Retain a good DUI defense attorney---one who can put together a good mitigation package for you in the event there is no viable defense. This is serious because it can be charged as a felony. Get back into the program right away.
That particular question is a little dicey because at one time in your life you did stand convicted of reckless driving. A "no" answer can be justified on the grounds that (1) It has since been expunged; and/or (2) it was a minor traffic offense. The problem is that they will still see it with a background check, so you are probably better off stating you were convicted of reckless driving but the conviction has been expunged. You do not have to add "wet" because there is no such word in the...
The taking of your blood without a warrant may have been a violation of the Fourth and 14th amendments, and if so, it could result in the suppression of the blood-alcohol evidence. The accident and hospital setting may give rise to a finding that exigent circumstances were sufficient to constitute an exception to the warrant requirement. You should retain a lawyer to explore possible defenses, and if there is no viable defense, to at least mitigate the consequences for you.
It depends on a host of factors, not the least of which is the county where your new case is pending. The minimum sentence on a third offense is 120 days jail, but sometimes the sentence can be served on a jail alternative such as home detention. Some prosecutors and judges will want more time, and some will deny jail alternatives. You should consult with a local attorney and strongly entertain a treatment program.
A "rising blood-alcohol" is frequently relied upon as a defense in APS suspension hearings with the California DMV---most often where the test results are at, or just above, the .08 percent per se level. You typically need an expert witness for this defense along with an experienced DUI defense attorney.
If you can afford an attorney hire one. You may still have a viable defense notwithstanding your statements to the police (a person with a .22 alcohol level is too impaired to give reliable information, and there might also be a Miranda issue here). Even if the attorney cannot get you out of the soup, he or she might be able to mitigate things for you. If you cannot afford a private attorney, ask for a public defender.
Hearsay evidence is admissible in administrative hearings, but over timely objection it may not be the sole basis for any finding. Believe it or not, the DMV does not have to prove you actually drove in a refusal action---just that the officer had probable cause that you had been. You should ask for a continuance of the hearing so you can get an attorney.
The chances of your getting a "wet reckless" offer are low , but it depends on the county and the nature and extent of your potential defenses. Some prosecutors are willing to do it if your need to avoid a DUI is critical to your employment.