Calistoga planning commission takes public comment on draft EIR for 20‑lot Cordum Ranch subdivision

Calistoga Planning Commission members on July 9 heard a staff presentation and public comment on the draft environmental impact report for the proposed Cordum Ranch subdivision, a roughly 30‑acre project south of Foothill Boulevard that would create 20 single‑family lots.

Olivia Urban, principal environmental planner with M Group, told the commission, “The hearing tonight is really to receive public comments on the EIR. There are no entitlements before you this evening.” The meeting was a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) public review hearing; staff said the 45‑day public comment period on the draft EIR runs through July 28.

The draft EIR and staff presentation described the project site as south of Foothill Boulevard between Quorum Canyon and Terrace Drive, containing about 30 acres and a proposed 20‑lot tentative subdivision. Proposed lot sizes would range from about 0.4 acres to 6.29 acres; houses are estimated at roughly 2,500 to 4,500 square feet. Off‑site and frontage improvements are proposed at the site entrance on Cordum Canyon Road, at the intersection of Cordum Canyon and Foothill Boulevard, and to Terrace Drive. The plan would use Terrace Drive as a secondary, emergency‑vehicle access serving one lot, not as the primary day‑to‑day access for the subdivision.

The draft EIR identifies potentially significant effects in several topic areas but concludes those effects can be reduced to less‑than‑significant levels with mitigation. Key technical findings summarized by staff include:

- Biological resources: The site contains sensitive habitats and a small amount of linear wetlands (about 0.1 acre). The EIR relies on an arborist report, a tree impact memo, a site‑specific biological assessment and an Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determination. Mitigation measures include preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and bats, a tree removal and protection plan, and avoidance or compensatory mitigation for wetlands where avoidance is infeasible.

- Transportation and VMT: A project‑specific transportation impact study, using the city’s vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) guidelines, concluded the addition of 20 homes would not exceed the city’s VMT threshold and therefore would not require VMT mitigation. The study also reviewed emergency access; staff said the project includes roadway improvements and does not disconnect existing routes.

- Wildfire: The project site lies within a high fire‑hazard area. The draft EIR incorporates slope analysis, a wildland fire protection plan and an evacuation analysis, and describes fuel‑modification zones, defensible‑space requirements and design‑stage review. Staff said compliance with municipal and fire code standards and the proposed fuel‑management measures would reduce wildfire‑related impacts to less than significant.

- Alternatives: The EIR analyzes the required “no project” alternative and a reduced‑building‑envelope alternative that would limit development on steeper slopes; the draft EIR identifies the reduced‑envelope alternative as marginally environmentally superior.

During public comment, longtime Terrace Drive resident Alex Schellinger said the road “dead ends at the top” and asked for clearer, detailed plans showing where the secondary access ties into existing driveways and how wide the access would be. An unnamed resident who said she lives on the same single‑lane road said construction and access improvements would be “very impactful” for current users and asked about timing.

Urban responded to public concerns that the Terrace Drive connection is intended as a secondary emergency‑vehicle access, not the primary neighborhood entrance, and that more detailed design and cross‑sections will be provided later in the entitlement process. “It will not be primary access,” she said; “it is a secondary emergency vehicle access that is a requirement of the fire code.” Staff also noted mailing‑radius notifications and city website materials are available and encouraged written comments by July 28.

Commissioners asked technical questions about traffic control at Foothill Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, whether a roundabout should be considered, and how mitigation “credits” work for trees and wetlands. Staff said the project itself does not generate the traffic volumes that would require a roundabout and noted city signalization plans for the intersection are a separate city project. Staff explained that wetland mitigation credits are purchased from certified mitigation banks when avoidance is infeasible and that those banks are regulated by agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

After public comment and commissioner discussion, the commission voted to direct staff to prepare the final EIR responding to substantive comments on the draft and to return the final EIR with the project’s entitlement package at a later hearing. The resolution number was not specified at the meeting.

The planning department and consultants emphasized that tonight’s hearing was limited to the adequacy of the draft EIR’s analysis, not to approval of any entitlements; formal decisions on the subdivision, design review and related permits will occur only after certification of a final EIR and later hearings on the entitlement applications.