Calistoga commission recommends interim objective design standards for three reuse parcels

The Calistoga Planning Commission voted 4–0 on Feb. 14 to recommend that the City Council adopt interim objective design standards to be applied to three reuse parcels when a proposed multifamily project dedicates 20% of its units to lower‑income households.

Interim planning and building director Sandra Meyer told commissioners staff recommended the commission “adopt the resolution recommending to the city council approval of the proposed objective standards to be applied to the 3 parcels” if the affordability condition is met. Meyer outlined the non‑discretionary development standards that would still apply, including setbacks, lot coverage, maximum height, development impact fees and a baseline parking requirement of two spaces per dwelling unit plus guest parking at a rate of one space per four units.

Commission discussion centered on how the local standards interact with state housing law. One commissioner raised concerns that outside groups had argued objective standards could reduce residential capacity under SB 330; Chair Wilks asked staff to have the city attorney respond to a written letter from the California Housing Defense Fund. Meyer told the commission Calistoga is not subject to SB 35 because the city met its RHNA allocation in both total number and affordability categories; the proposed standards are standalone objective design standards, not incorporated into the zoning ordinance.

Commissioners generally supported the edits proposed by Chair Wilks, while several said they remained uneasy about parking requirements but could approve the recommendation knowing parking details can be refined. Chair Wilks disclosed a phone conversation with parcel owner Jorge Hernandez and commissioners recorded that disclosure in the public record.

By motion, the commission adopted a resolution recommending council approval of the interim standards (resolution referenced in the record as PCE 2024) for the three reuse parcels, to be superseded later by citywide objective design standards developed under the housing element timeline. The item will return to the council calendar after staff finalizes attorney review and the commission’s redline amendments.

What happens next: the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council; staff indicated the ADU‑related zoning amendment and related items are set for follow up on the commission’s Feb. 28 agenda.