St. Helena City Council
August 26, 2025

ATTACHMENT 3
RWEQ-59650\2920109.11 38 August 22, 2025
expressly authorized by Civil Code section 4230. The amendment is effective when it has been approved by the appropriate percentage of Owners as required herein, the approval has been certified in a writing executed and acknowledged by the officer designated in this Declaration or by the Association for that purpose (or, if no one has been designated, the President of the Association), and the amendment and certification have been recorded in the county in which the Development is located.

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the easements appurtenant to any Lot as described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 may not be modified or terminated without the prior written consent of the Owner of the Lot.

10.3 Corrections. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Declarant reserves the right as the attorney-in-fact for each Lot Owner to record an amendment or appropriate instrument of correction to correct any errors in this Declaration, or any exhibits thereto, and the consent of neither the Association nor any Lot Owner shall be required provided that if the correction affects the size, location or access or use rights to any Lot, the consent of that Lot Owner shall be required. The amendment shall be effective when recorded in the records of Napa County, California, signed by an authorized agent of Declarant.

10.4 Mortgagee Reserved Amendment Rights. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Declarant reserves the right to amend this Declaration as may be necessary or advisable in order to include provisions that satisfy the requirements of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and/or the federal Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Association and each Owner shall fully cooperate in the delivery, execution and recordation of any documents necessary to effect the amendments.

Article 11

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

11.1 Headings. With the exception of Article 1, the headings used in this Declaration are for convenience only and are not to be used to interpret the meaning of any of the provisions of this Declaration.

11.2 Severability. The provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed independent and severable, and the invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of any provision or provisions or any portion thereof shall not invalidate any other provision or any portion of the provisions not found invalid or unenforceable.

11.3 Cumulative Remedies. Each remedy provided for in this Declaration shall be cumulative and nonexclusive. Failure to exercise any remedy provided for in this Declaration shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as a waiver of the remedy.

11.4 Discrimination. No Owner shall execute or cause to be recorded any instrument that imposes a restriction on the sale, leasing or occupancy of the Owner’s Lot on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income as defined in Government Code section 12955(p), disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information.

11.5 Notification of Sale. No later than five (5) days after the closing of the sale of any Lot, the new Owner shall notify the Association of such sale. Such notification shall be in writing and shall set forth the name and address of the new Owner and the date of sale.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 3
RWEQ-59650\2920109.11 39 August 22, 2025

11.6 Reservation or Grant of Easements. Any easements referred to in this Declaration shall be deemed reserved or granted, or both reserved and granted, by reference to this Declaration in any deed to any Lot.

11.7 Enforcement Rights and Remedies. The covenants, restrictions, rights and duties contained in this Declaration constitute covenants running with the land and equitable servitudes that benefit and bind each Lot in the Development, each Owner, and each successive Owner thereto, and may be enforced by the Association, the Declarant or any Owner in any legal or equitable action pursuant to the procedures described herein. Declarant may enforce any covenants, restrictions, and rights set forth in this Declaration that expressly benefit Declarant without regard to whether Declarant owns any Lots in the Development.

Each Owner acknowledges and agrees that if any Person breaches any of the restrictions contained herein, money damages may not be adequate compensation. As a result, each Owner agrees that in the event of a breach, the non-breaching party, in addition to any other remedy available at law or equity, shall be entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an order compelling the breaching party to perform an act which the party is required to perform under this Declaration or which is necessary to bring the breaching party or the breaching party’s Lot into compliance with restrictions contained herein or prohibiting the breaching party from performing any act that violates the restrictions.

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Association shall have the exclusive right to levy assessments and to take appropriate action to enforce delinquent assessments, including imposition of an assessment lien and the foreclosure of the lien. Furthermore, the Association shall have the primary responsibility for enforcing the architectural provisions contained in Article 6. If any Owner or Occupant desires the Association to take any enforcement action, the Owner or Occupant shall notify the Association in writing of the alleged violation. On receipt, the Board shall review the matter and shall determine what action, if any, to take. Neither the Board nor the Association or any director, officer or agent thereof shall be liable if the Board in the exercise of its judgment elects not to take any action. To the extent applicable, the Board shall comply with the due process requirements described in this Declaration. If within ninety (90) days after receipt of the notice the Board has failed to take any corrective action and the alleged violation has not been cured and is continuing, any Owner may bring an action on the Owner’s behalf for appropriate legal and/or equitable relief. In such action, the Owner shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, provided that the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recovery of such costs and fees.

Prior to the commencement of any action by the Association, the Declarant or Owner to enforce the Governing Documents, the Davis-Stirling Act or the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law (Corporations Code sections 7110-8910), the Association, the Declarant or the Owner shall comply with the applicable requirements of Article 3 (commencing with Civil Code section 5925) of Chapter 10 of the Davis-Stirling Act.

11.8 Incorporation of Exhibits. All exhibits referred to herein and attached to this Declaration are incorporated herein by reference as fully set forth herein.

11.9 Term. The term of this Declaration shall be for a period of fifty (50) years from the date on which this Declaration is recorded in the records of the county in which the Development is located.

After that time, this Declaration and each of its restrictions and covenants and other provisions automatically shall be extended for successive ten (10)-year periods unless this Declaration is rescinded by the written consent of Owners holding a majority of the total voting power of the Association. The rescission shall be effective on recordation of a notice of rescission in the records of the county in which the Development is located.

11.10 Reserved Rights of Declarant. Declarant is recording this Declaration as part of the construction of a residential development. No covenant or restriction contained herein shall be applied in Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 3
RWEQ-59650\2920109.11 40 August 22, 2025
any manner that would unreasonably interfere with Declarant’s rights to complete the construction of the Improvements and to sell the Improvements. The rights retained by Declarant during the construction and sales period include, but are not limited to, the right to:
(i) maintain construction equipment, personnel and materials within the Development;
(ii) use such portions within the Development as may be necessary or advisable to complete the construction or sales;
(iii) maintain construction and/or sales offices within the Development and appropriate parking to accommodate the foregoing;
(iv) maintain sale signs or other appropriate advertisements within the Development; (v) maintain model homes for viewing by prospective purchasers; and (vi) allow prospective purchasers access to the Development to inspect any Common Area or any model homes.

11.11 Assignment by Declarant. Declarant may assign all or any portion of its rights and delegate all or any portion of its duties to any other Person; and from and after the date of such assignment and/or delegation, the Declarant shall have no further rights and/or duties hereunder with respect to the rights assigned and duties delegated. Any successor or assignee of rights and duties of the Declarant shall execute and record an instrument assuming the rights and duties of the Declarant assigned and delegated hereunder and thereafter shall be entitled to exercise all the rights of Declarant so assigned and shall be obligated to perform all the Declarant’s duties so delegated, provided such successor or assignee shall not be liable in any manner for any act or omission committed or omitted by the Declarant before the date the successor or assignee succeeded to the rights of the Declarant hereunder.

11.12 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any litigation or alternative dispute resolution procedure arbitration regarding the rights or duties under the Governing Documents of the Association or any Member, the prevailing party in such proceeding, in the discretion of the judge or decision-maker, shall be entitled to recover costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

11.13 Notices. Any notice permitted or required by the Governing Documents shall be considered received on the date the notice is personally delivered to the recipient or forty-eight (48) hours after the notice is deposited in the United States mail, first-class, registered or certified, postage prepaid and addressed to the recipient at the address that the recipient has provided the Association for receipt of notice or, if no such address was provided, at the recipient’s Lot address in the Development.

11.14 No Enforcement Waiver. Failure to enforce a restriction in the past in and of itself shall not constitute a defense to any action brought against any Owner for violation of any restriction contained herein. Each Owner, by acceptance of a deed to a Lot in the Development, acknowledges that the enforcement of these restrictions may vary as a result of different Owners, Boards or Architectural Committees, changing conditions, or other reasons and agrees that the failure of any Owner, Board or Committee to enforce any particular restriction, even if such failure is for an extended period of time, shall not in any manner restrict or estop the right of any Owner, Board or Committee to enforce these restrictions at any future time.

11.15 Statutory Reference. Any reference to a governmental statute in this Declaration includes any amendments to the statute. If the statute is replaced by an equivalent statute, the equivalent statute shall be the applicable statute.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 3
RWEQ-59650\2920109.11 41 August 22, 2025
THIS DECLARATION is executed this ________ day of ________________________, 2025.

WHITE FANG PROPERTIES, LLC,
a South Dakota limited liability company
By:

Name:

Title:

Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 3
RWEQ-59650\2920109.11 August 22, 2025
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of _____________________ )
On ____________________, before me, ____________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared ___________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 3
RWEQ-59650\2920109.11 August 22, 2025

SUBORDINATION
The undersigned, the beneficiary under the deed of trust recorded on ___________________, as Document No. _____________________ in the records of ____________________ County, California (the “Deed of Trust”), executed by _____________________________, a ______________________________, as Trustor, hereby subordinates the Deed of Trust to the foregoing _____________________ Declaration of Restrictions (CC&Rs) (the “Declaration”) so that for all purposes the Declaration shall be deemed executed and recorded prior to the execution and recordation of the Deed of Trust.

Dated: ___________________ ________________________________ a _______________________________
By: _________________________
Name: _________________________
Its: _________________________
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of _____________________ )
On ____________________, before me, ____________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared ___________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 1 August 22, 2025
DRAFT

RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:

Jane R. Martin

MILLER STARR REGALIA
1331 N. California Blvd., Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
HUNTER

GRANT OF WELL EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS HUNTER GRANT OF WELL EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated _______________, 2025, is executed by WHITE FANG PROPERTIES, LLC, a South Dakota limited liability company (the “Lot 52 Owner”), and HUNTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (the “Association”), with reference to the following facts:

A. In accordance with the Hunter Declaration of Restrictions (CC&Rs), recorded on ________________, 2025, as Document No. _______________________ in the records of the County of Napa, State of California (the “Declaration”), the Association was formed to manage a residential planned development project which may be developed in phases and which is situated on Lots 1 through 51, and Parcel Y shown on the subdivision map entitled “Final Map of the Hunter Subdivision” (the “Map”) filed in the records of the County of Napa, State of California, on ______________, in Book _____ of Maps at page(s) _______ (the “Hunter Development”). The Hunter Development is managed by the Association.

B. The Lot 52 Owner owns the property identified as Lot 52 on the Map (“Lot 52”) which is anticipated to contain residential use consisting of approximately twentyfive (25) to thirty-six (36) residential units. Lot 52 contains approximately 3.13 acres.

C. Lot 52 is located adjacent to the Hunter Development along the southwesterly boundary. Lot 52 is not part of the Hunter Development and the Lot 52 Owner is not a member of the Association.

D. Lot 52 will share the use of the private well within the Hunter Development (the “Private Well”), which is located on Parcel Y shown on the Map (the “Private Well Parcel”). The Private Well is owned and maintained by the Association in accordance with the Hunter Declaration. The Private Well provides irrigation water for the unfenced landscaping and the Common Area at the Hunter Development.

E. The purposes of this Agreement are to: (i) grant ingress, egress and utility easements over the Private Well Parcel in favor of Lot 52; (ii) describe the rights and duties of Lot 52 pertaining to its use of the Private Well as described herein; (iii) provide for the maintenance and insurance of the Private Well; and Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 2 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
(iv) describe the cost sharing obligations in connection with the management, maintenance and insurance of the Private Well.

F. The easements, covenants, restrictions, rights and duties set forth in this Agreement are covenants running with the land under Civil Code section 1468 and equitable servitudes that benefit and bind the Private Well Parcel and Lot 52 and all Owners and successive owners thereto on the recordation of this Agreement in the records of the County of Napa, State of California.

THE LOT 52 OWNER AND THE ASSOCIATION AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE 1 - Definitions
Unless the context indicates otherwise, the following terms shall have the following definitions:

1.1 Agreement. This Hunter Grant of Well Easement and Maintenance Agreement and any amendments or corrections thereto.

1.2 Applicable Laws. All federal, state and local laws, statutes, acts, ordinances, rules, regulations, permits, licenses and requirements of all governmental authorities (including any agency, authority, board, branch, division, department or similar unit of any federal, state, county, district or other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the Developments) that now or hereafter during the term of this Agreement may be applicable.

1.3 Association. Hunter Homeowners Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit association and any successors or assigns.

1.4 Board. The Board of Directors of the Association.

1.5 Hunter Declaration. The Hunter Declaration of Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded in the records of the County of Napa, State of California, and any amendments thereto.

1.6 Hunter Development. The residential development situated on Lots 1 through 51 shown on the Map.

1.7 Improvement. Any property constituting a fixture within the meaning of Civil Code section 660.

1.8 Lot 52 Owner. The Owner(s) of the fee (perpetual) estate in Lot 52.

1.9 Lot 52 Property. Lot 52 shown on the Map.

1.10 Maintain, Maintained, Maintaining or Maintenance. Unless expressly stated otherwise, “maintain”, “maintained”, “maintaining” or “maintenance” as used in this Agreement shall include inspection, cleaning, maintenance, repair, upgrading and/or replacement.

1.11 Map. The subdivision map entitled “Final Map of the Hunter Subdivision” filed for record in the County of Napa, State of California, on ___________________, in Book _______ of Maps at pages ____ through ____, including any subsequently-recorded amended final maps, parcel maps, certificates of correction, lot-line adjustments, and/or records of survey.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 3 August 22, 2025
DRAFT

1.12 Occupants. The Persons entitled to the use and occupancy of a residence within the Hunter Development or a residence within Lot 52 by reason of an ownership right or any lease, sublease, license or other similar agreement.

1.13 Party or Parties. The Lot 52 Owner and/or the Association.

1.14 Permittee. Agents and invitees of the Occupants.

1.15 Person. Any individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or other legal entity.

1.16 Private Well. The private well located on Parcel Y shown on the Map.

1.17 Private Well Improvements. The Private Well including the well casing, concrete pad, well pump, irrigation pipes and other fixtures and equipment that are connected into and serve the well, including the electrical service thereto, and the fencing surrounding the well. The Private Well Improvements do not include any equipment or other lines and equipment that exclusively serve the Hunter Development or Lot 52, which shall be maintained by Lot 52, or by the Association or individual lot owners in the Hunter Development in accordance with the Declaration.

1.18 Private Well Improvements Costs. The costs to maintain the Private Well Improvements, including normal maintenance and reserve costs, reasonable administration expenses directly related to the maintenance and the insurance premium costs and any applicable deductible costs for the liability policy required under Section 3.4.

1.19 Private Well Improvements Costs Budget. The annual budget for the Private Well Improvements Costs.

1.20 Private Well Parcel. Parcel Y shown on the Map.

ARTICLE 2 - Easements and Private Well Rights and Restrictions

2.1 Private Well Easement. The Association grants to the Lot 52 Owner in favor of Lot 52 as the dominant tenement an easement over the Private Well Parcel as the servient tenement for:
(i) connection to the Private Well in locations approved by the Association; (ii) use of irrigation water from the Private Well to serve solely the landscaping in Lot 52; and (iii) access to the servient tenement by agents of the Lot 52 Owner in order to maintain the Private Well Improvements to the extent such Improvements are the responsibility of the Lot 52 Owner and as may be authorized in Section 3.2. The foregoing easements are subject to Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

2.2 General Easement Provisions. The easements described in Section 2.1 are subject to, and construed in accordance with the following provisions, except as otherwise expressly provided for elsewhere in this Agreement: (i) the easement shall be appurtenant to the dominant and servient tenements and any transfer of a dominant or servient tenement automatically transfers the easement appurtenant thereto regardless of whether the easement is described in the instrument of transfer; (ii) the easement is in perpetuity unless otherwise terminated by operation of law; (iii) no easement may be modified or relocated except with the written consent of the Parties, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed; (iv) all easement uses shall comply with all Applicable Laws; (v) each easement granted hereunder exists by virtue of this Agreement, without the necessity of confirmation by any other documents; (vi) the easements are nonexclusive unless expressly provided otherwise; (vii) no easement granted or reserved under this Agreement shall restrict the Association from Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 4 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
granting other easements or interests therein as long as the other easement or interest does not unreasonably interfere with the easements granted in Section 2.1; (viii) the easement is subject to the limitations described in Section 2.3; and (ix) if the dominant and servient tenements are owned by the same Owner, the easement shall be effective automatically on the date the dominant and servient tenements no longer are owned by the same Owner regardless of whether the instrument of transfer separating the ownership describes the easement.

2.3 Irrigation Water Restrictions. The easement described in Section 2.1 is subject to the following: Irrigation water may be unavailable, restricted, and/or limited, at the Association’s sole election, under the following circumstances: (i) during periods of maintenance of the Private Well Improvements, including, but not limited to failure of equipment that needs to be repaired; (ii) due to low water levels in the Private Well; (iii) a drought condition; and (iv) any future state or local regulatory limitations on groundwater extraction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such restriction, limitation, or unavailability shall not be disproportionately borne by the Association or Lot 52 unless directly connected to mechanical failure of Improvements solely serving their respective Developments; it shall apply equally to the Association and Lot 52 in accordance with their allocation of use (their cost sharing obligations). For example only, if irrigation water must be reduced by 10%, then the Association’s 81.5% share of utilizing irrigation water shall be reduced by 10% and Lot 52’s 18.5% share shall be reduced by 10%. The allocation of costs described in Section 4.1 remains the same at all times.

ARTICLE 3 - Maintenance and Insurance

3.1 Maintenance. The Association shall maintain the Private Well Improvements.

Maintenance shall satisfy each of the following maintenance standards:
(i) the Private Well Improvements shall be maintained in a condition and quality at a level that is substantially the same as the condition which existed at the time the Private Well Improvements were initially completed (ordinary wear and tear excepted); and (ii) the Private Well Improvements shall be maintained in accordance with the maintenance standards set forth in the Hunter Declaration applicable to the maintenance of the Private Well Improvements that were in effect on the date the Hunter Declaration was originally recorded in the records of the County of Napa, State of California.

3.2 Failure to Maintain and Emergency Repairs. If the Association fails to maintain the Private Well Improvements as required in Section 3.1, the Lot 52 Owner may notify the Association in writing of the need for maintenance, which notice shall contain a reasonably detailed description of the required maintenance (the “Repair Request”). If the Association disputes any information in the Repair Request, the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures in Article 5, provided that in an emergency situation which could result in injury to any Person or material damage to property or could impact the delivery of utility service to Lot 52, the Lot 52 Owner may immediately proceed with the repair work. If the Association fails to take appropriate action to commence the necessary maintenance or fails to notify the Lot 52 Owner in writing that it disputes the need for maintenance within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Repair Request, the Lot 52 Owner may have the appropriate maintenance work performed and the Association shall be presumed to have consented to the work. The work shall be performed in accordance with all Applicable Laws as defined in Section 1.2 and shall be undertaken only by contractors duly licensed in the State of California. The work, once commenced, shall be diligently pursued until completion and all labor and material costs shall be paid in a timely and proper manner.

On completion of the work, the Lot 52 Owner shall notify the Association in writing of the costs incurred by the Lot 52 Owner in performing the work, which notice shall include a reasonable description Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 5 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
and documentation of the costs (the “Payment Demand”). If the Association fails to tender payment within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Payment Demand, the Lot 52 Owner shall be entitled to recover the reasonable costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, a late charge not exceeding five percent (5%) of the delinquent payment and interest on the delinquent payment at ten percent (10%) per annum but not to exceed the maximum rate authorized by law, commencing thirty (30) days after the payment due date. The Lot 52 Owner may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to collect the amount due, including the interest due thereon, late charges, collection costs and attorneys’ fees.

Unless the Lot 52 Owner made emergency repairs without remitting a Repair Request to the Association or unless the Lot 52 Owner agrees in writing, any dispute regarding the work or the costs thereof, including the Repair Request or the Payment Demand, shall not be subject to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Article 5.

3.3 Lot 52 Owner’s Utility Repair Rights. If any lateral lines or equipment situated within the Private Well exclusively serving Lot 52 needs maintenance, prior to the commencement of any work by the Lot 52 Owner or its agents or contractors, the Lot 52 Owner shall notify the Association in writing identifying the type of repairs, the party performing the repairs, the estimated time of repair and the effect the work will have on access to and use of the Private Well. Depending on the nature of the work, the Association acting in a commercially reasonable manner may require that prior to the commencement of any work, appropriate liability insurance be procured naming the Association as an additional insured and that reasonable collateral be posted securing completion of the work and payment of labor and materials.

All work shall be performed in compliance with all applicable laws and by contractors bonded and duly licensed by the State of California. Work, once commenced, shall be diligently pursued until completion.

The Lot 52 Owner shall defend, indemnify and hold the Association harmless against any claims, liabilities, losses, liens and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising from the work.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of an emergency which could result in injury to any person or material damage to property, the Lot 52 Owner may immediately commence appropriate work to address the emergency situation, secure the area and minimize the impact on the use of the Private Well.

3.4 Insurance. The Association shall maintain a policy of general liability insurance insuring against any liability for bodily injury or death to any Person or property damage from any act or occurrence within the Private Well. The policy shall name the Lot 52 Owner as an additional insured thereunder and shall include, if obtainable, cross liability or severability of interest coverage. The limits of such insurance (including the commercial general liability and any excess liability coverage) shall not be less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit coverage. Such insurance shall include coverage against liability for owned, non-owned and hired automobiles and other liability or risk customarily covered with respect to projects similar in construction, location and use. The policy shall be primary and noncontributing with any other liability policy covering the same liability. The Association shall, within ten (10) days after written request from the Lot 52 Owner, provide the Lot 52 Owner with appropriate evidence that the insurance required is in full force and effect. Any notice of cancellation or material changes to the policy shall be provided by the issuing insurance company in accordance with the notice requirements in the policy. If cancelled, the Board shall replace the policy with a substantially equivalent policy.

ARTICLE 4 - Cost Allocation and Payment Procedures

4.1 Allocation of the Private Well Improvements Costs. The Private Well Improvement Costs shall be allocated between the Association and the Lot 52 Owner in accordance with the allocation methodology set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement.

If Lot 52 is further subdivided and an association is formed to manage that subdivision, the association shall assume the rights and obligations of the Lot 52 Owner. That association shall: (i) Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 6 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
include its allocable share of the Private Well Improvement Costs in its annual budget; (ii) be obligated to pay the Private Well Improvement Costs without regard to whether its members are delinquent in the payment of the assessment; and (iii) collect delinquent assessments from its members.

The purpose of this Section 4.1 is to allocate the Private Well Improvements Costs in an equitable manner between the Parties based on the benefits received from and burdens imposed on the Private Well by each Development. If either Party feels the allocation should be readjusted to reflect an equitable cost-sharing arrangement, the Party shall notify the other Party in writing (the “Readjustment Request”). The Parties shall meet and negotiate in good faith regarding a readjustment within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Readjustment Request. If the Parties fail to reach an agreement within thirty (30) days of the initial meeting or if an Party refuses to meet, the matter shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures described in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 in that order. Pending the effective date of any readjustment, the Private Well Improvement Costs shall be allocated based on the current allocation formula. The effective date of a readjustment shall be the date agreed upon by the Parties or as determined by the arbitrator, provided that the effective date may not be a date that is earlier than the date the non-requesting Party received the Readjustment Request. If the allocations are readjusted, an amendment to this Agreement shall be recorded in the records of the County of Napa, State of California, signed by the Parties certifying that the readjustment was duly approved by the Parties under the provisions of this Section 4.1.

No Party may make a Readjustment Request more than one time in a thirty-six (36) consecutive month period or within the twenty-four (24) months following the date of the issuance of an arbitration award.

4.2 Private Well Improvements Costs Budget. At least ninety (90) days before the end of each calendar year, the Association shall submit to the Lot 52 Owner the Private Well Improvement Costs Budget for the next calendar year containing an itemized statement of the estimated Private Well Improvement Costs for the next calendar year.

If the Lot 52 Owner disputes any of the information in the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget, the Lot 52 Owner may notify the Association of the dispute, its reasons therefor, and its election to have the dispute resolved in accordance with the procedures described in Article 5 (the “Resolution Notice”). If the Lot 52 Owner fails to deliver the Resolution Notice to the Association within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget, it shall be conclusively presumed that the information in the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget is accurate (subject to the reconciliation procedures described in Section 4.6) and acceptable and that the Lot 52 Owner waived its right to dispute the amount allocated to the Lot 52 Owner under the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget. If a Resolution Notice is delivered in a timely and proper manner, the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures described in Article 5. Pending resolution of any dispute, the Lot 52 Owner shall pay its share of the Private Well Improvements Costs based on the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget for the immediately preceding calendar year.

Failure to provide the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget shall not relieve the Lot 52 Owner of its obligation to pay its allocable share of the Private Well Improvements Costs. The payments due under Section 4.3 shall be based on the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget for the immediately preceding calendar year.

4.3 Payment Procedure. Unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing, the Lot 52 Owner shall pay to the Association its share of the annual Private Well Improvements Costs on an annual basis prior to January 15th of each year commencing the year in which construction of Improvements on Lot 52 begins, which shall be prorated as appropriate for the year in which commencement begins. For Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 7 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
example, if construction of Improvements on Lot 52 begins in April, the Lot 52 Owner will only be responsible for nine (9) months of Private Well Improvements Costs.

If payment is not made by January 15th, the payment shall be delinquent. If the payment is delinquent, the Association may recover all of the following: the reasonable costs incurred in collecting the delinquent payment, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, a late charge not exceeding five percent (5%) of the delinquent payment, and interest on the delinquent payment at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum or the maximum rate authorized by law, whichever is lesser, commencing thirty (30) days after the payment was due.

4.4 Payment Default and Remedies. If the Lot 52 Owner fails to pay its share of the Private Well Improvements Costs when due, the Association may bring an action in any court of appropriate jurisdiction against the Lot 52 Owner for breach of the obligation to pay its allocable share of the Private Well Improvements Costs and in such action shall be entitled to recover the amount due and any interest and late penalties accrued thereon as provided in Section 4.3, all costs of such action, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

4.5 Unanticipated Costs. If the Association incurs, or is reasonably expected to incur, any Private Well Improvements Costs not anticipated in the Private Well Improvements Costs Budget, the Association shall notify the Lot 52 Owner of the unanticipated Private Well Improvements Costs and the reasons therefore (the “Additional Cost Notice”). Any disputes regarding the Additional Cost Notice shall be resolved in accordance with this Article 5. Payment of the Lot 52 Owner’s share of the unanticipated costs is due no later than forty-five (45) days after the Lot 52 Owner receives the Additional Cost Notice unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing or unless the matter has been submitted to the dispute resolution procedures in Article 5.

4.6 Reconciliation. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the end of each calendar year, the Association shall deliver to the Lot 52 Owner a reconciliation of the actual payments received by the Association from the Lot 52 Owner against the Lot 52 Owner’s allocable share of the actual operating expenses of the Private Well Improvements Costs incurred by the Association during the immediately preceding calendar year (the “Reconciliation Notice”). If the Lot 52 Owner paid more than its allocable share of the operating expense of the Private Well Improvements Costs incurred, the excess amount shall be credited immediately against any future payments due from the Lot 52 Owner until the excess amount is recouped in its entirety through the credit. If the Lot 52 Owner paid less than its actual allocable share of the operating expenses of the Private Well Improvements Costs, the deficient amount shall be paid no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the Reconciliation Notice unless the Parties agree otherwise to an appropriate payment plan. If the Lot 52 Owner fails to make the payment within fifteen (15) days of the due date, the payment shall be delinquent and the Association shall have the same rights and remedies described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.

4.7 Damage Responsibilities. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if either Party or any Occupant or Permittee thereof damages any Private Well Improvement, the responsible Party shall pay all costs to repair or replace the damaged Private Well Improvement.

4.8 Books and Records. The Association shall maintain books and records describing in commercially-reasonable detail all Private Well Improvements Costs, including invoices and other cost statements; and the Association shall be provided access to the books and records and the opportunity to copy same during regular business hours. Access and copy rights shall be granted to agents of the Lot 52 Owner no later than ten (10) business days after the Association has received written request for such access.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 8 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
ARTICLE 5 - Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures

5.1 Resolution Notice. Subject to the provisions of Sections 3.2, 4.2 and 5.5, if any dispute arises between the Parties regarding the rights or duties of the Parties under this Agreement, on request, either Party may submit a written request to the other Party to have the dispute resolved in accordance with the provisions of this Article 5 (the “Resolution Notice”).

5.2 Dispute Meeting. No later than twenty (20) business days following the receipt of the Resolution Notice by the other Party, agents of the Parties shall meet and negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute within ten (10) days of date of the Resolution Notice. If a Party refuses or fails to meet for any reason or if the dispute cannot be resolved as a result of the meeting, the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures described in Section 5.3 and/or 5.4 in that order.

5.3 Mediation. If the dispute cannot be resolved pursuant to Section 5.2 within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Resolution Notice, the dispute shall be submitted to mediation pursuant to the mediation procedures adopted by the American Arbitration Association or any successor thereto or to any other entity offering mediation services that is acceptable to the Parties. Either Party may initiate the mediation procedures. No Person shall serve as a mediator in any dispute in which the Person has any financial or personal interest in the result of the mediation, except by the written consent of all Parties.

Prior to accepting any appointment, the prospective mediator shall disclose any circumstances likely to create a presumption of bias or prevent a prompt commencement of the mediation process. If either Party fails or refuses to participate in mediation for any reason, the other Party may commence binding arbitration as described in Section 5.4. The arbitrator shall take into account a Party’s failure or refusal to mediate in awarding costs and attorneys’ fees.

Within ten (10) days of the selection of the mediator, each Party shall submit a brief memorandum setting forth its position with regard to the issues that need to be resolved. The mediator shall have the right to schedule a pre-mediation conference, and all Parties shall attend unless otherwise agreed. The mediation shall be commenced within ten (10) days following the submittal of the memoranda and shall be concluded within fifteen (15) days from the commencement of the mediation unless the Parties mutually agree to extend the mediation period. The mediation shall be held in the County of Napa, State of California.

The mediator has discretion to conduct the mediation in the manner in which the mediator believes is most appropriate for reaching a settlement of the dispute. The mediator is authorized to conduct joint and separate meetings with the Parties and to make oral and written recommendations for settlement. Whenever necessary, the mediator may also obtain expert advice concerning technical aspects of the dispute, provided the Parties agree and assume the expenses of obtaining such advice.

The mediator does not have the authority to impose a settlement on the Parties.

The mediation shall be subject to the provisions of Evidence Code sections 1115 through 1128, or any successor statutes thereto, except as the Parties may agree otherwise in writing or orally in accordance with the requirements of Evidence Code section 1118.

Persons other than the Parties, the representatives and the mediator may attend mediation sessions only with the permission of the Parties and the consent of the mediator. Confidential information disclosed to a mediator by the Parties or by witnesses in the course of the mediation shall not be divulged by the mediator. All records, reports, or other documents received by the mediator while serving in such capacity shall be confidential. There shall be no stenographic record of the mediation process.

The expenses of witnesses for either side shall be paid by the Party producing such witnesses.

All other expenses of the mediation, including required traveling and other expenses of the mediator, and Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 9 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
the expenses of any witnesses, or the cost of any proofs or expert advice produced at the direct request of the mediator, shall be borne equally by the Parties unless they agree otherwise.

5.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Parties cannot resolve the dispute pursuant to the procedures described in Section 5.3, either Party, at any time after the termination of the procedures described in Section 5.3, may commence binding arbitration under the American Arbitration Association or any other arbitration provider may be mutually acceptable to the Parties. The following rules and procedures shall apply in all cases unless the Parties agree otherwise:
(i) the proceedings shall be heard in the County of Napa, State of California; (ii) any fee to initiate the arbitration shall be paid by the Party initiating the procedure, provided that the arbitration costs and fees, including any initiation fee, ultimately shall be borne as determined by the arbitrator;
(iii) the arbitrator shall be appointed within sixty (60) days of the arbitrator’s receipt of a written request to arbitrate the dispute. In selecting the arbitrator, the provisions of section 1297.121 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply. The arbitrator may be challenged for any of the grounds listed therein or in section 1297.124 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (iv) the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association; (v) the arbitrator’s statement of decision shall contain findings of fact and conclusions of law to the extent applicable, and the arbitrator’s decision shall be rendered within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the hearing;
(vi) the arbitrator in his or her discretion may award costs and/or attorneys’ fees to the Party that the arbitrator determines was the prevailing Party; (vii) the arbitrator may award all recognized remedies available in law or equity; and (viii) the arbitrator’s decision shall be final and binding on the Parties unless corrected or vacated under the grounds authorized in Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 or 1286.6 or any successor statutes thereto.

The arbitrator’s decision may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.

5.5 Payment Obligation. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, under no circumstances shall the Lot 52 Owner withhold payments due under this Agreement as a result of any dispute with the Association (other than any payment that is the subject of a dispute) or for any other reason unless authorized to do so by order of a court with appropriate jurisdiction or by the arbitrator selected under the provisions of Section 5.4. The Association retains without limitation the remedies set forth in Section 4.4 in the event of any payment default without regard to any dispute between the Parties, including any dispute that has been submitted to binding arbitration unless the arbitrator issues an order to the contrary in writing. The intent of the foregoing is to eliminate the potential of a Party to use economic pressure to force an unfair settlement on the other Party.

ARTICLE 6 – Miscellaneous
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 10 August 22, 2025
DRAFT

6.1 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective for a term of fifty (50) years from the date this Agreement is recorded in records of the County of Napa, State of California, after which time the term shall automatically be extended for successive ten-year periods unless on or before one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the commencement of any successive ten (10) year period either Party notifies the other Party of its election to terminate the Agreement. A termination of the Agreement shall not terminate the easements described in Article 2.

6.2 Board Authority. The Board shall have full right, power and authority to take all actions under this Agreement on behalf of the Association and the owners of Lots within the Hunter Development, including the right to approve any amendments, and the consent of the members shall not be required.

No individual owner or owners of Lots within the Hunter Development shall have any right, power or authority to enforce any rights under the Agreement applicable to the Association; all such enforcement rights are reserved exclusively to the Association.

6.3 Notice. Each Party covenants to provide the other Party with a current address for purposes of receiving notices. Any notice or demand permitted or required herein shall be conclusively considered received by a Party when personally delivered to the other Party, or seventy-two (72) hours after the notice has been deposited in the United States mail, certified or a return receipt requested, postage-prepaid, and addressed to such address as that the Party has provided the other Party for purposes of receiving notice hereunder. If no address has been provided, notice shall be considered received ninety-six (96) hours after notice is posted in a conspicuous place on the Party’s principal place of business and a copy mailed to the last known address of the Party.

Notwithstanding the prescribed method of delivery set forth above, actual receipt of written notice shall constitute notice given in accordance with this Agreement on the date received, unless receipt is deemed earlier in accordance with delivery made under one of the prescribed methods.

6.4 Mortgagee Protection. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to render invalid any deed of trust or mortgage on any property subject to this Agreement. No beneficiary under any such deed of trust or any purchaser at a foreclosure sale of such deed of trust shall be obligated to cure any of the payment defaults of the property’s previous owner unless such obligation is expressly assumed in writing.

6.5 Attorneys’ Fees. If any action is commenced regarding the rights or duties of the Parties hereto, the prevailing Party in such action shall be entitled to recover the costs of such action and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

6.6 Recordation; Covenants Running with the Land and Equitable Servitudes. This Agreement shall be recorded in the records of the County of Napa, State of California. The easements, covenants, restrictions, rights and duties described herein shall constitute covenants running with the land under Civil Code section 1468 and equitable servitudes that benefit and bind the Hunter Development and Lot 52 Property and each Owner and successive owner thereto. Owners of any property bound by this Agreement shall be liable for any defaults under this Agreement only during the period the Owner held an ownership interest in the property and shall not be liable for any defaults committed by any predecessor or successor owner unless assumed in writing.

6.7 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by written agreement by the Lot 52 Owner and the Private Well Parcel Owner. The amendment shall be effective when recorded in the records of the County of Napa, State of California, signed by authorized agents of each Party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Lot 52 is further subdivided and an association is formed to manage the subdivision, the Board of that association shall have the full right, power and authority to approve any amendments.

Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 2
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 11 August 22, 2025
DRAFT

6.8 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date this document is recorded in the records of the County of Napa, State of California.

LOT 52 OWNER: WHITE FANG PROPERTIES, LLC,
a South Dakota limited liability company
By: ____________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title: ____________________________
ASSOCIATION: HUNTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation
By: ____________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title: ____________________________
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 4
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of _____________________ )
On ____________________, before me, ____________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 4
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of _____________________ )
On ____________________, before me, ____________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 4
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 August 22, 2025
DRAFT
EXHIBIT A – Allocation Methodology
The allocation of the Private Well Improvements Costs shall be based upon the acreage of Lot 52 and the Hunter Development.

Property Acres
Private Well
Improvements
Allocation
Lot 52 3.13 18.5%
Hunter Development 13.77 81.5%

16.9 100%
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 4
RWEQ-59650\2986807.4 August 22, 2025
DRAFT

SUBORDINATION
The undersigned, the beneficiary under the deed of trust recorded on [CONFIRM] ___________________, as Document No. _________ in the records of the County of Napa, State of California (the “Deed of Trust”), executed by ______________________, a _____________________, as Trustor, hereby subordinates the Deed of Trust to the foregoing Hunter Grant of Well Easement and Maintenance Agreement (the “Agreement”) so that for all purposes the Agreement shall be deemed executed and recorded prior to the execution and recordation of the Deed of Trust.

Dated: ___________________ BENEFICIARY:
_______________________________
_______________________________
By: _________________________
Name: _________________________
Its: _________________________
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
County of _____________________ )
On ____________________, before me, ____________________________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
Agenda Item #11.1.

ATTACHMENT 4
Summary report:

Litera Compare for Word 11.10.1.2 Document comparison done on 4/29/2025 3:14:53 PM
Style name: MSR CID
Intelligent Table Comparison: Active
Original DMS: iw://aws-dms02.msrlegal.com/IMANAGE/2986807/4 Modified DMS: iw://aws-dms02.msrlegal.com/IMANAGE/2986807/5 Changes:

Add 0
Delete 5
Move From 0
Move To 0
Table Insert 0
Table Delete 0
Table moves to 0
Table moves from 0
Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.) 0
Embedded Excel 0
Format changes 0
Total Changes: 5
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Tracy Jonelis
To: Public Comment
Subject: NO to Hunter Subdivision Project
Date: Saturday, August 23, 2025 10:53:59 AM
To the Saint Helena City Council
Re: Hunter Subdivision Project
We respectfully ask Saint Helena City Council:

Please:
(1) NOT recommend approval of the Hunter Subdivision Project agreement because it does not properly address the scope of the project or the actual impact it will have on the safety of the community and the environment; and (2) NOT approve the tentative subdivision map for the same reasons.

The Hunter subdivision project has long term negative impacts to the St.

Helena community.
-the excessive size and density of the project;
-extreme lack of evacuation in an emergency:
-increased traffic, which will be impossible to mitigate; negatively impacting the safety of the existing community.
-project will use an excessive amount of water during times of drought and fire, when Saint Helena is already struggling with water scarcity and safety and imposed water restrictions for current residents.
-claiming the project will use only groundwater is deceptive, since ground water is a shared resource for the entire geologic area; and climate change will continue to depleted the aquifer and the project will eventually need Saint Helena's water supply.
-elimination of open space, which is essential for quality of life in Saint Helena.

Thank you.

Frank and Tracy Jonelis
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Tishna Pastrama
To: Public Comment
Subject: Opposition to Hunter Project
Date: Saturday, August 23, 2025 6:04:43 PM
Gabriel and Tishna Pastrama
1375 Grove Court
St. Helena, CA 94574
City Council of St. Helena
1480 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Opposition to Hunter Affordable Housing Agreement and Final Subdivision Map
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As longtime residents of St. Helena, we care deeply about our town and the people who call it home. We are writing together to strongly oppose the approval of the Hunter affordable housing agreement, the final subdivision map, and related agreements scheduled for discussion at the upcoming Council meeting.

From our perspective, the so-called “affordable housing” component does not ring true. It feels like a gesture on paper rather than a genuine effort to provide housing that families in our community can actually access. The continued lack of transparency and clarity around Lot 52 is particularly troubling. When intentions are not disclosed openly, trust is broken—and right now, there is no clear, trustworthy plan being put forward.

We are also deeply concerned by the way this has been handled procedurally. By adding this item to the agenda with so little notice, it feels as though the public was deliberately kept in the dark. That is not how decisions that impact the future of our town should be made. St. Helena deserves open dialogue, advance notice, and respect for its residents’ right to participate fully.

Beyond these issues, we must also consider the impact of a project of this magnitude on our city’s infrastructure and public health. Just this month, the City of St. Helena sent residents a letter concerning the poor quality of our existing water supply and warning of the potential for cancer-causing elements in it. To approve a major development that would significantly increase water demand while knowing that our system is already compromised is both irresponsible and Agenda Item #11.1.

dangerous. Our community deserves clean, safe and affordable water before any additional burdens are placed on an already strained system.

We urge you, as leaders of our city, to require more from the developers before moving forward:

1. A clear, binding, and enforceable plan for true affordability.

2. Full disclosure of intentions for Lot 52 and any other parcels involved.

3. A comprehensive evaluation of the project’s impact on our water system, infrastructure, and public health, taking into account the City’s own recent water quality warning letter.

4. Adequate notice and opportunity for the community to review and comment before any decision is finalized.

We love St. Helena, and we want to see it grow in ways that are fair, transparent, and supportive of the people who live and work here. Approving this agreement as it currently stands would not only shortchange our community but also place serious and unnecessary risks on the health, safety, and quality of life of its residents.

Thank you for your time and for listening to the voices of those who care so deeply about our town’s future.

With respect,
Tishna & Gabe Pastrama
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Kathleen Guneratne
To: Public Comment
Subject: Opposition to Hunter Affordable Housing Agreement and Subdivision Map Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 1:16:36 PM
Subject: Opposition to Hunter Affordable Housing Agreement and Subdivision Map Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, I am writing in opposition to the proposed approval of the Hunter affordable housing agreement, subdivision map, and related agreements scheduled for consideration at the August 26, 2025 council meeting. We did not realize that this item was on Tuesday's agenda.

While the project is presented as including an “affordable housing” component, the details make clear that this is in name only. The agreement does not actually create housing that is accessible to lowincome residents of St. Helena. Instead:

The multifamily units can be sold rather than rented, meaning there is no guarantee of long-term affordability.

Only 7 units are restricted to households earning up to 100% of the Area Median Income (currently $146,700), which is far out of reach for most working families in our community.

An additional 8 units are labeled “moderate income,” but even those are capped at 120% of AMI, which again does not meet the needs of local workers, seniors, or young families struggling with St. Helena’s high cost of living.

This structure falls far short of the city’s obligation to provide housing opportunities that genuinely meet community needs. It also undermines the intent of affordable housing policies by creating the appearance of compliance without delivering real affordability.

Further, the developer has still failed to disclose clear plans for Lot 52, leaving the public in the dark about its intended use. Proceeding without transparency on this issue would be irresponsible and premature.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Council to reject the current agreement and subdivision map.

Our community deserves real solutions to our housing challenges, not developments that label units “affordable” while pricing out the very residents they are supposed to serve.

Thank you for considering these concerns.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Guneratne on behalf of
St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Sherri Kelly
To: Public Comment
Subject: item 11.1 for 8.26.25 NO on the Hunter Subdivsion Project Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 12:10:43 PM
To members of the St. Helena City Council
and members of the St. Helena Planning Commission,
I have lived on Meadowcreek Circle in St. Helena since 2003.

Many concerns have been raised for over a decade regarding approval of the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project. I strongly urge the St. Helena City Council to stop all further consideration of the Hunter Subdivision (as proposed) due to dangers to St. Helena community health and safety, non-production of affordable housing under the Hunter Project proposal, and the lack of availability of quality drinking water for an additional 80+ homes within St. Helena city limits.

The Hunter Project: a Danger to Community Safety

“The purpose of this Zoning Code is to: “Protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; Encourage orderly, compatible and beneficial uses of land; Minimize conflicts which might result from incompatible and inappropriate land uses….” The purpose of the CEQA EIR development process is to further those land use goals.

However, based on examples below, it seems the core intent of the Hunter EIR development CEQA process has been improperly manipulated to further the financial goals of the Hunter Project developers, while completely discounting the safety of the current Saint Helena community and future residents in proximity to the Hunter Project.

It should be also noted that Page 9 of the Planning Commission Report for November 1, 2022 on file number PL10-040 and TM 2022-001 regarding the Hunter Subdivision Map cites Government Code Section 65589.5 (j)(1) in providing that “…the City may only deny the project if it finds, based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record that one of the following conditions exist…2. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density." As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct impact on safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The conditions I outline below are both current and historic; no substantial changes have occurred that would mitigate them.

Traffic Issues and Lack of Adequate Emergency Egress
Section 3.14-4, page of the EIR states “Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? This is a less than-significant impact.” The facts of current and past traffic Agenda Item #11.1.

problems and past traffic studies in the immediate area of the proposed Hunter Project do not support this finding. Mock emergency evacuation drills, such as the one in August 2021 cited in Master Response 1 (Planning Commission Report page 1446) are not an accurate model of an emergency evacuation of the entire St. Helena area east of Main Street. There are now and have historically existed significant, direct and quantifiable traffic and congestion issues in the neighborhoods proximate to the proposed Hunter Project. The Hunter EIR findings are inadequate and unrealistically dismissive to negative impacts on public safety in St. Helena should the project be built as proposed. The dismissive response to the public safety needs of the community and the inadequacy of the Hunter EIR is substantiated by the fact that no revisions were made in EIR Section 3.1 Transportation and Circulation, in spite of numerous traffic and evacuation safety concerns posted by community members during the public comment period on the Hunter DEIR.

Section 3.14-5 of the EIR states “Under Cumulative conditions, would the proposed project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)? This is considered a significant impact. No mitigation measures available.” My understanding is that CEQA section 15064.3(b) pertains to potential negative traffic impacts. On page 3.15-5 the authors of the EIR thus acknowledge the project will exacerbate traffic problems in the immediate vicinity and there are no mitigating actions possible.

The developers of the EIR document have completely dismissed the existing traffic issues in the developed areas adjacent to the proposed Hunter project -- Hunt Avenue/Hunt’s Grove/Meadowcreek Circle/Starr Avenue. Simply saying there is nothing that can be done to mitigate a problem doesn’t make it go away, or make it better. Observational evidence of conditions in the area around the proposed Hunter Project indicate that adding 80+ households to the area, without developing additional paths of emergency egress in addition to the roadways proposed by Hunter, will create immediate and negative impacts on emergency access and the ability to safely evacuate the area.

According to the EIR section 2-23, “Development of the Project site would require the extension of Adams Street and Starr Avenue onto the Project site to provide two points of ingress and egress….” Further increasing the density of the adjacent neighborhood housing will directly endanger current residents, as well as any future residents of the proposed Hunter project, if a sudden emergency evacuation is necessary, given the few points of exit (Pope Street bridge, Main Street) from the area. Responsible addition of 80+ households to this area must require development of several additional entry and exit points; the two cited in the EIR are not sufficient to safely evacuate the planned Hunter development. In addition, due to prior land use agreements made by the City of St. Helena, it is highly questionable whether there will ever be a bridge built crossing the river at the intersection of Agenda Item #11.1.

Adams Street and Silverado Trail.

The EIR cites the historic frequency of local natural disasters in the form of floods “...1973, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2005 (page 3.9-5)” and wildfires “..in August 2020 there were a number of wildfires including the LNU Lightning Complex Fire and the Glass Fire that burned large areas of Napa County including a small portion of the Project site (page ES-4).” Wildfire natural disasters have become a familiar annual routine in Napa County–we are in the midst of the Pickett Fire as I write this.

The fragile and limited points of egress on the east side of St. Helena have had a history of creating crisis situations as a result of our frequent natural disasters, such as the landslide blockage of Silverado Trail in October 2021. The findings of the Hunter EIR indicate a dismissive and inadequate assessment of existing emergency evaluation problems in the area surrounding the proposed development. Another example of the inadequacy of the EIR is that the recommendations of the California State Department of Transportation on the development of safe evacuation routes (Evacuation Route Guidance, Design Information Bulletin 93, dated 12/23/20) are not being followed in the plans for the Hunter Project.

Which entity, the City or the Hunter project developers, will be legally and financially responsible for any future loss of health, life or property resulting from a faulty evacuation from the area surrounding the proposed Hunter Project?
Danger from Earthquake/Flooding Resulting from Development The following is based on a review of the DEIR documents for the Hunter Project . The DEIR states “The following policies from the City of St. Helena 2019 General Plan, Public Health and Safety element are relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity issues in the Project site. Policy PS3.1: Minimize risk of injury, loss of life and property damage from seismically induced and other known geologic hazards (page 3.6-18).”

compacted, engineered fill (designed to support future development) on the Hunter Parcel without first over excavating and recompacting the existing weak surface layer, due to the anticipated settlement of the weak soil layer as a result of the loads imposed by the new fill, as well as future building loads. Settlement of the weak soil layer, if left in place beneath the recently placed compacted fill, could lead to damage to new residential structures, streets, utilities, and concrete flatwork supported over the weak soil layer.” Due to the potential for liquefaction and/or settlement of weak soils, the Proposed Project could potentially expose residences to significant impacts from a major earthquake. The DEIR clearly states this is considered a significant impact.

Another safety issue is levee surrounding the Hunter property. It is well known that local news media has reported past correspondence between the City of St. Helena and the Army Corps of Engineers questioning whether the levee was constructed according to accepted engineering and safety standards. As one citizen brought up during public comments at the Agenda Item #11.1.

City Council meeting of 9/14/21, no one -- City of St. Helena staff or the Hunter developer--will answer simple questions in a public meeting regarding which entity, the City or the developer, will take responsibility for possible future damage to health, life or property if the levee protecting the Hunter property should be damaged. Was the levee built to current engineering and safety standards? No one seems to want to answer that question affirmatively, with supporting documentation.

Fortunately, page 3.9-12 of the DEIR provides us with a response on this issue: “Where the levee may be overtopped or in a 200+ year flood event, Proposed Project residents would have ample warning to evacuate prior to flooding. Based on a comparison of the base flood elevation to proposed lot pad elevations, flooding of Proposed Project lots would range between 0 and 5 feet in depth, with the deepest flooding occurring on the northern part of the Project site. This level of flooding would leave upper floors of residences available for refuge. Because of this, the risks from a 200+ year flood and/or levee failure are limited to property damage rather than risk of life. As previously indicated, this would be an impact of the pre-existing environment on the Proposed Project rather than the Proposed Project’s impact on the environment.”
Where is the mitigation or measures to protect public safety in this strategy? I remind the reader how readily disease vectors are spread via flood waters, and how toxic mold can grow for years in a structure damaged by a flood. In section 3.9-12, the Hunter project developers are clearly stating “The danger from the levee is just a pre-existing condition of this property, we won’t take any responsibility for the outcome, we’re going to move forward with this project no matter who is endangered, and the City of St. Helena will be left to deal with the legal and financial consequences.” How about not building the proposed project in such an unsafe location? I wouldn’t buy any residence under the unsafe circumstances proposed for the Hunter project, but that’s just my personal perspective. I’m simply not interested in being trapped in my home’s second story while unsanitary flood waters circulate through the lower story.

I’m wondering which entity, the City or the Hunter project developers, will be legally and financially responsible for any future loss of health, life or property resulting from a levee break or earthquake damage at the location of the proposed Hunter project? The Hunter Project: No Actual Affordable Housing Created The Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for the Hunter Subdivision doesn’t actually provide the St. Helena community with any substantial affordable housing, which is our most desperate need. If the developer sells the multifamily units instead of renting them, the Agreement limits to seven units restricted to 100% of the area median income, which is $146,700 and 8 moderate income units limited at 120% of the median income or $176,040. The inappropriately high income limits for the "affordable" housing in the proposal are because the high ratio of wealthy residents skews the average income in St. Helena upwards, which works to the financial advantage of the developer. Thus, the housing provided by the Hunter Project, as proposed, will not in any way provide for our low-income St. Helena residents or workforce. In addition, there are no additional details about Lot 52, which the developer has stated will be apartments. I’m wondering why the City of St. Helena is spending so much time, effort and resources to Agenda Item #11.1.

consider a project providing no housing for our low income residents and workforce.

The Hunter Project: Past and Current Lack of Quality Water in St Helena It is common knowledge, and documented in many City communications, that tap water flowing into homes all over St. Helena has often been brown in color over the last five years.

According to public information from the St. Helena City government, expensive upgrades will be necessary to provide adequate water service to existing customers of the St. Helena City water enterprise. In addition, past City of St. Helena leadership has made binding water supply decisions which have worsened water shortages. Many City water customers have incurred unaffordable fines for their water use, and my understanding is that St. Helena has the most expensive municipal water west of the Rockies. I'm sure any future residents of the Hunter Subdivision would not enjoy sharing in the expensive and terrible quality water currently supplied by the City of St. Helena.

Issues with the quality of St. Helena City water and malfunctions at the City water treatment plant, as documented by City correspondence and local news media, have become an epic saga. The City’s difficulties in ensuring a quality water supply must be overwhelming, judging by the lack of substantial improvement in the situation over the last five years, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on mitigation strategies. In reference to the St. Helena 2010 Water Supply Plan, the Hunter DEIR (page 3.13-10) clearly states “...water supplies under both the Likely Buildout Scenario and the Full Buildout Scenario would not be sufficient to meet demands during all [water supply] scenarios.”
Given these circumstances, how can the City or the developer warrant to any future Hunter Project residents that there will be a sufficient supply of good quality water to supply their residences? The current inability of the City of St. Helena to provide quality water indicates that the addition of any further housing units must wait until the ENTIRE water delivery infrastructure is upgraded and supplying quality water for a substantial period of time. Which entity, the City or the Hunter project developers, will be legally and financially responsible for any future injury to health, life or property resulting from the worsening of City of St. Helena water supply/quality issues, exacerbated by addition of 80+ households in the proposed Hunter project?
The Hunter Project is a "No Go" due to dangerous and incomplete planning.

It seems to me that the answer regarding the highest and best use of the Hunter property can be found on page ES-17 of the DEIR: “Of the alternatives evaluated above, Alternative 2, the Park Preserve alternative [eg. maintaining the land as a nature preserve] is the environmentally superior alternative.” Taken as a whole, this solution is the way forward to responsibly ensure sustained health and safety for current and future residents of St. Helena.

Just don't build it.

Best regards,
Sherri Kelly
1192 Meadowcreek Circle
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: fj
To: Public Comment
Subject: Hunter Subdivision Project
Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 9:44:33 PM
Hunter Subdivision Project
It's clear that you are again trying to put a fast one over us citizens by slipping this horrible thing into a meeting that was essentially kept quiet.

We are watching you and will hold you accountable for this outrage.

I ask Saint Helena City Council:

Please:
(1) NOT recommend approval of the Hunter Subdivision Project agreement because it does not properly address the scope of the project or the actual impact it will have on the safety of the community and the environment; and (2) NOT approve the tentative subdivision map for the same reasons.

The Hunter subdivision project has long term negative impacts to the St. Helena community.
-the excessive size and density of the project;
-extreme lack of evacuation in an emergency:
-increased traffic, which will be impossible to mitigate; negatively impacting the safety of the existing community.
-project will use an excessive amount of water during times of drought and fire, when Saint Helena is already struggling with water scarcity and safety and imposed water restrictions for current residents.
-claiming the project will use only groundwater is deceptive, since ground water is a shared resource for the entire geologic area; and climate change will continue to depleted the aquifer and the project will eventually need Saint Helena's water supply.
-elimination of open space, which is essential for quality of life in Saint Helena.

Thank you.

Frank Jonelis
708 Hunt Ave
-----
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Monique Olivier
To: Public Comment
Subject: 8/26/25 Meeting: Opposition to Hunter Project
Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 5:16:50 PM
Dear Mayor Dohring and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge the City Council to deny approval of the Hunter Project's final subdivision map and so-called "affordable" housing agreement set to be heard at the August 26, 2025 council meeting.

First, inadequate notice was given about this agenda item. This item should be tabled and considered at a future meeting after adequate notice, an opportunity to review, and public comment. The materials include over 200 pages of mostly legal documents that require careful review and consideration. Upon initial review, these documents are also incomplete. For example, there does not appear to be an agreed upon list of public improvements the developer will undertake. This is a significant issue affecting all St. Helena residents. It is a proposal for a massive housing development in the middle of St. Helena with significant safety, environmental and community impacts. Adding it to the agenda only a week in advance for a Tuesday in late August, buried beneath several other items, indicates, once again, that the developer and St. Helena are attempting to push through this project without adequate notice and process to its residents.

Second, this project does not, under any reasonable definition, have an "affordable housing” component. Only a small handful of units are restricted to households earning up to 100% of the Area Median Income (currently $146,700), which is far out of reach for most working families in our community. An additional 8 units are labeled “moderate income,” but those are capped at 120% of AMI, which again does not meet the needs of St. Helena residents struggling with St. Helena’s high cost of living. The city continues to fail to meet its duty to provide housing opportunities that genuinely meet community needs.

Third, the developer continues to refuse to disclose clear plans for Lot 52 on the map. The city and its residents must have a full understanding of exactly the scope of this project.

Fourth, the city is not obligated by the state to approve this poorly conceived housing project. The developer and certain members of city management have been suggesting that the city is obligated to approve the Hunter Project or put the housing element at risk. This is nothing more than fearmongering. This city has a responsibility to develop sane housing policies that provide actual, affordable housing for the city. The Hunter Project has always been, and continues to be, one developer's interest in using a parcel that presents extreme safety risks with respect to flooding and other environmental factors to overbuild unaffordable homes and destroy the character of this city.

Fifth, there is ongoing litigation related to this project. It is fiscally irresponsible to agree to move forward with this project when litigation remains pending and an appeal will proceed. Again, the developer is attempting to make an end-run around the legal process for their own profit, rather than doing what is best for our community.

Please reject this proposal outright or table it for future consideration and require the developer to put forward a complete plan that adequately addresses all aspects of the project honestly and fairly, and provides actual affordable housing for city residents.

Sincerely,
Monique Olivier
1390 Grove Court
St Helena CA
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Liz Alderman
To: Public Comment
Cc: Ben Alderman
Subject: Opposition to Hunter Project
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 2:21:29 PM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Although we are relatively recent arrivals to St Helena, my family is completely invested in this wonderful community. We have chosen to raise our children here so that they can benefit from the exceptional public schools and access to abundant enrichment opportunities. I want more working families to have access to these resources and I am very concerned with sustainable development. I strongly oppose approval of the Hunter affordable housing agreement, final subdivision map, and related agreements. The affordable housing component appears inadequate and does not meet our community’s needs. The multifamily units can be sold rather than rented, meaning no guarantee of longterm affordability. Only a handful of units are restricted to households that earn currently $146,700 which is far out of reach for working families in our community. This is not affordable housing. The developer’s intentions for Lot 52 remain unclear and raise serious concerns.

Please do not approve this project as currently proposed. Our community deserves a transparent, genuine commitment to affordable housing and responsible development.

Regards,
Elisabeth Alderman
Meadowcreek Neighborhood
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: Sandra Lowry
To: Public Comment
Subject: Proposed Hunter Development
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 2:09:12 PM
My husband and I moved here in 1997. I have personally been involved in various community organizations as a volunteer. I have been a member of St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future since its beginning. It is time I spoke up again.

As fires rage nearby, I am very concerned with sustainable development. I strongly oppose approval of the Hunter affordable housing agreement, final subdivision map, and related agreements. The affordable housing component appears inadequate and does not meet our community’s needs. The multifamily units can be sold rather than rented, meaning no guarantee of long-term affordability.

Only a handful of units are restricted to households that earn currently $146,700 which is far out of reach for working families in our community.

This is not affordable housing. The developer’s intentions for Lot 52 remain unclear and raise serious concerns.

Please do not approve this project as currently proposed. Our community deserves a transparent, genuine commitment to affordable housing and responsible development.

Sincerely,
Sandra B. Lowry
1175 Starr Ave., SH
Agenda Item #11.1.

From: fj
To: Public Comment
Subject: Hunter Project
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 4:30:41 PM
Who was bribed or influenced when this totally corrupt project was "approved" back in the day?
Who is being influenced or bribed now, and is trying to get this inappropriate, corrupt project approved by slipping in the vote at the last minute so nobody would notice? This time, we are all cooperating, watching and investigating every move.

Whoever is benefitting from this corruption, and it's not the citizens of Saint Helena, is going to be discovered and exposed.

It's now 2025, not like back in the day.
-------------------------
The Hunter Project
The Hunter Project is like Rasputin. It refuses to die.

The City of Saint Helena never should have originally approved consideration of this project, but seems to have
been scammed or otherwise influenced to start the process long ago.

The project is extremely dense, not in character with the surrounding area.

It will use a huge amount of water, no matter what the developers try to say.

Simply look at the thing. Will it really have as little impact as the developers claim? Do we have enough water for Saint Helena now, even without the water suck the Hunter Project will cause? Of course not.

Will the Hunter Project pave over or otherwise cover ground that now absorbs water into the aquifer? Yes, it will.

Will it displace and affect wildlife? Of course.

Is the Hunter Project in a flood zone, even though taxpayers were scammed into providing it with its own, private levee?
Yes, it is.

California and the Napa Valley alternate between drought and flood. It has always been that way, and it is getting worse,
Agenda Item #11.1.

as we all can see. The droughts are getting worse, and the floods, when they come, which they will, will be worse.

The Hunter Project will add more cars and traffic noise to a formerly quiet part of town. No matter how the developers claim it won't,
anyone with a brain knows it will.

Traffic; noise; air pollution; increased waste and sewage; increased use of water; increased runoff; decreased charging of the aquifer;
sitting in a flood zone; ...

How many more excuses and meetings are there going to be to try to justify a monstrosity project that never should have been considered in the first place?
It is time to end the Hunter Project once and for all. Show that you actually care more about the quality of life in Saint Helena than you care about making the owners of the Hunter Project rich.

Thank you.

Frank Jonelis, Saint Helena
-----
Agenda Item #11.1.

dkistner©comcast.net
To: publicccommen
t@
cityofsthelena.
gov
Subject: Hunter Afforda
ble
ho
usi
ng
Dear Mayor and CouncilMembers,
Several months ago you considered the Hunter Pr
oj
ec
t
Vineyard Valley leavy. inside You locat north of the completely ed ignored the cities Inclusionary Housing Ordinanc
e.
apyou toIcntinue that do. will
pet
ars The multi family units can be sold.The plan create
s
appea of it. not thusing but deliver affordable does
rance h
e As ?re rages near us, We the residents in Vineya
rd
and Hunts desperately Hunts Starr Ave. Stret VbeGrove, will al
le
y,
trying to evacuate due to the situation you all cre
ate
d.
very Evac imposs not bedif?cult will if
uatio
n Please deny approval of the Hunter Project.

Agenda Item #11.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Department: Public Works
DATE: August 26, 2025
FROM: Eric Janzen, Assistant Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request for Authorization to Publish the Bid
Announcement for the Main Street St. Helena Pedestrian
Improvements Project.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

To adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Public Works
Department to Publish the Bid Announcement for the Main Street St. Helena Pedestrian Improvements Project (CIP
R18-81).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Council re-approved this project with the adoption of the Five-Year CIP on May 27, 2025.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Consideration and possible approval of Resolution
Authorizing the Public Works Department to Publish the
Bid Announcement for the Main Street St. Helena
Pedestrian Improvements Project (R18-81).

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approval of the Resolution will result in an expenditure estimated at $1.8M of which $1.2M will be provided by
OBAG3 grant funding. Match funding in the amount of
about $600,000 to be provided by a combination of
Measure T/U and TFCA program funds.

BACKGROUND:

The Main Street St. Helena Pedestrian Improvements Project (R18-81) was originally approved by Council in 2018 with the adoption of the 2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Council re-approved this project with the adoption of the Five-Year CIP on May 27, 2025. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), on January 11, 2023, issued Resolution 4505 which authorized OBAG Grant funding to the project. Caltrans issued the NEPA certification on April 24, 2021. Caltrans' approval of the project design is nearly complete, and Public Works anticipates that Caltrans will issue the Authorization to Proceed (aka the "E76") later this month.

DISCUSSION:

The project will replace sidewalks on Main Street between Pine Street and Adams Street. Public Works seeks to complete the project by December 31, 2025 and is seeking Council approval to advertise the project in advance of Caltrans approval. With Council approval, it will allow Public Works to advertise the project as soon as Caltrans approval (E76) is received. Public Works consulted with Caltrans Local Assistance and received guidance for seeking Council authorization in advance of E76 issuance. Public Works has incorporated this guidance into the attached resolution. Actual publication Agenda Item #12.1.

would occur after the E76 is issued in accordance with the funding rules for the OBAG program.

As discussed at the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting, it was reinforced that that some details of the project are of particular interest to the public. Over the last 3 years, Staff have worked with our consultant and Caltrans to address these issues. A summary of these changes are discussed below.

Trees
All street trees within the project area will be replaced. Replacement tree species are "Trident Maple", "New Frontier Elm" and "City Sprite Zelkova". Staff wish to highlight that Chinese Pistache was removed from the species list following public comments received during development of the Phase 1b Paver Replacement Project (i.e. on Main St. between Adams St and Pope Street) completed in 2024. Staff have retained the "15 gallon" specification but the City is not bound to this specification by the OBAG program. More mature trees (i.e. 24" box) can be provided at the Council's direction.

More mature trees carry a premium price. However, staff is aware that achieving a more mature streetscape immediately is a priority of the community and defers to Council.

Sewer Laterals
The City is aware of 5 private sewer laterals within the project area. All these laterals were inspected by the City and found to be at the end of their service life. The City wishes to preserve the new sidewalk for as long as possible so all sewer laterals within the project area will be replaced as a part of the project. This work will be performed at no cost to the owners of the laterals. Property owners will retain ownership and maintenance responsibility of the full length of the sewer lateral serving their property.

In the Phase 1a work area, private sewer laterals to the following addresses will be replaced as part of the project:
•Former City Hall – 1480 Main Street – APN 009-211-016
•Rianda House – 1475 Main Street – APN 009-223-002
•Wydown Hotel – 1420 Main Street – APN 009-211-005
•(unnamed) – 1414 Main Street – APN 009-211-010
•Chevron Station – 1400 Main Street – APN 009-211-009
The City's water main is located outside of the project area and at minimal risk. Water service lines and meters will be preserved in place. Only minor adjustment to meter box lids is anticipated. City Staff have not identified any private water services lines at the end of their service life. No water service line replacements are planned nor are they anticipated to affect the work. In the event that construction activities damage a water service (e.g. meter box, meter, service lines, etc.), it will be repaired or replaced as directed by the City Engineer.

Agenda Item #12.1.

When work is complete, the City will impose a moratorium on excavation within the work area for a period of five years. This will limit the potential for "patchwork" repairs. In the event that emergency work must be performed, Public Works will require enhanced surface restoration (the addition of "lamp black" for color, full-width surface restoration, etc.) to preserve a consistent and professional appearance to the new work.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Caltrans issued the NEPA certification for the project on April 24, 2021. Project is exempt from CEQA under Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction).

GOAL:

Goal 2: Improve Infrastructure & Further Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Enhance Quality of Life
Goal 8: Implement Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Projects Miscellaneous/Other DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

R18-81 CIP Sheet
Resolution
Agenda Item #12.1.




 





" %(
( (

% "'( %"%$(
" %( %(

(

( ((
 %
(
$! $
( &
( "
$(

!#%
%
(


Agenda Item #12.1.


 

 
 





 A@G;@I;@9P



 ;9:P










,:;FPCDA<42GP5I@343PG:DAI9:P0P2A?1;@0G;A@PA5PG:4P'@4P0MPD40PD0@GP'P">>PCDA9D0?P0@3P>A20>P5I@3;@9P FAID24FP;FP34F;9@43PGAP;?CDAJ4PC434FGD;0@PF054GMP0224FF;1;>;GMP0@3PAJ4D0>>PFGD44GF20C4P04FG:4G;2FP0>A@9P%0;@P +GD44GP14GK44@P%;G2:4>>P
D;J4P0@3P(;@4P+GD44G P,:4PCDA<42GPK;>>P4@:0@24P?A1;>;GMP5BDP0>>PIF4DFPC0DG;2I>0D>MPG:AF4P K;G:P3;F01;>;G;4FPK:;>4P0>FAP;@G49D0G;@9PGD07;220>?;@9P?40FID4FPGAP;?CDAJ4PAJ4D0>>PDA03PF054HM P (>0@@43P"?CDAJ4?4@GFP"@2>I34P
*42A@FGDI2G;A@PA5P0CCDAL;?0G4>MP
P>;@40DP544GPA5PF;34K0>=PGAP?44GP?A34D@PF054GMPFG0@30D3F "@FG0>>0G;A@PA5P
P
2A?C>;0@GP2ID1PD0?CFPGAP4@FID4P0224FF;1;>;GMP5BDP0>>PC434FGD;0@F "?C>4?4@G0G;A@PA5PGD07;220>?;@9P540GID4FPFI2:P0FP4@:0@243P2DAFFK0>=FP0@3P2ID1P4LG4@F;A@FPGAPCDA?AG4 F054DPC434FGD;0@P2DAFF;@9F
"@G49D0G;A@PA5PFGD44GF20C4P;?CDAJ4?4@GFP;@2>I3;@9P;?CDAJ43P>;9:G;@9P0@3PFGD44GP5ID@;GID4PK:4D4P0CC>;201>4 ,:4PCDA<42GPK;>>P14P;?C>4?4@G43P;@P?I>G;C>4PC:0F4F
(:0F4P
PP(;@4P+GD44GPGAP30?FP+GD44GP +2:43I>43P6ADP2A@FGDI2G;A@P;@P /
PK;G:P2A?C>4G;A@P4LC42G43P1M

/

(:0F4P
PP30?FP+GD44GPGAP%;G2:4>>P
D;J4P
4F;9@P;FPC>0@@43P8DP
/
PK;G:P2A@FGDI2G;A@PFI1<42GPGAP5I@3;@9
0J0;>01;>;GM

IGID4P(:0F4FP""PP">>P
LC42G43PGAP14P;?C>4?4@G43PAJ4DPG:4P@4LGP5;J4PM40DFP2A@G;@94@GPA@PF42ID;@9 033;G;A@0>P5I@3;@9




O*4FA>IG;A@P

P0IG:AD;N43P0P(DA54FF;A@0>P+4DJ;24FP9D44?4@GP(+PK;G:P$ P
@9;@44DFP5BDP



>0G4DP;@2D40F43P1MP


P8DP033;G;A@0>P34F;9@PKAD=P5I@343PG:DAI9:P
/

P+
P0@3P0FP,0LP0>>A20G;A@F
O;GMPAI@2;>P-C30G4P#0@I0DMPP

P *4J;F43P2AFGP4FG;?0G4F
(:0F4P"P
FG;?0G43P0GP
 P?;>>;A@PC0DG;0>>MP5I@343 P"@;G;0>P4FG;?0G4FP;@2>I343P0P
P?;>>;A@P>A0@P5DA?PG:4
4@4D0>P
I@3PCD4'."

PK;G:P3;F2IFF;A@FP0DAI@3PF42ID;@9P0PF:AEG4D?P20C;G0>P>A0@ (:0F4P""P
FG;?0G43P0GP


P?;>>;A@P2IDD4@G>MPI@5I@343
(:0F4P">>P
FG;?0G43P0GP
 P?;>>;A@P2IDD4@G>MPI@5I@343
O
/
P *40>>A20G43P



P5DA?P(DA<42GP*

PGAP*

PGAPACG;?;N4P0J0;>01>4P5I@3;@9
O
/ +42ID43P5I@3;@9P5BDP(:0F4P""PP">>P34F;9@PKAD= P!AK4J4DP;?C>4?4@G0G;A@P;FP0@G;2;C0G43PGAP14P5;J4PM40DF AIGPC4@3;@9P033;G;A@0>P5I@3;@9
O
/P I394GP;@2>I34F
(:0F4P
P(;@4PGAP30?F
4F;9@P0@3P2A@FGDI2G;A@
(:0F4P
PP30?FPGAP%;G2:4>>P
4F;9@PC:0F4P;@;G;0G43
O
/P*4FA>IG;A@F
*4FAP
P%0D2:PP
P0@3P*4FAP
P#I>MPP
P0CCDAJ43P033;G;A@0>P34F;9@P5I@3;@9
*4FAP

P+4CG4?14DP
P
P2ADD42G43PCD4J;AIFP5I@3;@9P0>>A20G;A@FP0@3P5;@0>;N43PG:4PGAG0>P34F;9@ 1I394G
O
/P @G;2;C0G43P%;>4FGA@4F
;3PFA>;2;G0G;A@P))P
/
P +I1<42GPGAP0>GD0@FP0CCDAJ0>
D40G;A@PA5P"(P&A P*
P8>>AK;@9P*4FAP

P#I@4P

P
PPK:;2:P0IG:AD;N43P1;33;@9P8DP(:0F4P
P
C0J4DPD4C0;DPCDA<42G
O
/P 0@G;2;C0G4P2A@FGDI2G;A@P1;3P0K0D3P
/)
PK
P2A@FGDI2G;A@P
/)
)


Agenda Item #12.1.

*%#
+
'+
$!+
$#("#) + 
+

+ 
+
%%&$%+ 
+ 
 + 

+ 


+ 

+ 
+

:  '4+)0: 
: 
:

:
$0&:
:$4'/'054:

:

:

:
')$-: !'37+%'4:


:


:

:104536%5,10:
$0$)'/'05:

: 
: 
:

:

:104536%5+10:1053$%5: 
: 
:

:

 105+0)'0%9: 
: 
:
:

 :
7'3*'$&4:


:


:

+
+  

: 



: :


:
+
+
 '0'3$-: 60& 

: 

:
 '0'3$-: 60&:
'$463':"



:
 

:



:



$4:"$8:
!


:
:

:


'$463':"#  
:
:
: 

:

"3$(+%:
+5,)$5,10:/2$%5:''4


:


:
:
!53''54:$2,5$-: /2317'/'05:



:



:

!53''54:$2,5$-: /2317'/'05 3$05 
: 
: 
:
:..
+
+  

: 



: :


:


Agenda Item #12.1.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

TO PUBLISH THE BID ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE MAIN STREET
ST. HELENA PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(CIP R18-81)

RECITALS
A. The Main Street St. Helena Pedestrian Improvements Project (R18-81) was originally approved by Council in 2018 with the adoption of the 2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and
B. Council re-approved the Project with the Five-Year CIP on May 27, 2025; and C. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) authorized OBAG Grant funding to the project with Resolution 4505 on January 11, 2023; and D. Caltrans' approval of the project design is nearly complete and Public Works anticipates that Caltrans will issue the Authorization to Proceed (aka the "E76") later this month; and
E. Public Works consulted with Caltrans Local Assistance and received guidance for seeking Council authorization in advance of E76 issuance which has been incorporated into this resolution.

RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

1. Authorize authorizes the Public Works Department to publish the project for bid immediately following issuance of the E76 by Caltrans.

2. Funding is as follows:

Description Fund GL Account Amount
One Bay Area Grant,
Round 3 (OBAG3) Grant 741-50-14-31-10 $1,206,000
Measure T/U 240 741-50-14-31-10 $113,822
TFCA Program Funds 741-50-14-31-10 $149,344
Agenda Item #12.1.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on August 26, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Council Member Summers:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Erika Opp, Acting City Clerk Agenda Item #12.1.

St. Helena Downtown
Pedestrian Improvements Project
Request for Authorization to Bid
Agenda Item #12.1.

Background
• The Project:
– Re-construct Main Street Sidewalks between Pine Street and Adams Street. – The City has been awarded $1.2M in OBAG funding to deliver this project. • The overall project cost is estimated as $1.8M.
– OBAG utilizes Federal funds and all projects supported by Federal Funding must follow Federal procurement standards and law.
• This includes NEPA and Buy America requirements.
• Projects that fail to meet the requirements forfeit their funding and must return all Federal funds even if they have already been spent.
• As part of the OBAG application process, the City identified all potential adverse impacts to the environment and conducted extensive public outreach.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Items of Public Concern
• Trees:
– In order to receive the OBAG award, the City agreed to several environmental mitigation measures including replacement of all street trees. • The City's OBAG application proposed replacing the existing trees with species better suited to the Downtown area.
• The City engaged a Landscape Architect, Gates, consulted with the City Arborist, Carlos Uribe, and engaged the public to identify tree replacements that would preserve the benefits and reduce the negative impacts.
– A mixture of 48”-Box Chinese Pistache and Japanese Zelkova were the trees that Staff recommended.
• On November 12, 2024, Council directed Staff to make final tree species selection.

Agenda Item #12.1.

Final Tree Selection - North • CHP PISTACHE CHINENSIS
“CHINESE PISTACHE”
• ZEL ZELKOVA SERRATA
“JAPANESE ZELKOVA”
Agenda Item #12.1.

Final Tree Selection - South • CHP PISTACHE CHINENSIS
“CHINESE PISTACHE”
• ZEL ZELKOVA SERRATA
“JAPANESE ZELKOVA”
Agenda Item #12.1.

Items of Public Concern
• Sewer Laterals:
– During the design phase of the project, the City identified five (5) sewer laterals in the project area. All were at the end of their service life. – The City incorporated replacement of these sewer laterals into the project. • Former City Hall – 1480 Main Street – APN 009-211-016 • Rianda House – 1475 Main Street – APN 009-223-002
• Wydown hotel – 1420 Main Street – APN 009-211-005
• (unnamed) – 1414 Main Street – APN 009-211-010
• Chevron Station – 1400 Main Street – APN 009-211-009
Agenda Item #12.1.

Items of Public Concern
• Water Laterals:
– During the design phase of the project, the City found that no water laterals were at the end of their service life.
– The City will not be replacing water laterals as part of this project.

Underground Moratorium:
– A 5-year moratorium on underground work will be enacted in the work area to protect the new sidewalks.
– Should emergency work be performed during this period; enhanced surface restoration will be required.

Agenda Item #12.1.

QUESTIONS?
Agenda Item #12.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Recreation
DATE: August 26, 2025
FROM: Ashley Sylvester, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Sesquicentennial Design and Promotional Material

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review and
approve the logo and tag-line created by the committee for the sesquicentennial celebration.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

At the Council Meeting on April 22, 2025, staff gave an update on the Sesquicentennial Committee and planning
taking place for the yearlong celebration taking place in 2026.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Seek guidance and/or decisions regarding the preliminary marketing tagline/slogan for the sesquicentennial.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: All staff time and associated costs will be funded from approved FY 25-26 departmental budgets.

BACKGROUND: Staff has been working with a group of stakeholders to plan the various activities related to the City's founding on March 24, 1876. While staff will provide a presentation at the October 14th city council meeting, a decision on the tagline and logo for the sesquicentennial celebration sooner rather than later would be helpful.

DISCUSSION:

The Sesquicentennial Committee has met and created a logo and tag line for the year long schedule of events taking place. This would be used on marketing and promotional material such as T-shirts, Hats, Stickers, etc. Funds raised from selling these materials would be used as another fundraising opportunity and be used to help fund the events throughout the year.

With that in mind, staff recommends that the City Council provide directions to approve the logo and tag line to be used in the marketing material and promotions of the Sesquicentennial year-long events. The following are two options:

1. A decision on this issue would be helpful so that commemorative items can be purchased quickly to be available for sale at the Harvest Festival on October 18, 2025.

2.If the City Council finds one of the above to be acceptable, the commemorative items purchased could include the selected tagline. If the City Council would like more thought and options including perhaps a poll of the city's residents, a more generic tagline can be used temporarily for the first batch of items.

Agenda Item #13.1.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
GOAL:

Goal 4: Provide Effective Community Information & Opportunities for Engagement Goal 7: Enhance Organizational Effectiveness
DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Sesquicentennial Logo and Tag Line
Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Item #13.1.

Sesquicentennial Planning Update
City Council: August 26, 2025
Agenda Item #13.1.

Sesquicentennial
Planning
Background
• St. Helena will reach the 150-year mark
as a City in March 2026
• Community planning committee formed
in Fall 2024 - Tasked with developing a
framework
• Committee has gone from planning
stages and is now ready for
implementation and promotion
Agenda Item #13.1.

Next Steps
Planning Continues
Marketing Plan and Brand Developed
Promotion Beginning Late Summer 2025
Year-Long Calendar of Events and Programs in Development Fundraising and Sponsorships
Agenda Item #13.1.

Marketing Logo and Tag Line
Agenda Item #13.1.

Promotional Materials
Agenda Item #13.1.

Discussion & Questions
Agenda Item #13.1.

Agenda Report to the City Council
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Department: Administration
DATE: August 26, 2025
FROM: Erika Opp, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution for the City Council appointment of an applicant to fill the Parks and Recreation Commission vacancy.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approve a resolution appointing one applicant to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

On June 24, 2025 the City Council held a Special meeting to conduct interviews for open vacancies on various
Boards and Commissions, including the Parks and
Recreation Commission. There were two vacancies on the
Parks and Recreation Commission and staff received one
application.

The Council appointed the one applicant to the Parks and Recreation Commission at the Regular City Council
meeting of June 24, 2025, leaving one position vacant.

STATEMENT OF THE
PURPOSE:

Appoint an applicant to the vacant Parks and Recreation Commission position.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact.

BACKGROUND:

The Parks and Recreation Commission has an open position for a commissioner for a term ending June 30, 2027.

The City Clerk's Division conducted a recruitment and received two applications for consideration for the Parks and Recreation Commission.

The City Council will conduct a special meeting on August 26, 2025 to interview applicants and make the appointment during the regular meeting.

DISCUSSION:

The City held a recruitment for the Parks and Recreation commissioner position (1 vacancy) and received two applications for consideration.

1. Joshua Gold

2. Denise Nelson
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None.

Agenda Item #13.2.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution Appointing one member to Parks and Recreation Commission Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Joshua Gold - 21 Aug 2025 Parks and Recreation Commission Application - Denise Nelson - 21 Aug 2025 Denise Nelson_resume 2025
Agenda Item #13.2.

CITY OF ST. HELENA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
Appointing applicants to the Library Board of Trustees and to the alternate position on the Active Transportation and Sustainability Committee

RECITALS
A. There is one vacant position on the Parks and Recreation Commission; and B. Applications have been received from community members; and C. Per City Council Rules of Procedure appointments shall be made by interview and the Mayor shall nominate applicants with the appointments subject to approval by the majority of Council; and
D. An applicant interview meeting is scheduled to be held on August 26, 2025 at 5:30 p.m.

RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of St. Helena resolves as follows:

Parks and Recreation Commission

1. __________is appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission to fill the vacant position that expires on June 30, 2027.

Approved at a Regular Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on August 26, 2025, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring:

Vice Mayor Deasy:

Council Member Barak:

Council Member Spadarotto:

Council Member Summers:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor Erika Opp, Acting City Clerk Agenda Item #13.2.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: July 25, 2025
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-25-029
NAME: Joshua Gold
ADDRESS: 1458 Oak Ave, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 843-952-3830
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 3 year
EMPLOYER: Duckhorn Winery
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Employed
REASON FOR APPLYING: Be more active in the community and add value in areas that I have some experience.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: I have my BA from Pace University in NYC with a major in Public Accounting. I have been a Triathlon coach for the past 28 years and have Certifications in Swimming, Cylcling and Running from various organizations. I have been the owner of the first triathlon training facility in Westchester county and have been the head coach at Asphalt Green in NYC which is a Not for Profit. I ran programs for their triathlon club and various Not for Profits such as Alzhemers Assoiciation and Leukemian and Lyphoma Foundation to name a few.

I am also trained as a Business and Life Coach..

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: I am a member and a trustee of Oddfellows Lodge `167 in Saint Helena REFERENCE 1: Name: Catherine Buck
Address: 1252 Allyn Ave. St Helena, CA
Phone Number(s): 707-287-4172
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCE 2: Name: Chris Phelps
Address: 1420 Madronna Ave
Phone Number(s): 707-486-9779
Email: chris@advivumcellars,com
REFERENCE 3: Name:Joel Toller
Address: 1200 Main St, Saint Helena, CA
Phone Number(s):707-738-6860
Email: [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? I have not attended any of their meetings.

Agenda Item #13.2.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? My understanding is that we are a group of citizens to at best provide new outlook and contibute fresh ideas and new eyes at existing programs and to grow the department in a fiscally responsible way involving members of the community.

What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
To be an active participant and to contribute and add value where I can. From seeing what unique offerings we can provide the community as well as be fiscally responsible Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
I have not
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your application? Not really. I would like to further discuss and get information on the committees experctations and goals.

I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Joshua Gary Gold July 25, 2025
Agenda Item #13.2.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION City of St. Helena

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Received Date: August 4, 2025
Application Type: Parks and Recreation Commission
CA-25-030
NAME: Denise Nelson
ADDRESS: 59 Laguna Seca Court, Saint Helena, CA, 94574
PHONE: 6503463490
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY: 3years
EMPLOYER: self
EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Part-time
REASON FOR APPLYING: Through volunteering, to help improve the quality of life of my community by promoting community engagement in programs, suggesting policy changes, and the effective use of parks and recreational facilities
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: (High School, College, Professional, Vocational, or other Schools Attended. Please include Major or Field of Study, Dates attended, Degree and date of Degree) OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: I have experience in budget management, managing volunteers during my BID experience, and as a columnist engaging in a diplomatic manner with the local public on controversial topics.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Past: Yountville Kiwanis, San Mateo BID President/Board Member REFERENCE 1: Name: Ines Chiarello
Address:11 San Lucas
Phone Number(s):707.963.1627
Email:

REFERENCE 2: Name:Marina Lavagnino
Address:15 Del Rio
Phone Number(s):508.612.8999
Email:

REFERENCE 3: Name:Ann Nevero
Address:58 Laguna Seca
Phone Number(s):408.394.5926
Email:

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

Have you ever attended a meeting of the Commission to which you are applying? yes
What is your understanding of the role and responsibility of this Commission? To advise on the management of the public recreational facilities and programs What would be your goal(s) as a Commissioner?
Agenda Item #13.2.

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION To assist in whatever capacity as needed, to ensure program accessibility to all in the community, to help keep our community engaged in their city and connected with one another.

Have you previously served, or do you currently serve, on a St. Helena Commission or Committee? If yes, which one(s) and for what period of time?
no
I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the date submitted. I also agree that if appointed, I will serve on the Commission/Committee for which I have submitted this application.
☒ I AGREE
Denise Nelson August 4, 2025
Agenda Item #13.2.

Denise Nelson
59 Laguna Seca Court
Saint Helena, Ca 94574
650-346-3490
[email protected]
Service Profile
I believe in volunteering in my community. I also see the Park and Rec Department as more than the management of the public recreational facilities. To me, it is also the vehicle to keep our community engaged in their city and connected with one another. I currently teach two classes in the Town of Yountville’s Golden Ticket Program. As a paid columnist for a couple of years on local government and happenings, I became well acquainted with the Brown Act and related guidelines in civic volunteering. I have completed the in-depth Citizen’s Academy in San Mateo, a Charter City, as well as the Community Academy in Saint Helena. I have been a resident of the Napa Valley for 9 years, 3 in Saint Helena. I was an active member of the recently defunct Yountville Kiwanis with its only goal of fund raising for local scholarships. I have worked everything from donation solicitation for auction fundraising to hiding Easter eggs for the Bunny Breakfast. My past community service also included serving as Director/ President of the 25th Avenue Merchant’s Association (BID) where I successfully implemented a committee structure for goal attainment. I was responsible for written publications, marketing ads, and interfacing with the City of San Mateo staff. I also coordinated the unhoused jobs program for the 25th Avenue business district.

Business Profile
Productive team member with a demonstrated ability to individually succeed. Strong communication and supervisory skills with an emphasis on performance management, coaching, training, customer service, and sales.

Self Employed/Social Media Affiliate 8/2015 - 2020
Conducted workshops for arts as a contracted teacher at various locations in the Bay Area contracting direct with brick and mortar studios. Created and managed 2 private social media groups of 160,000+ members for selling and support of font and graphic design license. With a working knowledge of FTC guidelines for social media, managed engagement and brand awareness for increased sales, maintained day to day social media marketing.

General Manager/Buyer, Perfect Edge Cutlery, San Mateo, 5/2011 - 7/2015 Responsible for the hiring, training, and development of staff. Accountable for daily planning, directing. accounting of retail outlet POS system. Responsible for product procurement, pricing negotiations and purchasing analysis.

Directly responsible for written marketing material, ads, promotional flyers. As GM, oversee all guest relations, dealing with in store customers, contractors, wholesalers, and mobile units, as well as overseeing back office functions such as billing, reporting. Successfully implemented events for community exposure and sales.

Columnist, San Mateo Patch/AOL, San Mateo, 4/2011 - 12/2013 Author of the paid weekly column “My San Mateo” published Mondays via AOL & San Mateo Patch exploring local issues or events in the community.

Owner, The Perfect Ten, San Mateo, CA 1991-2010
Responsible for the development and maintenance of a strong client base through effective marketing, customer service, and community education. Accountable for all product procurement, price point analysis, merchandising, and sales success. Successful supervision of three independent contractors including sub-lease negotiations, training, and performance management. Responsible for all tax preparation and licensing requirements for state, federal, city, and health agencies.

Credit Supervisor, Provident Central Credit Union, Burlingame, CA 1983-1991 Responsible for the hiring, training, development, and supervision of staff of 24 within the Consumer Lending Division and Loan Call Center Departments. Coordinated the daily operations of consumer lending from loan sales through credit analysis and student loan servicing. Developed, implemented and monitored operating procedures for the centralization of consumer lending. Developed and administered a comprehensive training guide for departmental procedures including lending regulations and laws, judgmental credit analysis, auto leasing, California Student Loans , system interpretation and use. Prepared and managed administrative reporting including performance appraisals, federal reporting. Initiated and conducted training workshops in lending and related products. Responsible for credit granting of loans over the credit limits of staff loan officers.

Agenda Item #13.2.