Amendment is to bring the Land Use Map and the Zoning Map into conformance with the Citys' adopted and
State Certified 2023-2031 Housing element. Attached to the notice was a two page letter titled Frequently Asked Questions.

Of concern is that the City of St Helena adopted and certified a plan with zoning changes without notice to residents in violation of Saint
Helena Municipal Code sections 17.07.060 and 17.07.060 and State law. Of further concern is that the housing element began nearly three years ago and the city submitted a rezoning of my neighborhood, without providing legal notice to property owners as required.

On Page 2, titled Frequently Asked Questions number #5, it lists a several potential negative outcomes if the changes are not approved, however, these actions, such as fines, decertification by the State and Builders Remedy are directly related to the Citys non-compliance with the state deadlines on two occasions. The most basic question is why are City employees not complying with the laws?
I have lived in the neighborhood for nearly thirty two years and the proposed rezoning would drastically change the charm and character of my neighborhood, as well as affecting, water, parking, noise etc. Valley View Street is an alternative to the Highway 29 and traffic is unsafe as it is.

I am in favor of keeping Site 10 as medium density and increasing the density of other proposed sites, which would enable to City to meet it's quota without disrupting the neighborhood. I am also in favor of transparency and accountablity by city staff and their failure to
provide notice and communication with residents impacted by their decisions. The notice I received on March 22, 2024 should have been
provided years before when rezoning was contemplated and well before it was submitted to the State.

Sincerely,
Maxine L. Angell
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Maxine Angell <[email protected]>
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 10:20:19 AM PST
Subject: Opposed to Rezoning 1933 Spring Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 372 of 1184 ends

2 Dear Planning Commission;
I am a 32 year resident of Saint Helena and live one house away from the proposed zoning change to 1933 Spring Street from
moderate density to high density housing. I am opposed to rezoning this property and shocked that neighbors were not notified to provide feedback or input into the proposed rezoning. I heard about the rezoning, three days ago from my neighbor who I saw in the yard, yet this change
would have a permanent, deleterious effect on the charm, peace and quiet of the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Maxine L. Angell
2101 Spring Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 373 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: debra lunardini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:25 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning Site 10. 1933 Spring Street April 1, 2024
Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission.

This email is regarding the rezoning of 1933 Spring St. (site 10). My home is directly adjacent to this property and like everyone else in the neighborhood the city’s failure to noƟfy surrounding neighbors has broken city and state laws. Had I been properly noƟfied I would have had the opportunity to place my home on the market. I consulted my real estate agent and she says that I’ve already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity. A high density development on that parƟcular lot is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood as most of the homes are ranch style single-story, single-family properƟes. All the homes surrounding the proposed mulƟ- story development complex would also lose their present privacy, not to menƟon creaƟng excessive traffic, parking issues, noise and would raise safety concerns. The rezoning of 1933 Spring Street would surely ruin this small neighborhood.

Sincerely, Debra Lunardini
2081 Spring Street
Saint Helena, CA 94574 [email protected]
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 374 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: John Herrguth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 4:46 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 Re-zoning
I am contacting you regarding the proposed rezoning of site 10 in St. Helena. I am strongly opposed to the proposed re-zoning from medium to high-density. Allowing a high density development at site 10 will have a detrimental effect on property values as well as pose serious problems regarding parking, traffic flow, water, sewer, fire and other health and safety concerns. The corner of Spring and Valley View is already a high traffic area, especially during the morning and afternoon with parents shuttling their children to and from school.

The proposed development does not fit with the current character of the neighborhood and would negatively affect existing residents and homeowners. Furthermore, the city was negligent and deceitful in properly informing the residents of the proposed rezoning.

I understand and agree St. Helena needs to provide affordable housing and respectfully request site 10 remain medium density and that the city investigate more suitable parcels to provide the housing it needs to meet state mandated requirements. Allowing site 10 to be re-zoned to high density would be a travesty.

Sincerely,
John Herrguth
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 375 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Nancy King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 5:08 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning Spring St Vineyard? - NO!
Do any of you on the board live in Saint Helena?
Well, my husband and I have lived on Hudson Ave for 30 yrs., infact we raised both of our kids in SH. They both successfully went through all of our public schools and competed in most of the sports offered.

Do you understand what would happen to our neighbors, our quiet lovely community, if apartments were built in our neighborhood? So many issues. Just to name a few- water, traffic, parking and more personally the price of all our houses will go way down.

We agree that if the vineyard cannot stay, then keeping the medium density aesthetic makes sense. And we understand and agree that more affordable housing is needed in SH, but put it where it should be, not just the first place that pops up. Not in our backyard.

And, by the way, the way and timing that we were notified is wrong.

And it is clear to all of us that it was not just a “notifying glitch”.

Nancy King
Hudson Ave
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 376 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Josh Dempsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 8:21 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Erin Dempsey
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street ~ Rezone
To Whom it May Concern,
My wife Erin and I live full time in St Helena (2705 Spring Street) and we are very concerned about the prospect of a high density project on this site. We understand that the city is under significant pressure to create more housing. A proposed solution is to approve the rezoning for all sites except Site 10. With respect to Site 10, no changes to its current zoning are necessary and it would remain zoned Medium Density Residential (MR). This does not add or remove project sites from the Housing Element and the objective would be to accomplish this minor edit without having to "reopen" the Housing Element.

Keeping Site 10 MR would adjust the calculation for Site 10 from providing 88 housing units (44 lower / 44 moderate) to providing 70 housing units (35 lower / 35 moderate) -- a reduction of only 18 housing units out of 472 total. Based on this, the City would still meet the RHNA allocation (including a 20% buffer) with a respective surplus of 6, 30, and 116 housing units for lower, moderate, and above-moderate income. The community asks that the Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff work with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to determine the quickest way to implement this solution and bring the Housing Element back into compliance.

Josh Dempsey
Vanguard Properties
Regional Director
C: 707.637.6123
Lic # 01297595
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 377 of 1184 ends

PALMISANO
3/30/2024
This letter is regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting on April 2, 2024, dealing with the rezoning for Site 10; The Spring Street Vineyard Property.

As owners of a home on Hudson Avenue, it is very distressing to know that not only has the property mentioned been rezoned without our knowing until very recently, but the city is proposing to rezone Site 10 from medium to high-density.

This neighborhood is currently surrounded by single family residences filled with retirees and families raising their children. Almost all of the homes are single story giving us a sense that we live in a small town. A high density development in this little neighborhood would feel like something that we would see in an urban environment. It would be the only multi-story building in the entire area. A multi-story development seems to be better suited in an area where there is more space to absorb the sheer height and volume of such a development along with the multitude of parked cars with households always exceeding the allotted parking spots considered for each resident.

The traffic impact on Spring Street and Valley View Street would also be of real concern as we have several schools in the area.

We understand that affordable housing needs to be addressed in all communities and we agree with the original zoning as a medium density development would be appropriate for Site 10.

Thank you for your consideration,
Christy Palmisano
Peter Palmisano
1161 Hudson Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 378 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Susan Blanco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Do not rezone Site 10
I live in St Helena and I was not notified of the proposal to rezone Site 10 to high density housing.

Why is this being done without notification and discussion? Susan Blanco
1830 Quail Ct
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 379 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ben Rhodes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Lisa Rhodes
Subject: [External] In Opposition to Sites 10 and 11 Rezoning from Medium to High Density Hello City Planning Commission and City Council Members, First, I hope this finds you well as you consider current rezoning within our lovely town, which my wife and I have had the pleasure of enjoying on vacations for years and now as permanent residents the past three plus years. We love St. Helena and plan to retire here to live out our days.

Next, I want to be on record that we appreciate all that you do for its citizens! We know it's not easy, and we thank you for your service to our community.

Now, in the case of certain proposed rezoning sites under consideration, particularly Sites 10 and 11, from medium to high-density, I would like to be on record that we are opposed to it. For example, Site 10 would impact 90 home owners that share the beautiful land and neighborhood community. I understand that building additional housing and/or apartments is important, and I'm all for providing more citizens the opportunity to live and work in our community to help us all thrive. However, Sites 10 and 11 do not appear to be the best choices when others are available to assure we meet state regulations.

Last, please consider the many residents today and future residents impacted by the rezoning you are considering from traffic to parking and safety and so on. We understand it is a tough balancing act living in today and planning for the future; however, please keep St. Helena and our residents living in and amongst the natural landscape where agriculture helps the community thrive.

Regards,
Ben Rhodes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 380 of 1184 ends

1 City of Saint Helena Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 2, 2024 @ 6PM
Vintage Hall Board Room – Second Floor
465 Main Street, Saint Helena
David Prueter
1118 Valley View Street, Saint Helena
[email protected]
330-206-0094
April 2, 2024
Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission:

I write regarding Public Hearing Agenda Item 5.1 of the City of Saint Helena Planning Commission Regular Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 2, 2024.

Agenda Item 5.1 includes a Staff recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the St. Helena City Council: “Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps.” To summarize: The City Staff is proposing the following six General Plan Amendments (GPAs) to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map (Figure 2.1) and the following six Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs) to update the Zoning Map referenced in Saint Helena Municipal Code Section 17.01.070.

GPA 2024-001, ZMA 2024-001 Site 1 - (1480 Main St.)
GPA 2024-002, ZMA 2024-002 Site 2 - (1572 Railroad Ave.) GPA 2024-003, ZMA 2024-003 Site 5 - (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and Dowdell Ln.) GPA 2024-004, ZMA 2024-004 Site 8 - (882 and 886 College Ave.) GPA 2024-005, ZMA 2024-005 Site 10 - (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) GPA 2024-006, ZMA 2024-006 Site 11 - (1637 Spring St.)
On March 26, 2024, in a letter to Saint Helena City Manager, Anil Comelo, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) revoked its finding that the City’s Housing Element is in substantial compliance. (HCD Letter, March 26, 2024). On March 28, 2024, the City published a Memorandum from Saint Helena Community Development Director, Maya DeRosa, informing all interested parties of HCD’s decision. (City Memo, March 28, 2024). In that Memo, the City contends that “[a]pproving the proposed rezonings is the most expeditious path for the City to bring the Housing Element into compliance with State Law.” In its letter, HCD states that it “is committed to assisting all localities in achieving and retaining substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law." As set forth below, Saint Helena can achieve and retain substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law by approving the proposed rezoning for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 and denying the proposed rezoning for Site 10.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 381 of 1184 ends

2 Saint Helena can achieve and retain substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law by approving the proposed rezoning for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, denying the proposed rezoning for Site 10, and correcting a calculation error.

The following table (TABLE 1) provides a summary of the Saint Helena housing calculations contained in the Housing Element, including Pending Projects, ADU Trends, and Project Sites 1-12 divided across Lower Income, Moderate Income, and Above Moderate Income. The values in TABLE 1 assume that the City Council adopts all six GPAs and ZMAs currently before the Planning Commission.

TABLE 1
As shown in the third row from the bottom, Saint Helena’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) total is 256 housing units with 163 for Lower Income, 26 for Moderate Income, and 67 for Above Moderate Income. When preparing the Housing Element, City Staff added a 20% buffer on the RHNA requirement, based on HCD recommendation to create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required. The last row of TABLE 1 shows the surplus of housing units in each income category calculated by taking the difference between the total housing units provided and the housing units required by RHNA plus a 20% buffer.

TABLE 1 uses the following calculation for Site 10: High Density Residential (16.1 to 28 units/acre): 4.4 acres @ 20 units/acre = 88 units: 44 lower / 44 moderate.

If the City Council was to adopt all six GPAs and ZMAs currently before the Planning Commission, Saint Helena would exceed the RHNA plus 20% buffer with a surplus of 15 Lower Income, 39 Moderate Income, and 116 Above Moderate Income housing units.

Project Sites Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Site 1 (1480 Main St.) 6 0 0 6
Site 2 (1572 Railroad Ave.) 20 0 0 20
Site 3 (Adams St.) 31 0 0 31
Site 4 (905 Main St.) 0 0 4 4
Site 5 (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and Dowdell Ln.) 45 0 0 45 Site 6 (709 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 4 4
Site 7 (821 Pope St.) 10 10 0 20
Site 8 (882 and 886 College Ave.) 15 15 0 30
Site 9 (1447 and 1515 Spring St.) 24 0 24 48
Site 10 (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) 44 44 0 88 Site 11 (1637 Spring St.) 8 0 0 8
Site 12 (620 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 3 3
Total 207 70 195 472
St. Helena RHNA 163 26 67 256
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 15 39 116 170
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 382 of 1184 ends

3 Alternatively, as shown in the following table (TABLE 2), if the City Council was to adopt the five GPAs and ZMAs for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 and deny the GPA and ZMA for Site 10, Saint Helena would still exceed the RHNA plus 20% buffer with a surplus of 6 Lower Income, 30 Moderate Income, and 116 Above Moderate Income housing units. Indeed, this approach would result in a reduction of only 18 housing units out of 472 total.

TABLE 2
TABLE 2 uses the following calculation for Site 10: Medium Density Residential (5.1 to 16 units/acre): 4.4 acres @ 16 units/acre = 70.4 (70) units: 35 lower / 35 moderate.

Calculation Error
Title 17 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code (hereinafter “Zoning Code”) provides a density range for High Density Residential (HR) of 16.1 to 28 dwelling units per acre. (See Zoning Code 17.16.010). The 2023-2031 Housing Element incorrectly states the range for HR as 16.1 to 26 units per acre. (See e.g., pp. 2-182, 2-185, 2-193, 2-197, 2-199, 2-200, 2-202, 2-204, 2-210). This error improperly assigns a lower maximum density for parcels designated HR and results in an understated site capacity calculation for any project site with an HR designation. Based on this error, the site capacity for project Sites 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 was incorrectly understated as shown below in Table 3.

Project Sites Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Site 1 (1480 Main St.) 6 0 0 6
Site 2 (1572 Railroad Ave.) 20 0 0 20
Site 3 (Adams St.) 31 0 0 31
Site 4 (905 Main St.) 0 0 4 4
Site 5 (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and Dowdell Ln.) 45 0 0 45 Site 6 (709 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 4 4
Site 7 (821 Pope St.) 10 10 0 20
Site 8 (882 and 886 College Ave.) 15 15 0 30
Site 9 (1447 and 1515 Spring St.) 24 0 24 48
Site 10 (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) 35 35 0 70 Site 11 (1637 Spring St.) 8 0 0 8
Site 12 (620 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 3 3
Total 198 61 195 454
St. Helena RHNA 163 26 67 256
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 6 30 116 152
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 383 of 1184 ends

4 TABLE 3
As shown in TABLE 3, the error contained in the Housing Element improperly understated the total number of housing units by 20 units. The proposal set forth above and shown in TABLE 2 results in a reduction of only 18 housing units out of 472 total. Therefore, by keeping Site 10 at its current zoning of Medium Density Residential, completing the rezonings for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, and correcting the calculation error contained in the Housing Element, Saint Helena’s Housing Element would provide two additional housing units more than the surplus provided in the original Housing Element that HCD certified on September 25, 2023.

Table 4 shows the total housing numbers obtained by keeping Site 10 at its current zoning of Medium Density Residential, completing the rezonings for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, and correcting the calculation error contained in the Housing Element.

TABLE 4
Project Site
Incorrect
Assumed Site
Capacity
Actual Site
Capacity
Additional Units
Available
Site 2 24 units 26 units +2 units
Site 5 45 units 50 units +5 units
Site 7 26 units 28 units +2 units
Site 8 39 units 42 units +3 units
Site 9 62 units 67 units +5 units
Site 11 28 units 31 units +3 units
Total +20 units
Project Sites Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Pending Projects 4 1 88 93
ADU Trends 0 0 72 72
Site 1 (1480 Main St.) 6 0 0 6
Site 2 (1572 Railroad Ave.) 22 0 0 22
Site 3 (Adams St.) 31 0 0 31
Site 4 (905 Main St.) 0 0 4 4
Site 5 (Main St. btw Mills Ln. and Dowdell Ln.) 50 0 0 50 Site 6 (709 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 4 4
Site 7 (821 Pope St.) 12 10 0 22
Site 8 (882 and 886 College Ave.) 18 15 0 33
Site 9 (1447 and 1515 Spring St.) 29 0 24 53
Site 10 (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) 35 35 0 70 Site 11 (1637 Spring St.) 11 0 0 11
Site 12 (620 McCorkle Ave.) 0 0 3 3
Total 218 61 195 474
St. Helena RHNA 163 26 67 256
St. Helena RHNA plus 20% Buffer 192 31 79 302
Surplus 26 30 116 172
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 384 of 1184 ends

5 By keeping Site 10 at its current zoning of Medium Density Residential, completing the rezonings for Sites 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11, and correcting the calculation error contained in the Housing Element, Saint Helena can satisfy all the requirements of Housing Element law and regain certification by HCD.

Importantly, this solution does not add or remove any Opportunity Sites within the Housing Element and should therefore be accomplished expeditiously by an administrative adjustment to the Housing Element, without reopening the Housing Element. Because Saint Helena would still exceed its RHNA allocation including a 20% buffer, the following actions would result in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. Indeed, these actions in combination with the correction in the density calculation would provide more affordable housing within the City than that provided in the Housing Element that HCD previously certified.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission should recommend and the City Council should adopt the following GPAs and ZMAs:

GPA 2024-005, ZMA 2024-005 Site 10 - (Spring St. btw Hudson Ave. and Valley View St.) Saint Helena City Staff, Planning Commission Members, and City Council Members should immediately seek HCD's assistance in achieving and retaining the compliance as outlined above to regain certification as quickly as possible.

The foregoing proposed solution is deemed reasonable solely for purposes of regaining certification by HCD and finds support among the community from at least the following residents who have explicitly given permission to include their names as supporters of keeping Site 10 zoned Medium Density Residential while still meeting or exceeding RHNA requirements.

Nicole Abiouness
Maxine L. Angell
Pierre Birebent
Nathalie Birebent
John E. Camp
Ana Canales
Jay Carlton
Sandy Carlton
Jackson Carr
Sandra Carr
Danielle Davis
James (Woody) Davis
Leslie Ellis
Cory Empting
Lisa Empting
Patrice Ferguson
Claudia Gambill
Judy Gollan
Jessica Hague
Kevin Hague
John Hawkins
Christopher George Hellewell
Rita Anne Hellewell
Laura Mackenzie Keir
Pamela Susan Kenward
David Kerr
Jeannie Kerr
Nancy F. King
Doug King
John L. Livingston
Diane Franklin Livingston
Debra Lunardini
Elaine Lund
Alyson Nelson
Scott Nelson
Peter Palmisano
Christy Palmisano
Stefano Particelli
Amy Particelli
David Pearson
Kim Phinney
Kathryn Prueter
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 385 of 1184 ends

6 Erin Przybylinski
Linda Reiff
Stephanie Robotham
Bryan Dante Sandoli
Elizabeth Sandoli
Brian Ralph
Schleicher
Stephen Slevin
Seana K. Stephens
Justin H. Stephens
Bruce Streblow
Marcia Lois Sturm
Marc Troyan
Carolyn Troyan
William C. Wagner
Andrea Antonacci Wagner
Philippa Ward
Jeffrey Earl Warren
Troy James Watters
Jesse Weber
Karen Williams
Albert Zecher
Greg Zelazny
Kathy Zelazny
No part of the proposed solution contained herein should be construed as support for or acceptance of development of any kind on any of the project sites. As articulated in the numerous public comments submitted to the Planning Commission on this topic, any development (particularly on Site 10) poses many serious questions related to traffic, parking, safety, fire, water, insurance, privacy, and environmental concerns all of which would need careful consideration. The proposed solution is provided solely for purposes of regaining Housing Element certification by HCD and should not be construed as a waiver (neither implicit nor explicit) of any arguments or legal remedies available now or in the future, including but not limited to the following.

Saint Helena failed to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation in the Housing Element process in violation of California Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).

California Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9) provides in relevant part that “[l]ocal 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.” As evidenced by at least the recent outpouring of opposition from community members opposed to the City’s rezoning efforts for which no notice was provided, the City failed to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation during the Housing Element process.

Saint Helena violated the Public Hearing Notice Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code and the California Government Code prior to May 2, 2023, and May 9, 2023.

On May 2, 2023, the City of Saint Helena Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the General Plan EIR Addendum and Housing Element Update.

On May 9, 2023, the City Council of the City of Saint Helena adopted a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-001) to update the Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023-2031 and adopted an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Title 17 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code (hereinafter “Zoning Code”) provides that Amendments to the General Plan require a properly noticed public hearing in compliance with Section

17.04.080 of the Zoning Code (hereinafter “Public Hearing Notice Requirement”). (See Zoning Code

17.06.040).

The Public Hearing Notice Requirement provides, in relevant part:

Notice shall be given by the following, except as provided below in subsection C, Special Provisions:

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 386 of 1184 ends

7 a. Mailed notice to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested notice of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site. (Zoning Code 17.04.080).

GPA 2023-001 was an amendment to the General Plan and therefore required a mailed notice under 17.04.080 of the Zoning Code. On information and belief, the City failed to provide proper notice according to the Public Hearing Notice Requirement in the form of mailed notice to the applicant, the owner of the property, persons who have requested notice of a hearing for a specific project, and all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project site.

For at least the foregoing reasons, the City’s actions and inactions up to and including adoption of GPA 2023-001 violated the Public Hearing Notice Requirement of the Saint Helena Municipal Code and California state law (see e.g., Ca. Gov. Code §§ 65853, 65854, 65091).

The City’s Mailed Notice of March 22, 2024, did not cure previous violations regarding public participation during the Housing Element Process or Public Hearing Notice Requirements.

On March 22, 2024, following postponement of the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for March 5, 2024, and in an attempt to correct a “noticing glitch,” the City mailed notice to residents, property owners, or interested parties within 300 feet of the project sites described in the Housing Element. This mailed notice sent after the City had already adopted GPA 2023-001 in May 2023, after HCD had already certified the Housing Element in September 2023, and after the City had missed the January 31, 2024, deadline to accomplish the rezoning promised in the Housing Element—thereby placing the City at risk of decertification by HCD (which such decertification has since occurred) does not provide the community with an opportunity to be heard.

By law, the City was required to provide mailed notice prior to adoption of GPA 2023-001 in May 2023. Any notice subsequent to the City’s adoption of GPA 2023-001 is insufficient and does not cure the City’s failure to provide proper notice. Footnote 14 on page 4 of the March 19, 2024, Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney’s Office BBK makes this point. Footnote 14 states that “[r]egardless of timing, the City committed to the specified opportunity sites in the adopted Housing Element, so while the City would have had a longer time to implement the rezoning, it would not have changed the City’s commitment to the rezone sites identified in Table 58 of the Housing Element.” In other words, the City Attorney’s Office admits that the City committed to the rezoning (without proper notice) in May 2023 when the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council adopted GPA 2023-001. Thus, the City was required to provide mailed notice prior to adoption of GPA 2023-001 in May 2023 and failure to do so constituted an incurable due process violation.

For at least these reasons, the City’s mailed notice of March 22, 2024, did not cure previous violations regarding public participation during the Housing Element Process or Public Hearing Notice Requirements. Accordingly, the City has committed a due process violation with respect to at least all residents, property owners, or interested parties within 300 feet of the project sites described in the Housing Element.

Sincerely,
David Prueter
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 387 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Brian Driscoll <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 9:27 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Re-zone Proposal 1933 Spring Street To Whom it May Concern:

I’m wriƟng to express my strong concern and disapproval of the proposed re-zone at 1933 Spring Street.

We have been residents at 1242 Allyn Avenue since 2018. There are many reasons for our concerns and disapproval. One in parƟcular is the severe traffic condiƟons and disrupƟon this new site will create both during and post development.

That area presently serves both commuƟng (morning/early evening), and school (morning/aŌernoon) traffic on single lane roads in each direcƟon. To add to this exisƟng congesƟon would be intolerable for most. This increased congesƟon could also represent a potenƟal hazard. Homes west of this site would find it more difficult to exit the area in the event of an evacuaƟon.

There are many other issues associated with this, and my hope is this plan will be rejected this evening.

Thanks for listening.

Brian
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 388 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Lizette Fiallo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:00 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] STOP! 1933 Spring St Vineyard Rezoning Hi
I'm the owner of 1217 Allyn Ave, St Helena CA, My vote on this rezoning COUNT and I'm against changing the High Density zoning.

Site 10, no changes to its current zoning are necessary and it would remain zoned Medium Density Residential (MR) Thank you
Lizette Fiallo for
Marliz Estate Allyn LLC
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 389 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maria Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:01 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10, no changes
Hi
I'm the owner of 1213 Allyn Ave, St Helena CA, My vote on this rezoning COUNT and I'm against changing the High Density zoning.

Site 10, no changes to its current zoning are necessary and it would remain zoned Medium Density Residential (MR) Thank you
Maria Martinez for
Marliz Estate Allyn LLC
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 390 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Mike Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street Rezoning
Hello,
I had provided comments previously but in light of conversations with neighbors over the last few weeks leading up to the meeting on April 2nd I felt it necessary to expand on my thoughts.

I believe many others had echoed this but as much as I would like to give our city the benefit of the doubt it seems that this rezoning process that was being done in tandem with the state required housing element was done surreptitiously. It is my understanding that the rezoning of the Spring Street site was proposed last May or earlier. The fact that no notice was provided and that planning maps showed Site #10 as still medium-density makes be believe that there was an effort to push this through in an underhanded manner.

Combined with the delinquency of submitting the housing element well beyond two deadlines I am also wondering why our city officials and employees have put us in this position. As I mentioned previously I would love to give these folks the benefit of the doubt but it seems at every turn they have knowingly mislead the community, been incapable of getting the Housing Element done in a timely manner and have shown little or no effort in maintaining a dialogue with the residents that rely on them for this kind of information until now.

From the comments I submitted on March 7th I still feel there are far better sites for this rezoning that would still allow the city to meet the RHNA allocation.

Mike
--
Mike Anderson
Winemaker & Owner
MTGA Wines
707.337.9168
[email protected]
Tastings available by appointment daily from 10am until 3pm.

Check out our Wine(d) Up Podcast now available on YouTube, Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 391 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Ariana Peju <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:32 AM
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: FW: [External] April 2'nd meeting comments
Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,

I live at 1365 Sylvaner Ave for the past 18 years. I have been in napa Valley for 40 years and went to grade school through high school in St Helena. I am writing regarding the highdensity housing plan on Spring St.

The property you are considering putting 88 units is agriculture which is considered a core community value. The neighborhood wasn’t engaged in this discussion, which I don’t understand.

High density housing would severely impact the neighborhood as well as make it unsafe for children. This is the direct route to two public school, and I wouldn’t feel comfortable walking/riding bikes with my young children.

I understand the city is under pressure to approve more housing, however this is not the location where it should be done. It’s dangerous for children.

I do not agree with the new development and appreciate you engaging the community to find the right fit for the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ariana Peju

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 392 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Jessica Hague <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:05 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment: Planning Commission Meeting April 2: Agenda Item 5.1 Dear Planning Department and Commissioners,
I am a 14-year owner-resident of 1154 Hudson Avenue, in close proximity to site 10: 1933 Spring Street.

Having raised two children, now 14 and 13 on Hudson Avenue, who regularly walk to west-side school sites, I can attest that the neighborhood lacks adequate infrastructure to support foot and car traffic for an additional 200+ families. Rezoning the 1933 Spring Street site to high-density multi-story structures in the midst of single-story homes will have permanent, significant, and negative impacts on the safety and character of the neighborhood.

Further, having received your letter regarding the potential rezoning just 12 days before the Planning Commission vote on the matter, I have since come to understand that the City consistently missed key deadlines with the State while ignoring legal noticing requirements with its citizens. The City’s negligence has put itself in a precarious situation, with both the State and citizens of Saint Helena. The City risks decertification and trigger of Builder’s Remedy. The City also risks legal action due to lack of proper resident notification. I have also come to understand that the City’s housing obligation can be met if the Spring Street property is maintained at medium-density zoning.

Therefore, in order for the City to meet the State's requirements without denying its citizens their rights, the City must opt to remove the rezoning proposal for 1933 Spring Street and resubmit the plan to the State with the remaining sites.

Respectfully,
Jessica Hague
Jessica Hague
Vice President, Consumer Sales & Marketing
FROG’S LEAP
707-968-2503 Direct
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 393 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Stephen Slevin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:49 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Planning Commission rezoning 1933 Spring Street. SITE 10.

Planning Commission
Pertaining to the rezoning of 1933 Spring Street to High density residential. Site 10.

I am absolutely astonished to being made aware only recently of this rezoning and the fact that the affected community was not appropriately informed & engaged when this proposal was originally put forth years ago as required by law. Especially upon learning that the city council adopted a new zoning ordinance as recently as October 24, 2023, showing 1933 Spring Street as Medium Density Residential. I find this confusing. Neither myself nor any neighbors I have spoken to were notified of the rezoning of 1933 spring street to high density residential until a concerned resident got involved. I understand that the planning commission meeting was then put back a month, and letters were sent out which is no substitute for due notification years ago.

Something as important as this and affecting so many people, should have been properly discussed, with an appropriate amount of input. Had we been made aware we would have been given the opportunity along with our neighbours in the immediate vicinity to raise legitament and significant concerns. In fact it is legally required. I’m not sure why that that opportunity was denied. If you could please explain this was not done? I find the fact that proper notification was omitted from this process very disturbing.

The farmhouse on this property is zoned as historical. No one can come in and knock it down, or even alter it significantly for the explicit reason of preserving the historical nature of the community. My understanding is that this remains the case. Yet a proposal has been put forth to build a high density housing development on the majority of its property. I’m not quite sure who would purchase and preserve this lovely historical house (formerly overlooking a vineyard and mountains beyond) only to abut a multi story development.

Saint Helena’s website states a City Council goal #5: to “Enhance quality of life”. In this circumstance I would accept as a minimum: "maintenance of quality of life already Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 394 of 1184 ends

2 established”, a quality of life that has been forged over many decades by the residents that have settled here.

In many respects the vineyards in our neighbourhoods in Saint Helena are akin the public parks in cities. It is the "quality of life" that is Saint Helena. It enhances our surroundings where we live, as every local walking along Spring Street, every jogger, mothers with strollers and families with children and dogs can attest when they go about their daily routines. It is why we all live in this community.

I’m sure we can all agree on one thing, preserving the quality of life in this town.

Stephen Slevin
2081 Spring Street, Saint Helena
[email protected]
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 395 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: David Tate <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:53 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezone
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning of 1933 Spring Street.

My wife, my four year old and I live on Spring Street about a block east of the proposed site. From what I have heard the proposed project is for 88 units. This would most likely put 100 more cars on our street. Mornings and late afternoons are already difficult with the current amount of traffic. People driving east turning on Allyn or trying to go around people who do.

The amount of honking alone at these times is surprising for our little town. At most times there are up to ten cars waiting to turn or drive through. It takes us a bit of time to just get in or out of our cars as there is rarely a break in traffic. I cannot imagine what it would be like if this proposed complex goes forward.

During the day it will also increase the amount of people who go dangerously flying down the street often at double the speed limit. Yesterday 4/1/24, I happily watched a police officer pulling people over who were speeding. He did not have a break.

This project would put an undue hardship on everyone who lives in this area and who live on the West side of St. Helena. It is surprising that such a project is not proposed for the east side since that is where all the services are (Safeway, pharmacy, gas etc.) and would limit traffic immensely versus this large amount of new residents having to cross the highway for everything.

Overall we are completely against this proposed project and believe it must be considered elsewhere.

DAVID TATE ·
408.690.1964 Cell
[email protected]
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 396 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Gregg Dawley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street Zoning
Planning Commission Members:

We live at 2700 Spring Street and want to express our opposiƟon to the upzoning of Site 10 for high-density housing. If rezoned and allowed to proceed with the intended scope and massing, it will likely go down as one of the single biggest blunders in town history. The scale would be completely wrong for this locaƟon, and would create traffic and safety issues that no one has yet thought through. As criƟcal, there will be no aŌer-the-fact remedy, just a history of more turn lanes, more traffic and pedestrian signs, and traffic lights. We can only imagine the negaƟve impact this rezoning will have on the Spring Street corridor and surrounding area.

Having learned about the upcoming planning commission hearing just last night, we are troubled by the apparent late noƟce to residents and lack of community outreach. We are parƟcularly sensiƟve to those living in the immediate area who will bear the brunt if approved. It strikes us as odd that while the town has improved its transparency and outreach (flash polls), this issue has stayed under wraps unƟl the very last minute.

Our understanding is that there is a more equitable soluƟon for all consƟtuents, leaving Site 10 zoned as medium density, and approving all other rezoning under the housing plan. We encourage the City Staff and Planning Commission to do the hard work, engage with the community, and make that happen.

As full Ɵme residents of the community for the last 3 years, we have played close aƩenƟon and observed the many good things happening in St Helena due to the efforts of City Staff and our public officials. We applaud this, and hope all this good work doesn’t get upended and the public trust eroded.

We are hopeful the Planning Commission will come to a decision that is in the best interest of the community, leaving Site 10 zoning unchanged.

Thank you.

Gregg Dawley
Kris Dawley
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 397 of 1184 ends

Dear Saint Helena Planning Commission,
We are writing today regarding Site 10, located at 1933 Spring Street. We are very concerned and oppose the rezoning of this site from Medium Density to High Density.

As you know, Valley View Street and adjoining streets experience a lot of traffic throughout the day. Not only does this neighborhood and surrounding streets experience local traffic commuting to and from school and work, but this neighborhood also experiences a lot of traffic from Highway 29 when the traffic is congested. The “byway” traffic can be tour buses, large construction vehicles, semi-trucks, and cars that tend to exceed the speed limit. The amount of traffic we experience now is sometimes crazy and can be a safety risk for residents enjoying a walk or bike ride, our students who are walking or riding their bikes to and from school, and students traveling to and from Crane Park, where most of the city sports teams practice and play. There has always been discussion about traffic calming measures in this area, but to date nothing has been done. I cannot imagine what our residential streets will look like if the 88 or more proposed units are built on Site 10.

Also, a high-density development at the proposed site on Spring Street is out of character with the surrounding area which consists of one-story, ranch style, single-family properties. The proposed number of residential units seems like a lot of units in a very small space.

I recently read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle: California’s home insurance is being dropped, what does this mean? This article is specifically about insurance companies dropping and/or not writing new policies in areas of high density, specifically the areas that are at highrisk for wildfire and earthquakes. I hope this is taken into consideration along with water, sewer, safety, and traffic circulation challenges, which our little town is already experiencing.

We both understand the importance of providing affordable housing options in St. Helena and we are not opposed to building on 1933 Spring Street. It just seems that the proposed amount of housing, hence the high-density, would be more suitable for other sites on the map.

We ask that you please consider excluding Site 10 from being rezoned to High Density.

In closing, thank you for dedication to the residents of St. Helena and the work that you are doing on the Planning Commission. We know that it is time-consuming and many times you are tasked with very difficult decisions, we are appreciative.

Sincerely,
David & Jeannie Kerr
1135 Valley View Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 398 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Water Audit California <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:29 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comment to Planning Commission for April 2, 2024 agenda.

City of St. Helena Planning Commission:

RE: City of St. Helena Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 2, 2024 @ 6:00 PM, Agenda 5.1
A Resolution to Adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendments (GPAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) Updating General Plan Figure 2.1 and Adopt Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs 2024-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006) to identify zone changes for the designated Housing Opportunity Sites to be consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and incorporating these changes into the General Plan and Zoning Maps.

The public’s business must be conducted with absolute integrity of the representatives. To advise the public something is true, when in fact it is not, is a breach of the public’s trust in the elected government.

This Planning Commission does not have a stellar record in that regard. Approval of a tentative map for the Hunter/White Fang project was heavily based on the representation that the City was, in the words of the planning commission chair on February 7, 2023, “under the gun to build [affordable] housing. Massively under the gun.” The matter was represented as imperative and that it could not be delayed. Further, it was argued that this was not a new project with tentative intentions, but that the planning commission need only continue to go with the flow of prior events and approvals. Staff avowed “this application was deemed complete back in 2011.” Time has proven these critical and influential statements were demonstrably false.

Herein, we comment generally on the complete and misleading record provided for review. Proper public participation is prevented when relevant information is omitted, either by negligence or intent. The proceeding that was noticed and discussed in staff and counsel reports is not the same matter that will be discussed this evening in violation of CSH Municipal Code chapter 17 and state law, including by not limited to the relevant provisions of the California Code of Regulation and the Government Code including but not limited to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; Govt.

Code section 11120 et seq.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 399 of 1184 ends

2 One could easily miss the brief mention of a critical change in circumstance, the March 28, 2024, revocation of the State’s approval of the Housing Element Plan. The entire premise of the proceeding is to prevent an act that has already occurred. At the very least this matter should be renoticed and briefed to inform the public properly. The approval is dead, and denial by the planning commission tonight will not bring it back.

This proceeding alleges that it is built upon the General Plan. The City hosts archival copies of the General Plan on its website. For unknown reasons, the entirety of the 2019 general plan review is missing from the summary of housing element reviews hosted. The proposal is built in part on an idea of a record, not a record.

Further, and separately, in the demonstrated absence of an adequate supply of water, none of the proposed projects can be built. This is a purely theoretical exercise without real world consideration. When any project tries to come to fruition, whether by city or state imparter, it cannot be built until the water supply issue is resolved.

Respectfully,
William McKinnon
General Counsel, Water Audit California
WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA - A California Public Benefit Corporation 952 School Street #316, Napa, CA 94559 / phone: (707) 681-5111 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 400 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Michael Sweeney <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:02 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Opposition to Spot Re-Zoning of Site 10 to High Density Residential-Affordable Housing My name is Michael Sweeney, and I own 1191 Hudson Ave., which shares an immediate border with the subject property (i.e. Site 10). I was never properly notified of the proposed spot re-zoning of site 10 to High Density Residential-AƯordable Housing. I would like to register my vigorous opposition to this impulsive, poorly timed, poorly conceived, poorly executed, and clandestine attempt to spot re-zone the subject parcel.

I strenuously object to the Commission’s aims in spot-rezoning Site 10 on multiple grounds. It will escape no one’s notice that there is—to be exceedingly charitable—an impressive and ever too convenient coincidence that the Commission’s urgency in spot-rezoning Site 10 happens to coincide with the fact that the parcel is in fact under contract with a contingent oƯer in-hand. I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that the Buyer has made its purchase of the parcel contingent upon the Commission re-zoning the subject parcel as High Density ResidentialAƯordable Housing. Frankly, I find it rather unconscionable that the City appears happy to confer upon the Buyer of the parcel an unquestionable economic benefit at the expense, and to the detriment of the Buyer’s immediate and proximal neighbors. I’m wondering if anyone on the Planning Commission or the Planning StaƯ have any vested interest in delivering economically valuable entitlements to the Buyer? Would the Commission be willing to provide records of any and all conversations both internally and with 3rd Parties pertaining to Site 10 under the auspices of the Public Records Act? I’m sure any Civil Servant can appreciate that our faith in the institutions of government are only strengthened when we take great pains to avoid even an appearance of impropriety? Before I proceed any further let me state emphatically that I do not oppose nor begrudge anyone to secure aƯordable housing, and provide themselves and their families with a pleasant, nurturing, and safe environment. I don’ t think anyone could argue with the intrinsic appeal of our beloved city. However, as I stated at the outset, the spot re-zoning of Site 10 is impulsive and poorly conceived, and pursued by the Commission in such a manner as to question the propriety of the endeavor. It strains credulity that anyone on the Commission believes there is nothing problematic about arbitrarily air-dropping-as it were-a 3 to 4 story, 100+ apartment aƯordable housing complex quite literally in the middle of a long-standing, neighborhood of exclusively single family homes. It’s entirely without precedent within the entire city limits! If the Commissions aims and designs on Site 10 are achieved, the potential development would unilaterally and capriciously change the entire character of a neighborhood that has roots that extend back generations! Beyond issues pertaining to fundamentally and irrevocably altering the character of the neighborhood, there are manifold looming logistical nightmares. Any developer on that parcel will be seizing upon various incentives, which would include that of being absolved of adhering to customary, statutory parking availability conditioned upon the proposed number of units. They will be able to squeeze more housing units on the land by burdening the neighborhood with absorbing more random onstreet parking. Mind you, a proposed project wont bring fewer cars, it just simply won’t have to worry about providing the spaces for them. Which brings us to the fact that Valley View and Spring Street are both ALREADY heavily traƯicked roadways. The increased cars and noise and wear and tear on our streets will greatly mar the quality of life and residents peaceful enjoyment of their premises. The added risk of collisions with other vehicles and pedestrians are unacceptable. There is also the issue of the availability of water. By the City’s own admission, its infrastructure is inadequate and poorly maintained. Whenever commercial real estate, hotel, resorts, and the like have sought entitlements, they’ve been routinely rebuƯed for the impact on the water and wastewater infrastructure. Surely a prospective high density project could be no less a burden on an already strained municipal water system? As it stands the City can’t avoid far too many days, many of them serial, where residents can’t even be provided with clear drinking water? How many residents have had the cringey experiencing of Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 401 of 1184 ends

2 opening the tap to poor a glass of lovely brown or amber hued water? I can’t imagine said circumstances improving.

Let me close by asking: Is it really aƯordable housing when the proposition of living full time in the City of Saint Helena in fact drives up one’s cost of living? As a prospective resident of some future project on Site 10, I may be paying nominally less for housing, but I’ll be paying more for water and waste management. My budget would likely also become strained by the fact that I now have to pay more in gasoline, repairs & maintenance, and possibly insurance because my circumstances are such that I’m commuting more miles than less in order to access various goods and services that aren’t readily available in Saint Helena (some by design): to wit, there is one car dealer in town, no general service merchandiser, etc. Moreover, it isn’t a given that a future resident might not in fact be limiting their miles driven to work.

Sincerely,
Michael Sweeney
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 402 of 1184 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 403 of 1184 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 404 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: John Hawkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:45 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street high density development - my opposition I’m a neighbor (around the corner at 1234 Hudson Avenue) and think this is a terrible idea for any number of reasons (I’m sure the City has been made aware of the opposing viewpoints). A high density residenƟal development would transplant a housing soluƟon suitable for a large city into a small town of 5,000, a town with very limited resources in terms of water, infrastructure, roads, etc., not to menƟon small town character that is worth protecƟng. I understand there are alternaƟves being proposed that would meet the State’s mandates without such a development – I hope the Planning Commission and City Council explore them in detail, ASAP. I think this is an existenƟal crisis for St. Helena – if this development goes ahead, there is no going back.

John Hawkins
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 405 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Dana Gallagher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:50 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: [External] 1933 Spring Street Rezoning
April 2, 2024

Dear Planning Commission,

As a 40 year St. HeIena resident, I am writing to strongly request that you do not move forward with the proposed rezoning of the property located at 1933 Spring Street to high density housing. This sort of development at this location is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods and would substantially change the flow of traffic on Spring Street and Valley View. The majority of the single-family homes surrounding this proposed project are one story. From my understanding, the proposed home types and density, which may include multi-story units, would impede the privacy of the current residents. I believe the city has several other options closer to the center of town that would be more suitable for high density construction.

The traffic and street parking to be used by the entire proposed housing project would empty onto Spring Street, which is already heavily used by both vehicles and pedestrians. The safely factors alone are concerning. The other sites available have much better access to major throughfares and services. It feels like this site was rushed as a solution to St. Helena’s need for housing, rather than work with the residents in a productive fashion to solve the housing needs for our community at a location that fits better with our General Plan and character of the neighborhoods.

I hope the Planning Commission with take into consideration the multitude of letters that have been submitted on this issue, and not move forward with rezoning.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 406 of 1184 ends

2 Sincerely,

Dana Gallagher
2624 Colombard Court
St. Helena

BE AWARE OF POTENTIAL FRAUD
All banking information will always be sent using our secure email portal: Proofpoint Essentials
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 407 of 1184 ends

1 Xinia Gamero
From: Justin Stephens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 4:57 PM
To: Jack Oliver; Public Comment
Cc: Seana Stephens; Justin Stephens
Subject: RE: [External] 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Jack,
Extremely well put.

Planning Commissioners,
My wife and I concur with Jack’s position and that of many others who cherish both the charm of St. Helena and it’s safety vis-à-vis city streets. With regard to charm, that vineyard IS a cornerstone of the town and has been for nearly a century; and on the topic of safe streets, as avid cyclists with three young children who ride their bikes around the neighborhood on a near-daily basis, we are concerned about the impact of hundreds more residents and their vehicle in such concentration will have on the safety of the area.

As Jack noted there appear to be a bevy of options more suitable in the face of historic preservation and public safety. We urge you to consider the above and other options for the Housing Element while still maintaining compliance with state requirements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Seana and Justin Stephens, and Parker, Preston and Beckett Stephens 2611 Colombard Court (since 2005) and St. Helena since 1979 Justin Hunnicutt Stephens

HUNNICUTT
707-963-2911

COLLATERAL
707-963-2908
From: Jack Oliver <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 6:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 1933 Spring Street Agenda Item
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 408 of 1184 ends

St. Helena City CouncilApril 23, 2024

St. Helena City Council
April 23, 2024