Calistoga planning commission asks applicant to redo gas-station canopy design, citing gateway concerns

The Calistoga Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue consideration of a design-review application for two canopies at the Fast and Easy Mart, 1108 Lincoln Avenue, asking the applicant to return with revised designs aimed at better fitting the city’s gateway character.

Lauren Clark, assistant planner, presented DesignReview2025-29 and told commissioners the project would install two nonbranded canopies about 26 by 29 feet and 18 feet high over existing fuel dispensers. Clark said the site is a legal nonconforming gas station in the Lincoln Avenue–Foothill Boulevard gateway and that the project is categorically exempt under a Class 1 CEQA exemption; staff recommended approval subject to conditions and corrected a small error in the draft resolution and staff report.

Why it matters: the property sits at an entry corridor into Calistoga where prior planning work and the general plan emphasize contextual designs and gateway treatments. Several commissioners and public commenters said the proposal — a plain white, flat-top canopy — does not satisfy the city’s longstanding design direction for the gateway.

A public commenter who identified himself as a former planning commissioner urged denial, saying the design is “highly generic” and does not “significantly beautify, soften, and better integrate” the site into Calistoga’s character. “I respectfully urge you to deny the application,” the commenter said.

Toya Sapagane, representing the property owner, said the pumps have suffered water-related failures and the operator needs a canopy to protect equipment and customers. Sapagane said the current proposal is plain white but noted the operator’s branding is blue and white and that any future logo would require a separate approval or a conditioned return to the commission.

Commissioners acknowledged the operational need to shelter pumps and reduce stormwater contact with fueling areas — a point staff raised as part of the project’s benefit — but several members pressed for design alternatives. One commissioner noted that recent California laws limit design review to objective standards, asking whether materials and strict aesthetic requirements can be imposed; staff and others replied that the commission can act through design-review criteria and conditions to ensure proposals meet gateway intent.

Multiple commissioners suggested alternatives such as a gabled profile, textured finishes, shingles or tile, or other treatments already referenced in the 2009–2010 gateway work. A commenter who identified himself as Nick asked staff to include the approved 02/2010 design in the packet for reference; commissioners agreed staff should provide those documents to the applicant.

A motion to continue the item so the applicant could bring revised designs was made and seconded; the commission voted 5-0 to continue. Commissioners directed staff to supply the earlier 2009/2010 plan documentation to the applicant and indicated they expect the next submittal to show designs that better respond to the gateway’s historic and small‑town character.

The continuance requires the applicant to return with revised drawings and any requested materials; no final decision was reached at the meeting. The commission had no director’s report and adjourned the meeting.