[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6378196,"mediaKeyId","2138327-a873b6f18aa5c496979377142ede5d38","parentId",2138327,"title","Planning commission continues 710 Kid Ranch demolition hearing after applicant raises deed‑restriction and permit‑timing dispute","audioSeconds",2581,"startMs",5031000,"endMs",7612000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138327-a873b6f18aa5c496979377142ede5d38&start=5031&end=7612","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138327-a873b6f18aa5c496979377142ede5d38/thumbnail_5031000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6378196/California/Planning-commission-continues-710-Kid-Ranch-demolition-hearing-after-applicant-raises-deedrestriction-and-permittiming-dispute","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6378196-b6926142b7aa18d2e344770196020669/orig.mp4?Expires=1775221778&Signature=KOoXnLoZoVHFlWFHuj2P4kW1XrCAnpsd3Vj9MTsrGA6qFezyPSe5dbRegFNswr9R6vQmUZvG59R33yf0-tecoLBGqhbTF4uUgQJG~1XYZ5qJWc3nEvLZL0u1FYI32akxFSLDgUq1EVQCt54z84TURc4oN1yyynfUbFrZ2jPaMmj9zoM3mbWlznCa5btPDQwcvvhdaDC78pC4k-yCn1mldEUFXTBpzRLVZsWbwe5u~KxQa6cBB6agzFmfMrG8ghG9hZS8ONsHiR7OwcclYCMPbEVrQ1uVKRdKcL0oimxYpcI2FdIa04GPVGWbiOmyw8fzM-cLzzbMW7MDvOp3sonE3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of St. Helena CA","date","2025-01-22T00:29:55Z","article","The Planning Commission on Jan. 21 continued a public hearing on an application by Katie and Miles McDonald to demolish an existing single‑family home and build a new house with a pool and spa at 710 Kid Ranch Road in the medium‑density residential district.

The applicants said the project was first discussed with city staff in 2018 and later submitted as a demolition/design review application in October 2023. In the hearing the applicants told the commission they believe the city has delayed processing the application unreasonably and that, under California permit‑streamlining rules, the city’s failure to act within statutory timeframes may be treated as approval. The applicants submitted a written “notice of violation” during the hearing asserting those timing concerns.

Staff, zoning limits and the deed restriction
City staff told the commission that the parcel is 1.67 acres and that the medium‑density (MR) zone carries a minimum density requirement of 5.1 dwelling units per acre; when applied to a 1.67‑acre lot that minimum equates to a nine‑unit yield (municipal code density calculations are rounded). Staff also said the municipal code limits the maximum floor area on lots over 20,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet; the McDonalds’ proposed new home exceeded that limit by roughly 200 square feet in the current design.

The applicants and their counsel argued the record includes a deed restriction recorded with the original tentative parcel map for the subdivision that limits the number of future lots to four. The applicants said that restriction — which they described as a city‑imposed condition from the original subdivision approval — should control how the density calculation is applied. City legal staff and planning staff said a deed restriction of municipal origin does not itself override current zoning calculations and that there are alternative ways for the applicants to reach compliance (for example, subdividing the property to apply the per‑acre minimum density to smaller lots or adapting the existing structure under legal nonconforming rules). City attorney Todd Leishman said the city’s municipal code, not the applicants’ interpretation of the historic deed restriction, governs the current application review.

Applicants’ procedural claim and staff response
The applicants presented an additional procedural claim at the hearing, saying they had attempted to get the matter scheduled and that the city had exceeded statutory timelines; they submitted a written notice alleging a permit‑streamlining violation (including a claim the application should be deemed approved after an alleged 90‑day delay). Staff and counsel declined to adjudicate that claim at the commission hearing, noting it raises legal questions and potential court remedies. Todd Leishman advised that denial or approval questions in this context could lead to appeals and potential litigation and that the commission’s duty was to apply the municipal code to the matter before it.

Public comment and neighborhood context
Neighbors who addressed the commission described the site as part of a low‑density neighborhood, said the subdivision’s original conditions limited future lot yields, and urged the commission to preserve neighborhood character. Two residents who spoke — including Paul Skinner, who said his family purchased property with the original subdivision and expected a single‑home neighborhood — asked the commission to favor redevelopment that fits the existing pattern. One commenter earlier described the hearing process as “Kafkaesque” and urged the city to use tools such as continuances or variances when appropriate to avoid repeated re‑submittals.

Action and next steps
After discussion, the commission agreed to continue the public hearing to the March 4 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicants and staff to meet and attempt to resolve outstanding interpretation and submittal questions. A motion to continue to March 4 passed unanimously. The commission recorded a roll‑call vote: Vice Chair Warner — yes; Commissioner Lopez — yes; Commissioner Anderson — yes; Commissioner Furdeck — yes; Chair Ponte — yes.

What the continuance means
The continuance preserves the applicants’ ability to pursue further discussion with staff before the commission takes a final decision. At the hearing staff advised the commission that, were the commission to deny the application and that denial were upheld on appeal, the municipal code can restrict refiling a substantially similar application for one year; staff also said the applicants could alternatively submit a parcel map subdivision application applying the minimum density per new lot if they chose that route. The applicants said they intended to work with staff but also left on the record their timing and legal concerns.

Ending
The Planning Commission left the public hearing open and continued the matter to its March 4 meeting so staff and the McDonalds can attempt further discussions on code interpretation and submittal changes before the commission acts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 21 Jan 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission on Jan. 21 continued a public hearing on an application by Katie and Miles McDonald to demolish an existing single‑family home and build a new house with a pool and spa at 710 Kid Ranch Road in the medium‑density residential district.","taxTitle","Saint Helena, Napa County, California","taxId",55592,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6378202,"City Ventures presents 41‑unit Spring Grove townhome concept; neighbors raise fire, water and parking concerns",4748,285000,5033000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2138327-a873b6f18aa5c496979377142ede5d38&start=285&end=5033","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2138327-a873b6f18aa5c496979377142ede5d38/thumbnail_285000.jpg","/articles/6378202/California/City-Ventures-presents-41unit-Spring-Grove-townhome-concept-neighbors-raise-fire-water-and-parking-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6378202-6ef41fd0e341b3c6e2852bab52077923/orig.mp4?Expires=1775221778&Signature=LT5PNK5pnl-hxNkt8-4tQyr7xVB12ZV3uuQuoQVdCKGP7-EsGlMcHq7rM3~JIQg3eKX8jP8Szp17SQiSWX0c15B~kpgx~a1V60bgrjI6rjW-0kaQ3xQh7XzrzbFYdPxGxDtwCRi59HSG1AVPII5af8pap7xCxdwkoHQGg5b-v~r9ZnOsP~5XB8nXplNLoAYA45frndKMgB4GfOJ~x7eqBzvsPl-rjZPYeF~4~0AxelUFeqz8DcUl0cdn7jbofefwqrKcqeog1XvDQBEcVgCGrTkBIA~mh0Ics8kVr--iH~FGFEBogxGQ1Q5NKayjJsDSGk943xgISkz0v2Ynq3nYiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City Ventures presented a preliminary plan for a 41‑unit townhome development called Spring Grove to the Saint Helena Planning Commission on Jan. 21, saying the proposal includes 41 townhome units on an assemblage of three parcels on Spring Street and eight deed‑restricted affordable units. Planning staff described the project as a pre‑submittal concept and said the formal application is incomplete.

The company’s lead presenter, Kelso Barnett of City Ventures, told the commission, “we're here tonight to primarily listen,” and outlined a plan for 41 for‑sale townhomes across 2.53 acres at 1447, 1505 and 1515 Spring Street, with 33 market units and eight deed‑restricted units. Staff planner Mike Janacek reviewed procedural rules and state housing law, saying, “SB 330 is an amendment to the Housing Accountability Act,” and noting the project would require a tentative subdivision map, design review, a possible density bonus and two public hearings: once before the Planning Commission and, if forwarded, before City Council.

Why it matters: the site is designated in the city housing element as an opportunity site and sits in a high‑density residential zone. The developer says the design sits at the low end of allowable density — roughly 16.2 dwelling units per acre — and that state housing streamlining laws limit local discretion if a project meets objective standards. Neighbors said the project’s scale, single access point and proximity to a creek create public‑safety, traffic, flooding and neighborhood‑character concerns that they want addressed before any formal application proceeds.

What the plan would include and what staff said
City Ventures described Spring Grove as 41 townhome units in six three‑story buildings, with attached two‑car garages, 26% site coverage proposed (below the 55% allowed in the HR zone), building heights up to about 38 feet, more than double the required common open space and deed‑restricted affordable units making up 20% of the project. The applicant said units would range roughly 1,500–1,800 square feet and be 100% electric with solar and EV prewiring.

Staff said the submitted materials are currently incomplete and reiterated the entitlement path: a complete application would trigger a consistency review, CEQA environmental review, and then two public hearings (Planning Commission and City Council) with a roughly six‑to‑eight month timeline once the application is complete.

Public concerns and commissioner questions
Residents who live adjacent to the site raised numerous concerns during a lengthy public comment period: traffic and on‑street parking on Spring Street, single vehicular access and emergency egress, groundwater and flood risk near a creek on the southwest of the site, building height and loss of privacy, and the potential that for‑sale units could become second homes rather than housing for local workers. Representative comments included:
- Clark McCormack (1451 Spring Street): questioned parking and emergency access, saying the design “is an enclosed compound, an entity unto itself” and expressing concern about “one entrance, one exit.”
- Sandy Scott (Voorhees Circle): said she “sleep[s] with my door open, and I listen to the coyotes and the frogs,” and feared noise and light pollution.
- Susan Calcagno (1380 Hasty Court): raised affordability concerns, noting nearby townhomes currently sell near $800,000–$1,000,000 and asking whether the proposed units will serve local workers.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on the project’s by‑right status under state law. Vice Chair Warner asked staff to “make as clear as possible … what makes this a by‑right site,” and city counsel/consultant and staff said that if a final application meets the city’s objective design standards and state requirements, local discretion under SB 330 and density bonus rules is limited. Staff emphasized that the applicant’s current concept has not yet been analyzed for full compliance, and that many questions — including parking layout, circulation and flood/drainage technical studies — will be addressed during completeness review and subsequent technical submittals.

Developer response and next steps
City Ventures representatives said they will continue to take and incorporate neighborhood feedback and that landscaping, screening and community meeting(s) are planned. Barnett said the company hopes to market units to first‑time buyers and local families and noted interest in working with local organizations, such as Our Town Saint Helena, for outreach and to help match deed‑restricted units to eligible buyers.

No formal action
This was a pre‑submittal review and not a decision item. Staff explicitly stated “at this stage, there hasn't been substantive review,” and there was no vote on entitlements. Staff recommended the applicant submit a complete application with technical studies; the commission and public provided verbal input that the applicant said it would consider before resubmittal.

What’s next
The applicant will be asked to submit a complete application (tentative map, design review materials, density bonus requests and required technical studies including traffic and drainage). After a completeness determination, the city will conduct environmental review under CEQA and schedule the required public hearings. The Planning Commission will have at least one hearing and the final action authority for adoption rests with City Council if the project proceeds.

Ending
The project remains at the conceptual stage; neighbors and commissioners said they want written, technical answers on access, flood/drainage, screening and a clear plan to prioritize local buyers for the deed‑restricted units before the formal application moves forward.","City Ventures presented a preliminary plan for a 41‑unit townhome development called Spring Grove to the Saint Helena Planning Commission on Jan. 21, saying the proposal includes 41 townhome units on an assemblage of three parcels on Spring Street and eight deed‑restricted affordable units.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission continues 710 Kid Ranch demolition hearing after applicant raises deed‑restriction and permit‑timing dispute

City Ventures presents 41‑unit Spring Grove townhome concept; neighbors raise fire, water and parking concerns