Remote Surveillance Trailer in St. Helena, CA

A collective sigh of disappointment filled the crowded St. Helena City Council board room Tuesday night, Feb. 10, as a highly contested 41-unit housing project proposed for Spring Street received approval to move forward.

After three hours of discussion, the council greenlit the 2.5-acre Spring Grove project’s tentative map in a 3-1 vote. Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy cast the dissenting vote and Council member Billy Summers was not in attendance.

“I don’t like this,” Council member Kate Spadarotto said. But given state law that promotes home building and the city’s adopted housing goals, she said, “I don’t see any substantial leg for us to stand on in saying we need to deny this.”

Since the project first came before the Planning Commission in January last year, neighbors have expressed concerns over potential increases in noise and traffic, issues around stormwater management, fire safety risks, and potential changes to the neighborhood’s character. Last month, some neighbors even enlisted attorneys to back up their claims. In public comment Tuesday, they suggested the city may face litigation from neighbors.

City staff, meanwhile, have found the project complies with the general plan and all applicable standards. In November, a design review for site plan layout, architecture, parking and landscaping was found to be consistent with the city’s design standards and approved by staff. In December, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a demolition permit for the existing three homes at the site.

The city’s ability to modify or reject the project is limited, City Attorney Ethan Walsh said, due to state law requiring cities to approve housing developments that meet zoning and land use standards. A denial, he said, would require declaring the project would have an unavoidable “specific adverse impact on public health or safety.”

At the meeting Tuesday, eight residents emphasized that their major concern was fire safety, specifically the threat that the project’s single access point would pose in the event of an emergency evacuation.

“We’re not averse to change,” resident Cameron Crebs said. “Change can be a very healthy thing. But we’re averse to change that comes at the cost of public safety.”

In their presentation, St. Helena Fire Department officials said California Fire Code does not require a secondary access for projects with less than 200 housing units if they have an automatic fire sprinkler system as Spring Grove would. The Fire Department said there are no public safety impacts from the project design.

After continuing the matter twice, the council approved the tentative map for the project Tuesday. This marked the fourth public hearing on the matter, following a Planning Commission meeting last year and two City Council meetings last month. In an effort to streamline housing development, state law permits no more than five public hearings on eligible projects.

Before the developer, San Francisco-based City Ventures, can apply for building permits to begin construction, however, the council must approve the final map and an affordable housing agreement.

City Ventures has proposed a 41-unit multifamily development consisting of six three-story buildings on Spring Street. Each unit would be a three-bedroom townhome-style condominium.

A five-minute walk from downtown, the Spring Grove site is one of 12 identified in St. Helena’s 2023 housing element, part of the city’s long-term plan for developing housing to meet state-mandated goals for affordability and growth.

Under the city’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance, 20% of the units — or eight homes — would be reserved for moderate-income households, or those who earn up to 120% of the area median income. In Napa County, that amounts to an annual income of $176,050 for a family of four.

Throughout the application process, the developer has maintained that the project would expand housing availability, support the local workforce and boost economic development in the city.

Concluding the meeting Tuesday, Mayor Paul Dohring expressed “deep disappointment” that the project was “not really delivering what we need in our community.” While the project meets the city’s guidelines, he said was concerned the units would not be affordable for local workers.

“We’ve got to do better,” he said. “We have other projects likely coming down the road. We need to use all the planning tools we can, and we really need targeted workforce housing.”