Residents and experts press Saint Helena council to slow Spring Grove housing project over fire, water and code concerns
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents, engineers and attorneys urged the Saint Helena City Council to pause consideration of the Spring Grove housing tentative map, citing a third‑party fire‑safety review that alleges multiple code violations, unresolved water‑supply questions and claimed noncompliance with objective standards. Council voted to continue the item to collect staff and counsel responses.
Dozens of residents, engineers and attorneys told the Saint Helena City Council that the proposed Spring Grove housing project raises specific, quantifiable public‑safety risks and legal noncompliance, and asked the council to delay final action until the city completes additional analysis.
Speakers said a third‑party report by Zari Consulting, submitted to the record on Jan. 26, identifies alleged fire‑access and suppression shortfalls: a single access road for 41 units where the municipal code requires two for developments over 30 units, a dead‑end street length exceeding the 150‑foot California Fire Code limit, hose‑reach and setback shortfalls between buildings and roads, and no demonstrated evacuation modeling under high‑wind, ember‑driven wildfire conditions. Tamara Sorensen, representing neighbors who funded the report, said it “provides a preponderance of evidence showing specific unavoidable adverse impacts on public health and safety” and asked the council to require verified modeling and testing before moving forward.
Other speakers raised water‑supply and water‑neutrality concerns, noting recent boil‑water notices and asking staff to document distribution‑system capacity, peak fire‑flow pressures, and worst‑case hydraulic performance. Architect Michelle Lou Covell and others said the staff’s general‑plan consistency analysis omits several policies and that “mostly consistent” is not the same as compliance with objective standards. Several commenters asked the council to reduce project density to avoid triggering the two‑road requirement.
Staff attorneys told the council that Government Code section 65589.5 (as discussed in the staff report) and related state housing laws limit denial to cases where objective standards are not met and where written findings supported by the preponderance of the evidence exist. Consulting planner Mike Janacek said staff is collecting documentation on occupancy and affordable‑unit replacement requirements and would condition final approvals on completion of those investigations.
After extended public testimony and legal briefing requests, the council voted unanimously to continue Item 11.1 to a future date so staff and the city attorney can respond to the Zari report and late attorney letters. City Attorney Walsh reminded the council there is statutory time pressure under the permit‑streamlining act, noting the council has limited hearing opportunities and that final action must occur on or before March 10 to avoid automatic approvals under the relevant statute.
What happens next: staff and the city attorney will prepare written responses and additional technical analyses (fire‑safety, water‑supply, and occupancy documentation) for the council and the public ahead of the continued hearing. The council’s continuation preserves time to evaluate mitigation options, which speakers urged could include lower density, a second access road, or verified evacuation and hydraulic modeling.
