2 LU2.1 Promote a mix of housing types
and price ranges that are
consistent with the Housing
Element RHNA categories of
housing affordability.
The project proposes development of a 41-unit
multifamily development consisting of a 3-bedroom
townhome-style condominium housing type, with
some unit types including the option for a fourth
bedroom. Units would range from 1,480 square feet
to 1,810 square feet and provide an attached two-car
garage. The project proposes 19% affordable units for
moderate income households earning 120% or less of
AMI, with four units available to households earning
less than 100% AMI and four units available to
households earning less than 120% AMI.
✓
LU2.7 Ensure safe, walkable, and
bikeable residential
neighborhoods and vibrant, livable
streets.
The proposed project includes a continuous network
of pedestrian walkways with safe crosswalks
differentiated from vehicular circulation areas. The
project proposes passive open space amenities and
landscaping along the pedestrian walkways, and
complies with vision triangle requirements at the
project’s entrance at Spring Street. The project
would provide long-term bike parking within the
garage for each unit in addition to on-site bike racks.
The project is conditioned to repair the public
sidewalk along the frontage, as needed, and provide a
public bike lane, as applicable.
✓
LU2.D Continue to require residential
developers to contribute to the
provision of community facilities
and services (e.g. parks, recreation
facilities and programs, education
facilities, traffic and transportation
facilities, and services), consistent
with State law requiring a nexus
between project impacts and
required mitigation.
Conditions of approval require the applicant to pay
all applicable development impact fees.
✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
Economic Sustainability
ES1.4 Encourage the creation of
workforce housing to support the
local employment base in keeping
with small town smart growth.
The project proposes development of a 41-unit
multifamily infill housing development, with 19%
affordable units for moderate income households
earning 120% or less of AMI. Four units will be
available to households earning less than 100% AMI
and four units will be available to households earning
less than 120% AMI.
✓
Agenda Item #11.3.
3 Public Facilities and Services
PF1.1 Require that the approval of
new development be contingent
upon the ability of the City to
provide water without exceeding
the safe annual yield of its water
supply system.
The proposed project is conditioned to comply with
the City’s water neutrality policy prior to approval
of the Tentative Map. ✓
PF1.L Require that all new residential
housing projects incorporate “best
practices” for minimizing water
usage.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to
all applicable codes and requirements related to
water conservation through the building permit
review process.
✓
PF2.1 Ensure adequate sewage
treatment capacity at the City
treatment plant to meet the needs
of population growth, taking into
account the City’s Growth
Management System, the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation, and the
needs of non-residential users.
A study of sewer capacity prepared for the project’s
Tentative Map confirmed that capacity is available
to serve the proposed project.
✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
PF2.C Urban services such as sewer,
water, and storm drainage will
only be extended to development
within the Urban Limit Line.
Exceptions will be permitted when
undue hardship can be
demonstrated and when proposed
improvements are not found to
induce growth.
The proposed project is within the Urban Limit Line.
✓
PF3.1 Ensure that new developments
provide adequate drainage
improvements and detention to
mitigate flooding from increased
stormwater runoff attributable to
the development.
The proposed project will provide all required onsite
drainage facilities to carry stormwater to the public
storm drain in Spring Street. ✓
Agenda Item #11.3.
4 PF3.C Consistent with Municipal Code
Section 16.32.170, continue to
prohibit the creation of new
residential lots that will be subject
to periodic inundation from
floodwaters. New development
proposals on existing lots of record
must identify flood hazard areas
and mitigate all impacts to base
flood levels and potential flood
damage from grading, filling, and
construction through proper
drainage, construction, and
location of utilities, in accordance
with FEMA requirements.
No development is proposed within the 100-year
floodplain. While a small portion of the project site
is located within the FEMA-mapped 100-year
floodplain, the project is not subject to inundation
as no development is proposed within the 100-year
floodplain.
✓
PF5.4 Require that the approval of
residential, commercial, or
industrial development be
contingent upon the mitigation of
the impact of such development
on the St. Helena Unified School
District’s ability to serve schoolage children.
The proposed project is required to pay all
applicable development impact fees, including
school impact fees.
✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
PF5.A Assist the School District in
collecting school facility
development fees generated by
new development. Partner with
the District to identify, establish,
and implement additional
measures to ensure that the
highest quality of education is
provided.
The proposed project is required to pay all
applicable development impact fees, including
school impact fees.
✓
Circulation
Agenda Item #11.3.
5 CR2.1 Create a comprehensive bicycle
and pedestrian network that
enhances neighborhood
connectivity. Develop the system
as shown in Figure 5.4 to expand
and improve the pedestrian and
bikeway system.
The project is conditioned to provide public sidewalk
and bike lane improvements along the Spring Street
frontage, as applicable.
✓
CR2.C Require any new development
and modifications to existing
projects to provide bicycle and
pedestrian improvements and
amenities, consistent with
adopted Engineering Standards
and the St. Helena Bicycle Plan.
The project is conditioned to provide public sidewalk
and bike lane improvements along the Spring Street
frontage, as applicable.
✓
CR3.6 Support development of the
bikeway and pedestrian networks
to provide a convenient
opportunity for at least 20 percent
of commuters to get to work by
walking or bicycling.
The project proposes a centrally-located infill housing development project with convenient bicycle and
pedestrian opportunities. The proposed project
includes a continuous network of pedestrian
walkways with safe crosswalks. In addition, the
project would provide long-term bike parking within
the garage for each unit in addition to on-site bike
racks.
✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
Community Design
CD1.1 Ensure high-quality design and
construction through a robust
design review process.
Design of the proposed townhomes built within the
proposed subdivision was reviewed as part of the
Minor Design Review for the project to determine
conformance with City policies and objective design
standards for residential projects, SHMC 17.16.040.
✓
CD1.8 Require, to the extent feasible,
that all new development include
underground utilities to minimize
their negative visual impact. In
addition, funding sources to
underground electrical lines shall
be sought so the undergrounding
of existing overheard lines can
occur over time.
The proposed project is conditioned to place all
utilities underground.
✓
Agenda Item #11.3.
6 CD3.2 Ensure that new residential
designs contribute positively to
existing neighborhoods by
complementing character and
incorporating design features, such
as front porches, façade articulation
and stepbacks.
Design of the proposed townhomes built within the
proposed subdivision was reviewed as part of the
Minor Design Review for the project to determine
conformance with City policies and objective design
standards for residential projects, SHMC 17.16.040,
including those regulating building architecture. The
project will provide a variety of architectural
features including front porches, standing-seam
metal canopies, and facade articulation.
✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
CD6.1 Ensure a connected circulation
system that maximizes pedestrian
and bicycle connectivity.
The proposed project includes a continuous
network of pedestrian walkways with safe
crosswalks differentiated from vehicular circulation
areas. The project would provide long-term bike
parking within the garage for each unit in addition
to on-site bike racks. The project is conditioned to
repair the public sidewalk along the frontage and
provide a bike lane within Spring Street, as
applicable.
✓
CD6.2 Promote the inclusion of bicycle
and pedestrian trails and bicycle
lanes throughout the City, as well
as connections to regional trail
systems, such as the Napa Valley
Vine Trail.
The project is conditioned to repair the public
sidewalk along the frontage and provide a bike lane
within Spring Street, as applicable. ✓
Open Space and Conservation
OS1.1 Preserve and enhance St.
Helena’s riparian corridors for
their value in providing wildlife
habitat, biodiversity, natural
drainage, and visual amenity.
The proposed project complies with the City’s 20-
foot-wide City waterway setback. The proposed
subdivision includes a 0.1-acre lettered lot, Parcel A, to contain the riparian corridor not for development.
✓
OS1.I Require new development to
be sited to maximize the
protection of native tree species,
riparian vegetation, important
concentrations of natural plants,
and sensitive wildlife habitat.
The project proposes to retain 19 native trees and
plant an additional 24 native trees. In addition,
consistent with this policy the project is conditioned to maximize the protection of native tree species, which
may be done by providing protective fencing around
trees to be retained. The project would implement
arborist best practices for tree protection for those
trees to be retained.
Agenda Item #11.3.
7 OS1.O As part of new development,
avoid disturbance to and loss of
bird nests in active use by
scheduling vegetation removal
and new construction during the
non-nesting season (September
through January) or by
conducting a preconstruction
survey by a qualified biologist if
vegetation removal and
construction is initiated during
the nesting season (February
through August). Surveys for
nesting birds will be conducted
no earlier than 14 days prior to
tree removal and/or breaking
ground. In the event that nesting
birds are found, the project
applicant will consult with CDFG
and obtain approval for nestprotection buffers prior to tree removal and/or ground-breeding
activities. Nest protection buffers
will remain in effect until the
young have fledged.
The project is conditioned to perform a nesting
survey consistent with this standard.
Public Health, Safety and Noise
PS1.4 Promote an optimized land use
development pattern that
minimizes cumulative air quality
impacts from proposed
developments.
The proposed project is consistent with the General
Plan Land Use policy map. ✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
PS2.C Adopt and enforce Title 24
Standards for all types of new
residential construction, including
single family dwellings, duplexes,
apartments, and dormitories.
• An interior maximum noise level of
LAdn-45 dBA in all habitable rooms
for all dwelling units;
• A maximum allowable interior noise
level for bedrooms of an hourly
The project is conditioned to ensure that exterior
outdoor mechanical equipment, including HVAC
equipment, is located away from property lines and
shall not exceed 60 dBA consistent with this policy.
Agenda Item #11.3.
8 LAeq-35 dBA;
• A maximum noise level of LAdn-60
dBA for residential exterior activity
areas;
• If interior noise standards are met
by requiring windows to be closed,
cooling and outside air exchange
must also be provided in the
building’s design.
PS3.1 Minimize risk of injury, loss of
life and property damage from
seismically induced and other
known geologic hazards.
The proposed project will be required to conform
with all applicable building codes, and all
construction plans will be reviewed at the time of
building permit review.
✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
PS3.3 The required soils and geologic
reports for new development shall
include geotechnical analysis for
construction in areas with
potential geological hazards
and/or for purposes of
environmental analysis. The
analysis shall investigate all
potential geo-hazard issues for the
site where there is substantial
evidence of a potential risk.
PS3.4 Geologic reports for new
development shall describe
hazards and include mitigation
measures to reduce risks to
acceptable levels. Where
appropriate, an engineer’s or
geologist’s certification shall be
required stating that risks have
been mitigated to an acceptable
level.
The project prepared a preliminary geotechnical
analysis and is required to submit a construction-level geotechnical analysis conforming with these
requirements at the time of building permit
submittal.
✓
PS3.A Require a soils and geologic
report to be submitted for new
construction prior to the issuance
of grading and building permits
and the submission of final maps.
The project prepared a preliminary geotechnical
analysis and is required to submit a construction-level geotechnical analysis at the time of building permit
submittal.
✓
Agenda Item #11.3.
9 PS3.B Prohibit any development—
including any land alteration,
grading for roads, and structural
development—in areas of slope
instability or other geologic
concerns until mitigating measures
are taken to limit potential
damage to levels of acceptable
risk.
The proposed project does not involve any areas of
unstable slopes or other geologic concerns.
✓
PS3.E All development and
construction proposals shall be
reviewed by the City to ensure
conformance to applicable
building standards.
Recommendations of the
geotechnical analysis shall be
implemented.
Review of construction proposals will take place at
the time that plans are submitted. ✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
PS4.6 Ensure that all streets and roads
are adequate in terms of width,
turning radius, and grade in order
to facilitate access by City
firefighting apparatus, and to
provide alternative emergency
routes of ingress and egress.
The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the
Fire Department for conformance with all applicable
standards.
✓
PS5.1 Minimize the risk to people,
property and the environment
caused by flooding hazards. Site
new development to minimize
potential damage from a 100-year
flood. Continue to require that any
new development is constructed
FEMA standards. Prohibit the
siting of uses within Flood Hazard
Areas inconsistent with FEMA
standards that could result in
health and safety hazards,
including those due to the release
of chemicals or other substances
as a result of inundation or
erosion. Ensure that any new flood
protection projects comply with
federal and State standards.
No development is proposed within the 100-year
floodplain that would require construction with FEMA
standards. While a small portion of the project site is located within the FEMA-mapped 100-year
floodplain, no development is proposed within the
100-year floodplain.
✓
Agenda Item #11.3.
10 Climate Change
CC1.1 Promote a “walkable” and
“bikeable” city.
The project proposes a centrally-located infill
housing development project with convenient
bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. The proposed
project includes a continuous network of pedestrian
walkways with safe crosswalks. In addition, the
project would provide long-term bike parking within
the garage for each unit in addition to on-site bike
racks that will promote walking and biking.
✓
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
✓ – Consistent X– Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
Parks and Recreation
PR1.4 Require park land dedications
or civic improvement fees on all
new residential, commercial, and
industrial developments to meet
the standard of 5.0 acres of parks
per 1,000 residents.
The proposed project is required to pay all
applicable development impact fees, including park
fees. ✓
PR6.1 Promote walking and bicycling
as safe and convenient modes of
transportation.
The project proposes a centrally-located infill
housing development project with convenient
bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. The proposed
project includes a continuous network of pedestrian
walkways with safe crosswalks. In addition, the
project would provide long-term bike parking within
the garage for each unit in addition to on-site bike
racks that will promote walking and biking.
✓
PR6.2 Develop a comprehensive
network of bicycle and pedestrian
trails to enhance bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity
throughout the city and the
region.
The project is conditioned to repair the public
sidewalk along the frontage and provide a bike lane
within Spring Street, as applicable. ✓
Agenda Item #11.3.
11 PR6.3 Promote the inclusion of bicycle
and pedestrian trails, and bicycle
lanes throughout the city, as well
as connections to regional trail
systems, such as the Napa Valley
Vine Trail.
The project is conditioned to repair the public
sidewalk along the frontage and provide a bike lane
within Spring Street, as applicable. ✓
Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
NOTICE OF ACTION –
MINOR DESIGN REVIEW AND DENSITY
BONUS APPROVAL
DATE: November 21, 2025
Via email to: [email protected]
TO: City Ventures
1185 Mason Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
FROM: Mike Janusek, AICP, Planning Consultant
RE: Notice of Action – Minor Design Review and Density Bonus Approval. Pursuant to St.
Helena Municipal Code Sections 17.05.080 and 17.29.040, the Community Development Director approves Minor Design Review and Density Bonus (PL24-065) (APNs 009-590-003, 009-590-005, and 009-590-010) in the High Density Residential (HR) and Medium Density Residential (MR) Zoning Districts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant filed the Minor Design Review and Density Bonus development application for review under SB 330, as part of a development application (also including a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Demolition Permit) for a housing development project (“Project”). A complete application was deemed to have been submitted on May 13, 2025. City staff conducted a subsequent consistency analysis pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i), and the Project was determined to have submitted an application consistent with applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, or other similar provisions on November 11, 2025.
Minor Design Review
The Project proposes development of a 41-unit multifamily development consisting of six threestory buildings on a 2.53-acre site. Each unit would be a 3-bedroom townhome-style condominium, with some unit types including the option for a fourth bedroom. Units would range from 1,480 square feet to 1,810 square feet and provide an attached two-car garage.
Building exteriors would include a variety of neutral-toned stucco and board and batten fiber cement siding, standing-seam metal accent canopies, with gabled roof elements characteristic of a Farmhouse architectural style. On-site parking (93 spaces) would be provided through a combination of attached two-car garages for each unit and 11 perpendicular parking stalls along Street A. Access would be via a 28-foot-wide private street (Street A) from Spring Street.
Additional site improvements include landscaping with 59 trees including 24 native trees and preservation of 19 native trees, common usable open space including a picnic area and seating, continuous pedestrian walkways, and bioretention facilities. Each unit would be all-electric and include solar panels, private patios and/or balconies, and EV-ready garage.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
Pursuant to SHMC Section 17.05.080.B.2, new multifamily development consistent with the applicable development and design standards provided in SHMC Section 17.16.040 (objective design standards) are subject to Minor Design Review with the Community Development Director serving as the review authority. The zoning for the site, as shown on the City’s Zoning Map, is High Density Residential (HR) (1447 Spring Street and 1515 Spring Street) and Medium Density Residential (MR) (1505 Spring Street). Because portions of the site zoned MR (1505 Spring Street) are for access purposes only, the HR development standards apply to the Project.
Density Bonus
A project that provides at least 10% of the total number of proposed dwelling units as affordable units is eligible for concessions and waivers authorized by the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code, § 65915). Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, SHMC Section
17.30.030, the Project will provide at least 20% affordable units. Per SHMC Section
17.30.030.G.1, for owner-occupied affordable units, at least half of the required affordable units shall be available to households earning less than 100% of annual median income (AMI).
The Project proposes a 41-unit, 19% affordable, multifamily development for moderate income households earning 120% or less of AMI, with four units available to households earning less than 100% AMI and four units available to households earning less than 120% AMI.1 In accordance with CA Gov’t Code § 65915, subd. (a)(3) (D)(i), the Project is eligible for a 14% State Density Bonus pursuant to CA Gov’t Code § 65915, subd. (f)(4) and one concession and unlimited waivers. The Project does not request any Density Bonus units as it is within the allowable density range per the General Plan land use designation. The Project does not request any concessions, but does request 11 waivers to development standards. The City’s detailed determination of Density Bonus eligibility is included as Exhibit A.
FINDINGS
Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.05.080(D), Minor Design Review Findings, the Community Development Director hereby finds that:
1. The Project is in conformance with the general plan and zoning ordinance; a. The Project is consistent with the intent of the High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designations, which accommodate a range of residential development types including multifamily dwelling uses. In addition, the Project is consistent with the general plan policies, including but not limited to those that encourage infill development near urban services (Policies LU1.1 and LU1.4), and the proposed density of 16.2 du/ac is within the allowed HR density. The Project as shown in the approved plan set (dated November 10, 2025) attached is in conformance with the City’s zoning ordinance development standards for the HR zoning district under SHMC Section
17.16.030 as well as other applicable objective development standards in the zoning ordinance.
2. The Project is in conformance with applicable design and development standards; 1 Pursuant to SHMC Section 17.30.030(A), the developer will pay the housing in-lieu fee for the remaining 0.2 fractional units of affordable to achieve the 20% minimum requirement of the Inclusionary Housing Ordianance.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
a. The Project conforms to the design and development standards set forth in SHMC Section 17.16, Residential Zoning Districts. Specifically, the Project meets all applicable objective design and development standards under: SHMC Sections
17.16.030, including setbacks, height, and lot coverage, and 17.16.040, including architectural features and roofline offset, and SHMC Chapters 17.24 (General Site Standards) including fence height and lighting requirements, 17.25 (Landscaping) including plant selection and irrigation, and 17.26 (Parking and Loading) including minimum required parking and stall dimensions. b. Additionally, the Density Bonus provisions waive compliance with certain development standards as noted in the attached Notice of Density Bonus Eligibility (Exhibit A).
3. The Project’s operating characteristics minimize potential negative impacts and land use conflicts;
a. The proposed use would be a multifamily residential project in a HR and MR zoning district and is surrounded by other residential uses including attached townhomes within the HR zoning district to the south and east and single-family homes within the MR zoning district to the north and west. As an infill residential project surrounded by similar residential land uses, there are no operating characteristics that would generate potential negative impacts and land use conflicts.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation and other necessary facilities will be in place;
a. The proposed Project has adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation and other necessary facilities in that the Project will connect to existing sewer, storm drain, and water lines in Spring Street and the Project has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. In addition, the Project will provide a 28-foot-wide driveway to provide vehicular access to Spring Street.
5. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA or other applicable environmental documents have been certified as complete and adequate; and a. The City has conducted environmental review for the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, a statutory exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for infill housing developments that meet certain conditions. The City has determined that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 as evidenced in the CEQA Exemption Memo included as Attachment 2.
6. The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. a. The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare because the Project proposes multifamily dwellings consistent with the General Plan land use designation and complies with all applicable development standards, except for requested relief through State Density Bonus Law. No adverse public health or safety impacts associated with this Project can be found that would allow the City to deny the Project under the Housing Accountability Act or State Density Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
Bonus. The City concludes (Fire, Public Works, Building, and Planning) that there are no specific adverse impacts that could reasonably result in denial of this Project.
APPEALS
This approval is subject to a 14-day appeal period per SHMC Section 17.12 (Procedures for Appeals). Anyone interested in appealing this approval must file an appeal with the Community Development Director within 14 days of the date of this letter. The letter of appeal must state: (1) the specific action objected to; (2) the action appellant requests the Planning Commission to take; (3) the reason for the appeal; and (4) the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant or contact person if there are multiple appellants and be accompanied by the appropriate fee.
Sincerely,
Mike Janusek, AICP
Senior Planner Consulting with M-Group
City of St. Helena Community Development Department
cc: Maya DeRosa, AICP, Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Project Plans, dated November 10, 2025
2. CEQA Exemption Memo
Exhibits:
A. Notice of Density Bonus Eligibility
Conditions of Approval - Minor Design Review
Planning
1. Compliance with all permit conditions shall occur in accordance with specific regulations but in all cases not later than prior to occupancy or initiation of use unless another time is set by law or by this approval. Occupancy or final inspection of a project may be withheld if all conditions, including payment of fees for services rendered by the City, are not met.
2. In any action or proceeding to attack, challenge, invalidate, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval of applicant’s Project, in whole or in part, applicant shall defend, at its own expense and without any cost to the City, and with counsel acceptable to the City, and shall fully and completely indemnify and hold the City, its agents, officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, damages, costs, attorney’s fees and liability of any kind.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
3. All applicable conditions for the Project shall be printed on grading and/or building plans for each permit set of drawings.
4. The applicant is responsible for implementing all applicable conditions of approval in any future City Council approval of the associated Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Planning File No. TSM25-001). In the event of a conflict between the conditions of approval of this Minor Design Review and any future adopted VTSM conditions of approval, the future adopted VTSM conditions of approval prevail.
5. The applicant is responsible for implementing all applicable conditions of approval in any future Planning Commission approval of the associated Demolition Permit (Planning File No. DP25-002).
6. To reduce disturbance of residents in the project vicinity, construction activities which generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Delivery of materials/equipment and cleaning and servicing of machines/equipment shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Exceptions to these time restrictions may be granted by the Public Works Director for one of the following reasons: (1) inclement weather affecting work, (2) emergency work, or (3)other work, if work and equipment will not create noise that may be unreasonably offensive to neighbors as to constitute a nuisance. The City Engineer must be notified and give approval in advance of such work. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal or local holidays that generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits.
7. Mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditioning units, shall be located away from property lines and shall be shielded or enclosed to minimize noise levels. Noise generated shall not exceed 60 dBa, Ldn per noise-related policies of the St Helena General Plan, including policy PS2.C3 from the 2019 General Plan. For avoidance of doubt, mechanical equipment can be located on the roof if it meets the foregoing noise requirements.
8. The applicant or construction manager shall notify all contractors and subcontractors that no trespassing is allowed on adjoining properties.
9. Minor Design Review approval may only be extended or modified as provided for in SHMC Section 17.04.140 and Section 17.04.150.
10. Provided they are in general compliance with the approved Design Review, minor revisions found to be in substantial conformance with the approved design may be approved by the Community Development Director.
11. Construction documents shall indicate compliance with the final approved plans dated November 10, 2025 (Attachment 1) as approved through the Minor Design Review process.
12. A business license is required for all contractors and sub-contractors working on the project.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
13. Exterior lighting shall be directed or shielded to prevent glare onto the public roadway or adjacent properties.
14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City of St. Helena, which agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the St. Helena City Council pursuant to SHMC Section 17.30.040.B.1. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Napa County, and shall ensure that the project complies with the requirements of SHMC Section 17.30.030, inclusionary housing requirements.
15. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall pay any applicable affordable housing in-lieu fee pursuant to SHMC Section 17.30.030, for the 0.2-unit fraction of the proposed 41- unit project pursuant to the 20% affordable requirement.
16. Common usable open space amenities, including seating areas, and landscape improvements as shown in the approved project plans shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the last building
Public Works: General Conditions
17. The applicant shall reference on construction drawings for all work in the public right of way City of St. Helena Construction Standards for all public improvements and utilities as applicable. Please utilize the 2025 updated standards, available from Public Works.
18. The developer shall be responsible for all City plan check, map check and inspection costs.
The developer shall deposit funds with the City upon the initiation of plan check services.
The amount of the initial deposit shall be determined by the City Engineer. Additional funds may be required based upon actual plan check and inspection costs.
Public Works: Fees
19. All Public Works Development Impact fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of building permit(s) for the improvements to which they are applicable, unless otherwise authorized by the City.
Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions
20. All private water mains, sewer mains and storm drains shall be clearly labeled “Private” on the improvement plans.
21. Frontage improvements required. Improvements may include installation of ADA compliant driveways, sidewalk, bike lanes, curb and gutter replacements or repairs. All improvements shall be installed according to City Standards. Improvements shall be prescribed by the Public Works Director during the Building Permit phase.
22. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within City right of way including obstructions, staging, or closures of the vehicular or pedestrian path of travel. Any damages to sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be repaired by the applicant. Applicant to keep roadway Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
and sidewalk clear of construction activities and debris (Building Permit Phase).
Public Works Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Conditions
23. Any modifications to the existing well, other than the installation or maintenance of pumping and storage equipment and connection to the onsite irrigation water distribution system as approved by City Council pursuant to the Water Neutrality Requirements, shall require an approved permit per section 13.16.060 of the St Helena Municipal Code. The applicant shall also submit a well permit application to, and receive a permit from, the Napa County department of environmental management pursuant to Chapter 13.12 of the Napa County Code and subsequent revisions. Demolition of the well shall go through Napa County and any other applicable agencies.
24. Backflow prevention devices shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit; all public improvements utility connections shall be designed in accordance with the City of St.
Helena’s Construction Standards (SHMC 16.32.230) (Building Permit Phase).
25. If the bed, bank, channel, or riparian habitat of any streams, including but not limited to ephemeral streams, will be impacted, including but not limited overflow from stormwater facilities, the applicant shall submit a Lake or Streambed Alteration Notification to CDFW and obtain any necessary permit from CDFW and comply with the Streambed Alteration Agreement and permits, if issued (see: https://epims.wildlife.ca.gov/index.do). The Project shall also obtain any necessary authorization from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
26. Stormwater Quantity: Prior to issuance of a building permit, onsite stormwater and drainage management shall be sufficiently demonstrated in the building plans per SHMC 16.32.070. a. Calculations required for pre and post development 10-year event. Plans shall demonstrate sufficient management of post development 10-year event. b. Plans shall demonstrate sufficient conveyance facilities for a 100-year event. c. Plans shall demonstrate drainage patterns which prevent diversion or inundation of neighboring properties.
27. A Stormwater Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required. The Plan shall detail all sitespecific stormwater management, BMPs and erosion control measures shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit (Building Permit Phase).
28. The plans shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual.
Compliance with BASMAA “Regulated Project” requirements shall be demonstrated on a sheet in the plan set. The Plan will be reviewed with the building permit application. Plans shall detail all measures as required and indicated in the submitted stormwater control plan.
A detailed Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that identifies and sizes all permanent post-construction stormwater treatment BMPs shall be prepared and submitted for review approval (Building Permit Phase).
29. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall demonstrate that all proposed stormwater facilities comply with SHMC Sections 15.12.040 and 16.32.070. Excess or Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
concentrated drainage shall be contained on site or directed to an approved drainage facility.
Drainage improvements for runoff shall be engineered to minimize erosion through the use of rocked culvert inlets and outfalls, energy reducers, the correct location of culverts, etc.
30. All electrical energy and communication service laterals to any new building or structure shall be placed underground (SHMC 13.28.120) (Building Permit Phase).
Public Works Construction Conditions
31. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy for a building, the developer shall complete required improvements for that building in accordance with the approved improvement plans. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
32. No grading or other construction shall be performed until the grading plans have been approved and signed by the City Engineer. Encroachment Permits and Building Permits will not be issued prior to the approval of the grading plans. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work within the City’s rights of way.
33. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required and the contractor shall adhere to it at all times during construction. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found necessary by the City Engineer.
34. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent has been submitted and received by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. A copy of the project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan shall be submitted to the City.
35. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Napa County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately.
Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.
36. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made.
37. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the soil or geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity. Additionally, if field conditions warrant installation of any subdrains, the location, size and construction details must be provided to the City for review and approval prior to construction.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
38. All streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks or other public facilities damaged in the course of construction associated with this development shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City at the Developer’s expense.
39. Dust control must be maintained to the City’s satisfaction.
40. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
41. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an approved Grading Permit will be Required.
42. No City supplied water use is permitted for construction activities (Building Permit Phase).
43. Inspection by Public Works Staff is required for utility installations (Building Permit Phase).
Fire
44. Prior to issuance of future building permits, all construction plans for homes shall include NFPA13 fire sprinklers as required by the City of St. Helena Fire Department.
45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall, consistent with the VTMAP, continue to exhibit compliance with the current St. Helena Fire Code, as adopted and codified in St.
Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36.
46. One hour minimum fire resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10’ of property boundary is required. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy.
47. Any gates installed to control vehicular access to a property are required to be setback 30- feet from the property line and/or edge of pavement, whichever is greater. No vehicle gates may be installed without Fire Department and Public Works Department review and explicit approval.
Building
48. The applicant will be required to comply with the CBC codes adopted at the time the applicant applies for a building permit, or as dictated by state law. The City of St. Helena will utilize the 2025 California Building Code series, starting January 1, 2026.
49. When submitting plans for a building permit, the plans shall include all documentation listed on the building permit application checklist, including a construction-level geotechnical report.
50. The applicant shall provide a Construction Waste Management Plan with the building permit application.
51. The plans for construction shall include a checklist for compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code, mandatory measures. Provide a reference on the checklist indicating where the mandatory measures can be found on the plans.
52. When submitting plans, the Title Page shall include all information referenced on the building permit application checklist Title Page requirements.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Notice of Action – Minor Design Review
and Density Bonus Approval
PL24-065
1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring St.
83578.00132\44400149.1
53. Building permit application materials and plans shall include any documentation pertaining to special loads applicable to the design and the specified section of the code that addresses the condition; special inspections for any systems or components requiring special inspection; requirements for seismic resistance; and a complete list of deferred submittals at time of application.
54. Any deferral of the required submittal items shall have prior approval of the Building Official, however, deferral of the fire sprinkler design is not allowed.
55. A separate permit submittal is required for generators, fire sprinkler/standpipe systems, fire pumps, fire alarms, and PV-systems.
56. At the time of building permit submittal, EV parking shall be fully detailed to demonstrate compliance with required EV charging per 4.106.4.2.2 and4.106.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code.
57. Plans shall comply with Chapter 11A CBC ADA requirements for residential units, and Chapter 11B CBC for common areas, as applicable.
Agenda Item #11.3.
City of St. Helena
Community Development
Department 1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
November 21, 2025
City Ventures
Attn: Kelso Barnett
1185 Mason Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Re: Notice of Density Bonus Eligibility
Spring Grove Multifamily (File #PL24-065) – SB 330 Minor Design Review and Density Bonus
Density Bonus Eligibility
Thank you for your application seeking a Density Bonus for the Spring Grove Multifamily project, a proposed 41-unit, 19% affordable, multifamily development in St. Helena for moderate income households earning 120% or less of Area Median Income (AMI ). Planning staff has reviewed your Density Bonus application and deemed the application complete. In accordance with CA Gov’t Code § 65915, subd. (a)(3) (D)(i), you are hereby notified that your project is eligible for a 14% State Density Bonus pursuant to CA Gov’t Code § 65915, subd. (f)(4). State Density Bonus eligibility is calculated as follows:
Project Profile
The Spring Grove Multifamily project proposes 41 dwelling units for sale to persons and families earning less than 120% AMI.
Project Site Area: 2.53 gross acres
Total Units Proposed: 41 dwelling units (du)
Site Land Use Designation: High Density Residential
Site Zoning District: High Density Residential (HR)
Maximum Density per General Plan: 16.1-28 du/gross acre Maximum Units per General Plan: 2.53 gross acres x 28 du/ac = 70.8 Density Desired: 16.2 du/ac
Agenda Item #11.3.
Calculation of State Density Bonus of 80%
Base Project, Total Units 41
Market Rate Units 33
Affordable Units 8
Percent Affordable 19.5%1
State Density Bonus 19% of the units for sale to moderate income households results in a 14% increase in the
maximum allowable residential density and
1 incentives or concessions
Maximum Density Allowed 33 du/ac
Density Bonus Units Requested 0
Requests for Concessions and Waivers
In accordance with CA Gov’t. Code § 65915, subd. (d)(2)(A), the proposed project is entitled to a maximum of one incentives or concessions. No concessions from current City of St.
Helena development standards resulting in identifiable cost reductions have been requested pursuant to CA Gov’t Code § 65915, subd. (d)(1). In addition, the applicant has requested 11 waivers to development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding construction of the development pursuant CA Gov’t. Code § 65915, subd. (e)(1). The requested waivers are described below.
Waivers
1. Interior Side Setback. Per SHMC Table 17.16.030.B, the minimum interior side setback is 10 feet. The proposed interior side setback is 8 feet, which does not comply with this standard. The City acknowledges strict compliance with the side setback would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law. The project site is comprised of irregularly shaped parcels with a required 20-foot waterway setback, a required 26-foot-wide minimum Fire access lane, a required 12-foot minimum separation between rowhouse blocks, and pedestrian walkway requirements, that, collectively, constrain the ability to meet the interior side yard setback at Building 1, Building 2, and Building 5. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Table 17.16.030.B for interior side setback as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
2. Private Ground Floor Open Space. Per SHMC Table 17.16.030.B, 60 square feet of private ground floor open space per unit is required. While the project provides a total 5,595 square feet of private ground floor open space, four end units do not provide any.
The City acknowledges strict compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law.
Specifically, Buildings 1 and 6 contain end units with no private patios due to the irregular shape of the lots, minimum 26-foot-wide Fire access lane, minimum 10-foot interior side setback, and ability of the developer to provide garage parking and 1 Per CA Gov’t. Code § 65915, subd. (f)(4) 19% of the units, including total units and density bonus units, are for sale to moderate income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the project is eligible for an 14% increase in the maximum allowable residential density.
Agenda Item #11.3.
efficiently stacked units. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Table 17.16.030.B for private ground floor open space as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
3. Minimum Landscape Area. Per SHMC Table 17.16.030.B, the minimum landscape area is 25% of the lot area, or 27,552 square feet. This standard is not met as 23,030 square feet of landscaping is provided. The City acknowledges strict compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law. Specifically, the project is comprised of irregularly shaped parcels with a 26-foot-wide minimum Fire access lane and a minimum 3-foot-wide landscape planter requirement, that, collectively, constrain the ability to meet the minimum landscape area requirement. The project also provides additional hardscaped private open space areas that do not count toward the minimum landscape area including 5,595 square feet of private ground floor open space through patios and additional private open space through balconies. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Table 17.16.030.B for minimum landscape area as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
4. Paved/Hardscaped Area. Per SHMC Table 17.16.030.B, the maximum paved/hardscaped area within the required front setback is 30%. The project proposes 360 square feet of hardscape area within the front setback, or 41%, which exceeds this requirement. The City acknowledges strict compliance with the paved/hardscape area standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law. Specifically, the project site is comprised of irregularly shaped parcels with a required 26-foot-wide minimum Fire access lane that constrain the ability to reduce paved areas within the required front setback. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Table
17.16.030.B for paved/hardscaped area as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
5. Minimum Distance to Interior Drive Aisle. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.A.7.e, the minimum distance from the back of any drive aisle or walkway interior to a site must be 10 feet to the garage door and five feet to any living area or covered porch. The project does not comply with this standard as 39 of the units do not provide at least 10 feet between the garage and the drive aisle. The City acknowledges strict compliance with the parking frontage standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law. Specifically, the project site is comprised of irregularly shaped parcels with a required 20-foot waterway setback and a required 26-foot-wide minimum Fire access that constrain the ability to provide at least 10 feet between the drive aisle and the garages. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Section 17.16.040.A.7.e for minimum distance to drive aisle as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
6. Driveway Curb Cuts. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.A.7.g, where individual driveways are accessed by a private or shared drive, a maximum of one driveway curb cut is allowed for each 50 feet of street frontage. The project provides private streets with individual curb cuts for each unit’s garage, and does not meet this standard. The City acknowledges strict compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project Agenda Item #11.3.
at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law. Specially, the project site is comprised of irregularly shaped parcels with a required 20-foot waterway setback and a required 26-foot-wide minimum Fire access lane that constrain the ability to provide at least 50 feet between curb cuts. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Section 17.16.040.A.7.g for driveway curb cuts as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
7. Full Height Recesses. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.C.1.h, where a new multifamily development is built adjacent to existing lower-scaled residential development, the facade opposite the existing lower-scaled residential development shall incorporate at least one full-height recess a minimum two feet in depth. While the primary elevations of each building contain at least one full-height recesses of at least 2 feet, there is one instance where the side elevation of Building 5, with a 1.5-foot full-height recess, faces existing lower-scaled development. The required 20-foot waterway setback, 10-foot side yard setback, and ability of the developer to provide garage parking and efficiently stacked units, collectively, constrain the ability to meet this standard. The City acknowledges strict compliance with full-height recess standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus law. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Section
17.16.040.C.1.h for full-height recess as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
8. Attached Rowhouse Block. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.C.2.b, blocks of attached rowhouses must be a minimum of three units and a maximum of eight units. Building 2 does not meet this standard as 9 units are proposed. The City acknowledges strict compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law. Specially, the 12-foot minimum separation requirement between rowhouse blocks and pedestrian walkway requirements constrain the ability to shift units between buildings. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Section
17.16.040.C.2.b to the maximum number of units in a rowhouse bock as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
9. Entry Design. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.C.3.b.i, individual ground floor entrances to units within a multifamily development must be visible and directly accessible from the right of way or a shared pathway. This standard is not met for two of the end units in Buildings 1 and 6 where direct pedestrian access is not provided from a walkway. The City acknowledges strict compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law.
Specifically, the project site is comprised of irregularly shaped parcels with a required 26-foot-wide minimum Fire access lane that constrain the ability to provide additional walkways along Streets B and C. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Section 17.16.040.C.3.b.i for entry design as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
10. Common Outdoor Recreation Space Visibility. Per SHMC Section 17.16.040.C.4.c, common outdoor recreation space must be visible from a minimum of 50% of the units and be visible to the residents of the project for which the space is provided. The project includes two common outdoor recreation spaces toward the front of the site that are visible from 29% of the units and does not comply with this standard. The City Agenda Item #11.3.
acknowledges strict compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law.
Specifically, the project is required to provide common open space with a minimum dimension of 15-feet-wide, a minimum 26-foot-wide Fire access lane, and stormwater facilities that, collectively, constrain the ability to provide centralized common open space or additional perimeter common open space visible from at least 50% of the units.
Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Section 17.16040.C.4.c for common outdoor recreation space visibility as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
11. Long-Term Bicycle Parking Size. Per SHMC Section 17.26.080.B.4, two feet of clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and adjacent walls and five feet of clearance shall be provided from vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes long-term bicycle parking with private garages for each unit and does not meet the minimum clearance standards. The City acknowledges strict compliance with this standard would physically preclude development of the project at the densities allowed under State Density Bonus Law. Specifically, this standard is intended for communal bike rooms and implementation is not practicable when applied to long-term bicycle parking within individual garages. The project will provide a wall-mounted bike rack within each individual garage. Therefore, the City accepts information regarding the requested Density Bonus waiver to SHMC Section 17.26.080.B.4 for minimum long-term bicycle parking size as adequate for the City to make a determination as to this waiver request.
Pursuant to CA Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3) (D)(i)(III) and SHMC Chapter 17.29, you are hereby notified that (1) the project is eligible for a 14% density bonus based on the project including a total of 41 units with 8 units being deed restricted to moderate income households; and (2) the information provided regarding the requests for waivers from developments standards is adequate for the City to make a determination as to those requested waivers for the reasons detailed above. Please note that this Notice of Density Bonus Eligibility should not be construed as a granting of those requested waivers.
An affordable housing agreement pursuant to SHMC Section 17.29.030 is required for the project.
Sincerely,
Mike Janusek, AICP
Senior Planner Consulting with M-Group
cc: Maya DeRosa, AICP, Community Development Director
Exhibit A: Written Statement Excerpt with Density Bonus Requests, prepared by City Ventures, dated November 14, 2025.
Agenda Item #11.3.
5 Entry Door Fiberglass & Glass
Railings Wood Rake
Windows Vinyl (Milgard)
Downspouts Aluminum
Lighting Metal (Black Allenbury Downward)
Wire Vine Lines Galvanized Metal
Accent Standing Seam Metal
Further discussion of the proposed project’s architectural design is below within the Design Review subsection.
DENSITY BONUS
Spring Grove is designed for first-time homebuyers and families who live and work in St. Helena. The project is designed to be consistent with the City of St. Helena’s General Plan, adopted in 2019, and the Objective Design Standards codified in October 2023. Spring Grove is a Housing Development Project within the meaning of Government Code section 65589.5(h)(2) and has been designed to comply with applicable objective General Plan and subdivision standards and criteria as described in Government Code section 65589.5(j).
Spring Grove qualifies for the benefits of the State Density Bonus Law as it provides at least 10% of the units to be deed restricted for households at moderate incomes. Specifically, Per St. Helena’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance, twenty percent (20%) of the housing units, 8.2 units, will be made available to households at moderate incomes. Four (4) units will be made available to households whose annual income does not exceed 100% of median income, and four (4) units will be made available to households whose annual income does not exceed 120% of median income. We propose to satisfy the remaining 0.2- unit through the payment of the in-lieu fee.
Density Bonus Application
Density Bonus % 20%
Total Number of Proposed Units 41
Inclusionary Units Required 8.2
Total Inclusionary Units Proposed 8
Median Income (100% AMI) 4
Moderate Income (120% AMI) 4
Fractional Unit (Paid via In-Lieu Fee) 0.2
Number of Density Bonus Units 0
Because this for-sale project provides at least 20-percent deed-restricted homes for households with moderate incomes, Spring Grove is eligible for State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915–65918) benefits, including unlimited waivers and two concessions. City Ventures is requesting four density bonus Agenda Item #11.3.
6 waivers. City Ventures reserves the right to request additional concessions (as we currently have the right to use two) or waivers/incentives under the State Density Bonus Law at a later time.
Per state law, waivers of development standards that would physically preclude the development of a project at the density permitted are allowed. Specifically, we are requesting the following waivers from the St. Helena Objective Design Standards (SHMC 17.16.040):
Density Bonus Waiver Requests
Waiver St. Helena Municipal Code
1. Full Height Recesses 17.16.040.C.1.h
2. Rowhouse: 8-unit Max 17.16.040.C.2.b
3. Units on Common Open Space 17.16.040.C.4.c
4. Minimum Distance: Drive Aisle/Walkway 17.16.040.A.7.e
5. Private Ground Floor Open Space 17.16.030.B
6. Driveway Curb Cuts 17.16.040.A.7.g
7. Entry Design 17.16.040.C.3.b.i
8. Maximum Paved/Hardscaped Area 17.16.030.B
9. Long-Term Bicycle Parking 17.26.080.B
10. Minimum Landscape Area 17.16.030.B
11. Interior Side Yard Setback 17.16.030.B
Our project program consists of 3+ bedroom townhome-style condominiums, more specifically defined as a “rowhouse” within the St. Helena Municipal Code. These proposed units range between 1,480 and 1,810 square feet, appropriate sizes for the “missing middle” – first time homebuyers and young families – for which the project is designed. At 41-units, the project is at minimum density per the code. The site, Site 9 in the Housing Element, is a unique and irregularly shaped parcel. Weighing design standards, including setbacks, fire access roads, height, open space, parking, and missing middle home sizes can be a balancing act and puzzle, and meeting the vast majority of the objective design standards is testament to skillful design. The eight waivers discussed below are requested as they would physically preclude the development of this project at the density permitted, which is already at the minimum density. Simply put, strict enforcement of these remaining design and zoning code standards would reduce the density of the project. Reducing the density of the project would both violate state law as well as the local development code, as the project would fall beneath the minimum density.
1. SHMC 17.16.040.C.1.h: Where a new multifamily development is built adjacent to existing lowerscaled residential development, the facade opposite the existing lower-scaled residential development shall incorporate at least one full-height recess a minimum two feet in depth.
Strict compliance with the design standard requiring that "Where a new multifamily development is built adjacent to existing lower-scaled residential development, the facade opposite the existing lower-scaled residential development shall incorporate at least one full-height recess a minimum two feet in depth" would physically preclude the density permitted on the site for the following reasons:
Impact on Unit Layout and Efficiency: A full-height recess of at least two feet disrupts the continuity of unit widths. Our townhome units are typically designed with standardized width, but even a single recess Agenda Item #11.3.
7 along a row of units requires either: widening the building footprint, or reducing the number of units in that block to accommodate the recess. The result is that a recess effectively eliminates or compresses one unit’s usable space, which must then be accommodated (enlarged) to meet market standards, thereby reducing density.
No Viable Alternative Configuration: Our site layout has already been optimized to provide the minimum number of units allowable under applicable zoning and General Plan density. Introducing required recesses would compromise the regular rectangular block format needed for the efficient stacking of units with garages below and living space above. Because townhomes are typically side-byside units, interruptions in the façade translate directly into lost units, not just architectural shifts.
As Building 5 is the only building whose side façade is adjacent to existing lower scaled development, the waiver request only applies to this building, which also has a recess of 1’6”, less than the required 2’. If a waiver was not granted, this would have the affect of pushing the building further south into the creek setback/flood zone, which would practically result in losing a unit. As a result, this would physically preclude the development of this project at the minimum density.
2. SHMC 17.16.040.C.2.b: Blocks of attached rowhouses must be a minimum of three units and a maximum of eight units.
Please note that this requirement is met for all buildings except Building 2, which has 9 units. However, strict compliance with the three-to-eight-unit block requirement prevents flexibility in unit layout that is necessary to meet ADA accessibility and site circulation standards. In particular, the required accessible path from guest parking (on the south) across the internal drive aisle to the perimeter path limits where units and driveways can be located, which forces breaks in rowhouse blocks at key circulation points. As a result, it becomes physically impossible to fit the minimum number of units while also satisfying the standard block length, circulation, and accessibility requirements.
Because strict enforcement of the 3–8-unit rowhouse rule would physically prevent the project from reaching the allowed density—due to the need to insert accessible pedestrian paths across the drive aisle—this design standard should be waived. The waiver is necessary to enable accessible circulation, preserve pedestrian connectivity, and allow the full build-out of the site to its intended density.
3. SHMC 17.16.040.C.4.c: Visibility. Common outdoor recreation spaces must be visible from the primary living spaces of a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of units and be visible to the residents of the project for which the space is provided.
Strict compliance with the design standard requiring that “common outdoor recreation spaces must be visible from the primary living spaces of a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of units and be visible to the residents of the project for which the space is provided” would physically preclude achieving the density permitted on the site due to the unique constraints of the parcel.
To meet the visibility requirement for 50% of units, the open space would need to be located in a central and unobstructed area, ideally surrounded by units on multiple sides. However, due to the irregular configuration of the parcel organizing buildings around a central open space visible to the majority of units is geometrically unfeasible. Such an arrangement would result in inefficient site layout and a loss of units.
Agenda Item #11.3.
8 Given these unique physical limitations and the irregular shape of the site, strict adherence to this design standard would physically preclude development at the allowable density. Therefore, a waiver is justified to allow for common open space that is still functional, accessible, and appropriately integrated into the project—just not visible from 50% of unit interiors—so long as it serves the recreational needs of residents and enhances overall project livability.
4. SHMC 17.16.040.A.7.e: Minimum Distance – Driveway/Walkway. The minimum distance from the back of any drive aisle or walkway interior to a site must be ten (10) feet to the garage door and five feet to any living area or covered porch.
The St. Helena Zoning Code requires a minimum distance from the back of any drive aisle or walkway interior to a site of ten (10) feet to the garage door and five (5) feet to any living area or covered porch.
The proposed project complies with the required 5-foot setback to living areas but does not meet the 10- foot setback to garage doors for certain units accessed from the internal drive aisle.
Due to the irregular shape of the parcel and the need to efficiently organize garages along the internal driveway network, strict application of the 10-foot garage setback would necessitate larger individual townhome footprints. This would directly reduce the number of units that can be accommodated on the site. As a result, enforcing this standard would physically preclude the project from achieving the minimum permitted density under Government Code § 65915. A waiver of this development standard is therefore necessary to allow an efficient site layout that delivers the planned housing while maintaining safe and functional access.
5. SHMC 17.16.030.B: Private Ground Floor Open Space: 60 square feet of private ground floor open space per unit is required.
The St. Helena Zoning Code requires that each unit include a minimum of sixty (60) square feet of private ground floor open space. In the proposed project, 37 of the 41 townhome units meet or exceed this standard. Four smaller end units, however, do not include private patios. These units were intentionally designed and located to achieve the site’s minimum permitted density while also accommodating the parcel’s irregular shape and preserving the undisturbed riparian corridor.
Strict application of the private open space requirement to these four units would require significant redesign, eliminating them entirely or enlarging their footprints at the expense of other units or site features. Either option would reduce the total unit count and physically preclude the project from achieving the minimum density permitted under Government Code § 65915.
The proposed design provides ample shared open space and preserves valuable natural areas, ensuring all residents benefit from accessible outdoor amenities while meeting the City’s and State’s housing production goals. A waiver of this development standard is therefore necessary to maintain the project’s planned density and site-sensitive design.
6. SHMC 17.16.040.A.7.g: Driveway Curb Cuts. Where individual driveways are accessed by a private or shared drive, a maximum of one driveway curb cut is allowed for each fifty (50) feet of street frontage.
Agenda Item #11.3.
9 The St. Helena Zoning Code limits developments in which individual driveways are accessed by a private or shared drive to a maximum of one driveway curb cut for every fifty (50) feet of street frontage. The proposed project includes more than one curb cuts within 50-foot frontage segments to provide adequate access to individual townhome garages and maintain functional circulation throughout the site.
The site’s irregular configuration, coupled with the need to preserve an undisturbed riparian corridor along a substantial portion of the frontage, significantly constrains where curb cuts can be located.
Concentrating all driveways into fewer curb cuts would require excessive internal maneuvering space, reduce the number of buildable units/footprints, and create awkward, inefficient driveway alignments.
This would directly reduce the achievable unit count and physically preclude the project from meeting the minimum permitted density under Government Code § 65915.
The proposed curb cut configuration balances vehicular access needs with preservation of sensitive natural features, avoids excessive grading or disturbance to the riparian corridor, and maintains a safe, logical circulation network. A waiver of this standard is therefore necessary to ensure both environmental protection and the delivery of much-needed housing at the density allowed by state law.
7. SHMC 17.16.040.C.3.b.i: Entry Design. Individual ground floor entrances to units within a multifamily development must be visible and directly accessible from the right of way or a shared pathway.
The St. Helena Zoning Code requires that individual ground floor entrances to units within a multifamily development be visible and directly accessible from the public right-of-way or a shared pathway. In the proposed project, the vast majority of units—39 of 41—comply with this standard. However, two of the Plan 1 units, which are smaller homes specifically designed to help achieve the project’s minimum permitted density, do not have entries directly visible from a shared pathway. These units are located at the ends of buildings opposite the shared pathway, a placement dictated by the unique shape and physical constraints of the site.
This layout allowed the inclusion of compact, efficiently designed homes that maximize the site’s housing potential while maintaining architectural variety and preserving key site features such as the riparian corridor. Enforcing strict compliance with this standard would require a substantial redesign, eliminating these units and thereby reducing the overall unit count. This reduction would physically preclude the project from achieving the minimum density permitted under Government Code § 65915.
The proposed design maintains safe and convenient access to all units, preserves high-quality architecture, and supports the City’s and State’s shared objective of delivering housing at allowed densities. A waiver of this development standard is therefore necessary to retain these smaller, attainable units while respecting the site’s constraints.
8. SHMC 17.16.030.B: Maximum Paved/Hardscaped Area: The maximum paved/hardscaped area is 30% within the required front setback.
The St. Helena Zoning Code limits paved or hardscaped surfaces within the front setback to no more than thirty percent (30%) of that area. Due to the unique configuration of the parcel, only a small portion of the site fronts Spring Street, and this limited frontage must serve as the primary vehicular access point as well Agenda Item #11.3.
10 as accommodate multiple pedestrian pathways. These circulation elements are essential to provide safe, functional, and code-compliant access to all parts of the project.
Strict adherence to the 30% paving limitation would require narrowing the primary driveway from Spring Street, which would in turn fail to meet fire access standards. This would not only create life-safety concerns but would also render the project infeasible. In addition, reconfiguring the access to comply with the paving cap would require significant redesign that would either eliminate units or reduce buildable area, physically precluding the project from achieving the minimum permitted density under Government Code § 65915.
The proposed design balances the need for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access with aesthetic considerations, incorporating landscaping wherever feasible while ensuring compliance with fire safety and accessibility requirements. A waiver of this standard is therefore necessary to maintain both site functionality and the project’s housing production goals.
9. SHMC 17.16.080.B.4: Long-term Bicycle Parking: Two feet of clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and adjacent walls, etc. Five feet of clearance shall be provided from vehicle parking spaces.
The project requests a waiver from the required two- and five-foot clearance standards for long-term bicycle parking. The proposed design provides wall-mounted bicycle racks within individual private garages, allowing each homeowner to securely store bicycles within their own unit.
Strict application of the clearance standards would make it infeasible to provide the required number of long-term bicycle parking spaces without significantly increasing the size of the garages or the overall building footprint. This, in turn, would reduce the site’s development potential below the minimum density permitted by the zoning and the Density Bonus Law, directly conflicting with the State’s intent to facilitate the production of housing.
Furthermore, the clearance requirement appears to have been written for multifamily projects with common bicycle storage rooms, where multiple racks are placed in shared spaces and pedestrian maneuvering areas are needed. In this case, each bicycle space is privately located within a garage, without shared circulation. The intent of the code—to ensure safe, accessible, and secure bicycle storage—is fully achieved through the proposed design, even without the prescribed clearances.
For these reasons, the project qualifies for a waiver under Government Code §65915(e), as the clearance requirement would physically preclude the development of the site at the permitted density and is unnecessary given the design of the long-term bicycle parking system.
10. SHMC 17.16.030.B: Minimum Landscape Area. Per the table, the minimum landscape area is 25% of the lot area, of 27,552 square feet.
Spring Grove provides a total of 19,545 square feet of open space, which is slightly less than the 27,552 square feet required under the City’s development standards. However, this modest deviation is justified under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915(e)), which allows waivers of development standards that would physically preclude construction of a project with the granted density bonus, including affordable housing units.
Agenda Item #11.3.
11 In this case, the open space requirement would physically constrain the site’s ability to achieve the planned mix of missing-middle homes and deed-restricted affordable units, both of which advance the City’s adopted Housing Element goals. The project’s overall design thoughtfully integrates a variety of open space types that together achieve the intent—and, functionally, the benefit—of the quantitative standard.
Specifically:
• Common Open Space: Landscaped paseos, a central gathering green, and small neighborhood pocket spaces provide communal outdoor areas that foster interaction, recreation, and a sense of community.
• Private Open Space: Every residence includes its own private yard, balcony, or patio, offering personal outdoor living areas that supplement shared amenities. • Riparian Corridor and Natural Edge: The project preserves and enhances the existing riparian corridor, establishing a natural open-space buffer and habitat zone that exceeds the qualitative value of typical on-site open space. This area contributes to the visual openness and environmental character of the development, benefiting both residents and the public realm.
Collectively, these open space components deliver a balanced, high-quality living environment consistent with the City’s open space objectives—promoting livability, connectivity, and environmental stewardship—even though the total area falls below the numerical requirement.
Strict application of the open space standard would physically preclude construction of the density bonus units and conflict with the project’s broader public benefits, including attainable ownership housing and 8 deed-restricted affordable homes. For these reasons, the waiver is both necessary and appropriate under State Density Bonus Law and fully consistent with the intent of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element policies.
11. SHMC 17.16.030.B: Interior Side Yard Setback. Per the table, the interior side yard setback in the HR zoning district is 10-feet.
The HR zoning district establishes a 10-foot interior side yard setback. Buildings 1 and 2 are fully compliant with this requirement; however, the associated utility cabinets extend approximately two feet into the setback area. These cabinets are essential service components, fixed in size, and required to be placed in accessible locations by the serving utility providers. Given the compact and highly constrained nature of the site—an infill parcel bordered by existing residential uses and shaped by the riparian corridor to the south—there is no feasible way to relocate or redesign these utility elements without materially reducing the project’s buildable area and jeopardizing the minimum density required under the Housing Element designation. As allowed and encouraged under State Density Bonus Law, a waiver of the side setback standard for these minor encroachments is necessary to physically accommodate the project at a density consistent with the City’s adopted housing obligations.
Similarly, Building 5 requires a waiver from the 10-foot interior side yard setback because the building sits approximately eight feet from the property line. This placement was the direct result of shifting the building north to fully respect and buffer the riparian corridor along the southern project edge—an environmentally beneficial design refinement made in response to both City feedback and biological resource considerations. Complying with the full 10-foot setback would require either decreasing the Agenda Item #11.3.
12 number of homes or materially reconfiguring the site in a way that would reduce the project below the minimum density necessary to qualify under the Housing Element and Density Bonus provisions.
Because State law expressly entitles applicants to waivers of development standards that would otherwise physically preclude a qualifying project from achieving its permitted density, this requested waiver is both appropriate and essential.
In summary, these setback waivers are modest in scale, arise directly from legitimate site constraints and environmental protections, and are necessary to allow the project to be developed at the minimum density contemplated by State housing law and the City’s certified Housing Element. Granting the waivers ensures the City can realize needed missing-middle ownership housing without compromising environmental resources, life-safety infrastructure, or site functionality.
Other Information Required for Special Projects
As the density bonus application is requested for a proposed housing development that would result in the removal or conversion of existing dwelling units, please find the requested information below:
Housing Units Proposed to be Demolished
Current Tenant 2018-2023
Address Property Description Income Levels Monthly Rate 1447 Spring 3-bdrm Single Family Home Vacant N/A
1505 Spring 2-bdrm Single Family Home 120% AMI + $1,800 1515 Spring 4-bdrm Single Family Home 120% AMI + $3,000
PRE-SUBMITTAL REVIEW
Per best practice in the City of St. Helena, a project of this size first goes before the Planning Commission for evaluation as part of the “pre-submittal review” application. Also known as a study session, this provides an important opportunity for the project to be introduced to the community and neighbors. This also provides an opportunity to receive feedback from the Planning Commission. For these reasons, a presubmittal review is requested.
As this is a proposed construction project, all aspects of the project, including specific data points, are throughout this consolidated written statement and the submitted plan set. However, to specifically answer the questions posed within the pre-submittal review application:
o The maximum building height is 38-feet (within the high-density residential zone’s 42-foot maximum)
o Each of the six buildings have three floors
o Floor area information is provided within the project submittal plan set. o The first floor of each plan has a garage and either a bedroom, ADU or office/den, second floor has living areas, including kitchen, bathroom and family room, while the third floor has the bedrooms.
o The project has 93 parking spaces, 82 spaces within garages and 11 open spaces. o Access to the property will be via a roadway off Spring Street at the current location of 1505 Spring Street, a single-family home proposed to be demolished.
Agenda Item #11.3.
15 City Ventures looks forward to working with the City of St. Helena to create a walkable housing development just a stone’s throw from Main Street in which more St. Helena families can put down roots, just like the vineyards for which the area is world famous.
Kelso G. Barnett, Senior Director of Development
November 14, 2025
Agenda Item #11.3.
1 CEQA EXEMPTION MEMO
DATE: December 2, 2025
TO: Maya DeRosa, AICP, Community Development Director
FROM: Mike Janusek, AICP, Planning Consultant
RE: 1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring Street Spring Grove Multifamily California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutory Exemption Per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 The City of St. Helena has conducted environmental review for the Spring Grove housing development project pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66, a statute within Assembly Bill (AB 130). Effective June 30, 2025, AB 130 made significant modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including creation of a new statutory CEQA exemption, PRC Section 21080.66, for infill housing developments that meet certain conditions. As detailed below, City staff has determined that the 1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring Street Spring Grove Multifamily Project (“Project”) qualifies for statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes a subdivision for condominium purposes, demolition of three existing single-family homes, and development of a 41-unit multifamily development consisting of six three-story buildings on a 2.53-acre site. Three existing parcels under single ownership totaling
2.53 acres would be subdivided. The proposed subdivision would create 41 lots for condominium purposes, one lot for common areas to be owned by the future homeowners’ association, and one lettered lot, Parcel A, to contain the riparian corridor not for development.
Each unit would be a 3-bedroom condominium, with some unit types including the option for a fourth bedroom. On-site parking (93 spaces) would be provided through a combination of attached two-car garages for each unit and 11 perpendicular parking stalls along a private street.
Access would be via a 28-foot-wide private street from Spring Street. Additional site improvements include landscaping with 59 trees, common usable open space including a picnic area and seating, continuous pedestrian walkways, and stormwater facilities.
CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION APPLICABILITY
AB 130 created a new statutory exemption for infill housing development projects that meet the eligibility criteria under PRC 21080.66. The following table provides an analysis of the Project against the eligibility criteria to determine the applicability of the infill housing development project statutory exemption.
Agenda Item #11.3.
2 Table 1: Criteria for AB 130 Exemption
PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Project Complies?
Project Details
(a)(1) Project site meets either of the following criteria: ☒ (a)(1)(A) Is not greater than 20 acres. Yes. The Project site is 2.53 acres. (a)(1)(B) If a builder’s remedy project is proposed, the project site or parcel size is not more than 5
acres.
Not Applicable. The Project is not invoking builder’s
remedy.
(a)(2) Project site meets either of the following criteria: ☒ (a)(2)(A) Is located within the boundaries of an
incorporated municipality
Yes. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the City of St. Helena, an incorporated municipality.
(a)(2)(B) Is located within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau.
Yes. The Project site is located within an urban area as defined by the US Census Bureau.
(a)(3) Project site meets any of the following criteria: ☒ (a)(3)(A) Has been previously developed with an urban
use.
(a)(3)(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban
uses.
Yes. 100 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins
parcels that development with residential development, an urban use.
(a)(3)(C) At least 75 percent of the area within a onequarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
(a)(3)(D) For sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and
at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site
adjoins parcels that are developed with urban
uses.
Agenda Item #11.3.
3 PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Project Complies?
(a)(4)(A) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable
local coastal program.
☒
Yes. The Project submitted a development application
(PL24-065) on November 22, 2024 under SB 330, and Staff has determined the Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning ordinance. The approval of a
density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or
reductions of development standards, shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program.
(a)(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3)
of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the
Government Code (for St. Helena, one-half of 20
du/ac = 10 du/ac).
☒
Yes. The Project is located in a suburban jurisdiction per HCD’s Default Denstiy categories pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, which requires a density of at least 20 du/ac. Therefore, the Project must provide at least 10 du/ac.
The Project proposes 16.2 dwelling units/acre (41 du on
2.53 ac = 16.2 du/ac).
(a)(7) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to
Section 65941.1 of the Government Code.
☒
Yes. There are no listed historic structures on a national, state, or local historic register on the Project site.
(a)(8) For a project that was deemed complete on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is
designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and
breakfast inn, or other transient lodging.
☒
Yes. The Project does not offer any hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging uses.
Additional Site Details
(a)(6) The project satisfies all the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of
the Government Code:
Yes. See below.
Agenda Item #11.3.
4 PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Project Complies?
(a)(6)(A) Not located in any of the following coastal zone areas:
1) An area between the sea and the first public
road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of
the inland extent of any beach or of the mean
high tideline of the sea where there is no
beach, whichever is the greater distance; or
2) Tidelands, submerged lands, public trust
lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary,
or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the
seaward face of any coastal bluff.
3) An area of the coastal zone that is not subject
to a certified local coastal program or a
certified land use plan.
4) An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable
to five feet of sea level rise, as determined by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Ocean Protection Council,
the United States Geological Survey, the
University of California, or a local
government's coastal hazards vulnerability
assessment.
5) On a parcel within the coastal zone that is not
zoned for multifamily housing.
6) On a parcel in the coastal zone and located on
or within a 100-foot radius of a wetland, as
defined in Section 30121 of the Public
Resources Code, or on prime agricultural land,
as defined in Sections 30113 and 30241 of the
Public Resources Code.
☐
Yes. The City of St. Helena is not located within the Coastal zone. See coastal.ca.gov/maps/czb/.
Agenda Item #11.3.
5 PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Project Complies?
(a)(6)(B) Not located on prime farmland or farmland of
statewide importance.
☒
Yes. The Project site is classified by the California
Department of Conversation on the California Important
Farmland Finder as “Urban and Built Up Land.” See
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
(a)(6)(C) Not located on wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
☒
Yes. The Project site is developed and there is no evidence that wetlands exist onsite. Additionally, the National
Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands map
does not indicate the presence of wetlands onsite. See
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlandsmapper/. (a)(6)(D) Not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or within the state responsibility area, unless the site has adopted specified fire hazard mitigation
measures.
☒
Yes. The Project site is not classified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as a very high fire hazard severity zone nor is the site within the state responsibility area. See
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. (a)(6)(E) Not located on a hazardous waste site, unless either of the following apply:
1) The site is an underground storage tank site
that received a uniform closure letter based on
closure criteria established by the State Water
Resources Control Board for residential use or
residential mixed uses.
2) The State Department of Public Health, State
Water Resources Control Board, Department
of Toxic Substances Control, or a local agency
making a determination pursuant
☒
Yes. The Project site is not identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Department of Toxic
Substances Control as a hazardous waste site. See
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ and
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
Agenda Item #11.3.
6 PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Project Complies?
to subdivision (c) of Section 25296.10 of the
Health and Safety Code, has otherwise
determined that the site is suitable for
residential use or residential mixed uses.
(a)(6)(F) Not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official
maps published by the State Geologist, unless the
development complies with applicable seismic
protection building code standards adopted by the
California Building Standards Commission under the
California Building Standards Law, and by any local
building department.
☒
Yes. The Project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone as shown on the California Geologic Survey’s Seismic Hazards Program: Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard
Zones map.
(a)(6)(G) Not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood
(100-year flood) as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in any official maps
published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, unless either of the following apply:
1) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map
Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and issued to the local
jurisdiction.
2) The site meets Federal Emergency
Management Agency requirements necessary
to meet minimum flood plain management
criteria of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
☒
Yes. A small portion of the Project site is designated by FEMA as Zone A (1% chance flood), however, this area is not proposed for development as it is within the City’s required 20-foot waterway setback. Because no
development is proposed within the 100-year floodplain, minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program do not apply. See image below.
Agenda Item #11.3.
7 PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Project Complies?
(a)(6)(H) Not located within a regulatory floodway as
determined by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in any official maps published by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, unless the
development has received a no-rise certification.
☒
Yes. The Project site is not located within a regulatory floodway, as shown in the image above.
Agenda Item #11.3.
8 PRC § 21080.66 Criteria Project Complies?
(a)(6)(I) Not located on lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan
pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Act, habitat conservation plan pursuant to
the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, or other
adopted natural resource protection plan.
☒
Yes. No portion of the City of St. Helena, including the Project site, is within a conservation plan area.
(a)(6)(J) Not located within a habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of
special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the California
Endangered Species Act, or the Native Plant
Protection Act.
☒
As evidence in the Biological Resources Report, prepared for the Project by Monk & Associates, Inc., dated
November 21, 2024, there is no potential habitat for special status plant or animal species on site as the site is fully developed and surrounded by other developments.
Additionally, the site is not mapped by the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (USFWS) as Critical
Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species.
(a)(6)(K) Not located on lands under conservation easement. ☒ Yes. The Project site is not subject to any conservation easement.
Agenda Item #11.3.
9 Tribal Consultation
Projects eligible for the statutory infill housing development exemption also must comply with the tribal notification requirements under PRC 21080.66(b). On September 4, 2025, pursuant to PRC 21080.66(b), the City provided formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project site, as provided by NAHC, to invite those tribes to consult with the City as to the proposed Project, its location, and the Project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. One tribe, the Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, requested consultation, which the City initiated and participated in, and which concluded on November 10, 2025 in compliance with PRC 21080.66(b)(3)(F).
Standard Conditions of Approval
While there are no known tribal cultural resources on the Project site, per PRC 21080.66(b)(4), the Project will be conditioned to comply with binding conditions of project approval to protect any tribal cultural resources, included below. In addition, the requirement for the local government to condition the Project conduct a phase I environmental site assessment under PRC 21080.66(c) has been met by the applicant who submitted to the City a Phase I ESA, prepared by Stantec, dated May 7, 2024.
1. The project shall include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities, as follows:
a. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant/property owner shall retain the services of a Tribal Monitor. b. The Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley shall designate the monitor. c. The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements.
d. The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the project.
2. As applicable, tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.
3. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Section 21083.9.
4. The applicant shall prepare a California Historical Resources Information System archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search shall be completed for the project site.
Agenda Item #11.3.
10 5. The applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission.
6. The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe.
Conclusion
As provided above, the proposed Project qualifies for statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 (Infill Housing Development Exemption). As such, no further environmental analysis under CEQA is required.
Mike Janusek, AICP
Senior Planner Consulting with M-Group
EXHBITS
A. Biological Resources Analysis, prepared by Monk & Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2024
REFERENCES
1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared by Stantec, May 7, 2024
2. Department of Housing and Community Development, Default Density Standard Option – 2020 Census Update, Memorandum for Planning Directors and Interested Parties, March 21, 2022
Agenda Item #11.3.
MONK & ASSOCIATES INC
1136 Saranap Avenue Suite Q | Walnut Creek, CA 94595 | (925) 947-4867 | www.monkassociates.com
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
SPRING GROVE PROJECT
ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA
November 21, 2024
Prepared for
City Ventures
444 Spear Street Ste 200
San Francisco, California 94105
Contact: Mr. Kelso Barnett
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by
Monk & Associates, Inc.
1136 Saranap Avenue, Suite Q
Walnut Creek, California 94595
Contact: Mr. Mark Jasper
[email protected]
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 3
3. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ........................................................................................ 4
4. PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 4
5. ANALYSIS METHODS .................................................................................................................. 4
6. RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES ................................................ 4
6.1 Topography and Hydrology .................................................................................................... 4
6.2 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats ........................................................... 5
6.2.1 ANTHROPOGENIC COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................ 5
6.2.2 RIPARIAN WOODLAND ............................................................................................................. 6
6.2.3 RUDERAL HERBACEOUS .......................................................................................................... 6
6.3 Wildlife Corridors .................................................................................................................... 6
7. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ........................................................................................................ 7
7.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 7
7.2 Potential Special-Status Species on the Project Site ............................................................... 9
8. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS PERTINENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .... 9
8.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................. 9
8.1.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY .......................................................................................................... 11
8.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 11
8.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ....................................................................................... 12
8.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 12
8.3 California Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................... 12
8.3.1 SECTION 2081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ........................................ 12
8.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 14
8.4 The Clean Water Act ............................................................................................................. 14
8.4.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 14
8.4.2 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 14
8.4.3 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 15
9. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PROTECTIONS ......................... 15
9.1.1 SECTION 1602 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE ........................................................ 15
9.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 16
9.2 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 ....................................... 16
9.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 16
10. CITY OF ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN ............................................................................... 17
10.1 Open Space and Conservation Element .............................................................................. 17
10.1.1 TOPIC 1: NATURAL HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY .............................................................. 17
10.1.2 TOPIC 2: OPEN SPACE .......................................................................................................... 21
10.1.3 TOPIC 3: WATER QUALITY AND CONSERVATION ............................................................... 21
10.1.4 TOPIC 4: A HEALTHY LIVING ENVIRONMENT .................................................................... 22
11. CITY OF ST. HELENA TREE ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 12.24 TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION .............................................................................................................................. 23
11.1 Chapter 12.24.010 Findings and Purpose ........................................................................... 23
11.2 Chapter 12.24.020 Definitions ............................................................................................ 23
11.3 Chapter 12.24.090 General Provisions ............................................................................... 24
11.4 Chapter 12.24.130 Pruning, Maintenance and Removal of Protected Trees ..................... 24
11.5 Chapter 12.24.140 Damage to Protected Trees .................................................................. 24 Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
ii
11.6 Chapter 12.24.150 Protection of Protected Trees During and After Construction Activity ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
11.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................... 25
12. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS ................. 25
12.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................... 26
13. IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 27
13.1 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................................ 27
13.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................................... 27
14. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .................... 28
14.1 Impact BIO-1: With Compliance with Applicable General Plan Policies, Development of the Proposed Project Would Not Have a Potentially Significant Impact on Nesting Raptors and Passerine Birds (No Peculiar Impact) .................................................................................. 29
14.2 Standard Condition of Approval BIO-1. Nesting Birds ..................................................... 30
15. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 31
FIGURES
(At Back of Report)
Figure 1. Spring Grove Project Regional Map
Figure 2. Spring Grove Project Location Map
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of the Spring Grove Project Site TABLES
(At Back of Report)
Table 1. Plant Species Observed on the Spring Grove Project Site Table 2. Wildlife Species Observed on the Spring Grove Project Site
ATTACHMENTS
(At Back of Report)
Attachment A. Illustrative Site Plan and Site Layout Map, Spring Grove Project, Prepared by Adobe Associates, Inc., October 1, 2024.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
2 1. INTRODUCTION
On behalf of City Ventures (the applicant), Monk & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has prepared this Biological Resources Analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000 et seq) for the proposed Spring Grove Project (hereinafter, the “Spring Grove project” or the “project”) located southwest of the intersection of Spring Street and St. James Drive in St.
Helena, California (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The purpose of our analysis is to provide a description of existing biological resources on the project site and to identify potentially significant impacts that could occur to sensitive biological resources from the construction of a proposed residential housing development (the project).
Biological resources include common plant and animal species, and special-status plants and animals as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other resource organizations including the California Native Plant Society. Biological resources also include waters of the United States (U.S.) and State, as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW.
This Biological Resources Analysis was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15332 (Class 32). Section 15183 provides a streamlined review of the environmental impacts of the project by tiering from the program level analysis prepared for the City of St.
Helena General Plan and its certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), thereby focusing the analysis to potential environmental impacts of the project relative to the impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects which are determined to be consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. The analysis provided herein relies upon the program level analysis prepared for the 2040 City of St. Helena General Plan Update (City of St. Helena 2019) and its EIR (SCH No. 2010042001), which was certified in 2018.
Article 19 of the CEQA Guidelines includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and as a result, are exempt from review under CEQA. Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are Class 32 projects, which are projects characterized as in‐fill development that meet the following conditions:
• Consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; • Occurs within city limits, on a project site of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses;
• The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; • Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and
• The project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
2 Even if a project meets all of the above conditions, it is ineligible for the Class 32 exemption if any of the following exceptions apply:
• Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
• Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
• Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. • Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
• Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
This CEQA Analysis describes the project and its environmental setting, including the project site’s existing conditions and applicable regulatory requirements, and provides an assessment of the project’s eligibility for the 15183 exemption and Class 32 exemption as related to biological resources. For Section 15183, this report analyzes consistency with the City of St. Helena General Plan. For the Class 32 analysis, this report examines whether the project site would have value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
All adopted mitigating General Plan policies and mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR that apply to the project are identified herein. Pursuant to local requirements, the project is required to incorporate or comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the City of St. Helena General Plan EIR, uniformly applied development standards, and other uniformly applied development standards. Based on the analysis below, the project has no peculiar impacts on biological resources and qualifies for a General Plan Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. In addition, the project site does not contain habitat for threatened, endangered, or rare species.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
3 2. FINDINGS
The Spring Grove project site consists of three residential properties that are currently occupied.
It does not provide potential habitat for any special-status plant or animal species. Additionally, there are no wetlands or other waters of the U.S./State on the project site. There is a seasonal drainage just south of the southern project site boundary. This drainage supports native oak trees and non-native ornamental bushes and trees (which would be considered a “riparian canopy”).
The riparian canopy from these trees extends onto the project site. Under the current development proposal, there are no trees slated for trimming or removal within 25 feet of the top of bank of this drainage. If this changes in the future, any plans to alter or remove any of the trees located within the riparian corridor would need to be indicated on the site development plan submitted to the City of St. Helena. See Section 9 below for further details.
Under Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over the bed, bank, and channel of a stream and its riparian vegetation. CDFW may also claim jurisdiction over any trees that are growing outside the creek bank that have a continuous riparian canopy with the trees growing along the stream (i.e., even trees which have trunks well outside the creek bank, if their canopy is continuous with the trees that grow along the creek, as these outer trees and their canopy are considered an extension of the riparian canopy). Therefore, impacts to any trees within this continuous riparian canopy along the drainage may require entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. As designed, the project would not have such impacts. See Section 9 below for further details.
Lastly, as some of the existing trees on the project site provide nesting habitat for common birds, nesting bird surveys are required by General Plan Implementing Action OS1.O prior to the start of construction activity associated with the project, including but not limited to tree removal, site mobilization, and grading, if this work would take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). These uniformly applied requirements are further detailed in this report.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
4 3. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The approximately 2.5-acre Spring Grove Project Site is located roughly 0.2-mile southwest of Highway 29 at three adjacent street addresses (1447, 1505, and 1515 Spring Street) southeast of the intersection of Spring Street and St. James Drive in the City of St. Helena, California (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The project site is bounded by Spring Street to the west/northwest, St.
James Drive to the north/northeast, and Mitchell Drive to the east. It is bordered by an unnamed seasonal drainage to the south. The project site is surrounded by high density residential development.
4. PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is to convert three existing single-family homes into 41 solar, all-electric townhouse-style 3- to 4-bedroom homes with private garages distributed throughout 6 buildings on the roughly 2.5-acre project site. The project includes 93 parking spaces, comprised of two dedicated spaces within each home’s garage, as well as 11 surface parking stalls, over 50 bicycle parking spaces, and extensive landscaping, incorporating mature trees and vegetation along with new plantings chosen to complement the project design and setting. The project’s Site Plan is provided as Attachment A.
5. ANALYSIS METHODS
Prior to preparing this Biological Resources Analysis, M&A researched the most recent version of California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (RareFind 5 application) for records of special-status plants and wildlife within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2024). The CNDDB is a database maintained by the CDFW that provides historic and recent records of special-status plant and animal species known from the state of California. M&A examined all known record locations for special-status species to determine if special-status species could occur on the project site or within an area of affect.
M&A biologist Mr. Mark Jasper visited the project site on November 4, 2024, for a field reconnaissance survey. Mr. Jasper walked the entire site, noting any biological resources present, including recording all wildlife and plant species observed. In addition to conducting a survey for different significant and sensitive biological resources, M&A conducted literature research to determine what significant and sensitive resources have been recorded in the area. This report details the results of M&A’s background research and reconnaissance survey findings.
6. RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES
6.1 Topography and Hydrology
The project site is made up entirely of residential structures, gravel and/or paved driveways, landscaped lawns and planted ornamental trees and shrubs. The site is almost completely flat with elevations onsite ranging from 245 to 250 feet above mean sea level. There is an offsite drainage adjacent to the southwest boundary of the project site that was dry during the November 4, 2024 site visit. There are no other hydrologic conditions throughout the highly disturbed project site.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
5 6.2 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats A complete list of plant species observed on the project site is presented in Table 1.
Nomenclature used for plant names follows The Jepson Manual Second Edition (Baldwin 2012) and changes made to this manual as published on the Jepson Interchange Project website (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/index.html). Table 2 is a list of wildlife species observed on the project site. Nomenclature for wildlife follows the CDFW’s Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California (2016) and any changes made to species nomenclature as published in scientific journals since the publication of the CDFW’s list.
Past and current land use has heavily disturbed the project site, so that the vast majority of the project site consists of hardscape, landscaped lawns or hedges, and/or rows of planted ornamental trees and shrubs. There is a small area of riparian oak woodland near the southern project site boundary associated with an offsite seasonal drainage. Additionally, there are a couple of small untended backyards adjacent to the homes near the middle of the project site that are made up of a ruderal (weedy) herbaceous community.
6.2.1 ANTHROPOGENIC COMMUNITIES
Communities dominated by plants introduced by people and established or maintained by human disturbance are “anthropogenic communities.” Some of these are entirely artificial communities such as cultivated row crops, lawns, vineyards, etc. Others are assemblages of weedy species that have invaded disturbed areas, sometimes in spite of human efforts to control them (Holland and Keil 1989 and 1995). There are many different types of anthropogenic communities; below we talk about ruderal communities and the “urban mix.”
Often around commercial and residential developments, plant species that are not native to the region have been introduced and later become naturalized (the urban mix), often spreading aggressively and reducing local species diversity. In these areas, it is not uncommon to find mixtures of non-native and native vegetation in open areas. On the project site, several nonnative ornamental trees such as glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) as well as shrubs such as oleander (Nerium oleander) have been planted along the paved and gravel driveways leading up to the three residences off Spring Street and/or in the unpaved portions of the private yards surrounding each home. Native oaks such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus lobata) are scattered throughout the project site, with several oaks observed growing along the offsite seasonal drainage which is just south of the project site.
Typically, anthropogenic influenced communities provide habitat for those animal species adapted to humans and human-induced disturbances. Examples of animals associated with these communities observed on the project site include California Scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), California Towhee (Melozone crissalis), and House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus).
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
6 6.2.2 RIPARIAN WOODLAND
There is a small area of mixed riparian woodland at the southern end of the project site associated with an offsite seasonal drainage (Figure 3). The dominant trees in this habitat are coast live oak and valley oak. Other trees in this area are ornamentals such as glossy privet, olive (Olea europaea), and cherry plum.
Mixed oak woodlands are known to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species.
Insectivorous bird species such as American Robin (Turdus migratorius), California Scrub-Jay, Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), and Oak Titmouse (Parus inornatus) thrive in oak woodlands on various insects and other invertebrates that live on oak leaves, burrow in oak bark, and that collect in the leaf litter and rotting logs. Mammal species expected to occur in the project site’s small riparian woodland habitat includes those animals that frequent creeks and their environs in suburban areas such as Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), racoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black rat (Rattus rattus), and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), among others.
6.2.3 RUDERAL HERBACEOUS
The remainer of the project site consists of small, untended backyards associated with the houses near the center of the project site. These backyards are dominated by ruderal herbaceous species.
Ruderal (weedy) communities are assemblages of plants that thrive in waste areas, roadsides, and other sites that have been disturbed by human activity. Ruderal vegetation is adapted to high levels of disturbance and persists almost indefinitely in areas with continuous disturbance.
Dominant vegetation in the small ruderal backyards onsite includes wild oat (Avena barbata), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum gussoneanum), among other annual grasses and forbs (broad-leaved plants).
Wildlife found in ruderal herbaceous communities are similar to the suburban adapted wildlife found in the riparian woodland community, with the addition of Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) which frequents dry, upland herbaceous communities.
6.3 Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that provide connectivity to other natural vegetation communities within a landscape fractured by urbanization and other development.
Wildlife corridors have several functions: 1) they provide avenues along as which wide-ranging animals can travel, migrate, and breed, allowing genetic interchange to occur; 2) populations can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters; and 3) individuals can recolonize habitats from which populations have been locally extirpated (Beier and Loe 1992).
All three of these functions can be met if both regional and local wildlife corridors are accessible to wildlife. Regional wildlife corridors provide foraging, breeding, and retreat areas for migrating, dispersing, immigrating, and emigrating wildlife populations. Local wildlife corridors also provide access routes to food, cover, and water resources within restricted habitats.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
7 The project site is located in a high density residential community in a heavily developed region of St. Helena. The site is a fragment of altered landscape that provides limited capacity to serve as even a local, let alone a regional wildlife movement corridor since it is surrounded by roads and development on all sides. Thus, development of this project site will not interfere with the movement of native wildlife and should have minimal impacts on wildlife habitat. There should be no loss of area that functions as a wildlife corridor.
7. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
7.1 Definitions
For purposes of this analysis, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively) or other regulations, and species that are considered rare by the scientific community (for example, the CNPS). Special-status species are defined as:
• plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1 et seq.) or the FESA (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species);
• plants and animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 57533-57547, October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §2068); • plants and animals that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the CEQA (14 CCR §15380) that may include species not found on either CESA or FESA lists;
• plants occurring on Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 of the CNPS’ electronic Inventory (CNPS 2001). The CDFW recognizes that Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of cases, would qualify for State listing, and the CDFW requests their inclusion in EIRs. Plants occurring on CNPS Ranks 3 and 4 are "plants about which more information is necessary," and "plants of limited distribution," respectively (CNPS 2001). Such plants may be included as special-status species on a case by case basis due to local significance or recent biological information (more on CNPS Rank species below);
• migratory nongame birds of management concern listed by the USFWS (Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The list 1995; Office of Migratory Bird Management; Washington D.C.; Sept. 1995); • animals that are designated as "species of special concern" by the CDFW (April 2023); • animal species that are “fully protected” in California (Fish and Game Codes 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515).
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
8 • bat species that are designated on the Western Bat Working Group’s (WBWG) Regional Bat Species Priority Matrix as: “RED OR HIGH.” This priority is justified by the WBWG as follows: “Based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and known threats, this designation should result in these bat species being considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation actions. Information about status and threats to most species could result in effective conservation actions being implemented should a commitment to management exist. These species are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment.”
In the paragraphs below we provide further definitions of legal status as they pertain to the special-status species discussed in this report or in the attached tables.
Federal Endangered or Threatened Species. A species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to take a federally listed endangered or threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the USFWS prior to initiating the take.
State Threatened Species. A species listed as threatened under the CESA (§2050 of California Fish and Game Code) is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to “take” a State-listed threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the CDFW prior to initiating the “take.”
California Species of Special Concern. These are species in which their California breeding populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible.
This designation affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15380), some species of special concern could be considered “rare.” Pursuant to its rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species could be considered a “significant effect on the environment” (§15382). Thus, species of special concern must be considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency.
CNPS Rank Species. The CNPS maintains an “Inventory” of special-status plant species. This inventory has four lists of plants with varying rarity. These lists are: Rank 1, Rank 2, Rank 3, and Rank 4. Although plants on these lists have no formal legal protection (unless they are also State or federally listed species), the CDFW requests the inclusion of Rank 1 species in environmental documents. In addition, other State and local agencies may request the inclusion of species on other lists as well. The Rank 1 and 2 species are defined below:
• Rank 1A: Presumed extinct in California;
• Rank 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; • Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere; • Rank 2B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
9 All of the plants constituting Rank 1B meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of the Fish and Game Code and are eligible for State listing (CNPS 2001). Rank 2 species are rare in California, but more common elsewhere. Ranks 3 and 4 contain species about which there is some concern and are reviewed by the CDFW and maintained on “watch lists.”
Additionally, in 2006, the CNPS updated their lists to include “threat code extensions” for each list. For example, Rank 1B species would now be categorized as Rank 1B.1, Rank 1B.2, or Rank 1B.3. These threat codes are defined as follows:
• .1 is considered “seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)”;
• .2 is “fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened)”; • .3 is “not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known).”
Under the CEQA review process only CNPS Rank 1 and 2 species are considered since these are the only CNPS species that meet CEQA’s definition of “rare” or “endangered.” Impacts to Rank 3 and 4 species are not regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA.
Fully Protected Birds. Fully protected birds, such as the White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) and Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511).
Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time.
7.2 Potential Special-Status Species on the Project Site Due to the excessively disturbed and unnatural conditions found at the project site, which is entirely within an urban residential neighborhood, there is no suitable habitat for any specialstatus plants or wildlife onsite.
8. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS PERTINENT TO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
There are many state and federal regulations in place that protect our waterways, native plants and wildlife and endangered species. Those regulations relevant to the project site and the proposed project are discussed below.
8.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The FESA forms the basis for the federal protection of threatened or endangered plants, insects, fish, and wildlife. FESA contains four main elements, they are as follows:
Section 4 (16 USCA §1533): Species listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recovery Planning: outlines the procedure for listing endangered plants and wildlife.
Section 7 (§1536): Federal Consultation Requirement: imposes limits on the actions of federal agencies that might impact listed species.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
10 Section 9 (§1538): Prohibition on Take: prohibits the "taking" of a listed species by anyone, including private individuals, and State and local agencies.
Section 10: Exceptions to the Take Prohibition: non-federal agencies can obtain an incidental take permit (ITP) through approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
In the case of saltwater fish and other marine organisms, the requirements of FESA are enforced by the NMFS. The USFWS enforces all other cases. Below, Sections 9, 7, and 10 of FESA are discussed since they are the sections most relevant to the proposed project.
Section 9 of FESA as amended, prohibits the "take" of any fish or wildlife species listed under FESA as endangered. Under federal regulation, "take" of fish or wildlife species listed as threatened is also prohibited unless otherwise specifically authorized by regulation. "Take," as defined by FESA, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” "Harm" includes not only the direct taking of a species itself, but the destruction or modification of the species' habitat resulting in the potential injury of the species. As such, "harm" is further defined to mean "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife; such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). A December 2001 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, Jeff Menges, vs. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity) ruled that the USFWS must show that a threatened or endangered species is present on a project site and that it would be taken by the project activities. According to this ruling, the USFWS can no longer require mitigation based on the probability that the species could use the site. Rather they must show that it is “reasonably certain to occur.” Section 9 applies to any person, corporation, federal agency, or any local or State agency. If "take" of a listed species (other than a plant species) is necessary to complete an otherwise lawful activity, this triggers the need to obtain an ITP either through a Section 7 Consultation as discussed further below (for federal actions or private actions that are permitted or funded by a federal agency such as the Corps), or through Section 10 of FESA which requires preparation of an HCP (for State and local agencies, or individuals, and projects without a federal “nexus”; for example, projects that do not need a Corps permit).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that each federal agency consult with the USFWS to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for listed species. Critical habitat designations mean: (1) specific areas within a geographic region currently occupied by a listed species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a listed species that are determined essential for the conservation of the species.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
11 The Section 7 consultation process only applies to actions taken by federal agencies that are considering authorizing discretionary projects. Section 7 is by and between the NMFS and/or the USFWS and the federal agency contemplating a discretionary approval (that is, the federal “action agency,” for example, the Corps or the Federal Highway Administration). Private parties, cities, counties, etc. (i.e., applicants) may participate in the Section 7 consultation at the discretion of the federal agencies conducting the Section 7 consultation. The Section 7 consultation process is triggered by a determination of the “action agency” – that is, the federal agency that is carrying out, funding, or approving a project - that the project “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat. If an action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation between the nexus agency and the USFWS/NMFS is required. As part of the formal consultation, the USFWS/NMFS may resolve any issues informally with the nexus agency or may prepare a formal Biological Opinion assessing whether the proposed action would be likely to result in “jeopardy” to a listed species or if it could adversely modify designated critical habitat. If the USFWS/NMFS prepares a Biological Opinion, it will contain either a “jeopardy” or “non-jeopardy” decision. If the USFWS/NMFS concludes that a proposed project would result in adverse modification of critical habitat or would jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species (that is, it will issue a jeopardy decision), the nexus federal agency would be most unlikely to authorize its discretionary permit. If the USFWS/NMFS prepares a “non-jeopardy” Biological Opinion, the nexus federal agency may authorize the discretionary permit making all conditions of the Biological Opinion conditions of its discretionary permit. A non-jeopardy Biological Opinion constitutes an “incidental take” permit that allows applicants to “take” federally listed species while otherwise carrying out legally sanctioned projects.
For non-federal entities, for example private parties, cities, and counties that are proposing a project that might result in incidental take, Section 10 provides the mechanism for obtaining that take authorization. Under Section 10 of FESA, for the applicant to obtain an ITP, the applicant is required to submit a "conservation plan" to the USFWS or NMFS that specifies the impacts that are likely to result to federally listed species, and the measures the applicant will undertake to minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement those steps. Conservation plans under FESA have come to be known as "habitat conservation plans" or "HCPs" for short. The terms incidental take permit, Section 10 permit, and Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are used interchangeably by the USFWS. Section 10(a)(2)(B) of FESA provides statutory criteria that must be satisfied before an ITP can be issued.
8.1.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
FESA gives regulatory authority to the USFWS for federally listed terrestrial species and nonanadromous fish. The NMFS has regulatory authority over federally listed marine mammals and anadromous fish.
8.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
There are no federally listed species expected to occur on the project site. The project site does not provide suitable habitat for any federally listed terrestrial species and does not provide fisheries habitat as there are no aquatic resources onsite. There is no critical habitat mapped on the project site. No impacts to dispersing or migrating federally listed animals or their habitats are expected. Finally, this urban, heavily landscaped, residential project site does not provide Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
12 suitable habitat for federally listed plants. No impacts to federally listed species are expected from project implementation.
8.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass, shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, wading birds, seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers, swallows, etc.).
8.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Raptors such as Red-shouldered Hawk could nest in trees on the project site. These raptors (birds of prey) would be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Also, common songbirds would be protected pursuant to this Act. As long as there is no direct mortality of species (including their eggs or young) protected pursuant to this Act caused by development of the project site, there should be no constraints to development. To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (and General Plan Implementing Action OS1.O), preconstruction surveys would be conducted for nesting birds (including raptors) if any work is proposed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) and all active nest sites (nests with viable eggs or young) would have to be avoided while such birds were nesting. Upon completion of nesting, the work could commence as otherwise planned. Please review specific requirements for avoidance of nest sites for potentially occurring species in Section 14 below.
8.3 California Endangered Species Act
8.3.1 SECTION 2081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT In 1984, the State legislated the CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050). The basic policy of CESA is to conserve and enhance endangered species and their habitats. State agencies will not approve private or public projects under their jurisdiction that would impact threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available. Because CESA does not have a provision for "harm" (see discussion of FESA, above), CDFW considerations pursuant to CESA are limited to those actions that would result in the direct take of a listed species.
If the CDFW determines that a proposed project could impact a State-listed threatened or endangered species, the CDFW will provide recommendations for "reasonable and prudent" project alternatives. The CEQA lead agency can only approve a project if these alternatives are implemented, unless it finds that the project's benefits clearly outweigh the costs, reasonable mitigation measures are adopted, there has been no "irreversible or irretrievable" commitment of resources made in the interim, and the resulting project would not result in the extinction of the species. In addition, if there would be impacts to threatened or endangered species, the lead agency typically requires project applicants to demonstrate that they have acquired "incidental take" permits from the CDFW and/or USFWS (if it is a federally listed species) prior to allowing/permitting impacts to such species.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
13 If proposed projects would result in impacts to a State-listed species, an "incidental take" permit pursuant to §2081 of the Fish and Game Code would be necessary (versus a federal ITP for federally listed species). The CDFW will issue an ITP only if:
1) The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; 2) the impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated; 3) measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized take:
a) are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the taking on the species; b) maintain the project applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible; and, c) capable of successful implementation; and,
4) adequate funding is provided to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures and to monitor compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the measures.
If an applicant is preparing an HCP as part of the federal 10(a) permit process, the HCP might be incorporated into the §2081 permit if it meets the substantive criteria of §2081(b). To ensure that an HCP meets the mitigation and monitoring standards in Section 2081(b), an applicant should involve CDFW staff in development of the HCP. If a final Biological Opinion (federal action) has been issued for the project pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA, it might also be incorporated into the §2081 permit if it meets the standards of §2081(b).
No §2081 permit may authorize the take of a species for which the Legislature has imposed strict prohibitions on all forms of “take.” These species are listed in several statutes that identify “fully protected” species and “specified birds.” See Fish and Game Code §§ 3505, 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515, and 5517. If a project is planned in an area where a “fully protected” species or a “specified bird” occurs, an applicant must design the project to avoid all take.
Fish and Game Code §2080.1 allows an applicant who has obtained a “non-jeopardy” federal Biological Opinion pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA, or who has received a federal 10(a) permit (federal ITP) pursuant to the FESA, to submit the federal opinion or permit to the CDFW for a determination as to whether the federal document is “consistent” with CESA. If after 30 days the CDFW determines that the federal ITP is consistent with state law, and that all Statelisted species under consideration have been considered in the federal Biological Opinion, then no further permit or consultation is required under CESA for the project. However, if the CDFW determines that the federal opinion or permit is not consistent with CESA, or that there are Statelisted species that were not considered in the federal Biological Opinion, then the applicant must apply for a CESA permit under Section 2081(b). Section 2080.1 is of no use if an affected species is State-listed, but not federally listed.
State and federal ITPs are issued on a discretionary basis and are typically only authorized if applicants are able to demonstrate that impacts to the listed species in question are unavoidable and can be mitigated to an extent that the reviewing agency can conclude that the proposed impacts would not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species under review.
Typically, if there would be impacts to a listed species, mitigation that includes habitat avoidance, preservation, and creation of endangered species habitat is necessary to demonstrate that projects would not threaten the continued existence of a species. In addition, management endowment fees are usually collected as part of the agreement for the ITP(s). The endowment is Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
14 used to manage any lands set-aside to protect listed species, and for biological mitigation monitoring of these lands over (typically) a five-year period.
8.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
There is no aquatic habitat onsite, so the project site does not provide fisheries habitat. Based on M&A’s background research and site survey, it has been concluded that no State-listed plant or animal species have potential to occur on the project site or to be impacted by the proposed project.
8.4 The Clean Water Act
8.4.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. §1251(a)). Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the disposal of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). This requires project applicants to obtain authorization from the Corps prior to discharging dredged or “fill” materials into any water of the United States.
In the published 2023 rule from the Federal Register, the term “waters of the United States” is defined as:
1. Waters which are:
a. currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
b. The territorial seas; or
c. Interstate waters;
2. Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
3. Tributaries of waters identified in (a)(1) or (2), (4), or (6) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water;
4. Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
i. Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or ii. Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
5. Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
8.4.2 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulate activities in "waters of the State" (which includes wetlands) Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
15 through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While the Corps administers a permitting program that authorizes impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands and other waters, any Corps permit authorized for a proposed project would be inoperative unless it is a Nationwide Permit (NWP) that has been certified for use in California by the SWRCB, or if the RWQCB has issued a project specific certification of water quality. Where a project will result in dredge or fill of nonfederal waters of the State (that is, a water outside of the Corps’ jurisdiction), the RWQCB will authorize those fills through waste discharge requirements issued under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted a State-level definition of “wetlands,” which definition is broader than the federal definition in that unvegetated areas may be considered a wetland water of the State. As a part of the same policy, the SWRCB adopted permit procedures and standards governing the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the State. The policy includes, among other things, requirements for analyses to identify the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) and compensatory mitigation standards including a minimum 1:1 ratio for wetlands and streams, and full functional replacement of all waters on top of this minimum where applicable.
8.4.3 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
There are no wetlands or other waters of the U.S./State on the project site. However, there is an offsite seasonal drainage along the southern project site boundary that may meet the definition of a water of the U.S. pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a water of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The development has been planned so that it is 25 feet away from the offsite creek’s top of bank and outside of the drainage’s riparian drip line.
9. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PROTECTIONS
9.1.1 SECTION 1602 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code: “An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, unless all of the following occur:
(1) CDFW receives written notification regarding the activity in the manner prescribed by CDFW. The notification shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A)A detailed description of the project’s location and a map. (B) The name, if any, of the river, stream, or lake affected. (C) A detailed project description, including, but not limited to, construction plans and drawings, if applicable.
(D)A copy of any document prepared pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(E) A copy of any other applicable local, State, or federal permit or agreement already issued.
(F) Any other information required by CDFW” (Fish & Game Code 2023).
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
16 Please see Section 1602 of the current California Fish and Game Code for further details as to the next steps once a written notification is submitted.
Please also note that while not stated in the regulations above, the CDFW typically considers its jurisdiction to include riparian vegetation (that is, the trees and bushes growing along the stream).
Thus, any proposed activity in a natural stream channel that would substantially adversely affect an existing fish and/or wildlife resource, including its riparian vegetation, may require entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SBAA) with the CDFW prior to commencing with work in the stream. However, prior to authorizing such permits, the CDFW typically reviews an analysis of the expected biological impacts, any reviews engineering and erosion control plans as well as any proposed mitigation plans that would be implemented to offset biological impacts.
9.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As stated in Section 2 above, though there are no streams or tributaries on the project site, there is an offsite seasonal drainage adjacent to the project site’s southern boundary. While this drainage is not within the project site boundaries, its riparian canopy extends onto the project site. The development has been planned so that it is 25 feet away from the offsite creek’s top of bank and outside of the riparian drip line.
9.2 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the “take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered “take.” All raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their active nests, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5). Additionally, “fully protected” birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). “Fully protected” birds may not be taken or possessed (that is, kept in captivity) at any time.
9.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
During the November field reconnaissance, no special-status birds or nesting birds were noted on the project site. The project site provides suitable tree-nesting habitat for raptors and tree and ground-nesting habitat for songbirds known from the area (e.g., Red-shouldered Hawk, California Towhee, Mourning Dove). No old nests were noted anywhere on the project site, in any tree, bush, or on the ground. However, M&A’s site survey was conducted outside of the nesting bird season (which is February 1-August 31) and birds can change nesting locations from year to year. To ensure that nesting birds are not impacted by construction activity, the city requires all development projects to comply with General Plan Implementing Action OS1.O, which requires a preconstruction nesting bird survey if work would take place between the dates of February 1 and August 31 to ensure that there are no direct impacts to nesting birds, their eggs or young, during development of the project site. Any active nests that are found during preconstruction surveys would have to be avoided by the proposed project. Suitable nondisturbance buffers would be established around any nest sites, with the size of the buffer determined by a qualified biologist. Once the nesting cycle is complete, a qualified biologist will confirm that the young have successfully fledged. Once the nesting cycle is confirmed to be complete, there would be no further impediments to development from nesting birds.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
17 10. CITY OF ST. HELENA GENERAL PLAN
The City of St. Helena General Plan was originally adopted in 1975, updated in 1993, and most recently updated in 2019 (known as the 2040 General Plan Update). This General Plan serves as the document that guides future development citywide and expresses the community’s development goals and public policies relative to land uses. The primary goal of the City of St.
Helena General Plan is to preserve the rural, small town quality and agricultural character of St.
Helena. According to the City of St. Helena’s website: “The St. Helena General Plan serves as the City's constitution. The General Plan is a statement of the community's collective vision for the City's future, expressing the quality of life it strives to maintain, and the common interests of the community.”
10.1 Open Space and Conservation Element
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan presents a framework for governing future decisions about how St. Helena will sustain open space and natural resources.
The goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element are:
• Preserve, Enhance, and Restore Natural Resources: St. Helena is committed to preserving, enhancing, and restoring its abundance of natural habitat, wildlife, and open space resources.
• Ensure Stewardship of Water Resources: St. Helena is dedicated to promoting water conservation and ensuring its natural supply of water is properly managed and securely maintained, improving water quality.
• Expand Sustainable Agricultural Practices: St. Helena is committed to continuing and enhancing its agricultural traditions by promoting and reinforcing sustainable agricultural practices.
• Create access opportunities to enjoy natural resources responsibly.
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan includes a range of policies and implementing actions that are organized into the following topic areas:
1. Natural Habitat and Biodiversity
2. Open Space
3. Water Resource Protection and Conservation
4. A Healthy Living Environment
The following policies and implementing actions mandate, encourage, or allow certain initiatives to be pursued throughout the duration of the General Plan to meet the goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element. Together, they serve as strategic directions for City of St. Helena staff and partners, highlighting where time and resources should be focused.
Open Space and Conservation Element policies and their associated implementing actions relevant to this project are discussed in the following sections.
10.1.1 TOPIC 1: NATURAL HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
18 10.1.1.1 Policies
OS1.1: Preserve and enhance St. Helena’s riparian corridors for their value in providing wildlife habitat, biodiversity, natural drainage, and visual amenity.
OS1.2: Prohibit development, alteration, and/or removal of native vegetation from riparian areas.
Disallow invasive species that degrade habitat quality.
OS1.3: Protect and enhance contiguous corridors of riparian vegetation along the Napa River and its tributaries in order to support regional wildlife movement and enhance aquatic habitat.
OS1.4: Protect natural habitats that have the potential to support rare, endangered, or special status wildlife and plant species. Control invasive species that degrade habitat quality.
OS1.5: Restrict development of hillside areas in order to protect wildlife, vegetation, viewsheds, and open space characteristics.
OS1.6: Manage invasive species that degrade habitat quality, especially along the Napa River and its tributaries.
OS1.7: Promote, encourage, and require sustainable agricultural practices that are sensitive to natural habitat and do not harm wildlife.
10.1.1.2 Implementing Actions
OS1.A: Develop and adopt an ordinance for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of creek corridors. The relevant portions of this implementing action include the following:
• Establish setbacks for all new development projects to protect stream function and riparian habitat, while allowing for limited recreational uses and access to the stream corridor for maintenance and flood control.
Applicability: The project has been designed to maintain a 25-foot nodisturbance setback from the offsite drainage that runs along the southern project site boundary. There are no streams, creeks, or seasonal drainages on the project site.
• Limit use of herbicides and insecticides associated with aquatic toxicity in areas near and adjacent to creeks and ensure best environmental management practices for all developments and industries.
Applicability: The project applicant has been instructed that no herbicides or insecticides with aquatic toxicity should be used in areas near and/or adjacent to creeks on or adjacent to the project site.
• Provide access for creek maintenance and public use through easements and cooperative agreements with landowners.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
19 Applicability: The seasonal drainage adjacent to the project site’s southern boundary can be accessed from Mitchell Drive. This access route will not be altered by project activities.
• Encourage the use of bioswales, off-stream detention ponds, and other green best practices for stormwater management.
Applicability: Bioswales and bioretention basins are incorporated into the project’s stormwater control plan to protect water quality.
OS1.C: Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game, the Living Rivers Council, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other federal, State, and local regional agencies with regulatory authority for water quality, protected plant and animal species, and streams and wetlands to restore and maintain creek corridors.
Applicability: There are no wetlands or other aquatic resources under the jurisdiction of these resource agencies on the project site. Therefore, coordination with these agencies regarding wetlands or other aquatic resources is not required.
However, as discussed above, there is riparian vegetation associated with the offsite drainage that extends onto the project site. If the project proposes to remove or alter this riparian vegetation, CDFW should be contacted as necessary.
OS1.F: Create a set of guidelines for the protection of special-status species and sensitive natural communities. Guidelines can include appropriate survey methods consistent with the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, and CEQA requirements.
Applicability: The project site does not provide habitat for any special-status species. Additionally, there are no sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or other waters of the U.S./State on the project site.
OS1.G: Require a biological assessment of any proposed project site where species or the habitat is defined as sensitive or special-status by the California Department of Fish and Game, NOAA Fisheries, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service might be present, including the installation of new wind turbines for alternate energy. Avoid potential impacts of sensitive resources as part of new development to the maximum extent feasible. Where complete avoidance is not possible, the project applicant must secure any required authorizations from jurisdictional agencies and provide adequate replacement mitigation to ensure there is no net loss in habitat acreage or values.
Applicability: This report is a Biological Resources Analysis of the project site and provides a complete analysis of the proposed project’s impact on specialstatus species. There are no sensitive natural communities, habitats for specialstatus species, wetlands, or other waters of the U.S./State on the project site.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
20 OS1.H: Require all proposed projects adjacent to a creek corridor or located in the city’s hillside areas to submit a management plan for protecting natural habitats, including provisions to:
• Employ supplemental planting and maintenance of grasses, shrubs, and trees of similar quality and quantity to provide adequate vegetation cover to keep the watersheds on steep slopes and along streams in good condition, and to provide shelter and food for wildlife.
• Provide protection for wildlife habitat.
Applicability: Native trees and riparian vegetation onsite will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. No native trees along the offsite seasonal drainage will be impacted as all work will remain at least 25 feet from this drainage’s top of bank. Therefore, a management plan is not necessary.
OS1.I: Require new development to be sited to maximize the protection of native tree species, riparian vegetation, important concentrations of natural plants, and sensitive wildlife habitat.
Applicability: Native trees and riparian vegetation will be preserved to the greatest extent possible.
OS1.J: Discourage and minimize the installation of deer fencing to maintain wildlife corridors and support regional wildlife movement.
Applicability: The project site does not currently serve as a regional deer movement corridor as the site is surrounded by urban development. No deer movement is expected to be impeded by project site development.
OS1.O: As part of new development, avoid disturbance to and loss of bird nests in active use by scheduling vegetation removal and new construction during the non-nesting season (September through January) or by conducting a preconstruction survey by a qualified biologist if vegetation removal and construction is initiated during the nesting season (February through August).
Surveys for nesting birds will be conducted no earlier than 14 days prior to tree removal and/or breaking ground. In the event that nesting birds are found, the project applicant will consult with CDFG [now known as CDFW] and obtain approval for nest-protection buffers prior to tree removal and/or ground-breeding activities. Nest protection buffers will remain in effect until the young have fledged.
Applicability: A preconstruction nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days of commencing with grading, construction work, or tree removal if this work would commence between February 1st and August 31st. If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of influence of the project site, prior to the commencement of construction that could impact the active nest(s), a qualified biologist will consult with CDFG (now known as CDFW) to establish a temporary protective no-disturbance nest buffer around the nest(s). See Section 13 below for further details.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
21 OS1.P: Avoid potential impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and other waters as part of new development to the maximum extent feasible. Where complete avoidance is not possible, the project applicant must secure any required authorizations from jurisdictional agencies and provide adequate replacement mitigation to ensure there is not less in habitat acreage or values.
Applicability: There are no wetlands or other waters on the project site. The seasonal drainage immediately offsite would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal and state agencies; however, there are no plans related to this project to impact this drainage (e.g., no outfall structure discharging into the drainage is proposed). Therefore, authorizations from jurisdictional agencies regarding wetlands/other waters is not necessary.
10.1.2 TOPIC 2: OPEN SPACE
10.1.2.1 Policies
OS2.1: Maintain agriculture as the mainstay of the local economy by preserving agricultural lands as an invaluable and irreplaceable open space resource.
OS2.2: Preserve open space for mineral resources. Ensure compliance with State requirements in the preservation of known locations of mineral resources.
OS2.3: Preserve open space for recreational uses, including a bicycle and pedestrian trail system along creek corridors when compatible with riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat. Where possible, integrate stream corridors with trails and other recreational open space, provided that the vegetation, habitat value, and water quality is not significantly impacted.
OS2.4: Ensure convenient public access between developed areas and stream corridors by providing access at frequent intervals.
OS2.5: Limit public access to habitat areas when public access will significantly impact the sensitivity of the habitat area.
OS2.6: Support floodplain management strategies that ensure adequate open space for flood management consistent with Living River Principles, FEMA, and State requirements at a minimum.
Applicability: The project site is small and currently does not provide open space areas and is not of a sufficient size to dedicate open space areas. The project as proposed would not impact floodplain management.
10.1.3 TOPIC 3: WATER QUALITY AND CONSERVATION
10.1.3.1 Policies
OS3.1: Promote stormwater management techniques that minimize surface water runoff in public and private developments. Utilize low impact development techniques to best manage Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
22 stormwater through conservation, on-site filtration and water recycling, and ensure compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
OS3.2: Reduce stormwater runoff in developed areas to protect water quality in creeks.
Incorporate sustainable low impact design features in the design of infrastructure.
10.1.3.2 Implementing Actions
OS3.A: Manage stormwater runoff in compliance with the City’s Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance, Stormwater Management Standards for Construction and PostConstruction, and the Development Manual Stormwater Standards, to ensure compliance with the City’s NPDES permit. Implement a surface water quality monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater management program activities in reducing the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.
Applicability: Bioswales and bioretention basins are incorporated into the project site plans and Stormwater Control Plan to protect water quality.
OS3.C: Minimize stormwater runoff and pollution by encouraging low impact design features, such as pervious parking surfaces, bioswales, and filter strips in new development projects. The City should be a model for incorporating low-impact design elements as it implements streetscape and landscape improvements. In addition, the City of St. Helena should retrofit the existing public landscape with natural vegetative coverings or drainage systems that promote infiltration into the ground that can help detain stormwater and reduce pollution attributable to runoff.
Applicability: Bioswales and bioretention basins are incorporated into the project site plans and Stormwater Control Plan to protect water quality.
OS3.E: Promote the installation of drought tolerant and native plants in landscaping throughout the city.
Applicability: The applicant has been made aware that the City requires drought tolerant and native plants incorporated into the landscape design.
10.1.4 TOPIC 4: A HEALTHY LIVING ENVIRONMENT
10.1.4.1 Policies
OS4.1: Protect and enhance tree resources in developed and undeveloped areas. Efforts should include adequate maintenance of street trees, requiring replacement trees where existing significant trees cannot be saved, and requiring street trees as a condition of new development.
OS4.2: Encourage the clean-up of contaminated sites to protect the environment and public wellbeing.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
23 OS4.3: Promote best management practices that encourage protection of soil, groundwater, and surface water resources from industrial, agricultural, and other uses that produce or dispose of hazardous or toxic substances.
10.1.4.2 Implementing Actions
OS4.C: Develop and adopt a Tree Ordinance for the purpose of protecting trees and identifying replacement trees. In coordination with an urban forestry program, existing, significant trees should be integrated into future development. In cases where existing trees cannot be saved, require the planting of replacement trees consistent with guidelines included in the Master Tree List.
Applicability: The project would not impact any tree species that are included on the Master Tree List.
11. CITY OF ST. HELENA TREE ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 12.24 TREES AND
OTHER VEGETATION
The City of St. Helena’s Tree Ordinance can be found in the City of St. Helena’s Municipal code chapter 12.24. Below are key provisions of the City of St. Helena’s Tree Ordinance. Since the project will impact both native and non-native (i.e., landscape) trees, this ordinance will apply.
11.1 Chapter 12.24.010 Findings and Purpose
The city council finds and declares that trees contribute greatly to the health, safety, and general welfare of all of the city’s citizens and that the preservation and proper maintenance of trees is a matter of city-wide concern. The city council further finds and determines that it is necessary to enact regulations prohibiting unnecessary damage, removal, or destruction of trees.
A purpose of the city council in enacting the following regulations is to protect certain trees that are an essential part of the city’s natural heritage, referred to in this chapter as heritage trees and other protected trees, wherever they may be growing in the city, while at the same time, recognizing an individual property owner’s right to utilize his or her land in a way that is otherwise allowed by law.
11.2 Chapter 12.24.020 Definitions
Definitions from the tree ordinance that are relevant to this project are the following:
• “Protected tree” means a tree that is a heritage tree, protected replacement tree, street tree, and/or a city tree.
• “Heritage tree” means any tree or grove of trees within the city boundaries designated by a resolution of the city council and having met the requirements set forth in this chapter. • “Protected replacement tree” means any tree that is planted on public or private property as a condition of mitigation for the removal of any existing native or heritage tree(s). The intent of this designation is to insure that trees planted as replacement trees for heritage trees or significant native trees that have to be removed will be protected and preserved so that over the course of time these replacement trees will mature to the size and uniqueness of the trees they replace. Protected replacement trees by definition are Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
24 subject to all of the conditions and protections as those for heritage trees as set forth in this chapter.
• “Street tree” means a tree planted in a planting strip or planting easement. • “City tree” means any tree growing on any city-owned property, right-of-way or easement dedicated to the city.
• “Master street tree list” means the list of trees approved for planting in planting strips and planting easements, as approved by the city council.
11.3 Chapter 12.24.090 General Provisions
A. No person, other than the director or his or her authorized representative, shall plant or prune any tree within the planting strip or planting easement along any street without first obtaining a written permit to do so from the director. The request for such a permit shall state the type and number of trees, planting and pruning procedures, the location and such other information as may from time to time be required by the director.
B. Any tree work or tree removal within the city right-of-way requires an encroachment permit. Encroachment permit fees for pruning or removal of street trees will be waived.
C. All maintenance, removal, and replacement of trees shall be performed in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and any tree standards adopted by the city.
11.4 Chapter 12.24.130 Pruning, Maintenance and Removal of Protected Trees A. No person shall cut or prune, below or above ground, brace, move, remove, cause to cut, alter, or perform such other acts with respect to any protected tree without first obtaining a written permit to do so from the director. The application shall state the number and identify the location of each protected tree for which a permit is sought and shall contain other pertinent information as the director may require. The application may also include documentation of any type, including written recommendations from a certified arborist concerning the health, quality and desirability of alternatives to the tree or trees in question. The necessity for the requested action shall be demonstrated to the director by the applicant.
11.5 Chapter 12.24.140 Damage to Protected Trees
A. Except as permitted in this chapter, no person shall break, injure, deface, mutilate, kill, remove or destroy any protected tree; or knowingly cause or permit any wire charged with electricity to come into contact with any protected tree; or place, apply, attach or keep attached to any such tree a guard or stake intended for the protection thereof, any wire, rope, sign, paint or other substance, structure, thing or device of any kind or nature whatsoever; or place or maintain any stone, cement or other substance so that it shall impede the free access of water or air to the roots of any protected tree.
B. Any party determined to have caused damage to any protected tree as described in subsection A of this section shall be liable for the cost of repair or replacement of the tree. Costs shall be based on Napa County landscape industry costs and on tree valuation standards set by the International Society of Arboriculture. Such moneys shall be paid to the city and shall be used to repair or replace the damaged tree.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
25 11.6 Chapter 12.24.150 Protection of Protected Trees During and After Construction Activity
A. During any construction activity within the drip line of a protected tree, inside or outside the public right-of-way, no person shall, without permission from the director of public works, do the following:
1. Change the amount of irrigation provided to any protected tree from that which was provided prior to the commencement of construction activity.
2. Trench, grade or pave into the root zone of a protected tree;
3. Change, by more than two feet, grade elevations within an area from the drip line of a protected tree outward to thirty (30) feet in distance;
4. Park or operate any motor vehicle within the drip line area of any protected tree except in designated parking areas;
5. Place or store any equipment or construction materials within the drip line area of any protected tree except in designated parking areas;
6. Attach any signs, ropes, cables or any other items to any protected tree;
7. Cut or trim any branch of a protected tree for temporary construction purposes;
8. Place or allow to flow into or over the root zone area of any protected tree any oil, fuel, concrete mix or other deleterious substance.
B. Where written permission of the director is sought under this section, the director may grant such permission with such reasonable conditions as may be necessary to effectuate the intent and purpose of this chapter.
C. A protected tree shall be protected after construction activity in accordance with conditions imposed by the city and/or specifications adopted by the tree committee.
11.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
None of the trees on the project site would be considered as Protected Trees, as none of the trees meet the definition (pursuant to Chapter 12.24.020 of the Municipal Code and described above) of a heritage tree, protected replacement tree, street tree, and/or a city tree. Therefore, no tree removal permits or other mitigation for tree impacts are required.
12. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS A CEQA lead agency must determine if a proposed activity constitutes a project requiring further review pursuant to the CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, a lead agency would have to determine if there could be significant adverse impacts to the environment from a proposed project.
Typically, if within the city limits, the city would be the CEQA lead agency. If a discretionary Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
26 permit (i.e., conditional use permit) providing sufficient discretion to allow meaningful input into the project design would be required for a project, the lead agency must comply with CEQA. In some cases, there are “Categorical Exemptions” that apply to the proposed activity; thus, the activity is exempt from CEQA. The Categorical Exemptions are provided in the CEQA Guidelines. There are also Statutory Exemptions in CEQA that must be investigated for any proposed project. Further, “CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15183.) Thus, Section 15183 provides another type of exemption. If the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lowest level of review typically reserved for projects with no significant effects on the environment would be for the lead agency to prepare a “Negative Declaration.” If a proposed project would have only minimal impacts that can be mitigated to a level of no significance pursuant to the CEQA, then a “Mitigated Negative Declaration” (MND) is typically prepared by the lead agency. Finally, those projects that may have significant effects on the environment, or that have impacts that can’t be mitigated to a level considered less than significant pursuant to the CEQA, typically must be reviewed via an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). All CEQA review documents are subject to public circulation, and comment periods.
Section 15380 of CEQA defines “endangered” species as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. “Rare” species are defined by CEQA as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in FESA. The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will “substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species.” The significance of impacts to a species under CEQA, therefore, must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction to that species despite its legal status or lack thereof.
12.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This report has been prepared as a Biology section that is suitable for incorporation by the CEQA lead agency (in this case, City of St. Helena) into a Consistency Determination pursuant to CEQA Section 15183. This document addresses potential impacts to species that would be defined as endangered or rare pursuant to Section 15380 of the CEQA.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
27 13. IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Below the criteria used in assessing impacts to Biological Resources is presented.
13.1 Significance Criteria
A significant impact is determined using CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA §21068, a significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15382, a significant effect on the environment is further defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Other federal, State, and local agencies’ considerations and regulations are also used in the evaluation of significance of proposed actions.
Direct and indirect adverse impacts to biological resources are classified as “significant,” “potentially significant,” or “less than significant.” Biological resources are broken down into four categories: vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and regulated “waters of the United States” and/or stream channels.
13.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
13.1.1.1 Plants, Wildlife, Waters
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines, implementing the project would have a significant biological impact if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected “wetlands” (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
28 13.1.1.2 Waters of the United States and State.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., which includes wetlands, as discussed in the bulleted item above, and also includes “other waters” (stream channels, rivers) (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). Substantial impacts to Corps regulated areas on a project site would be considered a significant adverse impact. Similarly, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB regulates impacts to waters of the State. Thus, substantial impacts to RWQCB regulated areas on a project site would also be considered a significant adverse impact.
13.1.1.3 Stream Channels
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of a stream which the CDFW typically considers to include riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity that would result in substantial modifications to a natural stream channel would be considered a significant adverse impact.
14. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The project site was previously developed and because it has been heavily disturbed, it does not provide much value in terms of biological resources. The most significant biological resource on or near the project site is the offsite seasonal drainage along the southern project site boundary that supports riparian woodland habitat. The riparian trees provide nesting, foraging, resting and stopover habitat for birds and resting and foraging habitat for disturbance-adapted mammals. In this section we provide recommendations to protect the significant biological resources near the project site and in the landscaping design to meet the policies of the City of St. Helena’s General Plan.
In this section we discuss potential impacts to sensitive biological resources that could occur from project development as shown on the Site Plan (Attachment A). We follow each impact with a condition of project approval that, when implemented, would reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible.
Checklist Items are listed below. Where there would be significant impacts to checklist categories, these impacts and required conditions of project approval are fully discussed in the sections below.
Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? No. The site has been previously developed, is heavily disturbed, and vegetated with ornamental landscaping and ruderal herbaceous vegetation. It does not provide habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
29 Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
No. The riparian vegetation that extends onto the project site from the offsite creek would not be impacted under the current development proposal. There are no other significant or sensitive communities onsite.
Would the Proposed Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected “wetlands” (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No. There are no state or federally protected “wetlands” (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) on the project site.
Would the Proposed Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No. The Proposed Project would not adversely impact or interfere with wildlife movement corridors. The project site is an anthropogenic habitat that is surrounded by developed properties on all sides. The project site does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor.
Would the Proposed Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No. There are no proposed impacts to trees considered to be Protected Trees under the City of St.
Helena Tree Ordinance.
Would the Proposed Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in force in the City of St. Helena.
14.1 Impact BIO-1: With Compliance with Applicable General Plan Policies, Development of the Proposed Project Would Not Have a Potentially Significant Impact on Nesting Raptors and Passerine Birds (No Peculiar Impact)
Nesting raptors (birds of prey) and passerine (perching) birds are protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513), and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The oaks present on the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and passerine birds. In addition, the ruderal herbaceous cover on the project site provides suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds. Since, typically, most birds can fly out of harm’s way, development of the project site would not be expected to harm adult birds. However, nesting birds are susceptible to take through disturbance that harms eggs or young. Pursuant to General Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
30 Plan Implementing Action OS1.O, the project proponent must avoid impacts to nesting birds by conducting preconstruction nesting bird surveys and implementing avoidance measures. The city will impose its standard condition based on Implementing Action OS1.O, which is listed below as BIO-1.
14.2 Standard Condition of Approval BIO-1. Nesting Birds To avoid impacts to nesting birds, a nesting bird survey must be conducted no earlier than 14 days prior to commencing with construction work if this work would begin between February 1 and August 31. The nesting bird survey must be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where raptors could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise. The nesting bird survey should include examination of all suitable nesting habitats within 300 feet of the entire project site. Adjacent properties will not be surveyed. A nesting bird survey report should be prepared upon completion of the survey and provided to the City of St. Helena with any recommendations required for establishment of protective buffers as necessary to protect nesting birds.
If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of influence of the construction project, a qualified biologist should establish a temporary protective buffer around the nest(s). The buffer must be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from construction-related disturbance and should be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with extensive experience working with nesting birds near and on construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 75 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive nesting birds that include several raptor species known from the region of the project site. The nest buffer should be staked with orange construction fencing.
No construction or earth-moving activity should occur within any established nest protection buffer prior to September 1 unless it is determined by a qualified ornithologist/biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones, or that the nesting cycle is otherwise completed. In the region of the project site, most species complete nesting by mid-July. This date can be significantly earlier or later and would have to be determined by the qualified biologist. At the end of the nesting cycle, or abandonment of the nest by its occupants, as determined by a qualified biologist, temporary nesting buffers may be removed, and construction may commence in established nesting buffer areas without further regard for the nest site.
Agenda Item #11.3.
CEQA Biological Resources Analysis
Spring Grove Project
St. Helena, California
31 15. LITERATURE CITED
Baldwin D.H, Goldman D.H., Keil D.J., Patterson R, Rosatti T.J., Wilken D.H. (ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California: Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1568 pps.
Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. "In my experience.." a checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 20(4): 6.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Complete list of amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species in California. Published September 2008; updated May 2016.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 2024. RareFind 6. Computer printout for special-status species within a 5-mile radius of the project site. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA.
Holland, V.L. & D.J. Keil. 1989. California vegetation. Biological Sciences Department/ California Polytechnic State University. San Luis Obispo, California.
Holland, V.L. & D.J. Keil. 1995. California vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Table 1
Plant Species Observed on the Spring Grove Project Site monk & associates
Gymnosperms
Cupressaceae
Sequoia sempervirens Redwood
Angiosperms - Dicots
Apocynaceae
*Nerium oleander Oleander
Fagaceae
Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia Coast live oak
Quercus lobata Valley oak
Lythraceae
*Punica granatum Pomegranate
Moraceae
*Ficus carica Fig
Myrtaceae
*Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus
Oleaceae
*Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet
*Ligustrum lucidum Glossy privet
*Olea europaea Olive
Rosaceae
*Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum
*Pyracantha coccinea Scarlet firethorn
Sapindaceae
*Acer palmatum Japanese maple
*Acer saccharinum Silver maple
Angiosperms -Monocots
Poaceae
*Avena barbata Slender wild oat
*Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass
*Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess
*Phyllostachys aurea Fishpole bamboo
* Indicates a non-native species Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item #11.3.
Table 2
Wildlife Species Observed on the Spring Grove Project Site
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Reptiles
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis
Birds
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus
Turkey Vulture Streptopelia decaocto
California Quail Callipepla californica
Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna
Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
California Scrub Jay Aphelocoma californica
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
American Robin Turdus migratorius
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata
California Towhee Melozone crissalis
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis
House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus
Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Mammals
Fox squirrel Sciurus niger
Agenda Item #11.3.
TREES:
Acacia cultriformis Knife Acacia 24” Box L
Acer ssp. Autumn Blaze Red Maple 36” Box M
Araucarua heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine 36” Box M
Arbutus ‘Marina’ Marina Strawberry Tree 36” Box L
Cassia leptophylla Gold Medallion Tree 36” Box L
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ Desert Museum Palo Verde 36” Box VL Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 24” Box M
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 24” Box VL
X Chitalpa tashkentensis ‘Pink Dawn’ Chitalpa Chitalpa 36” Box L Cornus ssp. Dogwood 24” Box M
Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ Autumn Gold Maidenhair Tree 36” Box M Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 36” Box M
Lagerstroemia spp. Crape Myrtle 24” Box L
Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel 24” Box L
Liriodendon tulipifera Tulip Tree 36” Box M
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia 36” Box M
Magnolia stellata Star Magnolia 24” Box M
Melalueca quinquervia Paperbark Tree 24” Box L
Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’ Olive 36” Box VL
Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine 24” Box L
Pinus pinea Italian Stone Pine 36” Box L
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 36” Box L
Platanus x acerfolia ‘Columbia’ London Plane Tree 36” Box M Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore 36” Box M
Podocarpus gracilior African Fern Pine 36” Box M
Podocarpus elongatus ‘Monmal’ Icee Blue Yellow-wood 24” Box M Prunus ssp. Cherry Plum 24” Box L/M
Punica granatum Pomegranate 24” Box L
Pyrus ssp. Pear 36” Box M
Quercus ssp. Valley Oak 36” Box L/M
Rhus lancea African Sumac 36” Box L
Tillia ssp. Linden 24” Box M
Ulmus parvifolia ‘True Green’ True Green Chinese Elm 36” Box M Umbellularia californica California Bay 24” Box M
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
S H R U B A N D
GROUNDCOVER:
Acacia redolens Prostrate Acacia 1 gal. VL
Agave spp. Agave 5 gal. VL
Aloe spp. Aloe 5 gal. L
Alogyne huegelli Blue Hibiscus 15 gal. L
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita 5 gal. L
Artemisia ssp. Sagebrush 1 gal. L
Asparagus densiflorus Asparagus Fern 5 gal. M
Bouteloea gracilis Blue Grama 1 gal. L
Buxus japonica ‘Green Beauty’ Japanese Boxwood 5 gal. M Callistemon spp. Bottle Brush 5 gal. L
Carex tumulicola Foothill Sedge 1 gal. L
Chondropetalum tectorum Small Cape Rush 5 gal. L
Cistus ‘Sunset’ Magenta Rockrose 5 gal. L
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster 5 gal. L
Crassula spp. Jade Plant 5 gal. L
Dasyliron spp. Desert Spoon 5 gal. VL
Dianella ssp. Flax Lily 5 gal. L
Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily 5 gal. L
Festuca mairei Atlas Fescue 5 gal. L
Hesperaloe spp. Yucca 5 gal. L
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 15 gal. VL
Ilex spp. Holly 5 gal. M
Juncus patens California Gray Rush 5 gal. M
Lavandula ssp. Lavender 5 gal. L
Leucophyllum spp. Barometer Bush 5 gal. L
Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild Rye 5 gal. L Ligustrum japonicum ‘Texanum’ Waxleaf Privet 5 gal. L
Lomandra spp. Dwarf Mat Rush 5 gal. L
Myoporum p. ‘Putah Creek’ Creeping Myoporum 1 gal. L
Myrtus communis Common Myrtle 5 gal. L
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
VINES AND
Bougainvillea spp.
Calliandra haematocephala
Distictis ssp.
Eriobotrya deflexa
Jasminum polyanthum
Lonicera japonica
Macfadyena unguis-cati
Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’
Trachelospermum jasmnoides
Rosa banksiae
Vitis ssp.
Olea europaea ‘Montra’
Pittosporum tobira variegata
Phormium spp.
Prunus caroliniana ‘Bright n Tight’
Rhaphiolepis spp.
Rosmarinus officinalis
Rosa ssp.
Salvia ‘Bees Bliss’
Trachelospermum asiaticum
Westringia spp.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
SPRING STREET
LEGEND
Focal Tre
Large Ac
Medium
Basin Tre
Flowerin
Fruiting T
Small Pa
Large Ac
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Scale: 1”= 30’-0”
CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
FDS
Planning | Design | Collaboration
FOURNIER DESIGN STUDIO
[email protected] (562) 719-4650
Santa Rosa, CA
Brittain Townhomes FDS
FOURNIER DESIGN STUDIO
Sebastopol and Brittain Rd. City Ventures 2nd City Submittal 2022#12345
CONCEPTUAL PERIMETER FENCE ‘A’ - 8’-0”H
SCALE: NTS
CONCEPTUAL PERIMETER FENCE ‘B’ - 6’-0”H
SCALE: NTS
Spring Grove
1447~1505~1515 Spring Street
St. Helena, CA
APN: 009-590-003, -005, -010
FDS #24010
September 30th, 2024
G-5
Agenda Item #11.3.
SPRING STREET
BLDG 6 BLDG 1
BLDG 3 BLDG 2
BLDG 4
BLDG 5 STREET A STREET C
UNIT 1
UNIT 1
UNIT 1
UNIT 1 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4 UNIT 4
UNIT 4 UNIT 4
UNIT 4
UNIT 4
UNIT 4 UNIT 2
UNIT 3
UNIT 4 UNIT 2
UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 2
UNIT 4 UNIT 2
UNIT 3
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
UNIT 3
UNIT 2
UNIT 3
S
S
S
S
ADA ADA ADA ADA ADA
STREET B SITE LAYOUT
C1.1 TENTATIVE MAP SPRING GROVE adobe associates, inc. 1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401 P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301 Website: www.adobeinc.com "A Service You Can Count On!" civil engineering I land surveying I wastewater
SITE LAYOUT LEGEND
HATCHING LEGEND: Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
November 19, 2025
Mr. Mike Janusek, AICP
Senior Planner
City of St. Helena
Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Mike,
We appreciate your thorough review of the Spring Grove project. Please find below our response to how we have addressed public input and Planning Commission early feedback since the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 2025.
Thank you,
Kelso G. Barnett
cc. Maya DeRosa
Xinia Gamero
Michael Brewer
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Project Screening
The entire community will be enclosed by a wood perimeter fence designed to provide both privacy and a consistent visual edge. The fence height will be 6 feet in most areas; however, within the 50 feet of the property line/right of way on Spring Street, fencing will be reduced to 3 feet to maintain open sightlines in order to comply with the city’s vision triangle and applicable design standards.
Beyond fencing, the landscape plan incorporates significant new planting to create a natural, attractive, and effective vegetative screen. Along the eastern boundary—where Spring Grove is adjacent to St. James Drive—the project will install six 36-inch-box Carolina Cherry Laurels. These evergreen trees are fastgrowing, typically reaching heights of 20–35 feet and widths of 15–20 feet, with a dense pyramidal canopy that provides year-round privacy.
The southern property line will be softened and screened with a combination of four Western Sycamores and three Western Redbuds. The Western Sycamore is a fast-growing deciduous tree, commonly growing 2–3 feet per year. At maturity it can reach 40–80 feet in height with a broad 30–50-foot spread. While it drops leaves in winter, this location is adjacent to the open-space interface on the St. Helena Park development, where seasonal leaf-off is appropriate and helps maintain a more open feel toward the shared open area. The Western Redbud is a moderate-growing deciduous tree, typically reaching 15–20 feet in height and 15–20 feet in width. It grows roughly 1–2 feet per year and is valued for its dense branching, spring blossoms, and summer privacy. Although deciduous, its branching structure still provides some winter screening.
Along Spring Street, the project will be screened primarily through the preservation of existing mature redwoods and sycamores, supplemented with additional understory and mid-story plantings, including Vine Maples, Rocky Mountain Maples, Coast Live Oaks, and Engelmann Oaks. The Vine Maple is a moderate-growing deciduous tree or large shrub, typically growing 1–2 feet per year. Mature size ranges from 10–20 feet tall and wide, forming layered, multi-stemmed screening. The Coast Live Oak is a slowto-moderate growing evergreen oak, adding roughly 12–24 inches of growth per year. At maturity it can reach 20–70 feet tall with a broad 20–30-foot canopy. Its year-round foliage provides consistent evergreen screening. Also in the oak family, the Engelmann Oak is a slow-growing semi-evergreen oak, usually adding less than 12 inches of growth per year. Mature height ranges from 20–60 feet with a 20–40-foot spread. Though technically semi-deciduous, it generally retains most of its leaves year-round in our climate, making it effective for long-term screening.
Additional shrub layers will reinforce the project’s planting design, including Woodleaf Privet and Toyon.
These shrubs are fast-growing and evergreen, typically adding 2 feet per year, maturing at 8-12 feet tall and 6-10 feet wide.
Taken together, this combination of fencing, preserved mature trees, new evergreen and deciduous plantings, and layered shrub material will provide a robust, attractive, and context-appropriate screening strategy for Spring Grove on all sides.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Feedback: Neighborhood Outreach, Providing Smaller Units & Community Gardens We received extensive community input during the January 21, 2025 Planning Commission study session.
We took that feedback seriously and immediately followed up with a dedicated Open House on February 20, 2025 at the Native Sons Hall on Spring Street, just steps from the project site. This informal setting allowed neighbors to speak with us one-on-one, walk through the plans in detail, and share both their support and their concerns directly.
Across all of these engagements; emails, in-person conversations, comments at public meetings, and comments on Next Door, the community’s feedback has been mixed. Many residents expressed support for increasing “missing-middle” homeownership opportunities in St. Helena, especially for young families and first-time homebuyers. Others shared concerns about the project’s density, height, and architectural expression. We listened carefully and committed to making meaningful improvements in the areas where adjustments were feasible.
Density is set by the municipal code and the Housing Element designation for this site, which has a direct effect on our overall building height and our required unit sizes; as such, those parameters could not be reduced without undermining both the City’s housing obligations and the core purpose of this project.
However, within those constraints, we made a series of targeted design refinements aimed at softening the buildings, improving compatibility with nearby homes, and enhancing the visual character of the neighborhood. These enhancements include:
Architectural and Aesthetic Improvements
• Increased the primary roof pitch from 8:12 to 11:12 to create a more traditional residential profile and reduce the appearance of massing.
• Removed the top parapet wall to improve roof articulation and achieve a cleaner, more refined ridgeline.
• Introduced undulating ridgelines with gable peaks raised approximately 3 feet to create variation and visual interest.
• Added accent metal roof sheds at key elevations to break up facades and add high-quality material expression.
• Added second- and third-floor balcony decks to create depth, shadow lines, and more humanscaled architecture. • Increased the level of siding detail throughout the elevations to enrich texture and avoid flat or monolithic façades.
• Added vine-trellis systems along garage walls to introduce greenery and soften the appearance of auto-oriented elements.
• Added enhanced architectural fixtures at gable ends and other focal points for additional craftsmanship and detail.
• Provided varied garage-door styles to better individualize units and reduce visual repetition.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
• Engaged a professional colorist to refine and diversify the color palette in a way that complements the existing neighborhood fabric.
After considering the feedback received during the January study session, we evaluated the idea of incorporating community garden beds into the common open space. While community gardens can be successful in some developments, our experience across multiple City Ventures communities shows that they tend to be highly variable; some are heavily utilized, while others are quickly abandoned, becoming maintenance challenges and detracting from the quality of shared spaces. Rather than installing garden beds that may not reflect the preferences or lifestyles of the future residents, we believe the most responsible and community-oriented approach is to allow the future HOA to make this decision once the neighborhood is established. This ensures that any garden areas created will reflect genuine resident interest, be maintained appropriately, and become an amenity that truly adds value to the community.
While we could not change every aspect raised by neighbors, we worked within the boundaries of the development code and Housing Element requirements to make improvements that materially enhance the project’s compatibility with its surroundings. Our goal has always been to design a neighborhood that feels at home in St. Helena—respectful of the community’s character, aligned with the City’s long-range housing policies, and accessible to the households this project is intended to serve.
Circulation & Fire Access
The project’s circulation system and fire access design have been reviewed and approved by the St.
Helena Fire Department, including the City’s Fire Inspector. The site plan meets all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code, including turning radii, street widths, hydrant placement, emergency access routes, and unobstructed fire-lane clearances. While feedback was received adding a secondary point of egress (EVA/fire access), state fire code allows an exemption for up to 200 units if all units are equipped with fire sprinklers. The project will be designed with an NFPA-13 system and all units will have fire sprinklers.
In addition, we commissioned a Transportation Impact Study to evaluate on-site circulation, emergency vehicle operations, driveway performance, and interaction with the public street network. Technical review confirm that the project is safe, functional, and capable of supporting timely emergency response:
o While private streets are not subject to city standards, the internal streets are 28 feet wide, which exceeds City standards for public streets and accommodating two-way travel and emergency access.
o While no on-street parking is permitted on these internal streets, ensuring clear and unobstructed fire lanes, the project will exceed parking requirements. Two side-by-side parking spaces within garages will be provided for each unit, exceeding the 1.5 parking spaces required by code. Guest parking also exceeds code requirements by providing 11 spaces. o A 200-foot driveway connects the site to Spring Street. Although the internal circulation pattern resembles a parking-lot drive aisle rather than a public street, both vehicle speeds and vehicle Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
volumes will be low and drivers are expected to proceed cautiously—conditions that reduce conflict potential and improve overall safety.
o The perpendicular guest parking spaces create typical interactions found in commercial and residential lots throughout the Bay Area; the Transportation Impact Study found no unique or unacceptable safety concerns.
o Wayfinding and delivery-parking signage will be installed to prevent delivery vehicles from obstructing garages or internal circulation routes, further supporting safe operations and unimpaired access for fire responders.
Both the Fire Department and the transportation study confirm that the project is fully compliant, safe, and operationally sound. Emergency access meets or exceeds all City and California Fire Code standards; internal circulation is appropriate for a residential environment with low speeds and low volumes; and no unique hazards or conflicts were identified.
Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that the development will function safely from both a circulation and fire-response perspective and will not adversely affect emergency response times.
Lighting / Off-Site Glare
The project’s lighting plan was carefully designed to prevent off-site glare and minimize light spillover onto neighboring residential properties along Spring Street, St. James Drive, and the surrounding areas.
The photometric layout shows that all illumination levels taper down to near-zero at the property boundaries. This is achieved through the use of fully shielded and house-side-shielded fixtures, including cutoff post-top luminaires, wall-mounted LED fixtures with controlled distribution patterns, and lowheight bollards located away from sensitive edges. The placement of fixtures is oriented inward toward internal drive aisles, walkways, and common areas, ensuring light is directed only where needed for safety and not toward adjacent homes.
In addition to shielding and directional control, the lighting plan incorporates appropriately warmtemperature LEDs, and precise photometric modeling to ensure compliance with modern lighting standards and to maintain a residential character. The combination of controlled optics, house-side shielding, and low-intensity fixture selection results in extremely limited light trespass. Together, these measures ensure that the project provides safe, adequate illumination for residents and visitors while protecting the privacy, comfort, and nighttime environment of the surrounding neighborhood.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
SPRING GROVE
WATER NEUTRALITY REPORT
Updated
November 10, 2025
A. BACKGROUND
To ensure compliance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy for Development, City Ventures is submitting a water neutrality analysis for the proposed Spring Grove Subdivision.
This analysis outlines the anticipated water consumption for the development (per St. Helena’s water neutral policy) and presents potential options for water off-set mitigation.
B. CURRENT THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
There are currently three homes on the property: one 4-bedroom, one 3-bedroom, and one 2-bedroom.
According to the St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development section on water demand analysis for existing water use, the analysis should use 150 gpd/bedroom. This equates to a theoretical domestic water demand to be 1,350 gallons per day for the current homes.
Address Bedrooms Gal/Bdrm
1447 Spring 4 150
1505 Spring 2 150
1515 Spring 3 150
Gal/Day 1,350
Gal/Year 492,750
* Current landscape irrigation not supplied by city water but by well onsite C. PROPOSED THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
The proposed development includes 41 lots with side-by-side townhomes, consisting of 41 3+ bedroom units. Water demand for the project is calculated based on the water usage of fixtures and appliances, determined by the number of occupants, in accordance with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy for Development.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The following outlines the water performance requirements for fixtures and appliances.
Fixture # Unit Days Occupant
Toilet 3 Flushes 1 1
Sink Faucet 0.25 Minute 3 1
Showerhead 8 Minute 1 1
Kitchen Faucet 4 Minute 1 1
Clothes Washer 0.37 Load 1 1
Dish Washer 0.1 Load 1 1
Water usage from fixtures and appliances will comply with the minimum standards set by the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy.
Fixture Gal Unit
Toilet 1.3 Flushes
Sink Faucet 1.5 Minute
Showerhead 2 Minute
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 Minute
Clothes Washer 19.7 Load
Dish Washer 6.3 Load
In accordance with the City of St. Helena's policy, the analysis assumes two occupants per bedroom (including a den/office/optional bedroom). Following the City's Water Neutral Policy for Development, the estimated domestic water demand for the proposed project is 11,182 gallons per day. The calculations are included below.
Number of Rooms Number of Occupants
Unit Bdrm Other Total
Per
Rm.
Per
Unit
#
Units Total
Plan 1 3 0 3 2 6 4 24
Plan 2 3 1 4 2 8 5 40
Plan 3 3 1 4 2 8 15 120
Plan 4 3 1 4 2 8 17 136
Total Number of Occupants* 320
* Total number of occupants per St. Helena Water Neutral Policy; even if the total number of residents per home exceeds St. Helena’s average household size, the projected number of actual occupants in a real world scenario is projected to be significantly lower.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Fixture Unit Times/Day Gal/Unit Occupants Gal/Day
Toilet 1 3 1 320 1,248
Sink Faucet 0 3 2 320 360
Showerhead 8 1 2 320 5,120
Kitchen Faucet 4 1 2 320 1,920
Clothes Washer 0 1 20 320 2,332
Dish Washer 0 1 6 320 202
Total Gal/Day 11,182
Total Gal/Year 4,081,459
D. THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE WATER DEMAND
Landscape irrigation will be provided by the City of St. Helena and the current well will be abandoned.
Per Landscape Sheet L-7, the estimated total water usage per year (ETWU) is 285,008 gallons, or 781 gallons per day.
E. PROPOSED WATER NEUTRALITY MITIGATION
The existing theoretical water usage on the property is 1,350 gallons per day, and the proposed developments theoretical water usage is 11,963 gallons per day. Therefore, to comply with water neutrality the development must offset 10,613 gallons per day.
Spring Grove Theoretical Water Usage Gal/Day
Homes 11,182
Landscape 781
Total 11,963
Existing Theoretical Water Usage 1,350
Gal/Day to Offset 10,613
This can be done by either retrofitting residential and non-residential properties with low flow devices or by paying an in-lieu fee that is equivalent to the cost of retrofitting enough homes, as provided by Municipal Code 13.12.020. The calculation of the in-lieu fee is attached below.
F. IN-LIEU RETROFIT FEES
The proposed project will increase water usage by 10,613 gallons per day. Therefore, per city policy, the project proposes to pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the cost of retrofitting showerheads, faucets, and toilets in existing homes to comply with the required water savings.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The theoretical water use for homes with retrofitted low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Theoretical Water use with retrofitted low flow fixtures per residence Flow Occupants
Fixture Rate Duration Daily Uses Number* Gal/Day
Toilet 2 8 1 7.8 125
Sink Faucet 1.5 0.25 3 7.8 9
Showerhead 1.5 4 1 7.8 47
Kitchen Faucet 1.3 1 3 7.8 30
Clothes Washer 19.7 1 0.37 7.8 57
Dish Washer 6.3 1 0.1 7.8 5
Total Gal/Day - 1 Home (Rooms - Spring Grove Blended Avg.) 273 Total Gal/Day - 41 Homes (Rooms - Spring Grove Blended Avg.) 11,182 *Number of occupants (7.8) is a blended average of the proposed project’s number of residents per unit Theoretical Water Use Saving per Residence
Gal/Rm Rooms* Total
Theoretical Water Use - Old Fixtures 150 3.9 585
Theoretical Water Use - New Fixtures 273
Savings 312
*Number of rooms (3.9) is a blended average of the proposed project’s number of rooms per unit To offset the anticipated water demand of the proposed project, 34 residences will need retrofitting with low flow fixtures.
Required Residences needing retrofitting
Gal/Day
New Water Demand 10,613
Water Savings per Home (Retrofit) 312
Residences Needing Retrofit 34
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
The expected cost of retrofitting existing homes with new low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:
Retrofit Material Cost per residence
Fixture Qty Cost/Unit Total
Showerhead 2 $139.06 $278.12
Sink Faucet 2 $247.98 $495.96
Kitchen Faucet 1 $341.08 $341.08
Toilet 2 $114.69 $229.38
Clothes Washer 1 $698.00 $698.00
Dish Washer 1 $449.00 $449.00
Total Estimated Material Cost Per Home $2,491.54
Retrofit Labor Cost Per residence
Fixture Hours Qty Hourly Rate Total Cost
Showerhead 1 2 $110.00 $220.00
Sink Faucet 1 2 $110.00 $220.00
Kitchen Faucet 1 1 $110.00 $110.00
Toilet 2 2 $110.00 $440.00
Clothes Washer 2 1 $110.00 $220.00
Dish Washer 2 1 $110.00 $220.00
Total Estimated Labor Cost per Residence $1,430.00
The total estimated cost is the sum of the estimated material and labor cost per residence.
Total Retrofit Cost
Material Cost $2,492
Labor Cost $1,430
Total Cost $3,922
Residences Needing Retrofit 34
Total Estimated In-Lieu Fee $133,348
Agenda Item #11.3.
1185MASON STREET SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94123
Proposed low flow fixture costs are listed below. Please find links below; prices are current as of November 10, 2025
o Showerhead- Delta, Kayra, Monitor 14 Series Shower Trim in Chrome- Model#: T14233 o Sink Faucet- Delta, Kayra, Two Handle Widespread Bathroom Faucet in Chrome- Model#:
3533LF-MPU
o Kitchen Faucet- Delta, Coranto, Single Handle Pull-Down Kitchen Faucet in ChromeModel#: 9179-DST o Toilet- Western Pottery- 1.28G Elongated Bowl Easy Height- Model#: 832-T8ULF-HP o Clothes Washer - Samsung - 4.5 Cu. Ft. High-Efficiency Stackable Smart Front Load Washer with Steam and Super Speed Wash - Platinum
o Dish Washer- LG - 24 in. in Stainless Steel Front Control Dishwasher- Model #: LDFN3432T o Labor Cost cited in table 6 are estimates for contractors in the St. Helena area found on https://www.taskrabbit.com
G. CONCLUSION
The proposed project theoretical water usage is 11,963 gallons per day.
The existing theoretical water usage on site is 1,350 gallons per day.
Therefore, the project must save 10,613 gallons per day or pay an in-lieu fee to comply with St. Helena water neutrality policy for development.
The project will pay an in-lieu fee of $133,348, equal to the cost of retrofitting enough residences with low flow fixtures to offset the proposed theoretical water use.
Agenda Item #11.3.
City of St. Helena
City Council
Project: Spring Grove
Vesting Tentative Map & Water Neutrality In-Lieu Fee
Staff: Mike Janusek, Contract Planner
Community Development Department January 13, 2026
File No. PL24-065 and TSM25-001
Agenda Item #11.3.
Overview
• Background
• Project Description
• Public Outreach
• Required Findings
• Staff Recommendation
Agenda Item #11.3.
Location
Agenda Item #11.3.
Site Photos
Agenda Item #11.3.
Existing Conditions
Existing
Homes
Existing
Creek
Spring Street
Agenda Item #11.3.
General Plan Land Use
• High Density Residential
(1447 and 1515 Spring St)
• Medium Density Residential
(1505 Spring St)
Project Site
Agenda Item #11.3.
2023-2031
Housing Element
Site #9
Agenda Item #11.3.
Zoning Map
• High Density Residential (HR)
(1447 and 1515 Spring St)
• Medium Density Residential
(MR) (1505 Spring St)
• HR development standards and
density apply to the site Project Site
Agenda Item #11.3.
Required Entitlements
• Vesting Tentative Map (Staff Report, Attachment 2)
• 41 condominium “airspace” lots
• 1 common area lot owned by the HOA
• 1 lettered lot for the riparian corridor not for
development
• Planning Commission recommended City Council
approval by a vote of 4-0 at the December 2 Public
Hearing (Staff Report, Attachment 3)
• Contingent upon City Council authorization of the
Water Neutrality In-Lieu Retrofit Fee (Staff Report,
Attachment 1)
Agenda Item #11.3.
Required Entitlements
• Demolition Permit approved by Planning Commission by
a vote of 4-0 on December 2, 2025 (Staff Report,
Attachment 4)
• Demolition of 3 existing single-family homes
• No appeals filed
• Minor Design Review with Density Bonus approved
ministerially on November 21, 2025 (Staff Report,
Attachment 6)
• No appeals filed
• Future actions by City Council
Agenda Item #11.3.
Regulatory Context
Senate Bill (SB) 330
• Amends the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
• Vests zoning and objective design standards
with a Preliminary Application
• Limits the number of public hearings to five
• Prohibits a local government from disapproving
or reducing the density of qualifying housing
development project based on subjective
standards
Agenda Item #11.3.
Regulatory Context
Assembly Bill (AB) 130
• Effective June 30, 2025, AB 130 made significant
modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act • Creation of a new statutory CEQA exemption, PRC
Section 21080.66, for infill housing developments that
meet certain conditions, for example:
• Less than 20 acres
• Within an incorporated municipality
• Surrounded by urban development
• Not located on a wetland
Agenda Item #11.3.
Project Description:
Vesting Tentative Map
Spring Street
Agenda Item #11.3.
Project Description:
Vesting Tentative Map
Agenda Item #11.3.
Minor Design Review (not under review)
• Ministerially approved on
November 21, 2025
• Not under City Council
authority
Agenda Item #11.3.
Minor Design Review (not under review)
• Ministerially approved on
November 21, 2025
• Not under City Council
authority
Agenda Item #11.3.
Public Outreach
• January 21, 2025 Pre-Submittal Planning
Commission Meeting
• Public notice published and mailed, January
11, 2025 (not legally required)
• 16 public comments
• Planning Commission feedback
• Project revisions (Staff Report, Attachment 10)
• February 20, 2025 Community Open House
• Applicant led with at least 75 in attendance
Agenda Item #11.3.
Public Outreach
• December 2, 2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing
• Public notice in Napa Valley Register and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, November 21, 2025
• Written public comments have been posted to the
agenda page
• 8 members of the public provided testimony
• Planning Commission voted unanimously 4-0 to
recommend to City Council approval of the Vesting
Tentative Map (Staff Report, Attachment 3) and 4-0 to
approve the Demolition Permit (Staff Report,
Attachment 4).
Agenda Item #11.3.
Public Outreach
• January 13, 2026 City Council Public Hearing
• Public notice in Napa Valley Register and mailed
to all property owners within 300 feet
• Written public comments have been posted to
the agenda page
• Responses to public comments are provided in
the Staff Report, Pages 13 and 14
Agenda Item #11.3.
Comments and Concerns Received
from Public
• Calculation of density
• “Downzoning”
• Site layout
• Community character, noise, building height, and architecture • Fire access
• Affordability
• Tree removal
• Traffic
• Stormwater management, flooding, and preservation of the riparian corridor
• Neighborhood outreach
• Historic preservation
Agenda Item #11.3.
Calculating Residential Density
• Per definitions in SHMC Chapter 17.32,
“Residential Density” is “based on the gross lot
area prior to the dedication of any rights of way,
public parks, or other public areas.”
• A blended density is applied to the allowable
density range for the site commensurate with the
0.14-acre portion of the site zoned MR
Agenda Item #11.3.
Staff Analysis
• Water Neutrality Requirements (SHMC
13.12.030)
• General Plan (includes Housing Element)
Consistency (Staff Report, Attachment 7)
• Zoning Code Development Standards (SHMC
Table 17.16.030 )
• Vesting Tentative Map Findings (SHMC
16.16.080.A)
Agenda Item #11.3.
Vesting Tentative Map Findings
(SHMC 16.16.080.A)
1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provision for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and applicable provisions of this code in that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the allowable density of the General Plan land use designation as well as applicable General Plan policies as demonstrated in Attachment 7. No Specific Plans apply to the site. In addition, the proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot dimensions and applicable building setbacks of the HR zoning district per SHMC Table 17.16.030 and the lot design requirements of SHMC Section 16.32.050.
2. The proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the state Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the city council in that the proposed subdivision meets minimum lot dimensional requirements of SHMC Table 17.16.030 and SHMC Section 16.32.050, the majority of units are oriented to provide southeastern solar exposure, and the majority of units would allow for prevailing upvalley breeze to provide for natural cooling if front and rear doors and windows were opened. In addition, the proposed subdivision layout would provide an internal network of private streets that would be shaded by the Project buildings. The Project also provides open space areas that would be landscaped with future construction.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Water Neutrality
• City Council has the authority over granting the Water Neutrality In-lieu Retrofit Fee request (Staff Report,
Attachment 1)
• Fee estimate is calculated in Water Neutrality Report, prepared by City Ventures, dated November 10, 2025
(Staff Report, Attachment 11)
• Public Works has reviewed the fee estimate and
accepts the fee estimate calculation
Agenda Item #11.3.
Environmental Review
• The City has determined the Project is statutorily
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.66 (Infill Housing
Development Exemption)
• A full analysis of the Project’s eligibility is
included in Staff Report, Attachment 9.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Next Steps
City Council Approvals Required Before Building
Permit Submittal:
• Final Map
• Affordable Housing Agreement
Agenda Item #11.3.
Recommendation
1. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1)
authorizing the applicant to pay the Water
Neutrality In-Lieu Retrofit Fee pursuant to
SHMC 13.12.030; and
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the
attached Resolution (Attachment 2)
recommending, pursuant to a statutory
exemption under PRC 21080.66, approval of
the requested Vesting Tentative Map No.
TSM25-001, File #PL24-065 for the Spring Grove
Project.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Questions?
Agenda Item #11.3.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
o VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
o WATER NEUTRALITY IN-LIEU FEE
JANUARY 13, 2026 Agenda Item #11.3.
• Bay Area Builder • Creates communities in urban infill & transit-oriented sites • All-electric, solar-powered homes – panels come standard • Energy efficient building materials, heating & cooling, and appliances
• Pre-wiring for electric car chargers in every home
• Low impact landscaping and low flow water fixtures
CITY VENTURES
Agenda Item #11.3.
PAST PROJECTS
Agenda Item #11.3.
PAST PROJECTS
Agenda Item #11.3.
2024
November 5, 2024
Preliminary (SB330)
Application filed
November 22, 2024
Formal Application
Submitted
January 21, 2025
Planning Commission
Study Session April 2024 – June 2024
Site Feasibility
June 2024 – October 2024
Preliminary Design
Development
2025
February 20, 2025
Community
Open House
ENTITLEMENT PROCESS
Agenda Item #11.3.
2025 2026
June 11, 2025
Application
“Deemed Complete”
June – November 2025
Four Rounds of
Consistency Submittals & Comments
September 4, 2025
AB130 CEQA
Exemption Process
November 21, 2025
Design Review Approved
Density Bonus Approved
No Appeal Filed
December 2, 2025
Planning Commission
Demolition Approved
VTMAP Recommended
No Appeal Filed
January 13, 2026
City Council
December 2024 – May 2025
Three Submittals
Three Rounds of Comments
March – May 2025
Neighbor
Meetings
ENTITLEMENT PROCESS
Agenda Item #11.3.
3-minute walk
downtown
2-parks within a
5-minute walk
8-Minute Walk to
St Helena
Elementary
7-minute
walk to Safeway
10- Minute
Walk to Taylor’s
Refresher
SITE CONTEXT
Agenda Item #11.3.
SITE PLAN
Agenda Item #11.3.
ARCHITECTURE
Agenda Item #11.3.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Agenda Item #11.3.
WATER NEUTRALITY
Baseline Existing Demand
• 150 gal/day per room
• 3 Homes, 9 total bedrooms
Proposed Water Demand
• 2 occupants/room
1,350 gal/day
Homes: 11,182 gal/day
Landscape: 781 gal/day
Total: 11,963 gal/day
Offset: 10,613 gal/day
Fixture Unit Times/Day Gal/Unit Occupants Gal/Day
Toilet 1 3 1.28 320 1,229
Sink Faucet 0.25 3 1.2 320 288
Showerhead 8 1 1.8 320 4,608
Kitchen Faucet 4 1 1.8 320 2,304
Clothes Washer 0.37 1 14 320 1,658
Dish Washer 0.1 1 3.2 320 102
Retrofits
• Water Use (Old Fixtures) = 585 gal/day
• Water Use (New Fixtures) = 273 gal/day
• Savings = 312 gal/day
34 Residences Need Retrofit Agenda Item #11.3.
WATER NEUTRALITY
Water Neutral Policy
• Policy requires Spring Grove to assume
• 2 residents/bedroom or office/den
• 320 residents
Average Household Size = 7.8 residents
Water Demand/Household = 273 gal/day
Average Household Size = 2.3 residents
Source: U.S. Census ACS/2023
Water Demand/Household = 143 gal/day
Source: Raftelis/2022
National Water Demand/Household = 138 gal/day
(Average Household Size = 2.65)
Source: Water Research Foundation/2022
Agenda Item #11.3.
GENERAL
PLAN
Encourage the development of higher density
housing in areas near the center of the city and
close to recreation and services, such as transit,
retail, and public facilities… a wide range of
innovative, well-designed housing, available for
residents of all ages and income levels.
Housing availability is a key constraint to further
local economic development. Increasing the
supply of housing is critical to St. Helena’s
long-term economic sustainability.
GENERAL PLAN 2040
Agenda Item #11.3.
HOUSING ELEMENT “SITE 9”
Agenda Item #11.3.
Expands Housing Availability
• Adding density expands supply and slows price growth
• Adding townhomes opens “move-up” options and frees up older homes, relieving pressure on existing housing
• Broader mix of housing creates a healthier housing market Supports the Local Workforce
• A broader mix of housing types give people and families a more realistic way to live in town. • This keeps workers and families closer to their community Boosts Economic Development • More residents near downtown and Main Street increases activity for local shops and services. • Gentle density strengthens the customer base that small businesses rely on.
ST. HELENA’S HOUSING GOALS
Agenda Item #11.3.
CONCEIVE
COLLABORATE
DEVELOP
CUSTOMIZE
LISTEN
FINALIZE
CITY
of
ST. HELENA
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
CONCEIVE & DEVELOP SITE PLAN
FINALIZE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
CITY
VENTURES
CITY VENTURES
Agenda Item #11.3.
QUESTIONS
Agenda Item #11.3.
!"#$%&'#&()#$%&*#+,#&-.*#%/0*1 2&)34536547483974:; < ;#=#"&>?#(;"&>?#-0%=@?,&&$#/.A1BC$)+&DE+#)&=(#F+#)&=-0%=@?,&&$#/.A1B:#",+%$. (G),+%$.-0%=@?,&&$#/.A1B;%0,&&"&#?=(*%0,&&0)&#?=-.*#%/0*1BH,#$2#?, (H,#$/2#?,-FF#D/0*1BC$)+&#?E,&+(#$)+&#?/F,&+-FF#D/0*1BI,+%?G,&+2#+$&+ (I2#+$&+-0%=@?,&&$#/.A1B?&(?&-&$%#$D%$&?/0*1 C$%I*&(CI*&-0%=@?,&&$#/.A1
3##0,*&$JK7LMEN
>:'COPQRSO">;H/G)@B
TUVWWXWYZX[\]^_[Z\`_aVbcdeX^feU\[gbcVXW^d\U\WVTebcVXW^d\U\WVeeb\^VUbhiZ\]jkjl mVno_UU_pXWYqr_WnfhhZ\][\sq\a^_Wt\uVUo_o^u\eX^f_oc^d\U\WV^_Vrr\VUjZ\]Tev\]XaX_W[\YV[vXWY ^u\cr[XWYw[_x\r[_y\]^zm^Xa]U\V[^uV^nqU^XrU\a\]^X_Wa_ot_^u{qWX]XrVUe_v\VWv^u\w\W\[VUTUVWVWvVUa_ c^V^\|Vpp\[\W_^]_WaXv\[\vVWv}_[p\[\]U\V[UfxX_UV^\vz~u_a\XW]Uqv\nXaVrrUX]V^X_W_ov\WaX^X\aVWv_WXWY ]_WoUX]^aVWvVUa_^u\[__^_o^u\aX^\]\[^XoX]V^X_WVap\UUVavXa[\YV[vo_[^u\\Xa^XWYuXa^_[X]a^[q]^q[\az muVx\[\V^^V]u\v^uV^U\^^\[t\U_po_[f_q[]_Wx\WX\W]\z muVx\W_^[\]\Xx\vVWf[\ar_Wa\^_^uV^[\sq\a^tq^Vno_UU_pXWYqrW_pXW^uV^[\YV[vzTU\Va\]VUU^\^_[\nVXU pX^uVWfsq\a^X_Waz
~uVWgf_qbZVWX\UdVU\
"#$%&'#&
:ELL
R#%$'&&$#IC
L86L
676/446/L44
)#$%&,#&JORQC>C;N
Agenda Item #11.3.
1505 SPRING STREET
APN 009 590 005
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Re: Zoning and Density Compliance Concerns for 1505 Spring Street (APN 009-590-005) Dear Planning Commission, City Council and City Staff,
I am writing to express significant concerns regarding the treatment of 1505 Spring Street (APN 009-590-005) within “Housing Site 9” and the manner in which density calculations and zoning designations were applied during 2 DEC PC project approval. As shown on the City of St Helena’s zoning map, the parcel at 1505 Spring Street is not designated High Density Residential.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1. Incorrect Application of Density Standards
The parcel at 1505 Spring Street is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR), which requires a minimum of 5.1 dwelling units per acre. The combined project area (all three parcels) is 2.52 acres, while the 1505 Spring parcel is approx 6141 sf (.14 acres) and it currently contains one single family residence.
However, the density analysis used during approval relied on the High Density Residential (HDR) minimum of 16.1 du/acre, which applies only to parcels 009-590-010 and 009-590-003, not to parcel 009-590-005.
Applying HDR density to an MDR parcel is inconsistent with both the general plan and state housing law.
You could recalculate the numbers and assign a higher density per acre to the rear parcels and stay within the required and acceptable overall density range, but that still does not change the fact that the 1550 Spring Street parcel is currently separate and carries an MD designation and is already developed. In every other situation in St. Helena, property owners are required to meet minimum density standards. Maintaining that consistency is not only good planning practice, it is also a legal requirement.
2. Potential Down-Zoning in Violation of State Law
Under state law, cities are prohibited from reducing the existing development potential of residential sites in the Housing Element without replacement or up-zoning.
In this case:
• The existing single-family home, which has a long rental history at an affordable rate, is proposed for demolition.
• The project does not replace that unit within the MDR-zoned portion of the site. • As a result, the parcel goes from 1 existing dwelling to 0 units, which is effectively a down-zoning of the property.
This exposes the City to potential legal challenge, as the required procedural steps to authorize such a reduction, up zone or replace the existing unit were not undertaken.
3. It is surprising that “Site 9” was deemed certifiable by the state as part of our Housing Element and housing strategy despite the inconsistency in zoning across its parcels. The existing access drives on the two rear parcels are not wide enough to support a High-Density solution unless the proposal somehow resolves the mismatch created by the front parcel facing Spring Street (1550 Spring), which is the only portion of the site that provides an access drive of adequate width for the proposed development.
4. Solutions That Would Bring the Project Into Compliance (on density and zoning aspect only) There are multiple options to bring the project into conformance with state law and the general plan (in regard to zoning and required density), two methods are outlined below:
Agenda Item #11.3.
1. Up-zone parcel 009-590-005 from MDR to High Density Residential, making the current project configuration consistent with the HDR density range; or
2. Retain the MDR designation but require that the parcel accommodate at least the minimum density of 5.1 units/acre, which would equate to at least one dwelling unit on 1505 Spring Street.
The latter is particularly important given that demolition of an existing occupied rental unit without replacement directly reduces the city’s lower-cost housing stock.
5. Conflict With the General Plan and Risk of Legal Exposure As approved, the project conflicts with multiple General Plan policies. Those additional conflicts will be addressed in separate correspondence. This letter focuses solely on the misapplication of density standards to the 1505 Spring parcel. The misapplication of HDR density to an MDR parcel, combined with the removal of an existing unit, provides a clear basis for legal action and leaves the City vulnerable due to improper process. It clearly should not have been approved in its current configuration.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the City revisit the zoning and density determinations for this project and ensure that any approval brought forward complies with state law and the General Plan. The community deserves a process that is transparent, accurate, and legally defensible.
Thank you for your time and attention. Please call text or email with any questions or if you would like more background information regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #11.3.
“THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO?”
The next time you hear that phrase, I would ask you to pause and consider the following:
When Planning Commissioners are presented with a historic evaluation report that clearly documents a structure as one of the oldest in St. Helena (dating to the 1870s) and identifies it as having been built by one of the town’s pivotal founders, and has subsequent series of impactful historic moments in the tapestry of St Helena, yet that same report inexplicably leaps past its own findings to conclude that demolition poses “no problem,” eyebrows should be raised.
A fair and necessary question follows: Can you point to the last instance in which a historic resource report (paid for by an applicant and relied upon as the primary justification for demolition) recommended preservation instead?
When it is evident that the Fire Department may not have fully considered third-floor access and fire safety, and when future occupants cannot even stand in front of their proposed home without standing in an active street, that alone should give pause as to whether health and safety concerns have been thoroughly and responsibly evaluated. Considering as acceptable a situation that reduces the standing dynamic where The Existing three housing units with three distinct access drives is replaced by 40 units with a single access drive when our code clearly dictates that a development of more than 30 would require 2 methods of ingress/egress?
When a project applies zoning and density standards improperly, and when a Housing Opportunity Site certification is clearly based on incomplete or inaccurate applications, your most basic obligation is to insist that the process be executed correctly. Downzoning and elimination of (up to three) affordable housing opportunities in exchange for what?
When an applicant asserts—despite substantial evidence to the contrary—that garage parking in St. Helena reliably functions as adequate off-street parking, common sense and concern for both future residents and neighboring properties demand heightened scrutiny and the consideration of alternative solutions.
When a proposal clearly did not consider the Growth Management System and the Land Use Capacity principles embedded in our General Plan, it is your obligation not only to understand those standards, but to consider and apply them. You are very simply and clearly empowered with the choice to reject projects that do not meet these objective requirements.
When a project fails to demonstrate compliance with St. Helena’s Water Neutral Policy (an essential safeguard designed to protect our limited and fragile infrastructure), this represents a serious and consequential decision point. You have both the authority and the objective standards necessary to determine whether noncompliance is truly outweighed by public benefit. You are very simply and clearly empowered with the choice to reject projects that do not meet this objective requirement.
When the City structures its process so that a required housing agreement is negotiated only at the very end (after all discretionary approvals have already been granted) it is reasonable to ask: What leverage remains? What opportunity to shape a more sensitive, sustainable, and appropriate housing outcome has already been surrendered?
There are ample instruments available to City leaders, and to the citizens of St. Helena, that can influence, empower, and shape outcomes. You may choose not to use them, but the assertion that they do not exist should not stand.
Outcomes, scrutiny, informed responsibility, judgment, and process matter, none are optional.
Agenda Item #11.3.
St. Helena’s General Plan is one of the most thoughtful documents this community has ever produced. It is not merely a regulatory framework; it is a record of collective understanding, about growth, limits, beauty, and stewardship. It reflects careful, deliberate work grounded in the realities of our town.
Agenda Item #11.3.
The General Plan contains a residential growth management strategy that clearly, and objectively, caps new residential building permits at nine per year. The excerpts above are from the St. Helena General Plan Update 2040, approved in June 2019 and available on the city’s website. It does so while explicitly addressing how this approach aligns with and fulfills state RHNA requirements. It anticipated the very tension we now face and articulated how to manage it. The Plan provides a reasoned, intentional method for absorbing and shaping growth, one that acknowledges infrastructure constraints, political realities, and housing needs without overwhelming the systems that support the town. It wisely includes exceptions for affordable housing and ADUs/JADUs and translates these values into a framework designed to be codified and executed.
More importantly, the Plan explains why this matters. It documents how St. Helena has grown historically and how that growth pattern produced the fabric we now cherish. It speaks not only to limited infrastructure and finite resources, but also to something more difficult to quantify: the experiential quality of the town. The green fingers, the transitions, the rhythm and scale that unfold as one moves through the built environment, these are not accidents. They are the result of restraint, intention, and long-term thinking.
One of the General Plan’s central purposes is to outlive the inevitable upheavals and loss of institutional know-how that municipalities experience as the texture and personalities of both staff and City leaders perpetually change. It exists so that the feeling of St. Helena, the deep appreciation for what generations of Locals, Old Timers, Newcomers and visitors have built and protected, can endure long after the General Plan’s authors are gone.
Recently, I walked visiting family members around town. They had never read the General Plan or studied our zoning code. And yet, they felt exactly what the Plan describes. They experienced the green fingers, the scale, the rhythm, and the sense of place that makes St. Helena distinct. That visceral response is perhaps the clearest evidence that the General Plan works.
So then why are we so willing to SURRENDER, in advance, the idea that the ideals and principles of our General Plan should be actively understood, supported and DEFENDED? When I say “we,” I mean City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council members, but also the larger “WE”: the public, whose responsibility it is to hold our leaders accountable, and through them, the staff they are charged to direct.
Recent staff reports and Planning Commission decisions woefully appear to have set aside some of the Plan’s most critical and powerful provisions, as well as sections of the Municipal Code. This reflects a broader and increasingly pervasive pattern: constitutions and laws, no matter how well crafted or well intended, are only as strong as the commitment of those charged with first taking the time and effort to understand them, and then willing to undertake a similar effort and commitment to upholding, supporting, and enforcing them.
This raises a critical civic question rooted in lived observation rather than abstract theory: why is there such a disconnect between our adopted values and day-to-day decision-making? I believe there are several reasons why this “surrender in advance” occurs, even when a General Plan is as clear, thoughtful, and protective as St. Helena’s
1. The General Plan is treated as aspiration rather than commitment Although the General Plan is legally intended to function as the city’s “constitution for development,” in practice it is often reframed as guidance rather than direction, context rather than constraint. Over time, staff reports and hearings rely on language such as “consistent with the spirit of the Plan,” “generally aligned with goals,” or “responsive to evolving conditions.” Each phrase subtly weakens the Plan’s Agenda Item #11.3.
authority without openly challenging it. The result is not rejection, but a gradual lowering of the standard for what “consistency” means.
2. Institutional memory fades faster than the Plan was designed to Staff changes, rotating commissioners, council turnover, and shifting consultants erode the shared understanding behind the Plan. What is lost is not the text, but the lived knowledge: why the nine-unit cap exists; how growth burdens already strained infrastructure; how specific moments and patterns in the townscape were intentionally protected. At a time when our water system has faced quality violations, fines, and ongoing health concerns, so much so that many households purchase drinking water outside the City system, it is striking how easily we accept adding new customers without careful consideration or a clear plan. In that context, the nine-unit cap seems not restrictive, but prudent, perhaps even prescient.
Without this shared memory, the Plan becomes a technical document rather than a cultural one.
3. External pressure reframes local restraint as irresponsibility State housing mandates, RHNA requirements, and fear of litigation create a powerful narrative: “If we don’t approve this, we’re in violation.” Even when the General Plan explicitly explains how growth management and RHNA compliance coexist, the psychological weight of the state often leads to preemptive compliance. Instead of using the Plan and Municipal Code to shape better, more sensitive outcomes, the impulse becomes: better to approve than fight, better to interpret flexibly than risk appeal, better to show progress than defend nuance. This results in surrender before the argument is even made.
4. Process begins to replace judgment
Over time, municipal decision-making drifts toward procedural safety: Was notice adequate? Was CEQA satisfied? Have we checked the right boxes? Process matters, but when myopic commitment to process becomes the only lens, outcomes become secondary. The question shifts from “Does this preserve and enhance the fabric we cherish?” to “Can we legally justify whatever approval/denial?” For a place like St.
Helena, this shift is deeply corrosive. OUTCOMES must also be paramount.
5. The public is trained to react rather than steward
The broader “WE” matters. The public often enters late in the process, responds to individual projects rather than patterns, and is repeatedly told, explicitly or implicitly, that growth is inevitable. Over time, this produces resignation rather than guardianship. The General Plan becomes something “the City” owns, rather than something the community actively enforces. Yet people feel its success every day, even if they don’t know its name.
6. Beauty is harder to defend than numbers
The Plan’s poetic language, its attention to texture, rhythm, green fingers, and moments of transition, is both its greatest strength and its greatest vulnerability. Numbers argue easily in hearings. Feelings require courage. Defending beauty, restraint, and character requires decision-makers willing to say, “This matters, even if it’s hard to quantify.” That kind of defense is increasingly rare in technocratic systems.
The deeper truth: The General Plan already understands what St. Helena is. The risk we face is not ignorance of our values, but a loss of the required understanding, fortitude, and commitment to recognize, focus, and insist on the details of them. The Plan does not enforce itself. It relies on staff, decision-makers, and the public to treat it as what it was intended to be: the city’s constitution for growth. If we continue to explain away it’s protections rather than defend them, we will soon wonder how the town changed so dramatically? Where did the fingers of green go? Why did we cease to care about the transitions, the keystone moments, the rhythm, the scale, the infrastructure, the discovery and appreciation, and the commitment to Saint Helena evaporate, without any single decision appearing responsible. The answer will be simple: WE stopped believing our own General Plan was worth enforcing.
There is another way…
Agenda Item #11.3.
USE YOUR MAPS
Attached below is the state map defining “Neighborhood Resources,” followed by an excerpt from the City’s site evaluation and its stated “reasoning” for upzoning the Spring Grove site. That reasoning is the genesis of the current proposal, and it is clearly fundamentally flawed.
A closer examination and our daily experience shows that outcomes used to justify the decision, school quality, park access, environmental opportunities, and employment prospects, are not meaningfully different between “High Resource” areas and those classified as incrementally “Highest Resource” zones.
This suggests the City’s analysis oversimplifies complex conditions and fails to support the policy conclusions it advances.
Agenda Item #11.3.
PRIME FARMLAND
While it may appear that Spring Vineyard is not on todays agenda, I would carefully point out that is critical to your responsibility to consider Spring Grove and its impacts cumulatively, alongside other applications that you are aware are moving forward concurrently. You cannot consider the impacts of one without the impacts of the other, or just as importantly, the possible impacts of BOTH. On the whole the cumulative evidence points to a clear lack of wholistic thinking and inarticulate, unsophisticated planning that urgently needs to be redressed.
See attached below: Highlighted section LU5.G from SH General Plan and the latest edition of State of CA Farmland Map that designates the 1933 Spring street property as PRIME FARMLAND.
Agenda Item #11.3.
Full Map California Department of Conservation Division of Land resource Protection:
Agenda Item #11.3.
Close up of map with area of St helena and 1933 Spring street in particular:
Key from map:
Agenda Item #11.3.
1505 SPRING STREET
APN 009 590 005
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Re: Zoning and Density Compliance Concerns for 1505 Spring Street (APN 009-590-005) Dear Planning Commission, City Council and City Staff,
I am writing to express significant concerns regarding the treatment of 1505 Spring Street (APN 009-590-005) and the manner in which density calculations and zoning designations were applied during 2 DEC PC SPRING GROVE project approval and recommendation. As shown on the City of St Helena’s zoning map, the parcel at 1505 Spring Street is not designated High Density Residential.
Keep in mind that 1505 Spring street is not a portion of “Housing site 9”.
Agenda Item #11.3.
1. Incorrect Application of Density Standards
The parcel at 1505 Spring Street is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR), which requires a minimum of 5.1 dwelling units per acre. The combined project area (all three parcels) is 2.52 acres, while the 1505 Spring parcel is approx 6141 sf (.14 acres) and it currently contains one single family residence.
However, the density analysis used during approval relied on the High Density Residential (HDR) minimum of 16.1 du/acre, which applies only to parcels 009-590-010 and 009-590-003, not to parcel 009-590-005.
Applying HDR density to an MDR parcel is inconsistent with both the Municipal Code, The General Plan and State Housing Law.
You could recalculate the numbers and assign a higher density per acre to the rear parcels and stay within the required and acceptable overall density range, but that still does not change the fact that the 1505 Spring Street parcel is currently a separate parcel and carries an MDR designation and is already developed. In every other situation in St. Helena, property owners are required to meet minimum density standards. Maintaining that consistency is not only good planning practice, it is also a legal requirement.
2. Potential Down-Zoning in Violation of State Law
Under state law, cities are prohibited from reducing the existing development potential of residential sites in the Housing Element without replacement or up-zoning.
In this case:
• The existing single-family home, which has a long rental history at an affordable rate, is proposed for demolition.
• The project does not replace that unit within the MDR-zoned portion of the site. • As a result, the parcel goes from 1 existing dwelling to 0 units, which is effectively a down-zoning of the property.
This exposes the City to potential legal challenge, as the required procedural steps to authorize such a reduction, up zone or replace the existing unit were not undertaken.
3. It is surprising that “Site 9” was deemed credible to be a part of St Helena’s Housing Element and housing strategy.
The existing access drives on the two rear parcels are not wide enough to support a High-Density solution. It is more surprising that it was certified by the State as part of that Element and strategy. That certification should be re-examined.
4. Solutions That Would Bring the Project Into Compliance (on density and zoning aspect only) There are multiple options to begin to bring the project into conformance with state law and the general plan (in regard to zoning and required density), two methods are outlined below: unless the proposal somehow resolves the mismatch created by the front parcel facing Spring Street Agenda Item #11.3.
(1505 Spring), which is the only portion of the site that could provide an access drive of adequate width for the proposed development.
1. Up-zone parcel 009-590-005 from MDR to High Density Residential, making the current project configuration consistent with the HDR density range; or
2. Retain the MDR designation but require that the parcel accommodate at least the minimum density of 5.1 units/acre, which would equate to at least one dwelling unit on 1505 Spring Street.
The latter is particularly important given that demolition of an existing occupied rental unit without replacement directly reduces the city’s lower-cost housing stock.
5. Conflict With the General Plan and Risk of Legal Exposure As approved, the project conflicts with multiple General Plan policies. Those additional conflicts will be addressed in separate correspondence. This letter focuses solely on the misapplication of density standards to the 1505 Spring parcel. The misapplication of HDR density to an MDR parcel, combined with the removal of an existing unit, provides a clear basis for legal action and leaves the City vulnerable due to improper process. It clearly should not have been approved in its current configuration.
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the City revisit the zoning and density determinations for this project and ensure that any approval brought forward complies with state law and the General Plan. The community deserves a process that is transparent, accurate, and legally defensible.
Thank you for your time and attention. Please call text or email with any questions or if you would like more background information regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hale
Agenda Item #11.3.
BLIND SPOTS
Before you this evening is consideration of the Spring Grove Project. But what is truly at stake reaches far beyond a single proposal.
We engage every day with Saint Helena’s built environment. It is familiar, and easy to take for granted. Yet the system that built it is not abstract. It is made up of people: Citizens, City Leaders, staff, planners, developers, homeowners, dreamers and builders. Each of us contributes to, and bears responsibility for, the systems that shape the thriving or downfall of town. Human perception and the machinery of politics are riddled with Blind spots. Sometimes we are so busy looking the wrong way that we don’t see what’s right before our eyes.
I urge and appreciate your time and care in reviewing this application and the public comments.
At the root of what brings us here tonight is a collective and MONUMENTAL FAILURE to fully utilize the thoughtful framework of Saint Helena’s General Plan to properly set the table for growth, and then to refine and execute a housing strategy directed through the Municipal Code and City Hearings. That failure is compounded by a widespread lack of understanding of the complex interplay, and limits, of local and State regulations, and how those regulations should be responsibly applied, basically, it is understanding which levers you are able to pull and when.
Yes, the State (through HCD) seeks to encourage housing. Implicit in that mandate is the recognition that certain types of housing are not being produced, particularly housing that is affordable or attainable. There is no intent by the State to force municipalities to pursue proposals that follow the path of least resistance or follow procedural certainty yet are out of sync with the fabric of Saint Helena and stress an already troubled infrastructure.
The appropriate call is to get this right: sensitively, deliberately, and with deep local understanding of Saint Helena’s infrastructure, growth patterns, and limitations. We should make no excuses. We have the imagination and capacity to do so, and we should.
Saint Helena’s ecosystem and infrastructure are limited and fragile. They do not have infinite capacity. They require care, deliberation, and a housing and growth strategy that not only complies with State mandates, but also embraces the wisdom embedded in our General Plan, and produces the housing we most need, which is also typically the most difficult to create.
We cannot afford to evaluate projects in isolation. We must consider cumulative impacts, existing neighborhoods, and the infrastructure frameworks that already sustain this community.
What is before you tonight is, in many respects, a paper tiger. I acknowledge the substantial effort that has gone into producing it. However, carefully researched evidence submitted into the record strongly suggests misapplications of the General Plan, flawed methods and process, legal inconsistencies with the Municipal Code, misunderstandings of State directives, and conflicts with critical resource and conservation mapping. Failing to demonstrate that these recorded concerns have been adequately considered and addressed places the City at significant risk. The legacy of that act will long outlive your tenure on City Council.
It is critical to understand that one of the choices before you tonight is to say NO.
My best hope is we can leave this evening, with not only, a renewed, shared commitment to reexamining and repairing our housing strategy, but also a clear and sober understanding of the seminal moment before you. Look both ways before you cross this road.
Agenda Item #11.3.
!
"
#$
%&'()*
+'*
,-'()*.'/0'*12.')34.5 67!8(
9:9;:;<;=
99>?@
A8
B*C
D'/(*
,E'/(*14)FG*(/*C34.5H
IE)4
J..*(
,KE)44..*(14)FLC0**('32G5H
M/)'
KK
,*KK14)FLC0**('32G5H
A(-/*N
D/'-*F
,'E/'-*F14)FLC0**('32G5H
O)()'
P'.*/
,Q2'.*/14)FLC0**('32G5H
A()
J.*
,AJ.*14)FLC0**('32G5H
8'F'
&*RC'
,8&*RC'14)FLC0**('32G5H
I'
&0/)(2
,K-0/)(214)FLC0**('32G5H
8)40**
&*'CF
,.)40**4-*'CF12.')34.5H
J0/)CK0*/
S'/(*/
,JS'/(*/14)FLC0**('32G5H
C*
,C*1*()'(N)(*C34.5H
T'4)*
(*'
,U(*'14)FLC0**('32G5H
.E/*N*/14)FG*(/*C34.
,.E/*N*/14)FG*(/*C34.5H
C0)22)(C14)FG*(/*C34.
,C0)22)(C14)FG*(/*C34.5H
4.44/('41.'434.
,4.44/('41.'434.5H
'.'/'1G'(2'/-K/K*/)*C34.
,'.'/'1G'(2'/-K/K*/)*C34.5H
B'*
VK'-'/
,CK'-'/14)FLC0**('32G5H
N'F(*1*(2'/4034.
,N'F(*1*(2'/4034.5H
A'/(
D'/'
,'E'/'14)FLC0**('32G5H
.U'(C*1.W2/K3C
,.U'(C*1.W 2/K3C5
XY84&2'Z
I'1+J&
,K'3.4-2'104-34'32G5H
T*CC*
&'/*
,U*CC*3-'/*1C0**('C'/34.5
+*F
B*CZ
[\]
^_
`_a
bcd
`_aef
bgf_h
i^
jbf
kllc
b
mjngl
fncol
ml
gbf^
o_cclo^ldh
[bpp`
^_
ncogadl
`_ahh
q`
klgnlr
jbf
bgmb`f
kllc
^jb^
^jl
s_f^
gntlg`
pe_dao^nul
o_aefl
nf
^_
kl
^ebcfpbelc^v
bcd
^_
lcwbwlv
bcd
j_plragg`
k`
d_ncw
^jb^v
ml
o_ggbk_eb^nulg`
r_ewl
^jl
klf^
bcd
s_f^
faf^bncbkgl
xyz{x|}h
[bpp`
`_a
bel
lcwbwncw
bcd
bppelonb^l
`_ae
^j_awj^rag
elfp_cflh
~r o_aeflv
s`
pelrlelcol
m_agd
jbul
kllc
r_e
`_a
bcd
n^`
lc^aelf
^_
jbul
faksn^^ld
b
pe_p_fbg
^jb^
i
klgnluld
mbf
flcfn^nul
^_v
bcd
o_cfndleld
k_^j
r_e
n^`
lc^aelf
bcd
r_e
^jl
o_ssacn^`
_r
^
[lglcbh
i
fncolelg`
klgnlul
^jb^
jbf
c_^
kllc
boo_spgnfjldh
i
bgf_
o_c^ncal
^_
klgnlul
^jb^
n^
o_agd
klh
_e
ogben^`
i
jbul
men^^lc
elfp_cflf
nc
klclb^j
`_ae
o_sslc^fh
f
afabgv
obgg
^l^
_e
lsbng
mn^j
bc`
alf^n_cfh
jbct
`_av
bcnlg
~c
bc
v
v
b^
qv
¡lgf_
¢becl^^
£¤¥¦§¨©ªª«¬ª®¯©¨ª°§©±²¬³´µ
me_^l
bcv
[ pp`
\lm
]lbe¶
jbct
`_a
r_e
ncogadncw
sl
_c
`_ae
lsbngh
i
j_pl
bgg
jbf
kllc
mlgg
mn^j
`_a
bcd
^jb^
`_a
bcd
`_ae
rbsng`
jbd
b
plbolrag
j_gndb`
flbf_ch
i
bppelonb^l
^jl
_pp_e^acn^`
^_
elfp_cd
^_
`_ae
lsbng
bf
n^
nf
nsp_e^bc^
r_e
^jl
_acong
^_
o_cfndle
^jl
rbo^f
bf
^jl`
o_cfndle
^jlne
dlonfn_ch
f
`_a
tc_mv
^jnf
pe_·lo^
jbf
kllc
pe_olffld
bcd
elunlmld
nc
dlp^j
k`
^h
[lglcb¸f
pgbccncw
f^brr
bcd
b^^_ecl`fh
jl`
jbul
kllc
pe_rlffn_cbg
bcd
sl^noag_af
bcd
m_agd
c_^
bcd
o_agd
c_^
pe_olff
b
dlulg_pslc^
bppgnob^n_c
^jb^
nf
c_^
ragg`
o_spgnbc^
mn^j
k_^j
^h
[lglcb¸f
¹lclebg
gbcv
dlulg_pslc^
o_dlv
bcd
f^b^l
gbmh
ºulc
»b`cl
¼l_cwv
bc
_pp_clc^
_r
^jl
pe_·lo^v
½§³ª©
§©¬©¨ª¾®
nc
^jl
^be
^jb^v
¿pencw
¹e_ul
mbf
bppe_uld
lbo^g`
bf
^jl
eaglf
bgg_mhÀ
ÁÂÃÄÅÆ
Ç
ÈÉÊÂÉËÉ
Ì
ÈÉÅÅÉÃ
ÍÎÏÃÄÉ
ÐÎÏÊÑ
ÈÉ
ÅÎ
ÌËÎÂÑ
ÒÌÃÅÂÌÊÊÓ
ÔÏÎÅÂÕÖ
ÎÅ×ÉÃ
ÍÎØØÉÕÅÉÃÄ
ÌÕÑ
ÒÃÉÄÉÕÅÂÕÖ
Å×ÎÄÉ
ÉÙÍÉÃÒÅÄ
ÌÄ
ÉËÂÑÉÕÍÉ
ÐÂÅ×ÎÏÅ
Å×É
ÍÎÕÅÉÙÅ
ÎÚ
Å×ÉÂÃ
ÚÏÊÊ
ÄÅÌÅÉØÉÕÅÄÛ
ÇÅ
ÂÄ
ÌÊÄÎ
ÖÉÕÉÃÌÊÊÓ
ÄÌÚÉ
ÅÎ
ÌÄÄÏØÉ
Å×ÌÅ
ÄÉÊÉÍÅÂËÉ
ÔÏÎÅÌÅÂÎÕÄ
ÚÃÎØ
Å×É
ÜÝÞß
ÐÂÊÊÆ
ÈÓ
Å×ÉÂÃ
ÕÌÅÏÃÉÆ
ÈÉ
ÂÕÍÎØÒÊÉÅÉ
ÌÕÑ
ÒÎÅÉÕÅÂÌÊÊÓ
ØÂÄÊÉÌÑÂÕÖÛ
àÎÏÃ
ÌÄÄÉÃÅÂÎÕ
Å×ÌÅ
ÄÅÌÚÚ
ÍÎÏÊÑ
ÕÎÅÆ
ÌÕÑ
ÐÎÏÊÑ
ÕÎÅÆ
ÒÃÎÍÉÄÄ
ÌÕ
ÌÒÒÊÂÍÌÅÂÎÕ
Å×ÌÅ
ÂÄ
ÕÎÅ
ÍÎØÒÊÂÌÕÅ
ÂÄ
ÄÂØÒÊÓ
ÂÕÍÎÃÃÉÍÅÛ
á×ÌÅ
ÚÌÍÅÏÌÊ
ÉÃÃÎÃ
ÌÊÎÕÉ
ÍÌÊÊÄ
ÂÕÅÎ
ÔÏÉÄÅÂÎÕ
Å×É
ÌÄÄÏØÒÅÂÎÕ
Å×ÌÅ
Å×É
ÒÃÎÒÎÄÌÊ
ÐÌÄ
ÃÉËÂÉÐÉÑ
ÐÂÅ×
ÌÑÉÔÏÌÅÉ
ÃÂÖÎÃ
ÎÃ
ÑÉÒÅ×Û
âÒÒÊÂÍÌÅÂÎÕÄ
Å×ÌÅ
ÌÃÉ
ÕÎÕÍÎØÒÊÂÌÕÅ
ÌÃÉ
ÃÎÏÅÂÕÉÊÓ
ÒÃÎÍÉÄÄÉÑÆ
ÕÉÖÎÅÂÌÅÉÑÆ
ÌÕÑ
ÍÎÕÑÂÅÂÎÕÌÊÊÓ
ÌÑËÌÕÍÉÑã
ÅÎ
ÄÏÖÖÉÄÅ
ÎÅ×ÉÃÐÂÄÉ
ØÂÄÃÉÒÃÉÄÉÕÅÄ
ÈÎÅ×
ÒÃÌÍÅÂÍÉ
ÌÕÑ
ÒÃÉÍÉÑÉÕÅÛ
á×É
ÒÃÎÒÎÄÌÊ
ÃÉØÌÂÕÄ
ÂÕÍÎÕÄÂÄÅÉÕÅ
ÐÂÅ×
Å×É
äÅÛ
åÉÊÉÕÌ
æÉÕÉÃÌÊ
çÊÌÕ
ÂÕ
ØÏÊÅÂÒÊÉ
ØÌÅÉÃÂÌÊ
ÃÉÄÒÉÍÅÄÛ
á×É
ÄÌØÉ
ÂÄ
ÅÃÏÉ
ÐÂÅ×
ÃÉÖÌÃÑ
ÅÎ
Å×É
èÏÕÂÍÂÒÌÊ
éÎÑÉ
ÌÕÑ
ÌÒÒÊÂÍÌÈÊÉ
äÅÌÅÉ
ÊÌÐÛ
á×ÉÃÉ
ÂÄ
ÕÎ
ÊÉÖÌÊÊÓ
ÍÎÃÃÉÍÅ
ØÌÕÕÉÃ
ÅÎ
ÚÃÌØÉ
ÎÃ
ÃÉÒÃÉÄÉÕÅ
Å×ÌÅ
Å×É
ÃÉÔÏÂÃÉÑ
ÒÃÎÍÉÑÏÃÉÄ
ÎÃ
ØÌÕÑÌÅÎÃÓ
ÑÉÕÄÂÅÂÉÄ
ÐÉÃÉ
ÒÃÎÒÉÃÊÓ
ÌÒÒÊÂÉÑ
ÅÎ
êëìë
äÒÃÂÕÖ
äÅÃÉÉÅ
ÌÄ
ÂÅ
ÂÄ
ÍÏÃÃÉÕÅÊÓ
ÍÎÕÚÂÖÏÃÉÑÛ
íî
ïð
ñòðó
ôòõñö
î÷ñî
î÷õ
ôõöîïøïôñîïóù
óø
ïîõ
óïîîõ
ðõ
õöñò
öõ
ïöõ
ñù
ôöïîïôñò
ôóùðï õöñîïóùð
÷ïòõ
í
ó
ùóî
ñîîöï
îõ
î÷ñî
óïððïóù
îó
ó
õöðóùñòò
óö
îó
ïî
õùî
öõð
ñù
í
ñôùóòõ õ
î÷ñî
ôóööõôîïù
ïî
ïð
ùõïî÷õö
ðïòõ
ùóö
ïô
ïî
ùóùõî÷õòõðð
öõñïùð
î÷õ
öõðóùðïïòïî
óø
ïî
ðîñøø
ñù
òîïñîõò
î÷õ
ïî
ó
ùôïò
îó
õùð
öõ
î÷ñî
î÷óðõ
õøïôïõùôïõð
ñöõ
ï õùîïøïõ
ñù
ôóööõôîõ
õøóöõ
ñòòóïù
î÷õ
öóóðñò
îó
öóôõõ
÷õ
òñùùïù
óïððïóù
øñïòõ
îó
ó
ðó
íùðîõñ
ïî
ô÷óðõ
îó
òóó
ñðî
î÷óðõ
õøïôïõùôïõð
öõôóõù ñîïóù
öó
ù õ
ïù
ïùð
øøïôïõùî
öïóö
ð÷ó
ò
õ
öõôóùïõ
øóö
÷ñî
ïî
ñð
ñ
õôïðïóù
öï
õù
õõ ïõùô
öñî÷õö
î÷ñù
ñ
ôóòõîõ
ñù
òõñòò
ñ õ
ñîõ
ñùñòðïð
âÈÄÉÕÅ
Å×ÎÄÉ
ÍÎÃÃÉÍÅÂÎÕÄÆ
Å×É
ÒÃÎÉÍÅ
ÍÌÕÕÎÅ
ÈÉ
ÄÌÂÑ
ÅÎ
×ÌËÉ
ÈÉÉÕ
ÒÃÎÍÉÄÄÉÑ
ÊÉÖÌÊÊÓÆ
ÍÎØÒÊÉÅÉÊÓÆ
ÎÃ
ÂÕ
ÍÎØÒÊÂÌÕÍÉ
ÐÂÅ×
ÖÎËÉÃÕÂÕÖ
ÊÌÐÛ
i^
nf
nsp_e^bc^
^_
c_^l
jl
lfnwc
lunlm
plesn^
mbf
sncnf^lenbgg`
bppe_uld
_c
jl
ls_gn^n_c
plesn^
mbf
bppe_uld
k`
^jl
gbccncw
_ssnffn_c
_c
\_
bpplbgf
mlel
faksn^^ld
bcd
^jl
bpplbg
plen_df
jbul
gbpfld
¢
ulf^f
^jl
_edncbcolf
elwagb^n_cf
o_dlf
r_e
^jl
pe_·lo^
^jl
db^l
^jl
pelgnsncbe`
bppgnob^n_c
mbf
faksn^^ld
!
ª"©#§©$°©±ª©%#&³°¨¬¾#¦¬ª³¨#³''©§©%#¥®#(¦´¦§¦#)³§©¨±©¨ nc
jle
gl^^le
^_
^jl
_acong
nf
c_^
bgg_mld
k`
gbmh
ð
ó
ñöõ
ññöõ
íùøóöñîïóù
ñð
öó
ï õ
î÷ñî
ïöõôîò
ôó
ùîõöõ
ñù
ô÷ñòòõùõ
î÷õ
ôóùôò
ðïóùð
óø
î÷õ
ïðîóöïô
*õóöî
÷ñî
ïùøóöñîïóù
ñð
ùóî
ôóùðï õöõ
õðïîõ
õïù
öõðõùîõ
óù
î÷õ
öõôóö
íõ ïñîõò
î÷õöõñøîõö
î÷õ
ïî
ñð
øóöñòò
òñôõ
óù
Agenda Item #11.3.