Resident raises safety, size and builder-reputation concerns about Spring Grove; commission discusses ad hoc subcommittee and process steps

A resident told the St. Helena Planning Commission on March 18 that City Ventures’ Spring Grove housing project is too large for the neighborhood and raised concerns about stormwater runoff, potential damage to an oak tree and the developer’s local reputation.

Pat Friday, who said she lives in town, urged the commission to “rezone the area to medium density so it can be 2‑story units” and said neighbors preferred two‑story buildings over the three‑story design planned for Spring Grove. Friday also told commissioners she had reviewed consumer complaints about City Ventures, saying the Better Business Bureau gives the company an “F” rating and that she found Yelp and court complaints alleging leak, tile and construction defects and, in some cases, pollution. “There are lots of complaints and reviews listed on the Better Business Bureau site,” she said.

The remarks came during the meeting’s public forum, when the commission does not deliberate on items not on the agenda. Director of Community Development Virginia DeRosa told the commission staff had posted a set of Spring Grove FAQs on the project website explaining basic processes, including how project density is calculated and how residents can submit comments. DeRosa said the developer is creating a project website to answer questions about their work and reputation, and staff had sent the FAQs to a neighborhood liaison who had inquired about the project.

DeRosa offered a procedural step to ensure allegations are included in the project record: she said she could ask staff to capture the public comment video and place it in the developer’s application record so the comments accompany future formal hearings on the project.

Commissioners discussed whether to form an ad hoc subcommittee to engage earlier with the project’s design and with neighbors. A commissioner reported they had asked the city attorney about the matter and were told the commission may create ad hoc subcommittees; the commission could place a future agenda item to formally create a Spring Grove ad hoc subcommittee limited to two commission members and without staff membership. Commissioners cautioned, however, that ad hoc groups not subject to the Brown Act can create record‑keeping and transparency risks if discussions are disputed later.

No official action on Spring Grove was taken at the March 18 meeting. Staff said it will continue posting project materials and suggested the commission consider a future agenda item if it wants to form an ad hoc subcommittee or adopt formal procedures for early community engagement.

Ending: The Spring Grove project is expected to return to the commission as a formal application; staff and commissioners said they would bring follow‑up items — including the posted FAQs and a proposal to consider an ad hoc subcommittee — to a future meeting so the commission can decide whether to take further steps on early design review and recordkeeping.