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

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.