St. Helena Window

General Plan Changes

General Plan Changes

As required by law, every municipality must submit a General Plan for their city to the State every 20 years. The process begins, as it did over 5 years ago in St. Helena, with a collective vision for the city by surveying the residents, meetings, focus groups, votes and solicitations for input in many forms. After the visioning process, a group of citizens come together (in our case about 20) and work with consultants to craft a General Plan for the city based upon the Vision Statement. This process is the only citizen input required by law for general urban and county planning, so it is very important to those living in the city long term. St. Helena has spent approximately $1,500,000 on the GP so far. The General Plan drives the Zoning Code which enables people to know what the City has decided is approved or not for their homes and businesses. It has a direct impact on quality of life, income, safety, the environment and is a value statement about where we live. Once the General Plan is approved by the City Council it becomes law.

This current General Plan has been delayed unnecessarily for over 5 years because City Council members in office did not want to approve certain aspects that were in it, most notably planning features that affect the east side of town, where many officials have interests, and affordable housing.

1. AUGUST 2014: WHERE THE GENERAL PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS IS NOW.
AS OF APRIL, 2015, THE CHANGES APPEAR TO BE INCLUDED, PLEASE CHECK EACH ELEMENT.

The City Council has issued a March 11, 2014 changes to the 2010 General Plan, attached to the Staff Report for the March 10 meeting, that was previously approved by the Planning Commission.

2. LIST OF PROBLEMATIC CHANGES FROM STAFF REPORT FOR MARCH 10 CITY COUNCIL MTG. BY ELEMENT:
Cover Sheet to Documents Below -- please read this first. It has a legend and explanations.
Land Use Element
Economic Sustainability Element
Circulation Element
Community Design and Open Space Elements
Climate Change, Parks and Recreation & Arts and Cultural Elements
Opening Statement Pages to each Element not included in the Staff Report - Deleted?
Zoning Map, 2010 General Plan
Current Zoning Map on City Website

Elements not listed here were deemed to have no problematic changes in them.
The Housing element has not been completed yet but is due in June 2014.

3. General Plan Survey Results

4. LIST OF COURT DECISIONS THAT ENFORCE GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS:

1974 -- Subdivision Map Act re-codified from the Business and Professions Code into the State Planning and Zoning Law within the Government Code.
1975 -- Legislature clarifies statute on general plans’ internal consistency.
1980 -- Detailed content standards and adoption procedures added to the housing element requirement. Appeals court says public works must be consistent with general plans(Friends of B Street).
1982 -- Appeals court says land use and circulation elements must correlate (Twaine Harte).
1984 -- Planning statutes substantially revised, seismic safety and scenic highways elements dropped as required elements, seismic safety merged with safety element.
1990 -- California Supreme Court says zoning in conflict with the general plan invalid (Lesher v.Walnut Creek)

5. RESOURCE INFORMATION:

California State General Plan Guidelines -- This is a book but it is all here. For just the laws, check out the list of applicable State Codes (see link below) that apply to General Plans. The ones which are currently most relevant to St. Helena are highlighted.

2013 Updated Guidelines for Complete Streets.
State Law List Re General Plans
Zoning 101 by Carol Poole, previous Planning Director for St. Helena
Final General Plan Update Citizens Survey Results
Map of St. Helena
The Crux of the Hunter Controversy (with maps)
Levee Location

Previous versions of changed General Plan:
November 12, 2013 Staff Report of General Plan Changes
November 26, 2013 Staff Report of General Plan Changes.
All General Plan Changes as Identified by the City in Print. - Dec., 2013

6. VIDEO CLIP on cultural diversity, a sample of Council discussion for General Plan changes.


  • commented 2014-03-02 16:01:39 -0800
    On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Pat Dell wrote:

    Sandy, I read this and showed it to Grace. We both disagree with you on a few points. First of all it is not true that there is only land on the East side of town that is appropriate for housing. In the Housing Element Final 2009 the key opportunity sites are listed on pages 116-118. There are 12 sites and 8 of them are on the West side of town. We (Housing Committee) sent letters to all owners and as I recall only two of them answered. Our question to them was whether they would be interested then or in the future to sell their property making it clear that the letter did not constitute an offer to buy. The two property owners who answered did so in the negative and the rest didn’t answer. However, those sites are still listed in the Housing Element. In number 4 paragraph two we believe your evaluation of what happened with the property transactions between the City and Dennis Hunter is not correct. The City needed to buy land along the river to build terraces and land where the levee was to be built. You are right they couldn’t afford both. Approximately one year before the Hunter negotiations the City bought the land where the detention basin now exists from Disney/Miller. Then the City paid Dick McDonnell for the land along the river. Hunter gave land where the levee is now located in exchange for a part of the property that the City had purchased from Disney/Miller. This runs adjacent to the old VV flood wall. Hunter already owned some land west of that land that was not in the flood plain and on which he always could have build houses. The City also made a deal with Hunter to deposit dirt dug from the terraces on his land which they apparently did not compact properly according to Mr. Hunter resulting in a lawsuit. You say the flood project was built for Vineyard Valley and we really take issue with that. It was built to protect that property but also Hunts Grove apartments. I always like to mention the river restoration because it was a huge part of the expense of building the project. Thanks for reading. Pat
  • commented 2013-09-10 23:03:32 -0700
    I attended the CC meeting tonight hoping to hear some thorough discussion of the ongoing, ongoing, ongoing, General Plan. Unfortunately our CC spent 2+ hours dissecting the small winery ordinance that had already been thoroughly vetted by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Chair Matthew Heil tried to save the day by suggesting further work by the Planning Commission in which they would consider the CC concerns but to no avail even though they agreed with Matthew’s plan. They like the everready battery just kept going. Finally they got to the General Plan with ensuing discussion of the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element. There was strong support in the room from folks who wanted the General Plan left as it was written. Sandra Ericson gave an excellent overview of the process and emphasized that the CC has exceeded the 2-year time period the State allows for updates or revisions and so they may need to send the changes back to the Planning Commission and possible even have a new EIR. These comments were completely ignored. John Sales, Lorraine Stuart and Jack Stuart all appealed to the CC to either facilitate the process or go with the Plan as written and completed 5 years ago. Jack Stuart pointed out the need to retain the street extensions Pat Dell ask them to not remove the street extension language and to consider the needs of seniors. Chuck Vondra got up and characterized her ideas as foolish. Sandra again got up and reviewed for new people in town and those watching what the St.Helena Residents for Responsible Growth is, how it was begun and who started it namely Chuck Vondra and Wendell Laidley. She referred to it currently as a political machine. I left at about 10:00 and came home to watch the completion. The Council members all looked exhausted and it is hard to believe they can make wise and informed decisions when they are that tired. They now plan to discuss the General Plan in a “special meeting” that will be recorded on a video camera and available somehow at a later date to the public who will then not have an opportunity to comment. Pat Dell

Big thanks to Chuck O'Rear for his wonderful 1997 photo of the Elm Tunnel. share this page