[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6559039,"mediaKeyId","3219673-c571aa4fab24fcabb84a4932917a44a2","parentId",3219673,"title","Planning commission approves Saint Helena Community Church renovation, CUP and design review at 1343 Spring Street","audioSeconds",4045,"startMs",1980000,"endMs",6025000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219673-c571aa4fab24fcabb84a4932917a44a2&start=1980&end=6025","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219673-c571aa4fab24fcabb84a4932917a44a2/thumbnail_1980000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6559039/California/Planning-commission-approves-Saint-Helena-Community-Church-renovation-CUP-and-design-review-at-1343-Spring-Street","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559039-79bb058d7e1167a57af1ff9c1f74ac04/orig.mp4?Expires=1771046753&Signature=WORPJ1kpMzDJpnkFs3TkuNTfM3asA9mb3vylcveqfwHN~Bn5qBL2jfa7yt9J0IH8gWOSmUIVpf1024eWwrNspd3pUuz4pW5kiSNP4wrPA7cyARoFMutZG-ZnQ9LOExBhgzNaiDkMHzIVn5xSVYtxgwrDVo1E2kvmGGmr~hTmhrtmifPSCwO~jS9pmziH~nwJOqUvqumyczHgsSHwU3VPgNfkjNwrFMumVfQbIWRLbTA2qxVS7L4FojtcCORhzeVL~ZgKhj9~YNqNLfwQ1TdbR0o28q6mJ2gwF-UVbiUNd7XOlHkPu1XVXX~I19yXW86OlQv7MEg6zQvBGFGWfp518g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-08T00:52:57.733Z","article","The Planning Commission on May 6 approved a conditional use permit amendment and major design review for the Saint Helena Community Church project at 1343 Spring Street, voting unanimously to adopt a CEQA exemption and authorize renovation, demolition of later additions, new construction and associated site work.

Planning staff presented the item and recommended three actions: (1) find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the applicable categorical exemptions, (2) approve the conditional use permit amendment to allow church use on a property with a history as the Saint Helena Montessori School, and (3) approve major design review for the restoration and new construction. The motion, moved and seconded during the hearing, passed on a roll call vote of 5–0.

Project summary and staff findings

City project manager Linda Roofing (North Coast Community Planning, presenting for staff) described the proposal from Centric Building Inc. and the Saint Helena Community Church. The project would restore the historic residence‑turned‑church (original house constructed in 1874, converted in the mid‑1950s), remove three nonhistoric additions, construct a chancel extension, add a covered exterior podium and a new unconditioned Sunday school classroom (a greenhouse‑style polycarbonate structure), and build an attached support services building with a two‑story parsonage and storage. Site work includes new parking, landscaping, hardscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting and a monument sign. The address is 1343 Spring Street in the Public/Quasi‑Public zoning district and within the Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staff summarized the historic‑resource evaluation prepared for the project and reported the assessment concluded the property is no longer eligible for state or national registers because of loss of integrity, though it remains on the local register. Staff recommended findings that the project preserves distinctive historic features (notably the arched windows on the south elevation), that additions are clearly new and removable, and that where possible deteriorated features will be repaired rather than replaced.

Parking, operations and conditions

Under the zoning code parking standards staff calculated a need for 23 spaces (assembly, office, residential). The project proposes 10 on‑site spaces (including accessible spaces) and a lease agreement for 13 spaces with the nearby Catholic church; staff recommended a parking management plan and a recorded parking agreement to avoid neighborhood impacts. Staff also recommended amending a condition so that if the off‑site parking lease were modified or restricted the church would need to notify the city and provide an alternative off‑site plan (which may require a use permit amendment). A separate condition limits activities to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and requires compliance with the city noise ordinance.

CEQA and other legal considerations

Staff recommended the commission find the project exempt from CEQA under the categorical exemptions for repair/maintenance and small new construction (CEQA Guidelines §§15301–15303 as discussed in the staff report). Staff also noted the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and advised the city must apply land‑use rules consistently to similar uses; staff concluded the proposed conditions are consistent with federal requirements.

Public comment and applicant presentation

Architect Ollie Lundberg (Lundberg Design) described the design approach: preserve and visually differentiate new work from historic fabric, expose and celebrate existing framing where appropriate, and use reclaimed materials such as large limestone panels acquired opportunistically. Celeste White (project owner) described the congregation’s interest in restoring the building and returning it to active use. Landscape architect E. Maria White described a water‑efficient planting plan with shade trees and two bioretention areas to manage roof and pavement runoff; she said the design aims to keep the site open and community‑friendly.

Commission discussion and vote

Commissioners praised the design and the restoration emphasis and asked questions about historic windows, the greenhouse classroom’s comfort in heat/cold, existing redwood siding, and fire‑wise plant selection (commissioner comment flagged Italian cypress as potentially flammable). Staff and the project team addressed those questions on preservation approach, ventilation and fans for the classroom, and landscape choices; the team said they will review fire‑wise planting and minimize flammable mulch near structures.

Commissioner Warner moved (seconded by Commissioner Lopez) to: (1) find the project exempt from CEQA under the cited categorical exemptions; (2) adopt the findings and approve the conditional use permit amendment subject to the recommended and amended conditions of approval; and (3) adopt the findings and approve major design review subject to the recommended conditions and the amended CUP conditions. The roll call vote was Vice Chair Warner — yes; Commissioner Lopez — yes; Commissioner Furdick — yes; Commissioner Anderson — yes; Chair Ponte — yes. The motions carried 5–0.

The approvals include the conditions described in the staff report: recordation of a parking agreement and parking management plan, operational hours limits (7 a.m.–10 p.m.), water‑neutrality findings based on prior use permits, preservation and restoration of identified historic features, and the staff‑recommended modification that removes a prior restriction preventing use of the covered patio as assembly space (the condition was struck per staff recommendation). If the off‑site parking agreement is changed or restricted the church must notify the city and propose an alternative.

Next steps: the applicant may proceed to building permits and implementation consistent with the approved plans and conditions; staff will review detailed lighting and building permit submittals for compliance with the conditions and applicable codes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 06 May 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved a conditional use permit amendment and major design review to convert the former Montessori school building at 1343 Spring Street into the Saint Helena Community Church with restoration, a new classroom, support services/parsonage and landscaping; approval includes parking conditions and CEQA exemption findings.","taxTitle","Saint Helena, Napa County, California","taxId",55592,"location","California","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6559044,"Planning commission continues Kid Ranch tentative parcel map to June 17 after flag‑lot questions",1630,341000,1971000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219673-c571aa4fab24fcabb84a4932917a44a2&start=341&end=1971","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219673-c571aa4fab24fcabb84a4932917a44a2/thumbnail_341000.jpg","/articles/6559044/California/Planning-commission-continues-Kid-Ranch-tentative-parcel-map-to-June-17-after-flaglot-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559044-350ed881fa801e61a0ac26ad377b7274/orig.mp4?Expires=1771046753&Signature=LcuU3inQZbpr8fIfsvGPuylGKumASt~pbvYjaKF2ZLFrJAvYflqfPjMK~8PYcSaVQXk2DfswGc~eJyEtahzZPseM06qbHaK0~4mTOzJbk97HBj4iCT3~21VV4WzN2JjDBxFaQMS74Bi1yLUylw1ARiJFTfb31oV76JcYHE0BSYTapXHexvll77aakrjWKowWi5VHX~go0KnWxx8Na5HtPtpEX-exqeZrMFyZ352tIJpI1j9eMJk1czN2JQozfqzZfg3B2VpsRJe8zVkyw2qzmwK9rIOgQuJ1dnDRnJ7wD4V7QEXgAHVtoi-c6fh~hE6bC6VaEaZRMDrkekKClNGf8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saint Helena Planning Commission on May 6 voted to continue consideration of a tentative parcel map for a 1.696‑acre property at 710 Kid Ranch Road after staff and the city attorney advised the commission the subdivision likely must be processed as a flag lot, which the application had not proposed.

The continuance came after the applicant said she and her team had spent roughly two months and about $25,000 preparing the subdivision with a shared‑driveway easement, only to be told 30 hours before the meeting that the city believed the lot must include the ‘‘flagpole’’ as part of the new parcel. Chair Ponte opened the public hearing and ultimately the commission set a date certain of June 17 to allow staff and the applicant to meet and, if necessary, bring a revised application back for further review.

City planning staff introduced the procedural issue. Director Maya DeRosa told the commission staff consulted the city attorney and determined the zoning code includes a provision requiring certain flag‑pole lots to include the pole within the parcel (transcript citation). Because that interpretation affects how the applicant configured the subdivision, staff recommended continuing the item so the applicant could either revise the plans or package conditional use permit (CUP) and design review materials together for an all‑in one hearing. DeRosa said July 15 would be a realistic single consolidated date but staff could try to accommodate a two‑step approach with a June 17 tentative map hearing followed by design review later.

Applicant Katie McDonald told the commission she had followed city staff direction and prepared the lot split with a shared‑driveway easement. McDonald said the change in interpretation—communicated very shortly before the hearing—had forced the team into an impasse and asked for clarity so they would not continue spending design and engineering funds only to be told to redo the work. Miles McDonough, who spoke for the applicants, described repeated, costly iterations and said prior city advice had at times reversed; he pressed for a predictable process.

Commissioners and staff walked through the practical constraints. Staff and the applicant noted that if the subdivision were processed as a flag lot the existing accessory dwelling unit on the front parcel would become nonconforming (the applicant estimated it would be about three feet from a new property line), and that the unbuilt frontage road providing alternate access would require about $400,000 of public work to open another access route. Commissioners emphasized that the commission could not act on a parcel map that did not meet the city attorney’s current interpretation of the code.

After discussion, Commissioner Lopez moved and the commission seconded a motion to continue the item to the June 17 meeting (the commission recorded that the continuation could be changed again if needed). The roll call vote on the continuance was: Vice Chair Warner — yes; Commissioner Lopez — yes; Commissioner Anderson — yes; Commissioner Furdick — yes; Chair Ponte — yes.

Next steps: staff said it will meet with the applicant the day after the hearing, review design and setback implications and discuss whether the applicant prefers a June 17 two‑step schedule (tentative parcel map followed by design review) or a consolidated July hearing. The commission and applicant agreed the date certain gives the applicant an earlier opportunity to return if revised materials can be prepared.

The commission did not take further action on the substance of the subdivision at the May 6 meeting and did not make findings on the merits; the item remains continued to a future hearing.

","The Planning Commission continued a request to subdivide a 1.696‑acre parcel on Kid Ranch Road after staff and the city attorney concluded the proposal must be treated as a flag lot under the municipal code; the applicant may return June 17 or request a consolidated July hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission approves Saint Helena Community Church renovation, CUP and design review at 1343 Spring Street

Planning commission continues Kid Ranch tentative parcel map to June 17 after flag‑lot questions