Calistoga planning commission pauses review of 17‑lot Grant Street subdivision after neighbors raise design, drainage and fire concerns

The Calistoga Planning Commission on March 26 voted to continue the public hearing on a tentative map and design‑review application for a 17‑lot residential subdivision at 2400 Grant Street to the commission meeting of May 28.

Commissioners said the continuance would give the developer and community more time to work on design and technical questions after several neighbors and consultants challenged the project’s environmental analysis, site design and impacts on nearby properties.

Staff presented the application as a preliminary filing received Oct. 23, 2023, under SB 330 (commonly referenced as the Housing Accountability Act), which requires review against objective, written development standards in effect on the filing date. Planning staff told commissioners the project proposes 17 single‑family homes on a 17.97‑acre site with a central open space that would retain a vineyard and include a single‑story clubhouse. Staff concluded the proposal meets the objective standards in the municipal code and recommended approval with conditions, while noting that the commission must weigh testimony at the public hearing.

Neighbors and retained consultants pressed several substantive concerns during the public hearing. Rick Tooker of Tooker Planning Studio, retained by neighbors, said the project relies on an addendum to the 2008 Vineyard Oaks initial study and mitigated negative declaration and urged a more thorough, updated environmental analysis. Dennis Sutro, who lives on Mora Avenue, asked the commission for a 60‑day continuance so neighbors could review documents they received only a few days before the meeting. Several residents raised the prospect that the current addendum does not adequately analyze changed conditions since 2008, citing increased flood and fire risk, noise and light impacts, and the “monolithic” row of largely identical two‑story homes.

Bridal Griggs, who identified herself as the project applicant, and Jeff Stone, CEO of Diamond Construction, described design intentions and community outreach. Griggs said the team had adjusted access and site layout in response to neighborhood feedback and that “we are not going to sell timeshare. We are going to have single owners of single buildings.” Stone described the project as intended to preserve a central vineyard and oak woodland while yielding an economically feasible development and said the team is “open to working with the community.”

Hamid Haydery, civil engineer with the city’s public works department, summarized the applicant’s drainage plans and city master drainage recommendations. Haydery said the applicant will extend a storm drain along Grant Street and design an on‑site detention basin, and that, as proposed, the new drainage would reduce the watershed area draining toward Mora Avenue from 33 acres to 8 acres. He told the commission the project is conditioned to install a 48‑inch storm pipe intended to mitigate a 100‑year flood along the affected reach of Grant/Mora.

Commissioners and residents also debated tree removal and visual impacts. Planning Commissioner Emily (last name not given in transcript) noted the applicant reported retaining about 75% of protected trees and removing about 60 of 227 protected trees, a figure she highlighted when questioning whether the project preserves open space as intended in the rural residential land‑use designation. Multiple neighbors pressed for visual massing tools such as story poles and a full view‑shed analysis. Others asked about deed restrictions the developer said would prohibit fractional ownership and about enforcement of any such restrictions.

After public testimony and follow‑up questions to the applicant, Vice Chair Pinsky moved to continue the hearing; the commission ultimately approved a motion to continue consideration for 60 days. The roll call on the continuance was: Chair Wilkes — no; Vice Chair Pinsky — yes; Commissioner Kaiser — recused; Commissioner Bougainieri — yes; Commissioner Towey — yes. The motion carried. Commissioners instructed staff to facilitate communication between the applicant and neighborhood representatives and asked both sides to return with clarified technical studies and design revisions where appropriate.

The commission did not make a final decision on the tentative map, design review, or the project's environmental findings. The continuance preserves the record while staff and the applicant respond to technical and design questions raised at the hearing.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Continue public hearing on tentative map/design review for 2400 Grant Street to May 28 (60 days). - Mover: Vice Chair Pinsky (as recorded in the hearing) - Second: not specified in the record - Vote tally: Yes — Vice Chair Pinsky, Commissioner Bougainieri, Commissioner Towey (3); No — Chair Wilkes (1); Recused — Commissioner Kaiser (1) - Outcome: Passed (continued to May 28)

Background and why it matters Calistoga’s general plan designates the site as rural residential, a designation the planning staff said allows single‑family development at up to 1 unit per acre. SB 330 limits local discretion by requiring project review against objective standards in effect when a preliminary application is filed; as staff noted, the body may only deny or reduce the density of a project that meets those standards if there is a preponderance of evidence of a specific, adverse, unavoidable public health or safety impact that cannot be mitigated. For the city and neighbors, that legal framework narrows the range of local conditions that the commission can impose without running legal risk, while placing greater emphasis on the objective technical record and CEQA analysis.

What’s next The application will return to the planning commission on May 28 unless the applicant withdraws or requests a different schedule. Commissioners asked staff to coordinate a conduit between the developer and neighborhood representatives, to identify specific technical studies or clarifications needed (drainage, CEQA analysis, tree impact and preservation, fire zone mapping, and view‑shed or massing studies) and to report back with a focused set of issues the commission expects addressed before final action.

Sources: staff report and presentation by Jim Popham; project applicant statements by Bridal Griggs and Jeff Stone; public works presentation by Hamid Haydery; public testimony and commission proceedings at the March 26, 2025 Calistoga Planning Commission meeting.