HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210804_McCoy_Kristen1
Meredith Todd
From:Brian Parker
Sent:Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:40 PM
To:Meredith Todd; Michelle Groenevelt; Diane Kushlan
Subject:FW: Pine Creek Ranch - EA Scope Comments
Brian Parker, AICP | City Planner
216 E. Park Street | McCall | Idaho 83638
Direct: 208.634.4256 | Fax: 208.634.3038
Web: mccall.id.us
Blog: mccallcitysource.com
Social: Facebook.com/cityofmccall
Please click to sign up for CodeRED!
From: Kristen McCoy <k11dusky@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Brian Parker <bparker@mccall.id.us>
Subject: Pine Creek Ranch ‐ EA Scope Comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
I am writing to provide comments on the Draft Scope of Work for the Environmental Assessment Pine Creek
Ranch. First, I want to thank the City for approving the resolution to designate this parcel as an Area of Critical
Concern. My family and I have enjoyed McCall for many generations. This place is special to so many and
deserves to continue providing such a special place to live, work, and recreate. Ensuring development is
conducted in ways that improve the livability of the community is of upmost importance and I appreciate the
City Council for recognizing that.
I have spent several hours reviewing the Draft Scope of Work and available documents online to fully
understand the process for Pine Creek Ranch. I know this is new and unique for the City of McCall and I think
it's important that the City take the time, hire the necessary resources, and/or requests help of regulatory
agencies that are familiar with this type of work. The only way this can be done correctly is by involving
professionals to guide the City through this.
2
My biggest concern with the current Draft Scope of Work is with the Process Steps on Page 5. Specifically,
items 5, 6, and 7. The City should have significantly more time than one week to review the preparation by the
Consultants. Typically, regulatory agencies have 30 days to review and provide comment. At that point, the
consultant reviews and addresses the comments provided for a Final version of the documents for City review.
This continues until the document (both technical reports and EA) is considered complete and ready for public
review. This does NOT approve the EA as stated in Item 5! A very key component of the process is involving
the public and addressing their comments following a 30‐day review period and meeting. A ten‐day public
review period is grossly inadequate and does not meet the purpose of an environmental analysis. Please make
appropriate revisions to the process to ensure the City, its subject matter experts, and/or regulatory agencies
have adequate time to review the documents and ensure sufficient technical analysis has been
conducted. Please also modify the public review period to allow time for the entire community to be made
aware and participate in the process. This development will forever impact the City, the County, and the entire
region and people deserve the right to participate! Ten days is completely insufficient.
Specific comments on the Draft EA Scope that I feel are missing/inadequate include:
1. It should be stated that every component of the EA will address:
a. Existing Conditions / Affected Environment
b. Impacts from the Development
i. Construction / Temporary
ii. Operation / Long Term
c. Cumulative Impacts of this development with other developments approved within the City
d. Mitigation Strategies and Commitments
2. Identify how the development is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals.
3. Earth section should include the percentage of the site that will be covered with impervious surfaces
after construction and how that will impact erosion, wildlife, climate change, etc. How will snow
removal and storage be handled?
4. Transportation section should include a development‐specific analysis that evaluates the number of
trips projected with the development, and their impact on new/existing roadways including trucks
(long term and during construction). The evaluation should include the impact of a development this
large on highways (SH‐55, US‐95) for construction materials, vendors, as well as long term for residents
and goods/services.
5. Transportation section needs to evaluate the suitability of adjacent roadways that will be used to
access the development.
6. Plant section should include what kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? What
opportunities are there to preserve existing vegetation/forestry?
7. The Built Environment analysis should include a visual quality and aesthetics assessment ‐ what views
will be altered/obstructed (both OF the site and FROM the site)? What can be done to reduce aesthetic
impacts and preserve the character of the area?
8. Public services should include analysis on whether the development would result in an increased need
for services (i.e. police, fire)? If yes, how will this be paid for?
9. How will utilities be brought to the development? How could they impact surrounding
development/streets?
10. Open Space ‐ how can open space be provided as a buffer to the existing built environment adjacent to
the development?
I have spent my career working in the Engineering & Environmental industry and have a general
understanding of how these typically work. It looks like the Draft SOW somewhat followed the Washington
3
SEPA Checklist which is a great start. Going through this process correctly is the only way we can ensure that
the development is done in a way that improves the livability of the City without causing significant impacts on
resources.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Kristen McCoy