Calistoga planning commission certifies final EIR and approves Kortum Ranch subdivision entitlements

The Calistoga Planning Commission on (date not specified) certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Kortum Ranch development and approved related entitlements, including tentative subdivision map TM 2022-1, a master conditional use permit and the preliminary development plan, voting to adopt CEQA findings and the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Olivia Irvin, principal environmental planner with M Group, told the commission the FEIR process followed CEQA procedures, that public and agency comments were addressed in the final document, and that "there are no impacts that were significant and unavoidable," adding that identified impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels and that the MMRP will track implementation.

Staff described the project site at 500 Kortum Canyon Road as about 30.11 acres and said the applicant (Kortum Ranch LLC) proposes 20 lots created from four existing parcels under TM 2022-1. Staff’s packet lists lot sizes ranging roughly from 0.4 to 6.29 acres, building envelopes of about 2,600 to 3,800 square feet and expected home sizes generally in the 2,500–4,500 square-foot range; staff said the clustered layout is intended to protect steeper slopes and preserve the town’s rural character. Access would be from Kortum Ranch Road and Silver Street (the road formerly referred to as Terrace Drive); the internal Kortum Ranch Road would be constructed with 10-foot travel lanes and 2-foot shoulders, with a narrowed 12-foot section and an emergency-only gate on Silver Street.

Utilities and site work noted in staff materials include a proposed 12-inch main, a pump house, storage tanks, seven hydrants, 8-inch mains, 6-inch laterals, three bioretention facilities and new sewer laterals connecting to the city wastewater treatment plant identified in the staff report. Off-site improvements called for paving and striping to the project boundary, intersection work at Foothill/State Route 128 and a public right-of-way dedication of a portion of APN 011-310-009.

The staff report recorded that 20 trees would be removed for road improvements (mostly Douglas fir and oak) and that oak trees would be replaced at a 3:1 ratio; staff noted replacement plantings and species will be addressed during final design and in accordance with the city’s tree-replacement requirements.

Staff also presented several clarifying edits to conditions of approval that were added since the agenda posted: an ability to extend the master use permit up to one year (Condition 9); removal of prescriptive language about constructing new water and sewer infrastructure in Condition 26 in favor of general timing for connection fees; a change in Condition 41 to reference "approved plans" rather than an older plan set date; and edits to Conditions 60 and 61 (replacing language described as a '270 limits' phrase with a clearer '20 feet past the project entrance' wording).

The commission heard a brief applicant statement from a project representative who thanked staff, introduced project team members and asked for the commission’s support. Jim Cantrell, an adjacent property owner, spoke in support and said the clustered design met the general plan.

A commissioner asked why removed Douglas firs would not be replaced with a higher‑vitality native species; staff replied that replacement requirements and species selection are governed by city rules and noted the site has existing canopy cover. Olivia Irvin pointed to the FEIR chapters and responses where the issue and alternatives were discussed.

Commissioner (speaker 8) moved to adopt the resolution certifying the FEIR; Commissioner (speaker 3) seconded. Roll-call votes were recorded and the motion to certify the FEIR was adopted. The second resolution—approving the tentative subdivision map TM 2022-1, adopting CEQA findings, the MMRP, the master conditional use permit and the preliminary development plan with the amended conditions—was moved by the same commissioner and seconded; the motion passed on roll call.

The approvals do not finalize detailed architecture, landscaping or building permits. Staff and applicants said final development plans, design review and building permits will return to the commission or staff as required by the municipal code for subsequent review. The commission closed the hearing and adopted both resolutions as modified tonight.