Agenda, regular meeting — St. Helena City Council, April 23, 2024 (part 6 of 8)

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
30 2040 General Plan EIR Agricultural Resources Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources (Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources). The EIR found that implementation of the 2040 General Plan could result in the loss of up to 118 acres of land identified as Important Farmland, including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. The 2040 General Plan EIR found the loss of farmland is not directly mitigable, without preventing development altogether. No feasible mitigation measures were identified for agricultural land conversion that would fulfill the objectives of and implement the 2040 General Plan update. Therefore, and implementation of the plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Important Farmlands.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards. .

The General Plan goals and policies support continued farming and restrict uses that would interfere with farming and open space uses in certain areas. Most of the sites identified within the Housing Element update are located on sites with existing development and on sites zoned for residential or commercial uses. The Housing Element update includes one site identified for housing which is located on prime farmland. However, the site has a land use designation of Public and Quasi-Public and housing development would not result in any more severe impacts to agricultural resources than were a public facility developed on the site as currently shown in the General Plan. In addition, the 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts to farmland (Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources). Therefore, the Housing Element update would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. .

There would also be no new impacts to Williamson Act contracts, as none of the identified sites in the sites inventory are under Williamson Act contract.

Conclusion
The Housing Element Update does not propose the development on housing on any areas of the City not already analyzed for development in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would update information and goals, policies, and objectives to be consistent with the State legislation and would not change growth assumptions or buildout assessed Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 862 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Agricultural Resources
Addendum 31
in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR and no additional environmental assessment of agricultural resources is required.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 863 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
32 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 864 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 33

6.3 Air Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Violate air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-1, AQ-2,
and AQ-3
No No No Yes Yes
c. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-1, AQ-2,
and AQ-3
No No No Yes Yes
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
AQ-4, AQ-5,
and AQ-6
No No No Yes Yes
e. Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 865 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
34 2040 General Plan EIR Air Quality Findings
As discussed under in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant. The 2040 General Plan would support the goals of Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) 2017 Clean Air Plan, include all applicable control measures, and would not conflict with its implementation.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable. Construction emissions associated with a potential level of annual development that is consistent the General Plan’s 2040 growth projections could result in reactive organic gas (ROG), NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PM) emissions construction activity that exceeds BAAQMDrecommended CEQA significance thresholds. All other potential construction emissions would be below BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds. In addition, maximum daily operational emissions associated with potential 2040 growth under the General Plan would result in ROG and PM10 emissions that could exceed BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds.

All other potential operational emissions would be below BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds. To reduce impacts related to air quality emissions of criteria air pollutants, the 2040 General Plan EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 which would reduce ROGs from architectural coating, and PM from construction, as well require all development with the potential to create point-source air quality impacts to receive BAAQMD review prior to approval. In addition, any development under the 2040 General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable air quality plans, California Air Resources Board (CARB) and BAAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing air pollution emissions. However, because the detail of future projects under the General Plan cannot be known, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require construction projects in the City of St. Helena to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. BMPs may include:
▪ Watering all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) three times per day using recycled water. ▪ Covering all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material. ▪ Removing all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ▪ Limiting all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ▪ Completing all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved as soon as possible. Laying building pads soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ▪ Minimizing idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ▪ Maintaining and properly tuning all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper working condition prior to operation. • Staging construction equipment as far as possible from existing sensitive receptors (away from the southeast property line and surrounding residences).

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 866 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 35
▪ Posting a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
▪ Where warranted, the project sponsors shall incorporate the following language into construction specifications if significant risk is anticipated based on design level construction schedule, duration and concurrent construction activities:
▪ Powering portable equipment by electricity if available or if electricity is not available, using propane or natural gas if feasible. Diesel engines shall only be used if electricity is not available and it is not feasible to use propane or natural gas. ▪ Ensuring that all mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously or 20 hours cumulative meets, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent and be equipped with diesel particulate matter filters that meet CARB-certified Level 2 or 3 Diesel Particulate Filters. Alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require that applicants proposing development of projects within the City of St. Helena require contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce constructionrelated fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-volatile organic compounds (VOC) coatings that have a VOC content of 10 grams/liter (g/L) or less be used during construction. All project applicants shall submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require all development applications with the potential to create point-source air quality impacts be referred to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for review and comment to ensure compliance with BAAQMD requirements prior to approval of the project.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require development projects to meet CARB setback recommendations from air contaminant sources for sensitive uses, or conduct specific air quality and health risk impact analyses and identify project specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To protect sensitive receptors require discretionary projects in proximity to Highway 29, Silverado Trail and the Rail Corridor to include an analysis of mobile source toxic air contaminant health risks. The analysis, if necessary, shall identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce health risks to acceptable levels.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6: All applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD, shall prepare a site-specific construction health risk assessment (HRA) taking into account both project-level and cumulative health risks (including existing toxic air contaminant sources). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than BAAQMD project level and cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), additional feasible on- and offsite mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 867 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
36 The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to sensitive receptors regarding pollutant concentrations by the General Plan would be less than significant. Although implementation of the General Plan could result in new sensitive residential receptors and new non-residential land uses that would potentially be emissions sources, permitted stationary sources in St. Helena are primarily located in commercial or semi-rural areas while most of the sensitive receptors, such as schools, residences, and retirement homes, are located in the downtown area of the city. In addition, individual development projects would be evaluated through the BAAQMD permit process and the CEQA process to identify and mitigate any significant exposures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 would reduce potential impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant.

Buildout under the General Plan would not cause or significantly contribute to CO concentrations that exceed State or federal ambient air quality standards for CO. Regulatory mechanisms, including asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations for demolition and renovation outlined in BAAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 11-2, would ensure impacts from asbestos containing materials present during demolition of existing structures would be less than significant.

Heath risks associated with receptor exposure to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) would be less than significant because the use of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be temporary and would combine with the highly dispersive properties of DPM, additional reductions in exhaust emissions would occur in the future, and construction-related activities would be short-term, incremental through time, and would occur at scattered locations throughout the city such that an individual receptor location would not be exposed to DPM exposure for a prolonged period of time.

However, without specific details on the locations of building footprints or their construction schedules, a quantitative evaluation of potential health risk impacts is not possible. Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6 would mitigate air quality impacts from construction to reduce health related impacts.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined impacts related to objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant.

While potential air quality-related impacts of future projects cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the project site and development design is known, including the number of units, potential number of residents, and potential vehicle miles traveled, operational impacts would be addressed by provisions in the General Plan, the Green Building Code, and other regulations and standards that govern air quality in St. Helena. Short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction of the sites, such as dust generated by clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas- and diesel-powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers would be subject to BAAQMD rules and protocols Further General Plan goals Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 868 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 37
and policies support reduction of air quality impacts. Mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR will be implemented to help reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. These measures would remain in practice with implementation of the Housing Element update.

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could contribute to impacts related to criteria pollutants. Annual development under the Housing Element update could increase construction emissions from indirect land use changes. Potential impacts caused by more development would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 identified in the General Plan EIR.

However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation, the same as impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could impact sensitive receptors. However, the Housing Element update does not proposed new land use changes which would place new sensitive receptors in areas with emission sources.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not directly result in development or activities that would generate air pollutants, cause an increase in VMT, or generate objectionable odors. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would not allow for more housing units or increase projected growth forecasts in the city. In addition, the updates would be subject to all applicable air quality plans, CARB and BAAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing air pollution emissions. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have less than significant impacts related to air quality.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 869 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
38 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 870 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Biological Resources
Addendum 39

6.4 Biological Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 871 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
40 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan,
natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 872 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Biological Resources
Addendum 41
2040 General Plan EIR Biological Resources Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant for effects to listed species or their habitats, loss of significant populations of sensitive species, protected wetlands, wildlife migration or movement corridors, local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or conflicts with conservation plans and habitat management plans and habitat groups identified therein (Chapter 3.4 Biological Resources). Individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review. As such, all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning the protection of biological resources, including listed species, habitats, and all planning resources designed to protect and conserve these resources.

Furthermore, future development would be required to comply with State and federal law and policies within the Open Space Element of the General Plan that protect biological resources. The General Plan is consistent with the SHMC and Open Space and Conservation Element policies and standards for tree preservations. The General Plan does not include any policies that would interfere with the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Habitat Conservation Plan for PG&E facilities, rightsof way, buffer lands, owned lands and easements, access routes and mitigation areas.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan that identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th cycle RHNA throughout St.

Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density.

As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Most sites identified in the sites inventory are located in previously developed areas with limited potential for disruption to undeveloped habitat areas, including sites that have previously been developed or infill sites in well developed areas. The sites inventory also includes vacant sites, although these sites have been previously disturbed and are in proximity to developed areas.

Consistent with the 2040 General Plan EIR, the project would not adversely affect biological resources, including special-status species, riparian habitats or wetlands, or migratory species and wildlife corridors, to a greater extent than buildout under the General Plan, and impacts would remain less than significant. Build out under the Housing Element update would be subject to all applicable requirements of the SHMC and Open Space and Conservation Element policies as well as the PG&E Habitat Conservation Plan for PG&E facilities, rights-of way, buffer lands, owned lands and easements, access routes and mitigation areas.

Page 873 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
42 resources, including listed species, habitats, and all planning resources designed to protect and conserve these resources. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to biological resources.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 874 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum 43

6.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA § 15064.5?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA § 15064.5?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 875 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
44 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native Tribe and
that is:
▪ Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
▪ A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 876 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum 45
2040 General Plan EIR Cultural Resources Findings
As discussed under Impact CUL-1 in Section 3.4, Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Future development under the General Plan could result in demolition, deconstruction, relocation, or alteration of historic resources. The SHMC establishes procedures for archaeological surveys and mitigation measures for archaeological and paleontological resources and protections for significant architectural or historical buildings. Policies within the Historic Resources Element would further mitigate potential impacts on historic districts and buildings.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and the proposed policies and implementation actions within the Historic Resources Element.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program 1.1 to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update, including associated construction activities would result in less than significant impacts to historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources within the Plan Area. Buildout under the Housing Element update would adhere to State and local development guidelines that govern historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources, including AB 52 and SB 18 and policies in the City’s Historic Resources Element. Native American tribes requesting consultation will be notified of projects when project-specific environmental review begins, according to AB 52 and SB 18 (if applicable), and tribal representative requests will be included into project approval, including notification, monitoring, and consultations in accord with federal and state requirements. Any evidence of cultural resources that might be unearthed in the process of construction would be required to comply with SHMC which establishes mitigation measures for archaeological resources.

Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to archaeological resources and human remains would remain less than significant, the same as impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 877 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
46 Conclusion
The 2040 Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 878 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
Addendum 47

6.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Significant and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Significant and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Cause wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of
energy during project
construction, operation, and/or
maintenance?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Conflict with the CBC Energy
Efficiency Standards, the CARB
passenger vehicle GHG emission
reduction targets for 2020 and
2035, or any other applicable
energy conservation regulations?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 879 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
48 2040 General Plan EIR Energy, Greenhous Gas Emissions, and Climate Change Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be significant and unavoidable, Section 3.6, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change.

Buildout under the 2040 General Plan would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions from baseline conditions by 2040 and would not make substantial progress towards meeting the State’s 2050 goal of 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels pursuant to Executive Order S-03-05. The primary source of GHG emissions under the General Plan would be from the transportation sector and the second largest source of emissions would be from the commercial/industrial sector. To reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure GHG-1. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measure and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing GHG emissions, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The City of St. Helena shall adopt and begin to implement a Climate Action Plan within a goal of 18 months, but no later than 36 months, of adopting the Proposed Plan update to address the GHG reduction goals of Executive Order B‐30‐15 and Executive Order S‐ 03‐05 for GHG sectors that the City has direct or indirect jurisdictional control over. The Climate Action Plan shall include a community inventory of GHG emission sources, and quantifiable GHG emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and an interim target for the General Plan buildout year 2040, that are consistent with the statewide GHG reduction targets.

The City shall monitor progress toward its GHG emissions reduction goals and prepare reports every five years detailing that progress.

In addition, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulation regarding GHG reductions would be significant and unavoidable.

Under buildout of the 2040 General Plan, per capita emissions would exceed the significance threshold of 2.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population in 2040, which would conflict with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, AB32, and Executive Order S-03-05, and BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would help reduce GHG emissions, however further action at the State and federal level would be necessary to achieve State reduction targets. At the time, there were no post‐2030 State or federal measures that would assist the city in achieving the efficiency target in 2040, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. Therefore, the General Plan could potentially conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, meaning impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to energy resources would be less than significant for energy consumption and consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would decrease net energy consumption and per service population energy consumption due to delivery of energy through Marin Clean Energy which has higher goals for renewable energy than PG&E and through an increase in fuel efficiency for vehicles. Furthermore, policies within the General Plan aim to reduce energy consumption of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline and diesel fuels by fostering an increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy, encouraging bicycle and pedestrian transit, and decreasing use of cars. All future development under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with the latest California Building Code (CBC) requirements, including CBC Energy Efficiency Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 880 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
Addendum 49
Standards, as well as all federal, State, and local rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation.

By decreasing demand for energy- and fuel-related energy resources both overall and on a per service population basis and complying with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, impacts to energy consumption and consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant.

Implementation of the Housing Element update could increase the demand for electricity and natural gas. However, new development would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in CALGreen, which could decrease energy consumption in new and retrofitted structures. In addition, consistent with the General Plan, the Housing Element supports higher density that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fuel consumption compared to existing lower-density development. Therefore, energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and the Housing Element update would not conflict with nor obstruct a State or local plan for increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of GHG emissions or otherwise conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. Annual development under the Housing Element update could exceed the GHG significance threshold applied in the 2040 General Plan EIR and conflict with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Potential impacts caused by development allowed under the Housing Element would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, identified in the General Plan EIR. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation, the same as impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not increase built out or population increases in the city and would not directly result in development or activities that would increase demand for energy or increase VMT. Policies within the update encourage use of renewable back-up power sources and storage that would support the City’s a more reliable and less wasteful source of energy for use during emergencies. In addition, any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk from climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with the CBC Energy Efficiency Standards, policies within the General Plan aimed at reducing energy consumption of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline and Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 881 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
50 diesel fuels, and all federal, State, and local rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions, energy or climate change.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 882 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Addendum 51

6.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

No No No Yes Yes

1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

2. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

4. Landslides? Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 883 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
52 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or topsoil loss?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Section 1803.5.3,
Expansive Soil, of the California
Building Standards Code (2013),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 884 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Addendum 53
2040 General Plan EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity would be less than significant for adverse effects related to rupture of a known fault, strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides; soil erosion; landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; locating development on expansive soils; and installing septic tanks and alternative waste water disposal systems in expansive soils, Section 3.7, Soils, Geology, and Seismicity. It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to projectspecific development and planning review, including adherence to standards for geology, soils, and seismicity impacts. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant in regard to impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, buildout under the Housing Element update could result in impacts related to geologic hazards, including seismic activity, faults, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, and unstable soils. However, new development would be required to comply with local and state codes and requirements related to geologic hazards, including the CBC, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, and applicable General Plan policies. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. In addition, consistent with buildout allowed under the General Plan, new development under the Housing Element update would connect to the existing sewer system and not include septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions that would mitigate potential impacts related to geology and soils by requiring soils and geology reports for new development, prohibiting development on instable slopes, and limiting development in hillside areas with potential for slope failure. None of the implementation items would directly result new structures that would be exposed to seismic activity, faults, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, or unstable soils or involve septic tanks. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and any impacts would be mitigated through compliance with all applicable General Plan policies, the CBC, the NPDES program, and all other applicable local and state codes and requirements. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 885 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
54 Conclusion
The Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 886 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum 55

6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on a site that is included
on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 887 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
56 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
g. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport, public use airport, or
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Planning
Area?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 888 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum 57
2040 General Plan EIR Hazards and Hazardous
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts for hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant for transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school; location of development projects on hazardous materials sites such that the new use would create a hazard to the public or the environment; interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; and risk from wildland fire in lands adjacent to urbanized or residential areas, Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. It further stated that the Plan Area. The 2040 General Plan EIR described that individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to state, regional, and local regulations and standards related to hazards. There are no airport land use compatibility plans within the planning area or public airports, public use airports, or private airstrips within two miles of affecting any portion of the General Plan planning area.

Applicable regulations would include those set forth by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation, and BAAQMD. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure impacts related hazardous materials would remain less than significant, consistent with the 2040 General Plan EIR. The proposed Housing Element update would not include circulation changes and is not located within the planning boundaries of any airports. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions to enhance emergency response and evacuation procedures through testing of response exercises and maintaining the City’s emergency response plan. In addition, policies and implementation actions address risk associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wildfire prevention and response. The update is would not directly result in development that would have the potential to impact hazards or hazardous materials. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with relevant Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 889 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
58 policies within the General Plan California, as well as applicable standards from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation, and BAAQMD.

Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 890 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 59

6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 891 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
60 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
HYDRO-1 No No No Yes Yes
g. Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam, or inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 892 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 61
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
i. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 893 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
62 2040 General Plan EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant for water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, depletion of ground water, drainage, runoff, erosion, and siltation. It further stated that new development under the General Plan would primarily result in redevelopment of previously developed sites with residential, commercial, and public uses, which would have a limited effect on local drainage or runoff characteristics. The 2040 General Plan EIR also concluded that on-going compliance with the NPDES requirements, including required implementation of BMPs to treat storm water runoff and protect water quality, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts related to water quality, runoff, and flooding. Buildout of the General Plan would generate a small increase in impervious surfaces, although the planning area is already largely developed. However, it would not be anticipated that new development would contribute to a significant impact on water quality, groundwater recharge, or runoff.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to placement of housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map would be less than significant with mitigation.

Implementation of the General Plan could result in development on sites partially or fully within the 100-year flood zone or construction of new housing within flood hazard zones. Policies within the General Plan and compliance with the SHMC regulate development in flood hazard areas, consistent with standards from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To further reduce impacts related to development within flood zones, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: Any proposed development or redevelopment on land designated as regulatory floodway on current Federal Emergency Management Agency maps shall, prior to issuance of a construction permit, obtain and submit to the City a Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, demonstrating that a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis showed that grading modifications were performed such that the proposed development would no longer be within the floodway. These modifications shall be completed without raising the base flood level or impacting other properties.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Development allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing regulations, including NPDES requirements, required BMPs, San Francisco Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association ’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and General Plan policies related to water quality, runoff, and erosion, siltation, and flooding control. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 894 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 63
impacts related to water quality, drainage, erosion, siltation, runoff, and flooding would remain less than significant, the same as impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update, including associated construction activities could result in impacts to groundwater supply.

Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 identified in the General Plan EIR and project-level environmental review, which would identify potential impacts and reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the same as under the General Plan.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions that reduce risk of floods and impacts related to flood hazards. None of the policies or implementation actions would impact hydrology or water quality or directly result in development that would alter existing drainage patterns, contribute to runoff, degrade water quality, impact groundwater supply and recharge, or expose people or structures to flood hazards. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with NPDES requirements, including required implementation of BMPs to treat storm water runoff and protect water quality, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not have an adverse impact and hydrology and water quality.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 895 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
64 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 896 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Land Use, Population, and Housing
Addendum 65

6.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
d. Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 897 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
66 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 898 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Land Use, Population, and Housing
Addendum 67
2040 General Plan EIR Land Use Planning, Housing, and Population Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant as they pertain to dividing established communities, conflicts with applicable land use plans, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and displacing substantial numbers of existing housing or people, Section 3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing. The 2040 General Plan EIR further found that General Plan implementation would not physically divide an established community and would beneficially increase connectivity throughout the city. The 2040 General Plan EIR further stated that individual development projects under the General Plan would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, which would ensure adherence to standards for land use planning, housing, and population.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies a range of sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of
these sites may differ from those identified in the General Plan EIR. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031Consistent with development under the General Plan, the Housing Element update would not involve circulation changes to the Plan Area, and individual development projects would occur within private and City-owned property in already developed areas. In addition, projects under the Housing Element update would be subject to General Plan policies related to increased connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, and drivers in the City. Therefore, development under the Housing Element update would not physically divide a community, and impacts would remain less than significant. Moreover, consistent with the General Plan, development under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing zoning and development regulations in the SHMC and policies in the General Plan. Compliance with these regulations and policies and required development and planning review would ensure individual projects would not conflict with applicable land use policies, plans, and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 899 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
68 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 900 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Noise
Addendum 69

6.11 Noise
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Expose persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the proposed
General Plan Noise Element, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Expose persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
NO-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the Planning
Area above levels existing
without the project?
Significant and
unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Result in a substantial temporary
or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the
project
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 901 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
70 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, expose people residing or
working in the Planning Area to
excessive noise levels?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
f. For a project within the vicinity of
a private airstrip, expose people
residing or working in the
Planning Area to excessive noise
levels?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 902 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Noise
Addendum 71
2040 General Plan EIR Noise Findings
As discussed under in Section 3.11, Noise, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to construction, traffic, railway, and stationary noise sources would be less than significant. Policies within the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element address construction operation noise, noise compatibility along the rail line, traffic noise impacts, and stationary noise sources. Impacts from to traffic-related vibration and rail vibration was determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to vibration during construction would be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts related to traffic vibration and rail vibration were less than significant. Construction of new development under the 2040 General Plan could result in use of heavy duty equipment that could produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses.

Construction equipment operating within 25 feet of sensitive land uses could generate distinctly perceptible vibration, non-pile driving construction activities occurring within 25 feet of sensitive uses could result in significant vibration impacts. In addition, pile driving occurring within approximately 175 feet or 300 feet of sensitive uses for vibratory/sonic pile drivers and impact pile drivers, respectively, could also result in significant vibration impacts. As the specific future projects to be developed under the General Plan are not known at this time, and as the level of construction activity that would occur at various locations for future projects is also not known, it is possible the future construction activities could result in significant vibration impacts in portions of the Planning Area near historic structures and sensitive receptors such as schools and residences. To reduce construction related vibration impacts, the General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure NO-1 which would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NO-1: Where vibration impacts have the potential to cause structural damage or distinctly perceptible human response (reference Tables 3.11-12 to 3.11-14, or more recent sources), require a vibration study, prepared by a qualified vibration consultant. The study should include a site-specific engineering assessment of potential vibration impacts to structures and sensitive receptors from construction activities and specify a mitigation plan to minimize the impacts using all reasonable and feasible means available. The mitigation plan should include a procedure for establishing threshold and limiting vibration values for potentially affected structures, based on an assessment of each structure’s ability to withstand the loads and displacements due to construction vibrations and a commitment to develop a vibration monitoring plan during the engineering phase and to implement a compliance monitoring program during construction.

The 2040 General Plan EIR reported there would be no noise impacts related to exposure of people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise levels related to use of a public airport or private airstrip since the Planning Area is not in proximity to either a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest public airport to St. Helena is Angwin-Parrett Field located 4 miles northeast of the Planning Area and the nearest private airstrip is the Pope Valley Airport located 7 miles northeast of the Planning Area.

Page 903 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
72 change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, construction of individual projects under the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of noise levels within the city. Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to Mitigation Measure NO-1, which would reduce construction vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Operation of individual projects under the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of traffic-related noise levels within the city but they would be less than significant. Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to policies identified in the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element and standards within the SHMC related to noise. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts related to increases in noise levels from construction, traffic, rail, and stationary sources would remain less than significant. Consistent with development allowed under the General Plan, the proposed project would not be located within the vicinity of a private air strip or an airport land use plan and would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive airport-related noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 904 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum 73

6.12 Public Services and Recreation
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for fire
protection, police protection, schools,
parks, or other public facilities?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 905 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
74 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 906 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum 75
2040 General Plan EIR Public Services and Recreation Findings As discussed in Section 3.12, Public Services, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout under the 2040 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to local fire and police agencies or other public facilities within the City of St. Helena. Projected new development under the 2040 General Plan could result in population and employment increase but would not result in substantial increase demand for fire services, police services, schools, parks, recreation, and library facilities. The increase in service population would not require construction of new or expansion of existing facilities for fire service, police service, schools, parks or other public facilities. Policies within the General Plan monitor the need for additional public facilities, pursue sites for future facilities, require Fire Department and Police department review of individual development projects, and implement public safety impact fees. In addition, potential new or expanded public service facilities would be subject to additional CEQA review. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the General Plan and analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout under the Housing Element update could increase the demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and library services within the city but is not anticipated to generate a need for the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing ones. Most sites are urban infill sites where development already exists and public services are already being provided. New development would be required to pay safety impact fees and subject to review by the Fire Department and Police Department. Additionally, General Plan policies governing public services would remain in effect for the Housing Element update and future development projects.

Compliance with General Plan goals and policies regarding public services and recreation would ensure that new housing would not result in a substantial demand to public services. These goals and policies would continue to apply to projects implemented under the Housing Element update.

Therefore, potential impacts to public services associated with implementation of the updated Housing Element are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not result in development that would increase demand for public services or governmental or recreational facilities. The update includes policies and implementation actions that would ensure adequate provisions of public services, including fire and police protection, and protect of City facilities from potential natural and made-made hazards which would improve response times and safety. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would increase service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for public services and facilities. Potential development Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 907 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
76 would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with General Plan goals and policies regarding public services and recreation. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no impact related to public services or recreation.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 908 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Transportation and Traffic
Addendum 77

6.13 Transportation and Traffic
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components
of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways,
and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Significant and
unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable
congestion management
program, including, but not
limited to level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management agency
for designated roads or
highways?
Not discussed None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 909 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
78 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 910 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Transportation and Traffic
Addendum 79
2040 General Plan EIR Transportation Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to transportation would be significant and unavoidable regarding consistency with policies and regulations related to roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, Section 3.13, Transportation. The 2040 General Plan EIR determined 7 out of 27 analyzed intersections would have significant impacts. Policies and actions within the General Plan aim to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, improve circulation throughout the city, and promote options for alternate forms of transportation. To reduce impacts to intersections, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measures TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR5, and TR-6. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Main Street is a State highway (State Route 29), therefore mitigation measures along Main Street are subject to Caltrans approval and cannot be guaranteed by the City. In addition, improvements to accommodate future traffic volumes may not be implemented due to lack of funds. Therefore, because the City cannot guarantee that needed improvements would be implemented, impacts to intersection traffic operations are significant and unavoidable.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that other transportation impacts would be less than significant, including potential to conflict with applicable congestion management programs, change in air traffic patterns, increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, emergency access, and potential to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 5064.3, subdivision(b), a project’s transportation impact is now based on VMT instead of an level of service analysis as conducted under the 2040 General Plan EIR. Under the updated State requirements, VMT are derived based on location and the amount and distance of vehicle travel attributable to a project, including induced automobile travel. Significance criteria used to determine VMT impact include questions as to whether the project would cause substantial additional VMT, or substantially induce additional automobile travel by increasing physical roadway capacity in congested areas (e.g., by adding new mixed flow travel lanes) or by adding new roadways to the network.

The Housing Element update would facilitate development of 307 units to meet the City of St.

Helena’s RHNA for the current planning period. The proposed housing sites in the Housing Element update would concentrate housing development in the City, which would reduce overall VMT.

Furthermore, the policies within the General Plan encourage the use of transit, bicycling and pedestrian routes and work to reduce VMT. Buildout under the Housing Element update would be subject to comply with these policies. Therefore, potential transportation impacts associated with Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 911 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
80 implementation of the updated Housing Element are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update includes policies and implementation actions to alleviate evacuation constraints for residential developments with less than two emergency evacuation routes and would strengthen emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures. None of the policies or implementation actions would impact congestion management programs, change air traffic patterns, increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use, impair emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with applicable policies in the General Plan aimed at reducing VMT and transportation impacts. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no adverse impacts related to transportation.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 912 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 81

6.14 Utilities and Service Systems
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
UTS-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Require or result in the
construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and
resources such that new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 913 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
82 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Be served by a landfill with
insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
g. Not comply with federal, State, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 914 of 1184 ends

Addendum Evaluation
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 83
2040 General Plan EIR Utilities and Service Systems Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to wastewater, water supply, and solid waste would be less than significant provided that proposed projects would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations and the policies and actions within the General Plan addressing wastewater capacity, stormwater runoff, water conservation, waste management, recycling, and composting. The City plans to increase the wastewater treatment plant permitted 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. Any new stormwater facilities would comply with all applicable environmental regulations, including project-level environmental review and NPDES permits regulations. The City’s Water Neutral Policy for Development would ensure future water demand does not exceed current demand by requiring any new water demand be offset by water conservation retrofits or in-lieu payments for the City to conduct retrofits.

Buildout under the General Plan would not require exceed the capacity of the Clover Flat Landfill which has significant remaining capacity. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be no significant impacts to the city’s utilities or service systems.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th cycle RHNA
throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. Many of these sites have existing connections to utility and service systems as they are infill sites or already developed. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). .

All future development accommodated under the Housing Element update would be required to adhere to the General Plan, adopted master plans, and other regulatory requirements concerning water, wastewater, storm drains, solid waste, and other infrastructure; water supply; and wastewater treatment systems.

Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could increase population such that new or expanded wastewater facilities would be required to provide utilities and service systems to new development. In addition, future development for new or expanded facilities would be subject to further environmental analysis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) and as required by state law, to evaluate potential impacts.

Page 915 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
84 Development. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no adverse impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 916 of 1184 ends

Summary of Findings
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 85
Summary of Findings
The Housing Element update is part of the City’s General Plan, and like other elements within the General Plan, includes goals and policies that the City should meet when it comes to the planning of housing. The Housing Element is unique from the other elements within the General Plan in that it is required to be periodically updated to align with the State’s allocation of the RHNA. Also, the Housing Element includes Housing Programs that are required to be implemented within the planning period established for the Housing Element. These programs are usually implemented over time as a separate project after the Housing Element is adopted. The Housing Element update does not involve site-specific projects but does include identified sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of RHNA housing units during the 6th cycle.

The sites inventory (provided in the Housing Resources chapter of the Housing Element update) yields housing units that exceed the number needed to meet the RHNA requirements, as demonstrated in Table 3.

The General Plan Program EIR is accompanied the City’s 2040 General Plan update. Future development and zoning changes associated with the Housing Element’s Housing Programs will be subject to applicable development standards and reviews established by City ordinances.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update does not involve site-specific projects but proposes policies and implementation actions that are aimed at enhancing emergency response and evacuation procedures and minimizing impacts to people and structures from natural and manmade disasters. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure would be designed to mitigate potential impacts associated with climate safety hazards. Potential updates and development would not generate population growth or additional VMT or result in an increase in demand for services or facilities.

This analysis demonstrates that adoption of the Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in impacts beyond those addressed or analyzed in the General Plan EIR, nor does the General Plan update present new information that shows impacts would be more significant than those described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR applies to the General Plan update and no additional environmental assessment is required.

This analysis was performed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and is intended to determine if additional environmental review is required or if the changes proposed by the project are within the scope of the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR. This analysis determined that the 2040 General Plan EIR is of continuing informational value, the proposed changes in the General Plan update are within the scope of that previously certified EIR, and none of the conditions requiring the preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 exists. Therefore, the City of St. Helena, as lead agency, has determined that this Addendum to the EIR is sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA and no additional environmental review is required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, this Addendum does not need to be circulated for public review and can be included in or attached to the final EIR. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to deciding upon the Project.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 917 of 1184 ends

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
86 References
Bibliography
St. Helena, City of. 2018. St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2010042001. St. Helena, CA. October, 2018.

St. Helena, City of. 2019. General Plan Update 2040. St. Helena, CA. April, 2019.

List of Preparers
Rincon, Consultants, Inc. prepared this Addendum under contract to the City of St. Helena. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darcy Kremin, AICP, Director
Ryan Russell, Project Manager
Leeza Segal, Associate Planner
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 918 of 1184 ends

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT &

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
for Housing Element Consistency
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Community Development Department
CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL
Staff: Aaron Hecock, AICP
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 919 of 1184 ends

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

1. BACKGROUND

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH

3. SITE SELECTION

4. DEADLINES

5. MAP AMENDMENTS

6. DENSITY

7.ENVIRONMENTAL

8.CONSEQUENCES

9.RECOMMENDATION Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 920 of 1184 ends

BACKGROUND
2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
ADOPTED: May 9, 2023
CERTIFIED: September 25, 2023

PURPOSE
Identify & analyze housing needs
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 921 of 1184 ends

BACKGROUND

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
(RHNA)
PERIOD TO COMPLETE: 2023 – 2031

PURPOSE
Show how the City will accommodate
assigned RHNA allocation (256)
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 922 of 1184 ends

RHNA
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 923 of 1184 ends

RHNA BY INCOME
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 924 of 1184 ends

CITY UPZONE SITES
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 925 of 1184 ends

HOUSING ELEMENT
PUBLIC OUTREACH 2020-2023 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 926 of 1184 ends

PUBLIC NOTICING
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 927 of 1184 ends

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 928 of 1184 ends

Commission / Council & Focus Groups

JOINT MEETINGS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 929 of 1184 ends

April 2, 2024 | Planning Commission Meeting

MANDATES

CONSTRAINTS
environmental
utility access
redevelopment
capacity

REQUIREMENTS
vacancy
size
location
schools
jobs
amenities
Site Inventory
Guidebook
Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●

MANDATED BY STATE

SITE SELECTION
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 930 of 1184 ends

SITE SELECTION

FOCUS GROUPS
December 16, 2021
January 27, 2022

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOP
January 20, 2022

JOINT MEETING
Planning
Commission /
City Council
February 22, 2022

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 931 of 1184 ends

SITE SELECTION

1. Ag uses outside Urban Limit Line

2. Location of overhead power lines OR utility easements

3. Already developed with no indication to sell

4. Split by a waterway OR located within a flood zone

5. Too large OR under open space or agricultural easement Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 932 of 1184 ends

State-Required Rezoning Deadlines
• If Housing Element is certified within 120 days of the deadline (January 31, 2023)
→City has up to 3 years to complete the rezoning process

DEADLINES
• If the Housing Element certification above is not met →City has until January 31, 2024, to complete all required rezonings
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 933 of 1184 ends

• Multiple rounds of review and new comments from HCD
→delayed ability to have housing element certified within the 120-day period • City does not have in-house mapping ability software
→dependent on assistance from Napa County for all map changes →mapping coordination with County had delays & rounds of revision into 2024 • Map amendment process requires both the Planning
Commission and City Council to review
→could not be completed prior to January 31, 2024

DEADLINES
Why did the City miss the January 31, 2024 deadline? Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 934 of 1184 ends

[ Figure 2.1 ]
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 935 of 1184 ends

PROPOSED ZONING MAP
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 936 of 1184 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 937 of 1184 ends

MAP AMENDMENTS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 938 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 939 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 940 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 941 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 942 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 943 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 944 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 945 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 946 of 1184 ends

SITE #10
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 947 of 1184 ends

DENSITY VISUALIZATIONS Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 948 of 1184 ends

EXAMPLES
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 949 of 1184 ends

EXAMPLES
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 950 of 1184 ends

HOUSING ELEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 951 of 1184 ends

HOUSING ELEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 952 of 1184 ends

CONSEQUENCES
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 953 of 1184 ends

CONSEQUENCES
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 954 of 1184 ends

BUILDER’S REMEDY
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 955 of 1184 ends

April 2, 2024 | Planning Commission Meeting
BUILDER’S REMEDY
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 956 of 1184 ends

RECOMMENDATION
Approval of introduction and first reading by title only and waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are consistent with adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. 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; and

3. Consider directing staff to analyze other units to replace Site 10 after adoption of the Ordinance and recertification of the Housing Element by HCD.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 957 of 1184 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 958 of 1184 ends

Opportunity Site #10
Summary of Facts
• Has been designated for residential uses since the 1975 General Plan. • Has been zoned Medium Density Residential since the early 1990s. • Was a designated Housing Opportunity Site in both the 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements (2009 and 2015).
• State law requires that because the site has not been developed after being included as an Opportunity Site in the last two Housing Elements, it has been identified for future up zoning to High Density Residential (HR) in the current 6th Cycle Housing Element (studied in 2020 and adopted in 2023). • The property owners of Site 10 have expressed interest in residential development on the site.
• No development application has been received for Site 10. • Housing Element Focus Group meetings in 2021 and 2022 showed high interest in upzoning to HR in the form of townhomes. No formal vote was taken. • Removing Site 10 from the Housing Element will result in the Housing Element no longer complying with policy HA with requires minimum of 82 lower income units on the west side as well as a min of 14 acres of HR property be upzoned. • The Catholic School site:
o Is only 2 acres in size and therefore short 2.4 acres in size to fully replace the size of Site 10.
o Is currently developed which would require some indication from the property owner that they have interest in developing housing. o The Diocese has indicated they do not support the Catholic School site on Oak Avenue being added to the Housing Element as it complicates their Chapter 11 proceedings.
• There is no replacement parcel for Site 10 on the west side that would allow the City to “swap sites” without re-starting the Housing Element process. • Noticing for the Housing Element adoption in May 2023:
o The City Attorney confirmed in the April 2, 2024 public hearing that the adoption of the Housing Element was adequately noticed as there was no formal rezoning action taken by that General Plan Amendment for the Housing Element.
o When the City sought to bring the zoning map changes for Housing Element consistency, the March 5, 2024 public hearing was continued in order to address the requirement for the 300 foot property owner notification letters as well as zoning change notification letters to each of the opportunity site property owners. (The opportunity site property owners previously received a letter from the City in 2020 that their property was being considered as an opportunity site).

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 959 of 1184 ends

Page 960 of 1184 ends

From: Ariana Peju
To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Maya DeRosa; Planning Commission Subject: [External] Comments for City Council Meeting (April 23, 2024) Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:25:45 PM
Dear Planning Department & Commissioners,
Below are my comments for the upcoming City Council meeting on April 23, 2024.

I am writing in response to the High Density development on Site 10 on Spring St. Development to HDH would negatively impact the neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking, safety, privacy, noise, water, sewer, height restrictions, school routes, and other issues impacting the character of the neighborhood.

In addition, the community was not fairly noticed about the Housing Element process and mailed notice this late, after the City already promised to rezone, is not reasonable.

In particular, this effort should focus on finding alternate calculations and/or sites to satisfy the RHNA numbers.

There are better options for achieving Housing Element numbers that would not impose high-density on Site

10. The City should have explored these options from the start and must be willing to explore these options going forward when redoing the Housing Element.

Ariana Peju
Sylvaner Ave- St Helena
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 961 of 1184 ends

Page 962 of 1184 ends

From: Caroline Sjostedt
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [External] Housing Element Site 2 - 1572 Railroad Avenue (public comment) Date: Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:36:33 PM
Good Afternoon,
My husband and I own the home and cottage (1563 and 1567 Railroad Avenue) directly across the street from site that the City of St. Helena is considering amending the General Plan and Zoning Map from BPO to High Density Residential.

Considering the surrounding lower density residential to the west and north of the site, we would only be supportive of a maximum of three stories and provided that the unit garages are backloaded. Below is just an example of a townhome density that could incorporate an attractive front elevation but with garage and other parking provided through the back. Not sure how may units to the acre this type of development would incorporate, but it may be a way to transition well in the neighborhood and provide smaller and hopefully more affordable housing in the City of St. Helena.

We will be on the East Coast next week, and therefore unable to attend the meeting in person, but I wanted to contribute our comments as our property will be one of the most impacted by any proposed change and future development.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Caroline Sjostedt
Wheatland House Plan | Farmhouse Townhouse
Home Design - MF-1494
markstewart.com
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 963 of 1184 ends

Page 964 of 1184 ends

From: Jessica Stielau
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Feedback and concerns on Housing Element Site 10 Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:03:01 PM
Jessica Stielau
1077 Valley View St
St Helena CA 94574
City Council of St. Helena City Hall 1480 Main Street St. Helena, CA 94574 Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning map amendment that would change the designation from Medium Density Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HR) in the area of Spring Street between Hudson Avenue and Valley View Street.

As a resident of this neighborhood, I am deeply concerned about the potential consequences of this zoning change, particularly regarding increased traffic and changes to the character of our community. The lots in this area are already very small and close together, and the addition of high-density residential units would only exacerbate these issues. Furthermore, Spring Street and Valley View Street serve as busy arteries, especially with their proximity to the high school, and any increase in traffic would pose significant safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

I urge the City Council to consider the long-term implications of this zoning amendment on our neighborhood and to prioritize the preservation of its unique character and quality of life. I believe that such a significant change to the zoning designation is not in the best interest of the community and would adversely impact the well-being of its residents.

Please know that I am prepared to challenge the city's decision in court if necessary to protect the interests of our neighborhood and uphold the integrity of our community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Jessica Stielau
--
Jessica Stielau (she/hers)
c: 206-661-0116
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 965 of 1184 ends

Page 966 of 1184 ends

From: Lizette Fiallo
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Spring Street Rezoning - City Council Meeting (April 23, 2024) Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 9:51:27 AM
Hello
I would like to submit my comments prior to the meeting.

1. The community does not support High Density development on Site 10. A high density development on Site 10 would negatively impact the neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking, safety, privacy, noise, water, sewer, height restrictions, school routes, and other issues impacting the character of the neighborhood.

2. The community was not fairly notified about the Housing Element process and mailed notice this late, after the City already promised to rezone, is not reasonable.

3. While it appears likely that the City will approve the rezoning to remove Builder's Remedy, the City must commit to revisiting the Housing Element, once recertified, to redo it with proper inclusion of the community. In particular, this effort should focus on finding alternate calculations and/or sites to satisfy the RHNA numbers.

4. There are better options for achieving Housing Element numbers that would not impose high-density on Site 10. The City should have explored these options from the start and must be willing to explore these options going forward when redoing the Housing Element.

Thank you
Lizette Fiallo
1217 Allyn Ave
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 967 of 1184 ends

Page 968 of 1184 ends

From: Pat Friday
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning for affordable housing
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:15:57 PM
Dear City Council,
As I live off Spring Street, I have a couple of thoughts regarding two sites, #10 and #11.

Site 10 is a good location for affordable housing, but would request that units be limited to 2- story buildings, to be keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.

Site 11 is already affordable housing; why move folks out when other locations can more easily developed? They have lived there a long time and are a part of our neighborhood.

Don’t dislocate them.

Thank you for considering my thoughts,
Pat Friday
Pat Friday
1430 Wallis Court
St. Helena CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 969 of 1184 ends

Page 970 of 1184 ends

From: Brian Driscoll
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Proposed Site 10 High Density Development Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 8:29:39 AM
To Whom it May Concern:

We are residents of 1242 Allyn Avenue in St. Helena.

I’m writing to advise that our family does not support the proposed High Density development on Site 10.

We strongly believe this proposed development would negatively impact the neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking, safety, privacy, noise, water, sewer, height restrictions, school routes, and other issues impacting the character of the neighborhood.

We implore the City Council to explore alternative solutions ion partnership with its citizens.

Thank you,
Brian Driscoll
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 971 of 1184 ends

Page 972 of 1184 ends

Patrice Ferguson and John E Camp
1250 Spring Brook Court
St. Helena, CA 94574
April 23, 2024
To: City of St. Helena Planning Commission
Email: [email protected]
We previously wrote to you regarding our concerns for the recommendation of City Council regarding the rezoning of the property at 1933 Spring Street from medium density to high density.

We continue to be adamantly opposed to such a rezoning.

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.

The decision to “rezone” from medium to high density is well documented in terms of the lack of the proper notice period to residents and the community of St. Helena. The City has an opportunity now to consider options for achieving the Housing Element goals without the dramatic and negative impact to the Spring Street and surrounding neighborhoods by maintaining the medium density zoning. Certainly, the community doesn’t support the change to high density especially if it is adjusted in such a way to increase the impact in even greater terms.

There can be no doubt of the tremendous impact to 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 density the City seeks to approve.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 973 of 1184 ends

Page 974 of 1184 ends

From: Gemma Hanna
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:59:29 AM
I am a resident of Saint Helena and am opposed to the rezoning of 1933 Spring Street to high density.

As a high school student in St. Helena, it would negatively impact traffic getting to school and increase the chance of accidents.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 975 of 1184 ends

Page 976 of 1184 ends

From: Linda Reiff To: Public Comment; cityclerk; Contact City Council Cc: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Anna Chouteau; Patrick Kenealy; Billy Summers Subject: [External] Public Comment on City Council Meeting 4.23.24 Agenda Item 11.1 Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 8:44:48 PM Dear City Council,
Thank you for the notice last week of the meeting where you will consider the potential rezoning of 1933 Spring Street. I offer my comments to you with the hope you will sincerely consider and respond to them. I am also forwarding my original comments to the Planning Commission at the bottom of this message for more context.

Process & Responsibilities:

My neighbors and I appreciate finally being recognized as having a very significant stake – and right -- in what happens with 1933 Spring Street and yet, it feels that it is coming at not just the 11th, but the 12th hour.

We never received the proper notice that is required by law to contact the neighbors within 300 feet that the property was being proposed for rezoning to high-density housing. When we finally received notice just last month, we were also told that the change had actually already been made, it had already been approved, and that the decision could not be changed or there might be consequences with the State.

Rather than considering the consequences with the State, I propose that the City’s first responsibility is to consider the lives and potential consequences for its citizens who live here and pay taxes to fund the City operations.

Sadly, rather than spending time to meaningfully engage with the neighbors now (let alone a year or more ago), instead, the City is spending its time trying to defend what it did by writing an article for the newspaper, sending out a newsletter, and creating FAQs and other documents to try to explain what it did.

I sincerely hope that you, the people who the citizens elect to oversee the City’s operations, will pause and think about how the City’s process has gone terribly wrong and work with your constituents to find a solution.

The Spirit of St. Helena:

I understand some of you attended or watched the April 2 Planning Commission meeting and I appreciate that you did.

What you saw and heard is that people deeply care. More than 90 of your fellow community members wrote letters in opposition to the City’s action on 1933 Spring Street, and a number of them spoke that night in opposition. Including the property owner.

I was stunned that the City rezoned someone’s property, requiring that high-density housing be built on it, without notifying the property owner (even when they specifically asked about it), let alone notifying more than 100 families within the required 300-feet of the property. Can you imagine how you would feel if that happened to your family's home? Or if that is legal?
To have such a vast and a direct negative response demonstrates that clearly, this situation has not been managed well, and it needs to be resolved.

Which leads to you, the City Council Members.

I spoke at the Planning Commission meeting about why I love St. Helena. It’s a small town with deep agricultural roots, where we work together and figure things out. I asked the City to please work with the neighbors to find a solution. In fact, a solution has been proposed: that the additional housing numbers required by the State be recognized in the other parcels in the plan.

Rather than write more documents and spend any more time trying to explain why this would be hard, let’s spend our time figuring out how to do this.

Thank you very much for your consideration and your service to our town. We look forward to working with you to reach a positive solution for the property owner, the neighbors, and the entire community.

Sincerely,
-Linda Reiff
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 977 of 1184 ends

From: LINDA REIFF <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 1:40 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 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.

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 978 of 1184 ends

From: Nancy King
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External]
Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 8:24:29 PM
Dear City Council,
I am sick of the lack of consideration the city has had for the community.

Please understand that this is how all of us living in the surrounding area of Site 10 feel.

David Prueter says it best1. The community does not support High Density development on Site 10. A high density development on Site 10 would negatively impact the neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking, safety, privacy, noise, water, sewer, height restrictions, school routes, and other issues impacting the character of the neighborhood.

2. The community was not fairly noticed about the Housing Element process and mailed notice this late, after the City already promised to rezone, is not reasonable.

Nancy King
1143 Hudson Ave.
(living here for 30 years and in SH for 43yrs)
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 979 of 1184 ends

Page 980 of 1184 ends

From: Tina DeGeorgio
To: Planning Commission; Maya DeRosa; cityclerk; Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; [email protected]; Billy Summers; Patrick Kenealy
Cc: Thomas DeGeorgio
Subject: [External] Rejection of Spring Street site 10 Rezoning Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 1:57:19 PM
Importance: High
Dear City Council,
I humbly would like to renew my request to reject High Density development on site 10. I submit this request, in addition to all my prior requests (dated March 5th and March 24th). I have been a resident owner, in St. Helena, for nearly 4 years. I feel like my voice is not being heard. The reasons why we purchased our home are many. While too many to individually list here, many can be found on the City’s web page. A small friendly family oriented community, with rich history. Most importantly the City has protected the beauty and tranquility of our 5+ square acre city by imposing building height restrictions, not allowed big box stores and promoting the wine industry. Our leaders have always acted with a long term view of the future.

We do not support the High Density development on site 10. This effort is a short a sighted plan to solve much bigger issue. I believe that if proper due diligence and proper notice is made to interested parties better options would come to the fore. Attempts to solve the Housing Element issue with a hastily developed and contorted plan is destined for failure. A high density development on site 10 would negatively impact our community in terms of traffic and street over crowding. Already limited parking would get much worse. An already taxed water and sewer system would most certainly fail or need replacement. We are currently experiencing brown water issues and power outages. They are still not resolved.

Health and safety issues such as fire evacuation and public safety would certainly be at risk.

Our city was founded in the 1800’s, it has prospered since then, lets not take steps backwards.

There are alternative solutions that fit with the vision of our forefathers and provide a long term solution, we just need to embrace them. It is worth taking the time to explore these options going forward when redoing the Housing Element.

Finally, I would like to thank you for your service to our beautiful community. I understand the heavy burden that comes with your role. I stand ready to support a plan that supports all of our 5,000 plus residents now and into the future.

Tina & Tom DeGeorgio
1180 Valley View Street
St. Helena, CA
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 981 of 1184 ends

Page 982 of 1184 ends

From: William Wagner
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] 1933 Spring Street
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 3:27:35 PM
Hello,
My name is William Wagner and I reside at 1160 Hudson Avenue in Saint Helena.

I understand that the city is in a bind and you feel like you HAVE to re-zone 1933 Spring Street for high Density housing, but I am also aware of the fact that this conundrum was selfinflicted. I know you're going to vote to adopt the housing element as-is to avoid Builder's Remedy, but I strongly encourage you to immediately start looking for other options, regardless of how you vote.

Thank You,
William Wagner
1160 Hudson Ave.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 983 of 1184 ends

Page 984 of 1184 ends

From: Ian Devereux White
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Comments 4-23-24 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 6:42:23 AM
Dear Planning Department & Commissioners,
I would like to voice some very serious concerns (and speak for every single person I’ve had this conversation with in our small town) regarding the unsafe High Density development on Site 10 on Spring St. that is planned for the upcoming City Council meeting on April 23, 2024.

Development to HDH would negatively impact the neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking, safety, privacy, noise, water, sewer, height restrictions, school routes, and other issues impacting the character of the neighborhood. That is the MOST trafficked and dangerous area of town as it is given where the schools are and it’s where families walk and ride bikes on their way to Crane Park.

In addition, the community was not fairly noticed about the Housing Element process and mailed notice this late, after the City already promised to rezone, is not reasonable. While it appears likely that the City will approve the rezoning to remove Builder's Remedy, the City must commit to revisiting the Housing Element, once recertified, to redo it with proper inclusion of the community. In particular, this effort should focus on finding alternate calculations and/or sites to satisfy the RHNA numbers.

There are better, safer, more reasonable options for achieving Housing Element numbers that would not impose high-density in this extremely sensitive area. The City should have explored these options from the start and must be willing to explore these options going forward.

Ian White
Sylvaner Ave- St Helena
Father of two.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 985 of 1184 ends

Page 986 of 1184 ends

From: LAURA KEIR
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Rezoning Site 10
Date: Saturday, April 20, 2024 11:59:03 AM
Members of the city council;
We hope all members have considered item 3 of the planning commission recommendations and have diligently pursued information and answers to the questions and suggestions of possible placement of a small amount of units to another site that would still allow certification of the housing element and avoid rezoning of Site 10 to HR.

We hope it wasn’t just written off as impossible.

The citizens brought to the Planning Commission a good proposal and option in order to get certification without changing the density on Site 10.

Had the City Council DIRECTLY notified those LIVING NEXT to the property (300 feet notice) prior to submitting the plan, we would have been able to have input and we would not have 100’s of disenfranchised citizens and a neighborhood that will, in the end, be decimated .

We do need housing! Housing in all income levels. Many Teachers, police, firefighters Etc will not qualify for these homes (actually it appears apartments) due to their low-low /low/moderate income level standards. I’ve spoken to many restaurant servers and they also say that’s the same issue they have. Their income is too high for low cost but no middle class programs nor homes in town! Especially married two income households. We need more reasonably priced HOMES so people can put down roots. Not all Apartment type “Units” for a transient population. As It appears, Based on the planned Housing Element zoning, the limited land we have will provide only apartment type rental housing for one sector of the population.

We in California are loosing our rights and our voices due to the states mandating control over the city and county governments. The local government is where we the people can directly voice our concerns. (Try meeting with the State Legislature!) taking away the power to decide what is best for our City is akin to a dictatorship. You do what the State says or else you will be punished. California is taking away our freedom and our voice.

It’s disappointing that more cities have not filed suit against these new laws. Possibly the people harmed will ban together. Until then, we need all City Councils to make the best decision for the people they represent and to fight to accomplish the goal of keeping or communities a safe and healthy place to live.

Thank you,
Laura Keir
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 987 of 1184 ends

Page 988 of 1184 ends

From: x x
To: Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: [External] High Density development in SH
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:06:10 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Thank you for your commitment of excellence in service to our Saint Helena townspeople. As you are certainly aware, your decisions now affect the many facets of life, livelihood and community for many years to come. This requires that you consider not what is easy or what is arbitrarily prescribed but instead what is highest and best for the people you serve.

I will not reiterate the many points of negative impact on our Saint Helena resulting from unrestrained High Density re-zoning of agriculture vineyard land in the heart of our single family zoned neighborhoods. This has been adequately voiced by others and I believe we all know this is not highest and best.

I would ask that you instead consider the underlying trend that effectively disenfranchises the will and reason of the people of Saint Helena, their elected officials and governing bodies such as yourselves by outside legislative fiat both state and federal. What is easy is to simply go along with whatever new edicts filter down. What is right is to insist on the integrity and authority of your respective office because Saint Helena, like any other township in California, is unique and should be governed as such.

This is certainly a new day and our collective response now will set the stage and standard for life and community in Saint Helena, Napa Valley and beyond.

I recommend that citizens and townships unite now in a single voice back to Sacramento. We always want to consider a better way but we never want to lose our ability for input.

Thank you for your consideration,
Anthony Filipps
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 989 of 1184 ends

Page 990 of 1184 ends

From: Karen Williams
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 | High-Density Development Issues Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:35:25 PM
To whom it concerns ~
These comments and thoughts are shared not only by those who stand to be most affected if the Housing Element is not revisited but also by those who are still in the dark about it and will also be affected if left the way it was improperly proposed.

It comes down to integrity: doing the right thing even when no one is looking. After the understandably uproarious meeting a few Tuesdays ago when residents rightfully felt left without proper support, people are definitely looking now and it is time to correct this issue with earnest integrity. To further disregard what is the right thing to do for the City of St. Helena and its locally proud, caring, and economically supportive constituents would be a big mistake. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to very clearly understand what the addition of a high-density building's traffic would add to the already congested school gridlock and the rerouted HWY 29 traffic on Sulphur Springs to Valley View and then to Spring Street. It is fully preposterous to even consider. An issue I have personally is that if the decision was left to unbiased individuals, I truly feel each would see that Site 10 is the most inappropriate and disruptive site proposed. There are choices. Remove the pressure and bias and you'll see more clearly, please.

So, since the rezoning is set to be approved to remove the Builder's Remedy, now the City has the chance to rectify their mistake. Owning up to it is difficult, however, there is a second chance in front of you and we will continue to stand watching and speak out.

There are other areas of St. Helena, where it is not inappropriately allowed to be characterized as an Eastversus-West-side dispute, but as one city, where high density is better suited and everyone knows it. We are one town and the West side has always been more agricultural with the East being more commercial.

Those are facts. To take a site that is and has been for 150+ years a pastoral neighborhood and put a building that not only negatively impacts its essential character, but also will absolutely pose harmful and lasting issues that include parking, traffic, school safety routes, noise, water, sewer and more makes no sense.

Concerned citizen, Karen Williams
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 991 of 1184 ends

Page 992 of 1184 ends

From: Christy Palmisano
To: Public Comment
Cc: Peter Palmisano
Subject: [External] Citizen"s letter regarding rezoning concerns for Site 10: City Council Meeting 4/23/24 Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 8:21:34 PM
04/20/2024
This letter is regarding the upcoming city council meeting on April 23, 2024, dealing with the rezoning for Site 10; The Spring Street Vineyard Property.

Our community does not support a High Density development on site 10 which is surrounded by modest one story homes. The added density would create a very real concern for traffic, parking, water and sewer and would seem to violate our city’s height restrictions which have been tightly controlled by building codes.

We were not properly notified of the city’s Housing Element giving us no idea of the planned rezoning from medium to high density. We are now forced to accept High Density on parcel 10 to get our city out of Builders Remedy. Efforts should be made to find alternatives for this scale of housing which seems to be plentiful in areas that support such large developments.

It would be nice to hear that our city has an entire plan in mind for affordable housing, senior care, reviving downtown, starting with the crumbling sidewalks to fire and safety concerns as a whole. We are confident that with such a plan in place, we could work together as a community and solve this affordable housing crisis in a real and meaningful way.

Thank you for your consideration,
Christy Palmisano
Peter Palmisano
1161 Hudson Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 993 of 1184 ends

Page 994 of 1184 ends

From: Garth Neil
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Opposition to rezoning site 10
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 10:33:45 PM
To the esteemed members of the St Helena City Council:

As a currently resident of this town - I was born and raised here - I request you correct the poor process that has created such bitterness and resentment within our town regarding the subject lot. Designating it appropriate for high density development is a travesty on many levels.
* It will create even greater safety issues on streets that are used as a speedy alternative to Main Street. Spring and Valley View are heavily used by students and their families, yet the average speeds are well above the limit. Developing this plot for high density with its resulting congestion is a recipe for disaster. A traffic study must be produced before any increase in zoning and related permits are created.
* 18 months ago we were in a severe drought. All projections forecast more drought, and yet the City appears to have no funded plans to increase the supply. No permits should be issued - especially not for a high density project like this! - until adequate water is being produced and prices are returned to an affordable and sustainable level. * There are many other more appropriate sites that could be developed for high density without causing safety issues and local rancor, such as the empty lot across from the high school, the old city administration buildings, Lyman park, or the land behind the library.

I strongly urge you to protect the city, revisit the zoning issue and revise the master plan housing element down to a much lower number of units more in keeping with the style and quality of the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Garth Neil
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 995 of 1184 ends

Page 996 of 1184 ends

From: LisaMarie Andersen
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Stand by us and protect Site 10
Date: Monday, April 22, 2024 11:34:17 PM
Dear council members,
In this small rural town, a high density development on Site 10 would negatively impact our neighborhood. This reluctance for compromising a zoning change stems from various concerns regarding the potential negative impacts such development could have on our neighborhood.

Infrastructure, Noise Pollution, Health of the Neighbors who live here:

Firstly, high-density development brings an influx of traffic, which could strain the town's limited infrastructure and roads, leading to congestion and safety hazards beyond what we already experience when police are not present the speeds here are like an alternative highway to hwy 29. Valley View is congested in mornings and afternoons on the way to school since this community has very little walking or cycling childhood school traffic. It is the craziest to think in a small town of this size that everyone drives their children to school. I witness often in getting in and out of my street parked vehicle, cars that drive beyond the speed limit and in droves to get to school on time who actually live in town. Many, I recognize and once they see me, slow down for that rare moment I happen to be outside. I have had parents honk a met getting into and out of my car in the mornings entitled because they are late to school.

The roads are in poor condition. If you have never ridden bikes on them, you wouldn’t want to. During Covid, it was clear that the City has not committed to projects destined to produce greater TOT tax in the business district to accommodate the necessary infrastructure improvements. Adding more people is not the answer until we improve the quality of life for the people who already live here. Additionally, the increased demand for parking spaces may encroach upon residential areas, causing inconvenience and reducing privacy for residents.

Moreover, high-density developments tend to be taller structures, which will disrupt the visual harmony and character of this pastoral neighborhood, especially if there are not height restrictions in place of single and some second story construction. The denser population concentration also raises concerns about noise pollution, as more people and activities could contribute to a louder environment, disturbing the tranquility of the area. I consider noise pollution to be one of the most primary reasons to carefully develop any zoning in this area and should be dedicated to senior housing with a soft footprint. This is a very quiet community. Many of us live here on the West side because of our own past traumas and the introduction of noise pollution would seriously reduce the health of this quiet and tranquil neighborhood. It is peaceful here. It would change our internal personal health, just the thought of this is causing health issues just in consideration of the terms on the table. Anxiety has risen in the last month, a testimonial that this type of development has already increased anxiety and fear causing severe internal concerns and changing how we feel about our homes, this sanctuary where we have committed years to this small rural community. It has become intensely stressful. Recently a family moved onto the street, renting and playing loud music day and night not in character with the natural sounds and beauty of this small community and a written letter was signed by many neighbors and delivered to this particular renter to help them understand to be more aware of their surroundings and since then they have subdued their activities and gained a greater appreciation for the quiet that we call home. Our doors and windows are open. It is quiet. It should remain this way. We pay a very high mortgage and rents for this quality of life. This is why we are here. A high density development will destroy the health and the feeling of safety of this neighborhood. Are you willing to compromise this? Would you still, if you lived here? Do you understand the pressure this is causing and the uncertainty and the mental health concerns, anxiety and frustration? The world already delivers too much of this, please do not add to this demise.

Issues related to water and sewer systems are also significant here, where resources are already limited in this City because of long avoidance of prioritizing ownership of water and developing the downtown tax base to provide more resources for this important infrastructure, we are in a predicament. Our water rates are already outrageous.

We can’t afford to have more mouths on the system. All of our water has risen in percentages beyond normal to compensate for years of lack of complex planning. How could the City possibly consider introducing more residents to this broken system when we do not have the resources to care for the people who already live here. It is irresponsible. More housing for aging lifetime residents is in order and for younger returning college age residents but anything else seems absurd. A high-density development will be a strain on these essential utilities, leading to greater shortages than we have all had to adjust to already because of our inadequate infrastructure.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 997 of 1184 ends

If you want to sell our soul to development, then let it be parking and downtown business that will create a more firm tax base and compete with our neighbor cities that are excelling in providing for the tourist industry and city infrastructure.

Consider restructuring the old City building and Lyman park and make it usable TOT space and housing. Consider the Catholic school for alternative apartment housing in the business district. Offer refurbishment credits to add apartments over single story homes. I hear there is a five acre parcel behind the library that would make a good space for mixed use of apartments and services. Why isn’t that on the table as priority in an area already accustomed to high density housing? Regardless, I don’t think new residential development should be allowed until we can grasp the deep seated issues of lack TOT performing properties and parking to support it. People are just driving through.

There is no where to park. There is no reason to stay.

Overall, our community's opposition to high-density development on Site 10 reflects their desire to preserve the rural charm, safety, and quality of life in our neighborhood, prioritizing factors such as traffic management, privacy, noise control, and the conservation of essential resources. Help us preserve these inherent goods from years of committed, community life.

If you must change the zoning for a moment in time to resolve the misappropriations of previous zoning and get out from under the dreadful commitment of builder’s remedy then you must do so. But as quickly as you are willing to pass this, in the same breath you should be setting a goal date to renew the zoning and return it to medium density.

Consider committing it to an older, successful community, much like Vineyard Valley that continues to contribute to the health and vibrancy of St. Helena. They are active contributors, engaged and we need more of this.

The City has no guarantee of the type of applicants who will be accepted through high density promotion. We should not be subject to development company structures designed to meet quotas that we will not benefit from as a community. I have been interviewing downtown businesses and the hospital and there does not appear to be a shortage of workers needed who are interested in living here. People seem to have what they want and in apartments we already have committed there appears to be a decent amount of occupants commuting out of the area. This is not adding to our community. We need places that secure a space for our aging residents who can turn their single family homes over to a new generation and stay in this community without decade long waitlists and to our returning 20 somethings needing a place to move back to when they come home from college. We don’t need unknowns. We need to take care of the people who have dedicated their lives to this community. This site would be ideal for a community like Vineyard Valley. These people contribute to this community.

There are alternative strategies available for meeting the requirements of the Housing Element without resorting to high-density development on Site 10. Imposing high-density housing on Site 10 is not the most suitable or beneficial approach for our community.

Alternative methods exist that could fulfill our town's housing needs while mitigating the potential negative impacts associated with high-density development. These alternatives might include utilizing existing infrastructure more efficiently, repurposing underutilized or vacant properties, or implementing low-density housing solutions that better align with our town's rural character. Draw the line and find alternative financial resources to cover the fines and not be subject to accepting the tax stipend that comes along with meeting the requirements.

The city should have explored alternatives from the outset of the planning process for the Housing Element. This implies a degree of oversight or missed opportunity in the initial planning stages, where other viable options may not have been thoroughly considered or evaluated. I tell you - my life has changed, the people around me, their lives have changed in this last month, it is chaos - this is causing stress, tension, helplessness, frustration and we are being unnecessarily subjected to issues that effect our health and potential safety as a community. Who locks their doors and closes their windows and worries about their cars and privacy. It is quiet here at night. We like it that way, we pay for it. Mortgages count on it. It has never been considered until now. You are jeopardizing our mental and emotional health. Stand up for us. If it must rezone, then zone it back to medium and do us justice with single and occasional dual story spaces but focus on the community already here, give our people a place to safely continue on with this peaceful rural life.

Moving forward, advocate for us, for a more comprehensive exploration of alternative options during the revision of Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 998 of 1184 ends

the Housing Element. Change course of history and do the right thing. Create a desire for a more inclusive and transparent decision-making process that considers a broader range of possibilities to meet housing needs while preserving the rural identity and quality of life in this town, especially on this side of town. We are vested here. If it’s not illegal to put us through this mental health crisis, you should atleast consider your conscience and what it would be like for you if you lived here for 32 years, like us. How can you sleep at night, making decisions that will change the final footprint of our lives. Unjust.

We need an emergency call for a thoughtful strategic urban plan that prioritizes the long-term well-being and sustainability of this community, aiming to promote downtown business and increasing the tax base and business attraction we once were, now left behind by our neighbors. Focus energy downtown. You can not let us be pawns in the system. It is your duty to serve and make this wrong a right. Outside of Valley View and White Sulphur Springs becoming highways as alternative routes to hwy 29 traffic, that NO ONE is doing anything about, avoid more destruction to our pastoral, rural neighborhood and protect us, stand by us, and fight for us.

LisaMarie Andersen
1023 Valley View St.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 999 of 1184 ends

Page 1000 of 1184 ends

From: Danielle Davis
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment for City Council Meeting Item 11.1 Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 9:12:18 AM
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition against Site 10 being rezoned as a high density development. As a resident of this neighborhood I am concerned for my families wellbeing and safety, should Site 10 be developed. This would severely impact the character of the neighborhood and most importantly, infrastructure and utilities. Walking around our neighborhood is already dangerous with speeding cars and adding high density housing would only exacerbate that.

Neighbors within 300 feet of this parcel were not fairly notified about the Housing Element process and we still continue to get mixed information on what truly happened with the failed notification. Supposedly this plan to rezone the property between Valley View and Hudson has been ongoing for well over a year however we have emailed Maya asking if the property was slated to be rezoned during and after last years rezoning and were advised there was no change. Just because we didn't use proper terminology, she wasn't honest and transparent with us. Then after the failed notification this March, the city advised residents that there was a "glitch" in notifying surrounding properties, then at the City Planning Commission meeting on April 2 the city claimed they did give the community proper notice and now in Maya DeRosa's commentary in the St. Helena Star on 4/19 she finally admits that the city failed to send out notifications. So what is the true story?? This poor management and lack of transparency is very concerning for the city of St. Helena. I encourage the City Council to If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read the 90+ public comments from the April 2 Planning Commission meeting that majority are in opposition to the rezoning of site 10 (see here and here).

While it appears likely that the City will approve the rezoning to remove Builder's Remedy, the City must commit to revisiting the Housing Element, once recertified, to redo it with proper inclusion of the community. In particular, this effort should focus on finding alternate calculations and/or sites to satisfy the RHNA numbers. There are better options for achieving Housing Element numbers that would not impose high-density on Site 10. The City should have explored these options from the start and must be willing to explore these options going forward when redoing the Housing Element.

The City of St Helena's website states the following (see here):

The City from its inception has served as a rural agricultural center. Over the years, with the growth and development of the wine industry, the City has become an important business and banking center for the wine industry. The City also receives many visitors as a result of the wine industry and the area's scenic qualities. The main goal of the City is to maintain a small-town atmosphere and to provide quality services to its citizens.

I encourage you to remember this statement when voting on the General Plan Amendment, especially the underlined portion, as rezoning site 10 and potentially developing the existing vineyard land would not maintain this.

Thank you,
Danielle
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1001 of 1184 ends

Page 1002 of 1184 ends

From: susan kenward
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: [External] for tonights City Council meeting
Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 7:29:38 AM
Good Morning Cindy,
I hope you can include this in the letters for tonight's meeting. all the best,
Susan
April 22,2024
St. Helena City Council,
c/o Cindy Tzafopoulos
The staff continually claims they sufficiently engaged the citizens in the rezoning process for the Housing Element required by the state. Did they? Clearly, they forgot to send out the required mailer.

But also, let’s look at the timeline. This just doesn’t add up.

The city identified site 10 as a site for development and the city committed to rezoning the vineyard parcel to High Density as part of the Housing Element.

The Planning Commission approved the Housing Element on May 2, 2023.

The State Certified it on September 26, 2023
Here’s where it makes no sense.

The city passed the new zoning ordinance one month later, October 24, 2023, without ever mentioning the rezoning of Spring Street although they did agree to not change the Dean York area after much input from Citizens. There was a courtroom filled with citizens and tons of letters written on the change in the Dean York area. Citizens do pay attention.

The citizens who might be concerned with the Spring Street rezoning were never brought into the new zoning ordinance because it was never included.

The staff knew that site 10 was part of the approved Housing Element, why was it not included in the new zoning ordinance? At the very least, we should have waited on passing the new Zoning Ordinance until the new Housing Element had been added. I have not heard or seen them comment on this omission from the new code.

This is not engaging the citizens in the process. This is not a small, just “clean-up” of the zoning code.

A few other points: Who owns the development rights to these proposed rezoned properties? What happens if the owners decide not to sell? What would that do to the city’s calculations? Does it mean the state can force you to sell?
It would go a long way for the City Council tonight to instruct the staff to fix this! There are clear Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1003 of 1184 ends

pathways suggested which make sense and would work.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Susan Kenward
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1004 of 1184 ends

St. Helena City Council,
My name is Mike Quaglia, I am partial owner of site #10 in the housing element and the residence located at 1933 Spring St. I am submitting this letter on behalf of myself and my three siblings who make up the remaining portion of the ownership.

We have owned this property for over ninety years, we have seen it upzoned twice and have already sold a portion of the property specifically for residential development. Since the Planning Commission meeting in which site #10 was introduced to the public I have seen our city staff write rebuttals to the public attempting to justify their notification process and their public outreach. Money was spent on consultants, the process has supposedly been in the works three years and not once had anyone contacted the property owners? However, in the FAQ’s submitted as an attachment to this meeting it was stated that we (the property owners) are in favor of residential development on the site. We are in favor of a Medium Density Project on the site and we ARE NOT in favor of a rezoning to High Density Residential.

This is just one of many instances during this process that “facts” presented by city staff are manipulated to look like something else.

On 1-17-24, myself, my sister and our listing agents had a meeting with the Planning Director, Ms. De Rosa and Senior Planner Mr. Hecock to receive potential development information about the site. At that time, we were told that the housing element “trumped” current zoning codes and the city would not accept a MDR application for the site even though the zoning had not yet changed. This is when we discovered the upzoning was in the process. I asked about the legality of utilizing a zoning that has not yet been approved and she responded that they were confident they could “defend it”. I also asked about public notifications and once again was told they could “defend it.” Even after I voiced concerns over lack of notification staff still refused to make notification for the planning commission meeting originally scheduled for March 5, 2024, which was summed up as a glitch. I believe this false information was provided intentionally to dissuade us from submitting an MDR application which would have possibly disrupted the proposed housing element. The information we were provided by Ms. De Rosa regarding submitting a MDR application was confirmed on the record to be untrue by both the St. Helena Staff City Attorney and Planning Commission Chairperson at the April 2, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing. Has our community become such a large metropolis that we do things via a loophole or by finite legal dances and not by what’s right and fair for all stakeholders involved? We have three physical addresses in the city limits and I still work the vineyard at site #10 regularly and yet still no involvement in this process until now when we’ve been told it’s too late. A decision made solely by city staff which will de value millions of dollars of property and the property owners get a total of eight minutes of public comment??? Maybe if more than 12.5% of our city staff lived here and were directly affected by their decisions this might have played out very differently.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1005 of 1184 ends

We were told by the Planning Commission at the 4-2-24, meeting after they did not answer the majority of the questions asked that they “had a gun to their head.” The Senate Bills regarding this issue were not a surprise and if a gun got put to anybody’s head it was by our city staff with their failure to meet deadlines. Now you are given the choice of a Builders Remedy (which many cities are now fighting via local ordinances) or the Housing Element.

So basically, our city staff has you in position of making a decision based out fear which means your vote has been extorted. Well, you have a choice because the people that have elected you to represent their interests have been deceived and removed from what should have been a very public process. There is no doubt in my mind now, that the public was left out of the process intentionally as to not disrupt the Housing Element so they could get us to this point where you, our City Council “Has a gun to your head.” I would request that city staff provide all e mail threads between HCD and city staff regarding the direction given by the Planning Commission to further research Site #10 before the 4-23- 24, City Council Meeting. Also please include any follow up e mails during this period if HCD failed to respond.

I urge a NO vote from you tonight, however I don’t envy your position and sympathize with the position our city staff has put you in.

I would respectfully request Council pass a resolution that the home at 1933 Spring St. be removed from the historic overlay (as were not considered in this process as well). The house was placed in the overlay to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Apparently that is no longer the case if the same city staff personnel deemed the character of neighborhood to be multi family housing and not historic by re zoning site #10. Why should one family burden so much financial property loss in a process in which they had no input? Respectfully Submitted,
Mike Quaglia
Debra Mills
Janet Keene
Cynthia Quaglia
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1006 of 1184 ends

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Maxine Angell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:31 AM
To: Public Comment; Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; [email protected]; Billy Summers; Patrick Kenealy
Subject: [External] Site 10- Opposition to High Density Dear Mayor Dohring and City Council Members Eric Hall, Anna Chouteau, Billy Summers and Patrick Kenealy,
I am a 32 years resident of St. Helena, I live one house away from Site 10. I am writing with opposition to the rezoning of site 10 to high density. This letter follows two letters submitted to the Planning Commission and public comment before the Planning Commission on April 6.

I am also requesting the City Council demand transparency and accountability of all city employees. Finally, I request oversight by the City Council to insure that all appointed to the Planning Commission treat residents with civility, respect, and that the democratic process is not thwarted and/ or undermined.

As previously stated, I was not provided notice of the rezoning of 1933 Spring Street and I live within 300 yards. (St.

Helena Municipal Code sections 17.07.060 and 17.07.060 and State law) In the past month, the City has presented a several potential negative outcomes if the high density is not approved, however, these actions, such as fines, decertification by the State and Builders Remedy are directly related to the City's non-compliance with the state deadlines on two occasions.

The most basic question is why are City employees not complying with the laws? Why are city employees spending time and money since April 6, justifying the errors instead of attempting to remedy them.?

This is not the first time, the City has not provided legal notice In fact, this is the second time the failure to provide notice has occurred on Spring Street. Staff spent time with consultants and out of town "coalitions" anf failed to get any input from residents or provide legal notice.

Over the past ten years, the lack of accountability and transparency at City Hall has been raised repeatedly by residents, as well as the need to hire city hall staff who live in St. Helena. It appears that most of the management team do not live in St. Helena, including the Senior Planner, Director of Development, city attorney and city manager. New positions are added and we now have three Assistants to the City Manager, despite the population being relatively stable around 5,000 for the last thirty years, Despite additional staff and considerable expense, communication, transparency and accountability at City Hall is the worst I have seen ever in the three decades I've lived her.

Several months ago, I went to the police department and was told I could not speak to an officer directly that I had to speak to ancillary staff.Covid is long over, yet how many employees are physically located at City Hall? There were over 80 letters of opposition to the rezoning of 1933 to high density for the Planning Commision. Planning commission member Chad Krsek stated that he would look into alternatives. I dont have any information about the alternatives, as of today, yet there have been repeated communciations about how the city provided adequate notice.

I respectfully request
1) the City Council keep 1933 Spring Street medium density and if not, that a vote is postponed until residents have the opportunity to obtain additional information from the State regarding alternatives. 2) The city counsei insure a traffic study is done to address residents traffic and safety concerns regarding the proposed project. On the agenda tonight is approval for $40,000 for fireworks, surely the city can afford a traffic study. Water and safety concerns need to be addressed as well.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1007 of 1184 ends

2 3) I am seeking that the City Council review the tape of the Planning Commission meeting of April 6 as the the following conduct i observed was concerning. a) There was excessive gavel pounding from the Chair. I was also told there was inappropriate language and that a resident was told "put a sock in it." to stop speaking. b) Residents were told unless they commissioned a traffic study, it was not "evidence" regarding their traffic and safety concerns with the project.
c) The website states the city attorney is Ethan Walsh,however, a woman spoke at the April 6 meeting who was identified as the city attorney and said proper notice was provided, which was disputed. Why isnt Ethan Walsh at meetings?
d) Please provide copies of the zoning code for the past five years. I believe notice is required for housing element rezoning.

Thank you for your consideration,
Maxine L. Angell
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1008 of 1184 ends

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Amy Particelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:45 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10: public comment
Dear Saint Helena City Council,
Our neighborhood has come together to strongly oppose the re-zoning of site 10 from medium density to high density. It is a shame that we did not have an opportunity to be part of the planning of this rezoning.

The notification system about the housing element was a failure. We are left with the consequences for the planning commissions negligence as the following is stated:
"There is no replacement parcel for Site 10 on the west side that would allow the City to “swap sites” without re-starting the Housing Element process."
How is it possible a three-story complex would even be considered for site 10 when the 45 houses surrounding this are single story- this is not in line with the aesthetic of the neighborhood. What about our privacy? Would you want this in your backyard? The safety of my children is a huge concern- how could they safely bike or walk to school?
I urge you to reconsider this rezoning and please do what is fair for our neighborhood. We will continue to fight this rezoning.

Thank you,
Amy Particelli
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1009 of 1184 ends

Page 1010 of 1184 ends

1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Ana Canales <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:52 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Site 10 Development & Housing Element To Our City Council Members,
We have a few comments regarding the situation with the Housing Element and Site 10 development.

First, there have always been better options for achieving Housing Element numbers that would not impose highdensity on Site 10. The City should have explored these options from the start and must be willing to explore these options going forward when updating the Housing Element.

Secondly, we do not support the High Density development on Site 10. A high density development on Site 10 would negatively impact hundreds of full time local residents of St. Helena by impacting traffic, parking, safety, privacy, noise, water, sewer, height restrictions, school routes, and other issues. The character of a neighborhood that is made up almost exclusively of folks that actually live here will be changed forever. The current zoning of medium density makes much more sense in terms of all these issues, but most importantly, how the property fits into the neighborhood.

Thirdly, The community was not fairly noticed about the Housing Element process. A mailed notice this late, after the City already promised to rezone, is neither reasonable nor responsible.

Although your staff claims that Site 10 had to be included to meet “AFFH mandates aimed at overcoming patterns of segregation and fostering inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.” The Staff must not have informed the State that our largest low income complex, Stonebridge, is contiguous to the Howard Backen designed Montessori School and the Napa Valley College Campus, currently under lease bu the City - this is hardly an undesirable location. Hunts Grove is contiguous to the Meadowcreek neighborhood. We sold a family home there in 2019 for over $1.6M - property values were not affected by being on the “east side". Yet, both Stonebridge and Hunts Grove were built at the edges of St. Helena, as was Vineyard Valley - where open space was available and traffic, privacy, sewer and water was not an issue.

Lastly, while it seems that the City Council will approve the rezoning to remove Builder's Remedy, the City Council must commit to revisiting the Housing Element, once recertified, to redo it with proper inclusion of all stakeholders. In particular, this effort should focus on finding alternate calculations and/or sites to satisfy the RHNA numbers. This CANNOT be a - oops! sorry too late! action.

In the future, we ask that the St. Helena Staff be mandated to seek the counsel of the people who actually live here in town - not with a last minute notice, but with real communication. We have been active community members for over forty years and would love to participate in some meaningful dialogue to solve the problem of affordable housing in town.

Thank you for your considerations and for all the good works you do on our behalf.

Ana Canales & Bruce Streblow
1219 Stockton Street
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1011 of 1184 ends

Page 1012 of 1184 ends

From: Jessica Hague
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment: City Council Meeting April 23: Agenda Item 11.1 Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 12:24:47 PM
Dear City Councilmembers Dohring, Hall, Chouteau, Kenealy, and Summers, I have previously written to the City and Planning Commission regarding the rezoning of site 10: 1933 Spring Street to High density. As a long-time resident of Hudson Avenue, I continue to be adamantly opposed. Allowing multi-story structures in the midst of singlestory homes will have permanent, significant, and negative impacts on traffic, safety, water, sewer, school routes, evacuation route access, privacy, and the character of the neighborhood.

The lack of proper notice to citizens on the Housing Element process is well documented.

Actions taken by the City Staff resulted in limited responses to the significant rezoning updates, which should have been an indicator to the City Staff and City Council that their methods to engage the community on this high-stakes decision had failed. Further, it is inexcusable that direct notice to the impacted residents was received after the City promised to rezone, and the content of the late-arriving letter indicated that the decision had already been made with no recourse for concerned citizens. I urge the City Council to require City Staff to redouble their efforts to engage citizens in a meaningful and inclusive manner when approaching future decisions with such significant impacts.

I expect more from City Staff and believe they have put the City Council in a difficult position to act.

The City has an opportunity now to consider options for achieving the Housing Element goals without the dramatic and negative impact on Spring Street and surrounding neighborhoods. It’s clear that St Helena citizens oppose the Spring Street rezoning to high density, as voiced by the 90++ public comments received at the Planning Commission meeting on April 2, and the comments received in advance of today’s meeting. Understanding that the City’s consistently missed deadlines have resulted in decertification of the Housing Element and triggered Builder’s Remedy, the City Council must act accordingly.

Councilmembers, there are better options for achieving Housing Element numbers that would not impose high-density development on the Spring Street property. It requires your commitment to reopening the Housing Element after recertification and the willingness to explore options. I urge you to work to maintain the mediumdensity zoning of the Spring Street property via evaluation of the other opportunity sites and the calculations to satisfy the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Thank you for your consideration, and service to this effort. My neighbors and I are engaged, receptive, and responsive – and willing to work together to find a solution.

Respectfully,
Jessica Hague
1154 Hudson Avenue
Jessica Hague
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1013 of 1184 ends

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

Page 1014 of 1184 ends

1 City of Saint Helena City Council
Regular MeeƟng Tuesday, April 23, 2024 @ 6PM
Vintage Hall Board Room – Second Floor
465 Main Street, Saint Helena
David Prueter
1181 Valley View Street, Saint Helena
[email protected]
330-206-0094
April 23, 2024
Dear Saint Helena City Council:

I write regarding Public Hearing Agenda Item 11.1 of the City of Saint Helena City Council Regular MeeƟng scheduled for Tuesday, April 23, 2024.

As evidenced by the more than 100 leƩers recently submiƩed to the City, it’s fair to say that something in the process didn’t go well. To compound the situaƟon, we find ourselves now, as a City, under Builder’s Remedy. Some of the details explaining how we got here and what went wrong along the way have come to light over the last weeks and months. It’s a complex issue with no easy soluƟons.

For many of us, the prospect of a mulƟ-story, high-density housing complex constructed in the center of a low-mid density residenƟal neighborhood threatens our home values and our livelihoods. This is not an unreasonable belief, and I presume it is true for any property owner in Saint Helena. Residents are upset, frustrated, and anxious. Individual plans for reƟrement, financial stability, and overall lifestyle are threatened and appear to be at risk of dramaƟcally changing. Considering what is it at stake, the community’s apprehension is understandable.

Despite such reasonable apprehension, I am dismayed to see an unfortunate trend emerging from all of this: an us (the City) versus them (the community) divide. This division was shockingly apparent to anyone who aƩended or later watched the Planning Commission MeeƟng on April 2, 2024.

The Chair showed a level of arrogance, disdain, and condescension directed at community members that was unprofessional and inappropriate. Community members should not be vilified for voicing sincere concern about a perceived extreme transformaƟon to their neighborhood that risks their overall way of life. How does one not conclude the presence of an us versus them divide when the Chair repeatedly slams his gavel, yells “put a sock in it, dude,” and then encourages the community to “pursue it in Court” if they are dissaƟsfied. That type of behavior is embarrassing and unproducƟve and creates a liability for the City.

When the Vice Chair contends that he cannot consider any public comments regarding increased traffic and parking issues because no one submiƩed a traffic study, how can a member of the community not feel an us versus them divide? Must private ciƟzens commission an official traffic study for the City to listen to their common-sense concern that 100+ new housing units on an already busy street will increase traffic? Is that really the tone that the City wants to promote? The ciƟzens of Saint Helena have entrusted the City Council to represent them and any conƟnued unwillingness to acknowledge a breakdown in the democraƟc process only serves to further the City versus community divide. While no decision by the Council will immediately resolve this tension, some empathy and accountability may begin to facilitate a course correcƟon that is sorely needed.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1015 of 1184 ends

2 To regain cerƟficaƟon of the Housing Element and Remove Builder’s Remedy as quickly as possible, it appears that the City Council needs to approve the rezoning outlined in the Staff Report.

Rezoning Site 10 to high-density presents many serious risks with respect to traffic, parking, safety, privacy, noise, water, sewer, height restricƟons, school routes, and other issues impacƟng the character of the neighborhood. To beƩer address these concerns, the City Council should commit to revisiƟng the Housing Element, once Builder’s Remedy is removed, with a focus on finding alternate calculaƟons and/or sites to saƟsfy the RHNA numbers that would not impose high-density on Site 10.

Sincerely,
David Prueter
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1016 of 1184 ends

Water Audit California

A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
952 SCHOOL STREET #316 NAPA CA 94559
VOICE: (707) 681-5111
EMAIL: [email protected]
April 23, 2024
St. Helena City Planning Commission
Sent via email to: [email protected]
Find that the proposed changes to General Plan Figure 2.1 and the City’s Zoning Map are consistent with adopted Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Housing Element and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act A. This action is predicated on the assertion that an appeal of the 254- unit RHNA assignment was denied. In fact, no such appeal was ever made.
“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… “Since we submitted our last correspondence to AGAB 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…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…” Attachment p. 004
RE: City of St Helena Agenda April 23, 2024
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1017 of 1184 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter re Housing Element April 23, 2024

Page 2 of 6 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
B. The City of St Helena (CSH) knows its water supply is inadequate. (Attachment p. 001-008)
In 2019 the City of St. Helena (CSH) recognized “annual safe yield could decrease if the City finds that it cannot sustainably withdraw water from the City production wells at current levels.” Attachment p. 001
“The City needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more water savings, even under current conditions in order to reliably meet the current and future water demand.” Attachment p. 002
“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… Attachment p. 004 “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.” Attachment p. 005
“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…The City raised concerns and objections to its RHNA numbers on two separate occasions (see Attachments 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” residential development, fire threats in our surrounding hillsides, and more. Despite these facts, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) rejected the City’s request.” Attachment p. 005 See contra above: “we are not filing an appeal.” Attachment p. 004 Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1018 of 1184 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter re Housing Element April 23, 2024

Page 3 of 6 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
“The City has adequate water supply to meet current demand, however the effects of climate change will likely reduce water supply from current sources. The City needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more water savings in order to reliably meet future water demand.” Attachment p. 006
C. Napa County knows that CSH is an environmental blight. (Attachment 009-015)
Undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater levels occur when groundwater levels at 20 percent of the groundwater level RMS are below the MT in the fall (September through October) for three consecutive years of fall measurements in non-drought years. As of WY 2022, eight of the 27 groundwater level RMS (i.e., 30 percent of the groundwater level RMS) had water levels below the MT in the fall for three consecutive years. Five of these sites were in the Yountville subarea, and the other three sites were in the St. Helena. Attachment p. 010 Attachment p. 010
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1019 of 1184 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter re Housing Element April 23, 2024

Page 4 of 6 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
Attachment p. 010
The prioritization score … can be used to prioritize intensive sites but also to identify sites where additional hydrologic data are needed (e.g., sites with high ecological importance scores and low hydrologic information scores). Eight of the 21 sites had the highest ecologic score. These sites included … Napa near St. Helena, Attachment p. 011
Interconnected Surface Water and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Workplan: Napa Valley Subbasin:

Groundwater levels decline by approximately 5 to 10 feet during the dry season and fell below the Minimum Threshold during the 2020 and 2021 dry seasons (Figure 5- 2). The ground surface in this figure is the ground surface adjacent to the groundwater well. Dynamic river stage values below the streambed elevation at this site reflect conditions where water is present but below the surveyed thalweg elevation because the thalweg location and gage location are not exactly co-located. Stable stage measurements in the dry season likely represent isolated pool or dry conditions at the site as suggested by Stream Watch data. …
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1020 of 1184 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter re Housing Element April 23, 2024

Page 5 of 6 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
The NVIHM results indicate that the Napa River is disconnected from groundwater more frequently in this reach than in most other mainstem reaches. The model indicates that groundwater pumping causes this reach to go dry (or nearly dry) in July through September in Dry to Normal water year types from 1988 to 2014. Stream Watch data support the modeled results showing that dry conditions occur in fall in in 5 of the 6 years from 2017-2023 (Figure 5-2).

Isolated pools do not persist for long at this site, with aperiodic observations spanning a few days to up to a month. The channel goes dry when the shallow groundwater elevation is approximately equal to the thalweg elevation. [ See preceding image] The NVIHM results indicate groundwater pumping contributes to decreases in Napa River flows in this reach and increases the frequency and duration of dry conditions for the Napa River mainstem. Monthly discharge typically increases under the No Pumping scenario compared with the Baseline scenario, and the frequency of low/no-flow days is lower under the No Pumping scenario, particularly during the dry season (Table 5-3). Flow in this reach may also be affected by upstream water management, including Kimball and Bell Canyon dams, as well as in-channel diversions. Baseline model scenario. The Baseline scenario includes agricultural pumping. P. 72
The site supports critical habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are presumed extant in this area but have been observed only along Sulphur and Conn Creeks, not along the mainstem. … Groundwater pumping in the vicinity, including the municipal pumps for St.

Helena, as well as pumping upstream, contributes to stream depletion at St. Helena. ...

Linkages between flow and habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon are not well understood.

Page 1021 of 1184 ends

Water Audit California Comment Letter re Housing Element April 23, 2024

Page 6 of 6 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
of the 6 years from 2017-2023 (Figure 5-2). Isolated pools do not persist for long at this site, with aperiodic observations spanning a few days to up to a month. The channel goes dry when the shallow groundwater elevation is approximately equal to the thalweg elevation.

D. CSH knows that its groundwater monitoring is adequate. (Attachment 016-017)
E. Existing CSH extraction from the Stonebridge wells is causing unlawful environmental injury. (Attachment 021-150) Respectfully,
William McKinnon
General Counsel
Direct Dial: 530.575.5335
Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1022 of 1184 ends

Groundwater accounts for less than 5 percent of the water supply used by municipalities in the Subbasin. Currently, the City of St. Helena is the only municipality within the Subbasin that regularly extracts groundwater. The City of St. Helena reported on average 310 AF of groundwater extraction annually between 1988 to 2022 and approximately 450 AF of groundwater extraction during WY 2022, P. 28
The City of St. Helena operates Bell Canyon Reservoir and receives additional SWP water through the North Bay Aqueduct from sales received from the City of Napa. P. 29 Groundwater level MT exceedances occurred at .. one site in the St. Helena subarea .... P. 61 Undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater levels occur when groundwater levels at 20 percent of the groundwater level RMS are below the MT in the fall (September through October) for three consecutive years of fall measurements in non-drought years. As of WY 2022, eight of the 27 groundwater level RMS (i.e., 30 percent of the groundwater level RMS) had water levels below the MT in the fall for three consecutive years. Five of these sites were in the Yountville subarea, and the other three sites were in the St. Helena. P 62
InSAR-derived total land surface elevation changes from June 2015 to June 2022 … Between June 2015 and June 2022, total subsidence within the Subbasin ranged from +0.1 inches to -2.5 inches (+0.01 to -0.21 feet), with an accuracy of +/- 0.71 inches (0.06 feet) at 95 percent confidence level.

According to InSAR imagery, the greatest amount of downward land displacement over that period occurred in an area south of St. Helena (Figure 6-35).

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000001 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1023 of 1184 ends

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000002 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1024 of 1184 ends

The prioritization score … can be used to prioritize intensive sites but also to identify sites where additional hydrologic data are needed (e.g., sites with high ecological importance scores and low hydrologic information scores). Eight of the 21 sites had the highest ecologic score. These sites included … Napa near St. Helena, p. 61 There were 2 sites with the 10 points maximum score (Napa River near Oak Knoll, Napa River near Yountville)), 1 site with nine points (Napa River near St. Helena)… P. 63 Based on the rankings … six sites are recommended initially for Intensive monitoring (sites with scores of 8 or greater). These include … Napa near St. Helena ,.. Sulphur Creek which supports multiple lifestages for steelhead and Chinook salmon and has foothill yellow-legged frogs, and Bale Slough which is part of an ongoing restoration project. Despite having a higher priority score than the other tributaries (except Sulphur Creek), Bale Slough was selected as an intensive survey site rather than York Creek to avoid having 3 of the 6 sites within a 2 square mile area. Additionally, Bale Slough will provide a monitoring within the subbasin between St. Helena and Yountville. P. 64
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000003 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1025 of 1184 ends

P. 68
Napa River at Pope Street (St. Helena) …
Groundwater levels decline by approximately 5 to 10 feet during the dry season and fell below the Minimum Threshold during the 2020 and 2021 dry seasons (Figure 5-2). The ground surface in this figure is the ground surface adjacent to the groundwater well. Dynamic river stage values below the streambed elevation at this site reflect conditions where water is present but below the surveyed thalweg elevation because the thalweg location and gage location are not exactly co-located. Stable stage measurements in the dry season likely represent isolated pool or dry conditions at the site as suggested by Stream Watch data. …
The NVIHM results indicate that the Napa River is disconnected from groundwater more frequently in this reach than in most other mainstem reaches. The model indicates that groundwater pumping causes this reach to go dry (or nearly dry) in July through September in Dry to Normal water year types from 1988 to 2014. Stream Watch data support the modeled results showing that dry conditions occur in fall in in 5 of the 6 years from 2017-2023 (Figure 5-2).

Isolated pools do not persist for long at this site, with aperiodic observations spanning a few days to up to a month. The channel goes dry when the shallow groundwater elevation is approximately equal to the thalweg elevation. The NVIHM results indicate groundwater pumping contributes to decreases in Napa River flows in this reach and increases the frequency and duration of dry conditions for the Napa River mainstem. Monthly discharge typically increases under the No Pumping scenario compared with the Baseline scenario, and the frequency of low/no-flow days is lower under the No Pumping scenario, particularly during the dry season (Table 5-3). Flow in this reach may also be affected by upstream water management, including Kimball and Bell Canyon dams, as well as in-channel diversions. Baseline model scenario. The Baseline scenario includes agricultural pumping. P. 72
The site supports critical habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are presumed extant in this area but have been observed only along Sulphur and Conn Creeks, not along the mainstem. … Groundwater pumping in the vicinity, including the municipal pumps for St. Helena, as well as pumping upstream, contributes to stream depletion at St. Helena. ... Linkages between flow and habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon are not well understood.

The NVIHM results indicate that the Napa River is disconnected from groundwater more frequently in this reach than in most other mainstem reaches. The model indicates that groundwater pumping … causes this reach to go dry (or nearly dry) in July through September in Dry to Normal water year types from 1988 to 2014. Stream Watch data support the modeled results showing that dry conditions occur in fall in in 5 of the 6 years from 2017-2023 (Figure 5-2). Isolated pools do not persist for long at this site, with aperiodic observations spanning a few days to up to a month. The channel goes dry when the shallow groundwater elevation is approximately equal to the thalweg elevation.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000004 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1026 of 1184 ends

The NVIHM results indicate groundwater pumping contributes to decreases in Napa River flows in this reach and increases the frequency and duration of dry conditions for the Napa River mainstem.

P. 73
The NVIHM results indicate that groundwater pumping upstream of this reach, north of Yountville to St. Helena, is the most significant contributor to stream depletion in the Napa River at Napa reach.

P. 88
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000005 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1027 of 1184 ends

Municipal groundwater extraction occurs from three supply wells operated by the City of St. Helena to supplement surface water supply.

P. 6
Reducing net depletion generally requires reducing the consumptive use of groundwater, either by reducing total consumptive use or by replacing some groundwater use with another water source, such as recycled water. Reducing total groundwater pumping can also be achieved by reducing consumptive use or by improving water use efficiency and implementing water conservation measures. Water conservation can be achieved by implementing new technology, changing water use and management behavior, or by a combination of technology and management. All water users—including agricultural, urban/residential, and commercial/industrial—can potentially conserve water in the Subbasin.
• In-lieu use strategies. In-lieu water use strategies reduce groundwater pumping by switching to an alternative surface water source. P. 15
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000006 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1028 of 1184 ends

Municipal pumping accounts for approximately 3 percent of total groundwater extraction in the Subbasin (Figure 2-2). Municipal and small public water supply pumping averages 390 AFY and ranges from 180 to 530 AFY from 2005 through 2014 (Figure 2-1).

P 8
“Currently, the City of St. Helena is the only municipality within the Subbasin that regularly extracts groundwater.” Supra.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000007 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1029 of 1184 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
6 CSH is unable to locate all wells withing its jurisdiction, and although required by Ordinance to acquire extraction information records remain incomplete. Staff is understating the problem of inadequately reported well locations.

In the larger scale one can seek the juxtaposition of well density and drying reaches:

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000008 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1030 of 1184 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
7 In this graphic produced by the County, one can see the close alignment between extractions and watercourses:

A group of concerned citizens, Save Napa Valley Foundation, as part of the Refugia Project, prepared a model environmental monitoring schema. We exhibit it here AGAIN as an example of sufficient monitoring.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000009 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1031 of 1184 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
8 Future tasking.

Water Audit’s message is simple: “You manage what you measure.” Under the current administration we have been marching in circles whenever it is not possible to actually retreat from the objective.

Unless the problem is approached holistically, inclusively, and with the utmost integrity, a solution cannot be found. The only other option is continuing failure – for an unsustainable water basin must be acknowledged as a failure – and continuing controversy.

Attached for your reference are four reports. The first challenges the County’s legal policy of deeming existing potential environmental injury as immune from review, the second describes the public trust interests to be protected, the third deals with the evidence of environmental injury arising from current extraction decisions, and the last details the result of data analysis in an area in which groundwater extraction has been recently approved by the County.

Dr. Karrigan Börk is an acting professor of law at the University of California Davis specializing in environmental law. Dr. Börk’s report and curriculum vita are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. In synopsis, Dr. Börk opines that subdivisions of the state have a duty to consider the public trust interest when making decisions impacting water that is imbued with the public trust. He asserts that the question of whether groundwater-related decisions must consider the public trust begins and ends with whether the challenged activity harms a navigable waterway and thereby violates the public trust. He opines that the public trust requires reconsideration of past or ongoing water use decisions where those decisions were made without any consideration of the impact upon the public trust.

Dr. Peter B. Moyle is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus of the University of California Davis and co-founder of the Center of Watershed Sciences. His report and curriculum vita are attached hereto as Exhibit 3. In synopsis, Dr. Moyle opines that for native fishes and other aquatic organisms to thrive in the Napa River, they need a flow regime that contains features of the natural flow. Data from the nearest stream flow gauge on the Napa River show that years with no summer flows have persisted since 2000. He states that fishes are much reduced from historic abundance, in large part due to degradation of potential habitat (e.g., by dry reaches).

D
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000010 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1032 of 1184 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA
A California Public Benefit Corporation
952 School Street, #316
Napa, CA 94559
Voice: (707) 681-5111
Email: [email protected]
9 Dr. Graham Fogg is a Professor Emeritus of Hydrogeology in the Department of Land, Air and Water Resources at UC Davis. Dr. Fogg’s report and curriculum vita are attached hereto as Exhibit 5. In synopsis, Dr. Fogg opines that dry stream flow trends are not simply a climate change response, and that the streamflow and groundwater data clearly point to a cause-effect relationship between river flows and groundwater pumping. Further, Dr. Fogg opines that there is inadequate monitoring in Napa County to make a full assessment of potential public trust injuries, but nevertheless is able to conclude: “I strongly assert that both shallow and deep groundwater pumping in this basin, including pumping from deep, so-called confined aquifer wells, can each significantly affect the river flows.” Dr. Ted Grantham is an Associate Professor at the University of California Berkeley. Dr.

Grantham’s report and curriculum vita are attached hereto as Exhibit 4. In synopsis, Dr.

Grantham opines that minimum flows observed in the Napa River near St. Helena show a distinctive decline in the past 20 years. The minimum 7-day flow has consistently been zero since 2006, indicating that the Napa River at the gauge now runs dry every year. Although the Napa River has ceased to flow in the past, these occurrences have been rare and have never occurred in more than two consecutive years prior to 2006. Since 2001, the number of zero days has been increasing at an average rate of 7 days per year. He concludes that water withdrawals at or near the streamflow gauge are dewatering the Napa River. The effects of these withdrawals on dry-season flows are evident around 2000 and appear to be increasing in magnitude since that time. There is a significant, increasing trend in the number of zero-flow days observed in the river.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000011 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1033 of 1184 ends

EXHIBIT 1
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000012 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1034 of 1184 ends

WATER AUDIT CALIFORNIA

A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
952 SCHOOL STREET #316 NAPA CA 94559
VOICE: (707) 681-5111
EMAIL: [email protected]

Water Audit California is a public interest advocacy group that seeks to optimize the interests of the public in watercourses.

The Napa River and its tributaries are subject to the public trust doctrine.

The Napa River flows from north to south through the Napa Valley. It is a federal and state designated navigable water course. The river and its fishable tributaries (identified below) are part of the public trust.

Mainstem Napa River consists of about 40 miles of channel and covers 426 square miles. The river enters San Pablo Bay at the city of Vallejo. Lower Napa River is tidal to approximately 0.25 miles upstream of Trancas Bridge in the city of Napa. Major tributaries include Dry Creek, Redwood Creek, Sulphur Creek, Conn Creek, Soda Creek, Milliken Creek, and Napa Creek. Kimball Canyon Dam, near the headwaters of the Napa River, is a complete barrier to upstream fish migration….

A rare, watershed-wide steelhead resource analysis was performed by DFG in 1969 for the Napa drainage. In the final document, DFG estimated the standing crop of juvenile steelhead1 at 87,5000 to 144,000 fish … According to DFG, this crop would result in an adult run of 580 to 960 steelhead …2

A confluence of three major factors have led to a dramatic decline in fish populations:
degraded water quality, impaired passage, and diminished flow. While many explanations are offered for continuing failure to maintain sustainable aquatic life, one obvious reason is the tendency of statutes to address the ecological and natural resources in piecemeal fashion. 1 A redd is a spawning nest made by a salmon or trout. Depending on the species and size, each female lays from 2,000 to 6,000 round, pinky- orange eggs, about 6 to 9 mm in diameter. Because of natural risks such as predation and anthropogenic human injury such as silt covering and suffocating the eggs, low dissolved oxygen, pollution, and blockages in stream flow, only about 2% will hatch into alevin, the second stage in the life cycle where the baby salmon will break free of the egg's soft shell retaining the yolk as a nutrient-rich sac that hangs below its body. This stage lasts for until the fish begin to feed in about a month. In the third stage of life juvenile steelhead are referred to as smolts. About 2% of hatched alevin (i.e. 0.04% of eggs) will survive to maturity in the ocean and return to spawn. 2 Leidy, Becker, Harvey (2005) Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout in Streams of San Francisco Bay Estuary, Center for Ecosystem Management, Oakland, CA, p. 213 Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000013 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1035 of 1184 ends

Wa 2
Legislative fragmentation fails to reflect the ecological reality of the interconnected systems of nature.

Water Audit believes that the comprehensive nature of the evolving public trust doctrine provides a mechanism for comprehensive remediation. As the California Supreme Court has held: “The only argument appears to be that the absence of an existing fish population makes it hard to know how much water ought to be released. The answer is - enough to restore the historic fishery.” (California Trout v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 187.) The life cycle of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) includes a year or two of residency in natal fresh water before travelling to the ocean. Anthropogenic injury, including loss of refugia pools, frequent drying reaches and interruption of connectivity has resulted in steelhead being designated in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) as “threatened.”3

Napa Resource Conservation District (NRCD) annual rotary screw trap surveys of steelhead smolts show a species tottering on the verge, (2018 [147]; 2019 [114]; 2020 [44]). The most recent NRCD surveys did not distinguish between fall run Chinook and steelhead, observing 3 redds in 2019 and 60 in 2020. A survey was not conducted in 2021 due to the pandemic, and 2022 is reported to not yet be finalized.

In addition to steelhead, for millions of years the endangered California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) are reported to have persisted in this reach of the Napa River. They were present as late as 2002 but are now believed extirpated because of repeated drying of their reach. As will be discussed below, their loss occurred contemporaneously with new extractions from Stonebridge that began that year.

Reconciling extraction demands with the needs of the environment is critical for the preservation of fish populations. “Despite increased investments in hatcheries and fish production across the Pacific northwest, widespread salmon declines continue ... 83% of California fishes face extinction if present trends continue (Moyle et al. 2011.) Hatchery fish are sometimes released into the environment with little regard for their effects on local ecosystems or on wild fish that already live in the recipient ecosystems.”4 The Recent History of Groundwater in the Napa Subbasin.

In about 1929, the US Geological Service (USGS) installed a surface water monitoring well near to the Pope Street bridge over the Napa River. In about 1990 a local farmer and philanthropist, David Garden, drilled the first Stonebridge well. The Garden well was subsequently purchased by the City of St. Helena (CSH) and made an integral part of the city’s water supply system.
3Threatened species are plants and animals that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. 4 Hatcheries Alone Cannot Save Species and Fish, California Water Blog, Rypel and Moyle (April 2023) Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000014 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1036 of 1184 ends

Wa 3
In November 1994, CSH commissioned a report from Richard C. Slade and Associates titled “Hydrogeologic Assessment for Water Well Feasibility for City of St. Helena, Napa Valley, California” (“Hydrological Assessment”).)

In fall 2020, Water Audit retained hydrologist Rob Gailey to review and report on the Hydrological Assessment. He advised that it presented information and conclusions that indicated a hydrologic connection between the groundwater system and surface water contained in the Napa River. Gailey’s report concluded that there is a surface water/ groundwater interface by which the Napa River recharges the groundwater system pumped by production wells, even if the wells are screened only in the deeper volcanic rocks. It reports that production wells screened and/or gravel packed in the alluvium, or in the alluvium and deeper volcanics, can draw directly from the alluvium that is in direct contact with the Napa River.

Based in part on Slade’s finding that the Napa River would recharge extractions, in 2002, CSH drilled a second potable well, which together with the Garden well and two Napa County monitoring wells are referred to as the Stonebridge complex. Together with stored water in Bell Canyon Reservoir and State Water Project water wheeled through the City of Napa, constitute the entire CSH water supply system. The extraction produced by the Stonebridge complex varies from year to year. For example, for the CSH fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, CSH reports the Stonebridge complex annual production of 553.38 AF (180.25 Million Gallons), or 32.7% of the total water supplied.

USGS data indicates that from 1929 until the drilling of the second Stonebridge well, in all but one year the Napa River flowed continually. Now it dries in more years than not, and for increasingly longer periods, now extending for several months.

As early as 2010, the County’s consulting engineers, Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE) informed a citizen’s advisory committee of the diminution of surface flows by groundwater extraction. The committee, dominated by winery interests, was explicitly unwilling to consider the problem.

In its April 2014 final report to the Board of Supervisors, the Groundwater Resources Advisory Committee (GRAC) recognized the potential problem of extractions dewatering surface waters and voted to ignore the issue. “The majority of GRAC members recommended the County maintain the existing WAA [water availability analysis] process, not revise the well‐towell interference criterion, and not add a new criterion for well‐to‐surface water interference.”

This decision has led to a decade of willful blindness in Napa County. Even as the state sought to remediate the problem of surface water depletions, at every juncture Napa has sought to avoid the issue.

In September 2014, the Legislature adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA); Wat. Code, § 10720 et seq. The valley portion of Napa County was identified as a priority sub-basin. Accordingly, SGMA required Napa County to either submit evidence by the Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000015 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1037 of 1184 ends

Wa 4
end of 2017 that the County was sustainable in its groundwater utilization, (herein an “Alt Plan”) or form a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) to develop and implement a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to avoid undesirable results and mitigate overdraft within 20 years.

GSAs are charged with procedural and substantive obligations designed to balance the needs of the various stakeholders in groundwater in an effort to preserve, and replenish to the extent possible, this diminishing and critical resource. (Water Code §§ 10721, subds. (u), (v), (x)(6), 10723.2, 10725.2, 10725.4, 10726.2, 10726.4, 10726.5.)

In 2015, LSCE reported to the Napa County Watershed Information and Conservation Council (“WIIC”) an example of the dewatering surface waters by groundwater extraction earlier report to the GRAC: the cause of the Napa River drying at Pope Street in St. Helena. In two slides LSCE showed the relationship between the Stonebridge complex extraction, a lower groundwater level and a dry river.

In 2015, Napa County adopted Water Availability Analysis Guidelines (WAA). While the WAA provided for review of larger wells that were proposed to be located proximate to watercourses, the provisions were not vigorously enforced. Frequently blue water streams and water courses are simply left off submittals, and their omission brushed off by the planning commission.

In 2016, LSCE recommended that Napa County install additional monitoring of groundwater/surface water interactions in areas where data was lacking. No additional monitoring was installed.

In 2017, Napa submitted an Alt Plan that claimed stable groundwater levels over a 28year base period. LSCE avoided discussing substantively the issue of potential injury to the public trust or interference with groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE). Under SGMA, GDEs are ecological communities or species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers or groundwater occurring near the ground surface (GSP Regulation §351(m)).

The Alt Plan was rejected by the DWR in November 2019. As the Rejection largely mirrors current difficulties, the comments are recited at length.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000016 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1038 of 1184 ends

Wa 5
DWR stated that the sustainability indicators section conflated “three requirements of the sustainable management criteria set out in the GSP Regulations: undesirable results, [UR] minimum thresholds, [MT] and measurable objectives [MO].”

23 CCR § 354.28(c)(1) specifies that the MT for chronic lowering of groundwater levels shall be based on groundwater elevations indicating a depletion of supply that may lead to undesirable results;
23 CCR § 354.28(c)(2) specifies that the minimum threshold for depletions of interconnected surface water shall be the rate or volume of surface water depletions caused by groundwater use that has adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water and may lead to undesirable results; and

23 CCR § 354.32 requires that each basin be monitored, and that a monitoring network include monitoring objectives, monitoring protocols, and data reporting requirements be developed that shall promote the collection of data of sufficient quality, frequency, and distribution to characterize groundwater and related surface water conditions in the basin and evaluate changing conditions.

DWR also noted that monitoring was inadequate. Only eight wells had ten years of reporting, and consistent with the 2014 GRAC recommendations to the County to “see no evil,” DWR found that surface water ground water interfaces were inadequately measured.

The [Alt Plan] states that 18 wells were identified as representative monitoring sites for tracking minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for all six sustainability indicators.

Of the representative monitoring wells used for groundwater levels, storage, and depletions of interconnected surface water, 10 of the wells did not have 10 or more years of data. These 10 wells are the multi-completion wells installed in 2014, specifically for monitoring surface water-groundwater interactions. No information was found in the Basin Analysis Report to demonstrate a significant correlation between groundwater levels and the other sustainability indicators where groundwater levels were used as a proxy.”

… the County proposes that historically diminished baseflow, although it could be considered an undesirable result, should not be disqualifying because SGMA does not require an agency to address undesirable results that occurred before, and have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015.

While it is true that SGMA does not require undesirable results prior to 2015 to be remediated, the presence of undesirable results before 2015 undermines the County’s claim that it has operated the Napa Valley Subbasin without undesirable results.

DWR stated that the reported depletions of interconnected surface water have “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts.” “The [Alt Plan] notes that the historical occurrence of diminished baseflow could be considered an undesirable result but claims that this possibility is basically immaterial inasmuch as SGMA does not require an alternative to address undesirable results that occurred before, and have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015.” Herein lies the current defense against remediation. DWR stated:

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000017 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1039 of 1184 ends

Wa 6
The County pivots on this point, taking language from SGMA and employing it to make two arguments. The County notes that a GSP is not required to address undesirable results that occurred before, and have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015, and that a groundwater sustainability agency has discretion to set measurable objectives and the timeframes for achieving any objectives for those undesirable results. The County applies both provisions to its situation. … SGMA defines “sustainable yield” with regard to undesirable results. In fact, SGMA defines sustainable yield, in part, as the absence of undesirable results. If the Legislature had intended for an alternative based on 10 years of sustainable yield to avail itself of the 2015 baseline for undesirable results, it would have shortened the period an agency was required to demonstrate sustainable yield from 10 years to two, consistent with the 2017 deadline for submitting alternatives to the Department. At any rate, the 2015 baseline for undesirable results is simply a limitation on what conditions must be addressed; it does not operate as an exoneration of the undesirable result itself. SGMA may not require a basin to reverse the effect of undesirable results to pre-SGMA conditions, but if undesirable results occurred during the 10-year period of the Alternative, that basin cannot demonstrate that it operated within its sustainable yield. (Emphasis added)

There was DWR discussion of the inadequacy of the Napa monitoring network. For example, “Justification for the selection of representative monitoring sites could not be found.” DWR concluded: “Department staff recommend that [the Alt Plan] not be approved.”

In early 2020, Water Audit wrote to the Napa Board of Supervisors urging them to consider public trust issues and highlighting portions of LSCE reports that indicated adverse surface water groundwater interface. The County was advised of its duty to the public trust.

Caution and increased monitoring were recommended. A public Forum was held to deliver the message. The response from the County has been to repeatedly deny any responsibility for sufficient stream flows.

In 2022, a Napa Groundwater Sustainability Plan was prepared and filed that showed the Basin to be operated within sustainable limits and without GDE injury requiring remediation. Section 6 and associated Appendices pertain to surface water groundwater interface.5

The GSP said in part: “Continuous monitoring of groundwater-surface water connection occurs at five dedicated monitoring sites in the Subbasin, with four additional sites planned to be constructed in 2021/2022.”

Because the drying CSH reach predated 2015, the GSP continued to document the drying reach but no longer considered the injury reportable under SGMA. See GSP 6-50; Figure 6-18 See also: Calculated Depth to Groundwater at Napa River Thalweg within One Mile of Monitored Wells, Spring 2010, Figure 121; Spring 2015; Figure 6-122, Spring 2019, Figure 6- 123-a; Surface Water-Groundwater Hydrograph Site 5: Napa River at Pope Street, Figure 6-18

The DWR Staff Report stated in part: “The sustainable management criteria and goal to maintain groundwater conditions at or near 2015 conditions are sufficiently justified and 5 For these purposes, the CDFW comment letter adequately summarized the issues of environmental remediation raised by groundwater extraction and will not be repeated here.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000018 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1040 of 1184 ends

Wa 7
explained.” However, this statement does not constitute an authorization to deplete public trust surface water flows. It is simply an example of the fractured nature of environmental laws. As the DWR said in its response to the Alt Plan, acceptance of the GSP does not exonerate the undesirable result.

In approving the GSP, DWR made several recommendations directed to environmental stewardship.

The Staff Report also proposes recommended corrective actions that the Department believes will enhance the GSP and facilitate future evaluation by the Department. The Department strongly encourages the recommended corrective actions be given due consideration and suggests incorporating all resulting changes to the GSP in future updates.

Recognizing SGMA sets a long-term horizon for groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) to achieve their basin sustainability goals, monitoring progress is fundamental for successful implementation.

The GSA acknowledges, and the Department agrees, many data gaps related to interconnected surface water exist. The GSAs should continue filling data gaps, collecting additional monitoring data, and coordinating with resources agencies and interested parties to understand beneficial uses and users that may be impacted by depletions of interconnected surface water caused by groundwater pumping. (Emphasis added)

The most critical document for present review is the LSCE authored Groundwater Sustainability Annual Report – Water Year 2022 published in March 2023, about sixty days after the GSP was accepted. It contains the admission that, contrary to the representation of sustainable conduct in the GSP, Napa groundwater extraction has exceeded sustainable limits in five of the last seven years. It may be reasonably speculated whether if this condition had been properly reported the GSP would not have been approved. The LSCE report states:

An undesirable result due to reduced groundwater storage is defined as occurring when the 7-year average annual net groundwater extraction from pumping in the Subbasin exceeds the sustainable yield. The sustainable yield of the Subbasin is estimated to be 15,000 acre-feet per year (GSP 2022). Table ES-5 summarizes the last seven years (2016-2022) of annual groundwater extraction from pumping and the 7-year average groundwater extraction from pumping with respect to the Subbasin sustainable yield.

Groundwater pumping was a total of about 18,790 AF in WY 2022, exceeding the MT for reduction of groundwater storage. Additionally, groundwater pumping in WY 2022 results in 18,023 AF as the seven-year groundwater pumping average. The seven-year groundwater pumping average in WY 2022 qualifies as an undesirable result in the Subbasin. (Emphasis added)

The 2022 Report advises that trigger actions have been implemented in response to groundwater level MT (minimum threshold) exceedances at more than 20 percent of RMS (representative monitoring sites).

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000019 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1041 of 1184 ends

Wa 8
For example, in regard to interconnected surface waters, LSCE states, “in WY 2022 an undesirable result has occurred for this sustainability indicator.”

A PowerPoint that LSCE presented to the GSA is a useful summary of the 2022 Report.

Note in particular a significant omission from the presentation: the last two pages of DWR staff recommendations. The omitted DWR pages included the following:

It is not a simple task to match cause to effect between numerous extractions and a drying reach. There is the “last drop” argument that no single divertor can be held individually responsible for the injury of the whole, and its counterpart, the tragedy of the commons were individuals in the pursuit of personal gain over-consume and ultimately deplete a common resource, which no person has a personal motivation to protect.

The 2023 Napa Grand Jury has made an admirable effort to remedy the matter, but they are without a mechanism to enforce its recommendations. As can be seen on the national stage, grand juries can remedy wrongs that evade remedy by the political and administrative components of government. A Grand Jury calls public administration to account, but if the administration stands united, the status quo will continue, no matter how inadequate.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000020 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1042 of 1184 ends

Wa 9
The County is a conflicted public trust trustee at the best of times, but recent decisions highlight the problem of selling out the irreplaceable public trust. The trustee (the County) is giving its own parochial financial interests a higher priority than its duties to protect the public trust as a whole. Injury to the public trust continues to be ignored on the belief that it has been authorized by the GSP. Additionally, the County authorizes groundwater extractions by others, continuing to exacerbate the problem. Violators are ignored and their conduct ratified.

As a further example of the problems of fractured legal constraints, while the County exerts influence on one side of the Napa River at Pope Street, the CSH has jurisdiction over the other side. The County claims to have no jurisdiction or control over the drying of the river by the CSH Stonebridge complex on the west of the river, while CSH has no jurisdiction over the County approval of water extraction by Meadowood Resort, a large golf course, vineyards and residential development on the east bank of the river. And yet the issue of a single water administration is alleged to be far too large and complex except to acknowledge infrequently, and then only to dissemble and deflect.

The Local Area Formation Commission conducted a county wide review of twelve water districts in the Napa Valley, and reported that the cost of water to each CSH resident is approximately $1,500 a year more than in the City of Napa, with further CSH rate increases in excess of 20% on the near horizon.

The quality of water service varies wildly as well. In 2011 CSH adopted a policy and mechanism for dealing with a potential “water emergency.” A Phase I emergency was to be declared when Bell Canyon Reservoir storage reached 60%; Phase II was declared with storage reached 39%. Minimum permissible “Fire Storage” is 25%, so when a Phase II emergency is declared, the useable volume remaining is only 14%. For illustrative example of the impact on residents, during a Phase I emergency citizens may not add any water consuming appliances to their households and replacing an existing residential water consuming device (such as dishwasher) is subject to City approval.

In October 2020 the City declared a Water Shortage Emergency, because the total of the combined sources of water stored in the Bell Canyon Reservoir, extracted by the Stonebridge wells, and transferred from the City of Napa were not sufficient to meet the City’s projected demands. In November 2020 the state of emergency was elevated to Phase II. The city did not downgrade from Phase II to Phase I until a year later, at the end of December 2021. During a Phase II emergency, in addition to the restrictions of Phase 1, residents are limited to 65 gallons per person per day, a third of the community’s pre-emergency consumption.

CSH announced dropping the Phase I emergency restrictions in July 2023, well over two years after they were first imposed.

Regardless of price, water supply resiliency is a threshold of significance for land use change or development projects. An EIR must answer the question posed by CEQA, Section G, XVIII Utilities and Service Systems (d).: “Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?”
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000021 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1043 of 1184 ends

EXHIBIT 2
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000022 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1044 of 1184 ends

The Public Trust Doctrine
Dr. Karrigan Börk
August 18, 2023
The public trust doctrine imposes independent and unavoidable obligations on trustee agencies overseeing groundwater extraction. California precedent makes clear that subdivisions of the state1 have “a duty to consider the public trust interest when making decisions impacting water that is imbued with the public trust,”2 and merely complying with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) does not discharge that duty.3 Numerous academics and other commentators have drawn the same conclusion.4 Although SGMA requirements and a trustee’s obligations under the public trust differ in several ways, a key difference lies in the treatment of past harms from groundwater pumping. SGMA provides that a groundwater sustainability “plan [(GSP)] may, but is not required to, address undesirable results that occurred before, and have 1 Env't L. Found. (ELF) v. State Water Res. Control Bd. (SWRCB), 26 Cal. App. 5th 844, 868 (2018) (“Although the state as sovereign is primarily responsible for administration of the trust, the county, as a subdivision of the state, shares responsibility for administering the public trust and may not approve of destructive activities without giving due regard to the preservation of those resources.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2 Id. at 863.
3 Id. at 868 (“We conclude the enactment of SGMA does not, as the County maintains, occupy the field, replace or fulfill public trust duties, or scuttle decades of decisions upholding, defending, and expanding the public trust doctrine.”).
4 Jennifer L. Harder, Cognitive Dissonance or Harmonic Convergence? California's Groundwater Law and the Public Trust Doctrine, 65 ROCKY MT. MIN. L. INST. 24-1, 24-2-3 (2019) (“The [ELF] court rejected the idea that SGMA represents a legislative determination that fixes the level of public trust protection with respect to groundwater, or that SGMA otherwise preempts the application of the public trust doctrine.”); Paul Stanton Kibel & Julie Gantenbein, Fisheries Reliant on Aquifers: When Groundwater Extraction Depletes Surface Water Flows, 54 U.S.F. L. REV. 473, 499 (2020) (“[I]t is clear groundwater sustainability agencies have a separate fiduciary duty under the public trust doctrine, independent of SGMA, to consider the impacts of groundwater pumping that reduces the instream flow of navigable rivers needed to maintain fisheries or other public trust uses.”); Nicole L. Kuenzi, Maps, Models, and Mystery: Interconnected Groundwater and the Public Trust, 34 NAT. RESOURCES & ENV'T 13, 16 (2019) (“The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is not, however, coextensive with the public trust doctrine and does not supplant or subsume the doctrine as applied to tributary groundwater. . . . The Act and the public trust doctrine are two parallel systems that operate alongside one another, just as the public trust doctrine and the water rights permitting system operate in tandem.”); Kevin O'Brien, Richard Frank, Andy Sawyer, Alletta Belin, Paul Kibel, Proceedings of the 2019 California Water Law Symposium Panel Organized by Ggu School of Law: Sgma and Interconnected Groundwater-Surface Water, 12 GOLDEN GATE U. ENVT’L. L.J. 81, 105–06 (2020) (Kevin O'Brien, Richard Frank, and Andy Sawyer discussing SGMA and the public trust and noting that the public trust requires different analysis and considerations than SGMA). See also ALIDA

CANTOR, DAVE OWEN, THOMAS HARTER, NELL GREEN NYLEN, & MICHAEL KIPARSKY, NAVIGATING

GROUNDWATER-SURFACE WATER INTERACTIONS UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT. 25 (2018); ALLETTA BELIN, GUIDE TO COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA’S SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT 14 (2018); Brian Gray, The Public Trust and SGMA, CALIFORNIA WATERBLOG, (Oct. 7 (018).

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000023 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1045 of 1184 ends

Page 2 of 5 ends

not been corrected by, January 1, 2015.”5 In contrast, the public trust requires reconsideration of past or ongoing water use decisions where those decisions were made “without any consideration of the impact upon the public trust.”6 It is unclear exactly what impacts the time limitation in SGMA may exempt from inclusion in a GSP, but the requirements under the public trust doctrine are much clearer. In Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) v. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Court of Appeal held that the County of Siskiyou had “common law fiduciary duties to consider the potential adverse impact of groundwater extraction on … public trust resource[s].”7 Following the California Supreme Court’s decision in National Audubon (National Audubon) v. Superior Court that the public trust must be considered in diversions of water from nonnavigable tributaries to a navigable waterway, the court held that the question of whether groundwater-related decisions must consider the public trust “begins and ends with whether the challenged activity harms a navigable waterway and thereby violates the public trust.”8 It is clear, then, that decisions related to groundwater must consider the public trust if the decision may have an impact on trust resources.

It is also clear that a public trust analysis is not limited by SGMA’s January 1, 2015 time constraint. Indeed, as the California Supreme Court announced in National Audubon, “the public trust imposes a duty of continuing supervision over the taking and use of the appropriated water.”9 This stems from the nature of the public’s interest in, and the nature of the state’s ownership of, trust resources. The state holds such resources not as regular property, subject to sale, but as a trustee, in trust for the people of the state, and so not subject to alienation except in very limited circumstances.10 Except in these narrow circumstances, the state cannot permanently divest itself of trust resources. In the words of the California Supreme Court, “the core of the public trust doctrine is the state's authority as sovereign to exercise a continuous supervision and control over the navigable waters of the state and the lands underlying those waters. This authority applies to the waters tributary to [navigable waters] and bars … any … party from claiming a vested right to divert waters once it becomes clear that such diversions harm the interests protected by the public trust.”11 Thus past water use practices are not insulated from analysis under the public trust doctrine. The SWRCB faces a somewhat similar situation when dealing with rights that fall outside the water rights permit system, primarily the pre-1914 rights and riparian rights; California courts have consistently held that the public trust doctrine applies to these rights, even though they fall outside of the 5 CAL. WATER CODE § 10727.2(b)(4)(b).
6 Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Ct., 33 Cal. 3d 419, 426 (1983). 7 ELF v. SWRCB, 26 Cal. App. 5th at 851.
8 Id. at 859–60.
9 Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Ct., 33 Cal. 3d at 447 (emphasis added). 10 Id. at 438, citing Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). 11 Id. at 425–26. See also Stanford Vina Ranch Irrigation Co. v. State, 50 Cal. App. 5th 976, 995 (2020), reh'g denied (July 6, 2020), as modified (July 8, 2020), review denied (Sept. 23, 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1387; Light v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 226 Cal. App. 4th 1463, 1489 (2014), as modified on denial of reh'g (July 11, 2014).

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000024 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1046 of 1184 ends

Page 3 of 5 ends

Board’s statutory mandates.12 Thus, the state and its subdivisions have a perpetual and ongoing “affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible,” regardless of when the water use at issue first began.13 In the groundwater context, then, permitting decisions must avoid “unnecessary and unjustified harm to trust interests” and “preserve, so far as consistent with the public interest, the uses protected by the trust,”14 regardless of whether impacts to trust assets predate the statutory time limit. When making public trust decisions in the groundwater context, trustees and courts might take guidance from CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 6009.1, the California legislature’s description of what it believes the trust requires in the public trust lands setting.15
Finally, it is clear that SGMA does not displace these trust obligations or remove from a trustee agency the obligation of weighing trust interests. In ELF v. SWRCB, the county argued that SGMA “occupied the field” and implicitly abolished any obligation the County might have to consider public trust impacts, and that SGMA was a conclusive judgment about the level of protection required for trust resources in groundwater decisions, such that the county and the court lacked the power to impose additional protections for the public trust. The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments.16 In rejecting the argument that SGMA occupied the field, the court noted that SGMA was not comprehensive, that the legislature did not indicate any intent to displace the public trust doctrine, and that SGMA was not inconsistent with the trust. Instead, the court held that SGMA and the public trust doctrine “can live in harmony,” holding that “certainly SGMA … can … accommodate the perpetuation of the public trust doctrine.”17 This conclusion applies to the provision allowing but not requiring a GSP to address pre2015 impacts, based on public statements from Andy Sawyer, Assistant Chief Counsel at California State Water Resources Control Board and one of the lawyers involved in crafting SGM$ He observed that this language was designed to allow Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GSA’s) the ability to address their public trust obligations within their GSPs, should they choose to do so, and nothing he said could be read to suggest 12 In re Water of Hallett Creek Stream System, 44 Cal. 3d 448, 472 n.16 (1988) (noting state agencies and the public can enforce public trust claims against riparians); Stanford Vina Ranch, 50 Cal. App. 5th at 994 (2020) (“All water rights in California, both riparian and appropriative, are constrained by two limiting principles: (1) the rule of reasonableness; and (2) the public trust doctrine.”); Santa Barbara Channelkeeper v. City of San Buenaventura, 19 Cal. App. 5th 1176, 1184 (2018) (reasonableness requirements and the public trust doctrine “[b]oth apply to limit all water rights, regardless of their legal basis.”); and Light v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 226 Cal. App. 4th at 1489.
13 Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Ct., 33 Cal. 3d at 446. 14 Id. at 446–47.
15 CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 6009.1 identifies many duties, including a duty of full disclosure, a duty to keep clear and adequate records and accounts, and a duty to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries, among other things.
16 ELF v. SWRCB, 26 Cal. App. 5th at 870.
17 Id. at 866.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000025 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1047 of 1184 ends

Page 4 of 5 ends

that SGMA somehow relieved GSA’s of their trust obligations.18 The provision is not inherently inconsistent with public trust requirements, and the GSAs are thus obligated to meet both SGMA and public trust requirements.19
In rejecting the argument that SGMA was a conclusive judgment about the level of protection required for trust resources in groundwater decisions, the ELF court determined it would not find an “implied legislative intent to dismantle the public trust from the mere scope of SGMA.20 As the court noted, the few examples where a court upheld the legislative alienation of trust resources “relied on an express and limited legislative determination that specific [trust assets] no longer served the public interest.”21 SGMA contains no such express determination, and the time limit in SGMA cannot be read to relieve the state’s obligation to address damage to the trust that predates that limit.

Many commentators have considered the time limit in SGMA and its interactions with the public trust,22 and all the analyses I have reviewed come to the same conclusion:
18 O'Brien et al., supra note 4, at 105 (“I think that is why there is the 2015 baseline, but I may be too close to this because I actually drafted that language. Believe me, the alternative was much worse.

The previous draft defined undesirable effects to exclude prior impacts, which means SGMA couldn't even be used even if we wanted to go for pre-2015 impacts. But, if you have an agency that wants to deal with pre-2014 conditions--for example, in Siskiyou County, you have a lawsuit that says you have to, so why not use SGMA to do it, instead of other much more cumbersome and less-effective ways of implementing public trust.”).
19 See CANTOR et al., supra note 4, at 26 (“As the California Supreme Court has stated, ‘[r]epeals by implication are not favored, and are recognized only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing two potentially conflicting laws.’ That principle would be violated if SGMA had impliedly repealed laws that otherwise would have obligated a GSA to address pre-2015 impacts.”) (citing Fuentes v.

Workers Comp. Appeals Bd., 547 P.2d 449, 453 (Cal. 1973)). 20 ELF v. SWRCB, 26 Cal. App. 5th at 869.
21 Id.
22 Gray, supra note 4 (“The public trust requires restoration and maintenance of groundwater levels and surface water flows as needed to afford reasonable protection of public trust uses. By comparison, SGMA provides that GSAs are not required to address “undesirable results” that occurred before January 1, 2015, such as harm to beneficial surface water uses. No such baseline or statute of limitations applies to public trust claims.”); Kuenzi, supra note 4, at 16 (2019) (“The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is not, however, coextensive with the public trust doctrine and does not supplant or subsume the doctrine as applied to tributary groundwater.” Further, [t]he Act does not require agencies to address undesirable results that occurred before and were not corrected by January 1, 2015, whereas the public trust doctrine assures an inalienable interest in trust resources.

The Act and the public trust doctrine are two parallel systems that operate alongside one another, just as the public trust doctrine and the water rights permitting system operate in tandem.”); BELIN, et al., supra note 4, at 14 (“A final caveat concerns SGMA’s provision allowing GSAs to choose not to address undesirable results that “occurred before, and have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015.” GSAs should bear in mind that other laws such as those referenced in this guide [including the public trust doctrine] do not have an equivalent time limitation, so there may be other legal constraints or obligations resulting from the impacts of groundwater depletions on surface water uses even where no action is required under SGMA.”); CANTOR et al., supra note 4, at 25 (“We think . . . that, while SGMA clearly creates no responsibilities to address pre-2015 impacts, it also does not remove any responsibilities that might be created by other laws.”); Harder, supra note 4, at 24-7 (“Although SGMA does not preempt the public trust doctrine, SGMA does include analytical standards that seem inconsistent with public trust principles. For example, SGMA provides that pumping impacts that Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000026 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1048 of 1184 ends

Page 5 of 5 ends

the public trust doctrine imposes obligations on trustee agencies overseeing groundwater extraction, and these obligations are independent from the analysis required under SGMA.
existed and were unaddressed through January 1, 2015, are exempt from the statute's purview; GSAs may choose to address pre-2015 impacts, but are not mandated to do so. The public trust doctrine has not yet been interpreted to impose any specific baseline.”).

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000027 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1049 of 1184 ends

EXHIBIT 3
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000028 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1050 of 1184 ends

The Napa River as Habitat For Native Fishes and Shrimp
Dr. Peter Moyle
August 18, 2023
Napa River views. Upper left: Below Oakville Crossroad bridge, August 12, 1993. The river was flowing at about 5 cfs - 7 species of native fishes were abundant in deep pools. R.A. Leidy; Upper right: Zinfandel Lane Bridge at Calistoga, June 8, 2021. Coastal roach were observed in concrete-lined pools. A. Manfree; Lower left: Dry Napa River below the Pope Street bridge, St Helena, June 8, 2021. This was a drought year and only a few juvenile native fishes (2 species) were found in a small bedrock pool. It is doubtful they survived the summer. A. Manfree; Lower right, Flood Management Project Bypass in Napa, February 27, 2019. A. Manfree.

The Napa River is a defining element of the Napa Valley and the health of its assemblage of native fishes is a key indicator of the health of the river. Fishes and other biota have declined as the surface flows have been depleted and channels have been altered (Napolitano, Potter, and Whyte 2007). The river and its tributaries nevertheless still support native fishes where year-round flowing water is present. Here we first briefly describe the river as it is today, discuss the effects on stream flows of dams, groundwater pumping, and geomorphic change, and then review the status of native fishes. Finally, we discuss ways to improve conditions for native fishes (and shrimp) in the Napa watershed, recognizing that thriving native fishes require a healthy, flowing river, which is good for people as well.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000029 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1051 of 1184 ends

Page 2 of 10 ends

The Napa River
The Napa River is a relatively small and short [89 km] stream flowing into the San Francisco Estuary. Historically, it was perennial, given the lack of historical accounts of a dry river, with the lowest flows in late summer and fall. In winter, however, when heavy rains pound the surrounding Coast Range, the river carries high flood waters water that once spread across its floodplains on the Valley floor. The annual hydrology is naturally highly variable, given its dependence on rain fall and water stored in aquLfers as dictated by the region's Mediterranean climate. See concurrently filed memorandums of DrV. Graham Fogg and Ted Grantham.

Most of the time, the Napa River was, and is, a pleasant, productive, and permanent component of the Napa Valley ecosystem. Having avoided the draconian flood control measures, such as the monster levees implemented in many other US streams and rivers, the river still manages to meander through the Valley, lined with a thin band of riparian trees, despite having a deeply incised channel. It still has flows that support native fish populations in places.

But the water that keeps the river flowing is in high demand and much of it is diverted, stored behind dams, or pumped from the ground. So, when the river stops flowing, as it does at times, the native fishes must leave the dry areas or die. Reaches with low flows in late summer/fall may also become too warm to be suitable for steelhead and freshwater shrimp. The decline in habitat for native fishes is related to large-scale changes in the Napa watershed, especially those associated with dams, geomorphic alterations, and groundwater pumping.

Dams and geomorphic constraints
There are over 400 dams in the Napa River watershed that are located on tributary or river channels and that capture winter precipitation in the watershed and store precipitation for later use (Napolitano et al. 2007). Most of these dams are small and create ponds whose water is often important for individual vineyards or farms. About thirty percent of the watershed land area is behind both large and small dams, with reservoirs that provide water for cities as well as vineyards. The dams are needed for storage because most precipitation comes in a few large winter storms (via atmospheric rivers), from which high flows become floods.

The larger dams primarily provide water for municipal use but can also be important for providing flows to streams below, which then provides habitat for fish, including steelhead. However, some of the larger dams in the watershed block access to cool water habitat in streams on the east side of the Valley (e.g., dams on Bell Canyon, Conn [Hennessey Reservoir], Rector, and Milliken creeks). Habitat for fishes is also present in tributaries to the reservoirs above the dams.

Presumably, the historic seasonal floods of the river were important for recharging the ground water and providing wetland habitat, but as the Napa Valley became more Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000030 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1052 of 1184 ends

Page 3 of 10 ends

developed and the river more constrained, seasonal flooding became regarded as a serious problem, rather than an asset. Once catastrophic flood flows became managed by infrastructure, authorized in 1998, that is famous because it leaves ‘room for the river’ (Opperman et al. 2017). The river and its tributaries nevertheless still suffer from the geomorphic constraints of old, ‘grey’ (concrete) infrastructure, fish passage barriers, and the conversion of floodplain to agricultural and urban uses. The Napa River and its tributaries have deeply incised channels over much of their lengths. In many places, channels are lined with rip-rap and banks feature small rock levees. Such features tend to move high flows out of the system rapidly, reducing flow benefits to fish and wildlife (e.g. a broad riparian zone).

Ground water
Although reliable statistics seem to be lacking (See Fogg and Graham, supra), well pumps that suck up groundwater are an important source of water for the Napa region.

Although the Napa County Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan has set a sustainable limit of 15,000 acre-feet a year, up to 24,000 acre-feet of water per year are extracted to irrigate 48,000 acres of vineyards, putting the watershed outside of sustainable limits for five of the last seven years. Most of this water comes from pumping groundwater; agricultural demands constitute 85% of groundwater. Potable water pumping from the City of St. Helena’s Stonebridge wells account for all but a fraction of the remaining extractions.

Although the systematic collection and analysis of well data for the Napa Valley is lacking, it seems logical to assume that wells for all purposes, especially those located close to a stream, can deprive the river of the underground inflow that historically maintained summer surface flows. In recent years, the abundance, location, and size of such wells is associated with the cessation of flows in some reaches (e.g. Napa River above and through St. Helena, lower Conn Creek).

For native fishes and other aquatic organisms to thrive in the Napa River, they need a flow regime that contains features of the natural (historic) flow regime (refs). A key component of streams in a Mediterranean climate region, such as the Napa Valley, is a ‘living stream’, from headwaters to estuary, with perennial flows. Historically, the best evidence indicates that the Napa River was a perennial stream. Data from the stream flow gauge on the Napa River at St. Helena, maintained by the US Geological Survey from 1929 to present, show that years with no summer flows began at the turn of the century when the second Stonebridge well was drilled. (See Graham, supra.) But despite ongoing changes, even during the severe droughts of the 1930s, the river flowed until recent years. The reduced flows in the river and its tributaries and the longterm decline of the fishes, especially listed steelhead, coincide with the construction of wells.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000031 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1053 of 1184 ends

Page 4 of 10 ends

Napa Fishes
There are records of 36 species of native fishes from the Napa River and its upper estuary (Leidy 2007, Napa RCD 2008, 2020) but only 15 are found today on a regular basis in the river and tributaries. These include 4 anadromous (sea-run) species that use the river in most years for spawning and the rearing of young (Pacific lamprey, western river lamprey, rainbow trout/steelhead, and Chinook salmon). Another 11 are freshwater fishes that are year-round residents in the watershed (brook lamprey, resident rainbow trout, Pomo riffle sculpin, prickly sculpin, coastal roach, Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento blackfish, hardhead, Sacramento sucker, tule perch, and threespine stickleback). This memorandum report focuses primarily on resident and anadromous fishes, plus the California freshwater shrimp.

The following fish species are of greatest interest because they are most likely to be affected by water management:
x Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is federally listed as a threatened species (1997, re-affirmed in 2006 and 2014). They are a Distinct Population Segment of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) that are anadromous, with spawning and juvenile rearing in the river, especially, its larger tributaries. They are managed separately from resident rainbow trout that are primarily found above barriers in tributaries, and do not go to sea. There has been no change in status since listing, so a continued decline to extinction is likely if present trends continue. Neapolitano et al (2007) state (p 7): “We reviewed available information to conclude that there has been a significant decline in the distribution and abundance of steelhead and coho salmon in the Napa River and its tributaries since the late 1940s” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1968; Anderson, 1969; and Leidy et al., 2005). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1968) estimates that the Napa River watershed once supported runs of 6,000–8,000 steelhead, and 2,000–4,000 coho salmon, and that by the late 1960s, coho salmon were extinct in the watershed, and the steelhead run had reduced to about 1,000 adults. At present, the steelhead run is estimated at less than a few hundred adults (Emig sand Rugg, pers. com., 2000 and Leidy et al., 2005). This statement still holds today, although steelhead spawners may be even fewer than reported.
x Fall-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) spawn and rear in the Napa River in most years, if flows are adequate. There is debate about whether these fish represent the southernmost population of Southern Oregon-Northern California Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of this species (listed by federal government as threatened) or are strays from Central Valley ESU hatcheries. Either way, they are ecologically and aesthetically important to the river and are likely to disappear under present management.
x Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) are also anadromous and spawn in the Napa River, where the larvae live in silty backwaters for up to seven years.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000032 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1054 of 1184 ends

Page 5 of 10 ends

They are considered a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW ). Their status in the Napa watershed is poorly understood.
x Coastal roach (Hesperoleucus venustus subditus) is a newly re-described species/subspecies that lives only in San Francisco Bay tributaries and the Russian River. It is highly tolerant of poor water quality and appears to be still common in the Napa watershed (NRCD 2020).
x Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus) is a large (up to 50+ cm) soft-rayed fish that is endemic to Central California, including the Russian and Napa Rivers. It was once common in the deep pools of the middle reaches of the main river (Leidy 2007), but its current status is uncertain. The Napa River and Russian River populations are the only ones known outside of the Central Valley. It is listed as a Species of Special Concern by CDFW.
x Pomo riffle sculpin (Cottus ohlone pomo) is a newly described species and subspecies that occurs mainly in cool headwater streams tributary to northern San Francisco Bay and the Russian River (Moyle et al. 2022). It is presumably still locally common in the upper Napa River, especially in small, cool tributaries (Leidy 2007). Its current status is not well-documented, but it is considered a Species of Special Concern (as C. gulosus) by CDFW.
x California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1988). They are/were known from the mainstem upper Napa River and from Huichica Creek, a tributary to the estuary, but their current status is not well documented. "Syncaris pacifica occurs only in lowland freshwater streams, in pool areas away from the mainstream flow, often among roots, branches, or undercut banks. They have never been found at elevations higher than 380 feet (125 m)” (Martin and Wicksten 2004) Considering its endangered status, information on the current status of this species in the Napa watershed is badly needed.

The Napa Valley has been thoroughly domesticated in the past 150 years (Grossinger 2011). Little remains of the original wild landscape on the Valley floor, whether aquatic, riparian, or terrestrial, although some relatively unaltered habitat remains in the upper reaches of tributary streams. The river’s water is in high demand due to the expanding vineyards and tourism, and due to growing direct human use, from drinking to washing wine bottles. It is therefore quite surprising that remnants of the native fish fauna are still present, an assemblage of species that need clear, cool flowing water and deep pools to persist. That small numbers of anadromous salmon, steelhead, and lampreys still use the river and its tributaries to complete their life histories is a positive sign. However, numbers are much reduced from historic abundance, given their decline statewide and condition of potential habitat (e.g., dry reaches of tributaries). This decline was recognized by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1990 when it classified the Napa River as impaired because of sediment, noting that habitat for Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000033 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1055 of 1184 ends

Page 6 of 10 ends

steelhead and Chinook salmon had been degraded by sedimentation of spawning and rearing habitat, by channel incision, by low summer base flows, and by poor access to suitable habitat (Napolitano, Potter, and Whyte 2007). Habitat quality continues to be relatively poor for most native fishes.

Causes of native fish decline
Providing habitat for fish has been a secondary consideration. The most important ingredient for stream fish habitat is often lacking or in short supply: flowing water. Dry or non-flowing sections of riverbed are present during many years.

This makes it urgent to systematically determine the factors contributing to loss of flows and to find ways to increase summer/fall flows. Without a systematic program to determine causes of fish decline and ways to stabilize or increase native fish populations, the further decline and extirpation of native fishes is certain. One thing we also know for sure: the native fishes need water to survive.

Here are some suggestions for actions to reverse trends:

1. Immediately begin a systematic annual monitoring program for fishes and aquatic invertebrates to determine status and trends, using Leidy (2007) as the starting point.

This effort would have to include developing a stable funding source.

2. Conduct special investigations throughout the watershed to demonstrate habitat benefits to fish from restoration projects, including those related to flood management.

Such evaluations seem to be largely lacking, even for listed steelhead and freshwater shrimp.

3. Implement an active adaptive management program to benefit aquatic species. Such a program would involve habitat improvements to tributary streams (including flows and removal of barriers) as well as in the mainstem Napa River.

4. Monitor to the greatest extent possible groundwater extraction and levels and surface water flows.

5. Develop and implement a Share the Water plan through a water district that maximizes efficiency of use of existing water throughout the watershed, without increasing total use.

6. Recognize that improving aquatic habitats throughout the watershed will require a long-term commitment to engage in many, often small, habitat restoration projects, following the example of Water Audit California (see Appendix) and based on Public Trust obligations.

Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000034 ends

Agenda Item #11.1.

Page 1056 of 1184 ends

Page 7 of 10 ends

Conclusions
The Napa River and tributaries still provide habitats that support native fishes and, presumably, shrimp. A monitoring program is needed that evaluates, among other things, the efficacy of restoration projects on fish and shrimp populations and the determination of factors that affect flow in the river and its tributaries, especially ground water pumping (wells). The presence of two endangered species is a cause for action; steelhead and freshwater shrimp maintain small populations that could disappear from the watershed within a few years, absent improved habitat, fish passage, and flows. .

For steelhead, improving habitat for in-migrating adults and out-migrating juveniles in the mainstem is essential to increase survival. In addition, removing or modifying barriers in 30-40 tributary streams would greatly improve access to long-lost spawning and rearing areas. A flow regime that would benefit steelhead and other fishes would first include preserving natural high winter/spring flows to attract adult spawners and move juveniles out to sea. But for shrimp and steelhead, and other fishes, the most significant need is to improve flows in summer/fall low-flow period. These flows are what the river needs to be a year-round 'living stream' from headwaters to the estuary, even during periods of drought, along with management of diverse habitat to support resident native fishes and for juvenile rearing of salmon, steelhead, and lamprey.

Having an actual living stream would mean, among other things, improving the flow regime in many places, including tributaries, in part by reducing diversions from the Napa River and tributary streams. Particularly important is developing fish-friendly summer flows; this would require restoring stream inflows from tributaries and from reducing groundwater pumping in or near the river's riparian zone. A thorough understanding of the relationship between groundwater pumping and surface flows, through measuring and monitoring, is needed to create a balance of flows for the river ecosystem vs. water for commercial purposes.

The presence of recent and ongoing restoration projects demonstrates that there is some movement, if often reluctant, towards a healthier river and sustainable populations of native fishes. Nevertheless, a systematic, multi-faceted program of habitat restoration, monitoring, and maintenance is needed if native fishes and shrimp are to survive through coming years, and then thrive, especially in the face of climate change.

Napa River just below Evey Lane, above the City of Calistoga.

August 31, 2018. Amber Manfree
Water Audit Comment
2024-04-23

Page 000035 ends

St. Helena City CouncilApril 23, 2024

St. Helena City Council
April 23, 2024