Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210810 Compiled Comment on Environmental Assessment Scope of WorkID Completion time Email What is your First and Last Name? What is your Home  Address? What are your comments on the Draft Scope of Work for the Environmental Assessment? What do you think is helpful? What do you think is  missing? 1 7/19/21 15:04:37 mtodd@mccall.id.us Meredith Todd 12345 Test Avenue Hello Meredith & Erin, This is a test and I believe the form is live.  2 7/23/21 10:08:32 anonymous Erika Prosser 660 Woodlands Drive,  McCall This proposal would put our kids and dogs at risk. We purchased in this community because it was quiet and safe. If this development was allowed to  access from the Woodlands community we would not be able to allow our kids to play freely outdoors because of the traffic.   3 7/23/21 13:03:09 anonymous Scotty Davenport Mccall  You either accept mccall will grow or shut it down. You need worker housing. So its a choice. Not a game to keep everyone guessing 4 7/23/21 13:49:51 anonymous Ryan Taylor 155 Fox Ln, McCall ID  Safety concerns for Fox Ridge and Woodlands neighborhoods.  If access to the neighborhood is though Woodlands or Fox Ridge these neighborhoods  will be overloaded with traffic.  Dienard is a 25 mile hour road and yet most people drive 45.  This is going to be the same in our small neighborhoods.   It is a danger to our residence.   5 7/23/21 16:17:39 anonymous Ed Taylor 690 Fox Ridge Lane,  McCall  No matter what the environmental assessment shows, it is obvious that 600 homes will bring traffic like none other in McCall and 2 outlets will never  begin to satisfy the demand.  6 7/23/21 17:25:28 anonymous Ruth‐Ann Mouw 635 Woodlands Drive  I do not believe Woodlands Drive should be the only, albeit main, entrance for the new subdivision known as Pine Creek.  Our home is located on this  road and it has always been a quiet street where kids can ride bikes and people can walk without much traffic.  If this road were to become the only  entrance for all these proposed homes east of us, well I cannot imagine the traffic! 7 7/24/21 8:45:09 anonymous Alice Brown 624 Woodlands Drive  McCall, Idaho 83638 I am very concerned about the development of the 158 acres at the back end of the Woodlands neighborhood for a number of reasons. We have a  limited capacity for treating water in McCall during the busy seasons. How will we handle an increase in homes such as the potential increase proposed  by this project? The site where these homes will be built is home to all kinds of wildlife. This wildlife will be displaced by the building of homes. Snow  melt and storage will be a huge issue in the spring when this area is paved. How will this be managed? Access to the neighborhood is one of my biggest  concerns. In the wintertime, Woodlands drive becomes very narrow due to snow. At times it is difficult to fit two cars side by side. It would be  incredibly unsafe to direct traffic to this new neighborhood down Woodlands Drive. Fire lanes and pedestrian safety would not be in place. During the  months of dry roads, our kids (50 at last count) use the roads to ride their bikes, scooter, walk, and travel to school. Increasing traffic on our roads to a  neighborhood of 100+ homes would be incredibly dangerous for the children of our community. Thank you for carefully considering access points to  the neighborhood and environmental issues such as water supply, habitat and snow melt. These important issues will impact our community for years  to come and should not be ignored.   8 7/24/21 9:13:55 anonymous Tom & Kathy Kilgore 674 Koski Dr. McCall, ID  83638 Our primary concern is mentioned in the Draft of the Environmental Assessment under Section 10 d. "What are existing and planned evacuation  strategies for the area in the event of a catastrophic fire?" At the July 8 stakeholder meeting attended by City Staff, the McCall Fire Chief stated the fire  codes recommends 2 egresses for subdivisions over 30 units. The Woodlands already far exceeds that number with only one current egress. The City  has been given notice of this issue by their own Fire Chief. Should the City Council approve phase one of Pine Creek Ranch without requiring a second  egress, and a catastrophic fire causes loss of life or property, it would open the City up to major lawsuits because they knew of the danger and failed to  act. Please heed the warnings from the fires that have been affecting the West and require the developer to build at least one more egress before  starting the project.   9 7/25/21 10:23:40 anonymous Pattie Soucek 615 Woodlands Drive,  McCall, ID 83638 For the most part, I believe the scope is adequate with the exception of the Transportation topic.  I believe that a proposed expenditure item should be  added.  For example, to widen any existing roads or add sidewalks, what would be the cost and how would it be paid for.  The developer said at our  homeowner meeting that the current residents would be assessed fees such as an LID to cover all of these costs and he wouldn't be paying for any of it! Also under tranportation, require that full disclosure of the current rights‐of‐way be displayed and how, if any, these would need to be adjusted to  accommodate the options.  Also under transportation, analyze the differences to the environment and current developments by requiring the new  development to utilize their own ingress and egress versus impacting the existing subdivisions. Under some category, disclose both the positive and  negative effects on the current developments.  Questions to try and answer would be, "What is the cost of sacrificing one of the most desirable working family neighborhoods to allow this development to continue?"  By adding 1000 vehicles per day on the streets of the Woodlands will pretty much  destroy the neighborhood as we know it today. 10 7/25/21 10:50:37 anonymous Phillip Brug 628 Woodlands Dr The study required for the proposed Pine Creek Ranch Subdivision (PCRS) needs the highest priority placed on ACCESS ISSUES for the following reasons:  1) WILDFIRES: Lands adjacent to the PCRS and the Woodlands subdivision are highly susceptible to wildfires. Climate change is dramatically increasing  this risk. Safety of the residents, both in the Woodlands and in the PCRS, will require multiple options to quickly vacate homes, while not interfering  with fire fighting resources attempting to reach fires. Wildfire activity is straining fire fighting resources all over the west. This makes it imperative that  there be multiple good accesses to and through the PCRS and Woodlands to combat fires as quickly, and easily as possible. What has been considered  adequate access in the past is no longer appropriate for public safety.  2) EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS: The current situation in Woodlands is  inappropriate in that there is only a single access into the subdivision. This creates an unsafe situation for emergency medical, or fire fighting access.  Recently the only access to Woodlands was temporarily totally cut off for road maintenance on Spring Mountain Boulevard. Last winter there was at  least one incident of a delivery truck getting stuck on ice on the sloped and curving Woodlands drive and blocking all access to the subdivision for a  time. This is not acceptable and must not be exacerbated by increasing traffic on Woodlands Drive.  3) SIDEWALKS AND PATHS: The current situation in  Woodlands is unfortunate in that no sidewalks or paths were included in the original design. Adults and children are forced to use the street for walking  and bicycles. The advent of electric bicycles, scooters, and skateboards is rapidly increasing use of the street. Climate change is placing emphasis on  making use of these forms of non‐vehicle transportation. It is inappropriate to place any more traffic on Woodlands Drive. The PCRS must include  sidewalks and paths that are designed to be kept clear through out the winter.  4) AVERAGE USAGE IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE: Traffic on Woodlands  Drive is extremely variable due to the presence of 2nd homes and our climate. Any study that does not measure and take into account peak traffic  volumes will not be appropriate. It is at these peak volume times that safety is most compromised. Limited access as snow builds up during the winter  contributes to unsafe situations and must be taken into account.  5) GROWTH AND THE FUTURE: McCall is growing rapidly. This is going to continue.  There is no question that eventually there will be development beyond the PCRS. Future access will be required though the Woodlands and PCRS. This  must be taken into consideration to avoid a repeat of the current situation, where barely adequate access is being asked to accommodate new  development. The geography in this area will force future access to be from the West and this must be studied carefully and planned for.    Thank You,  Phillip Brug 628 Woodlands Dr. 11 7/25/21 10:52:37 anonymous Sandra Brug 628 Woodlands Dr. The absence of sidewalks and paths in Woodlands Subdivision is a problem for increasing any more traffic on Woodlands Drive. This needs to be  studied. I am an elderly woman and I walk on Woodlands Drive daily for my exercise and health, as do many residents‐‐young and old. Children walk  and bike to school on the road; they also skateboard, skate and recreate in the street. Mothers push baby carriages on the road. Neighbors walk their  dogs daily down the road. All this occurs while sharing the road with vehicles.  Currently, this is frequently unsafe. Adding substantially more vehicles to  this mix is not a safe option. The impact of increased usage of Woodlands Drive needs to be carefully studied.  Sandra Brug 628 Woodlands Dr. 12 7/25/21 10:55:37 anonymous Levi Duke 656 fox ridge lane mccall  83638 I believe that the design team needs to think about how busy the road will be on fox ridge. If you plane on building any amount of homes or  appartments and routing them though fox ridge that is a terrible idea. Fox ridge subdivision shouldn't be a pass through for your development gains.  Reroute them through Ello rd or extend it through the school district. You will piss every resident off in fox ridge if you do this. Thanks 13 7/25/21 11:02:30 anonymous Adrianne Duke  656 fox ridge lane mccall  83638 My husband and I are full time residents here in McCall and we moved here from Middleton which was in the farmland to enjoy the serenity of McCall.  If the bypass is routed through fox ridge it will upset all residents here in the subdivision. This is a small quiet subdivision and it will be ruined if you do  this. 14 7/25/21 12:00:24 anonymous NINON COLLET 1019 FIREWEED DRIVE  ,MCCALL NO MORE DEVELOPMENT.  PERIOD. 15 7/25/21 15:00:49 anonymous Carolyn Wood 1011 Violet Way, McCall  ID Will the developer pay for:1.  Additional water sewage treatment, or will the homes all be on septic (affecting the environment in either case). 2. Will  the developer be responsible for adding additional water delivery to all of these homes? Will the use by these multiple homes ‐ of City water ‐  reduce  the amount of water available to existing City water users?  3. Will the developer be responsible for adding traffic mitigation for all the of the additional  homes that will be dumping onto Spring Mt. Blvd. and Sampson Trail at the very spot where traffic already builds up when school is in session, and now  the added traffic due to Ponderosa Park vehicles being redirected to leave town via Spring Mt. Blvd.?  4.Will the developer be asked to have the CC&Rs  ban all short‐term rentals, so McCall does not sink further into a "VRBO town"?  5. Will the developer be asked to build additional classroom capacity to  all the local schools (and the resultant environmental impacts that will have ‐ ‐ more trash, bigger land footprint)? 16 7/25/21 20:06:35 anonymous Claire Mathews 1015 Violet Way, McCall,  ID 83638 I would like to express my concerns related to this project as follows: How is the project and city accommodating and paying for additional  infrastructure associated with the size of this development, including traffic on Spring Mountain Blvd? Will the developer(s) be paying for new and/or  expanded capacity needed of schools at all levels? How will access/egress be impacted at the corner of Spring Mountain Blvd. and Deinhard Lane,  particularly during the school year when congestion and risk to children are at a peak, not to mention the impact of added residential, commercial and  visitor traffic rerouted to Spring Mountain Blvd. as a result of the “no left turn” at Railroad? Will the developers or homeowner pay for any additional  police, fire resources required for increase population, including but not limited to new fire station, first responders, police and traffic enforcement?  How will the city improve Deinhard Lane road conditions given increase demand? Will city taxpayers bear the brunt of added expenses associated with  this development or will new homeowners have a special assessment levied on their homeowners taxes? I could go on, but in summary, my concerns  have to do with quality of life and burden of related costs of adding this many homes in this location‐builder or homeowners need to assume and  generate necessary revenues. 17 7/26/21 10:53:38 anonymous Lisa Mohler 47 Johnson Lane McCall  83638 Housing should only be sold to low‐income people with kids, NO  retirement, second homes, short term rentals or group housing for empolyees 18 7/26/21 11:30:08 anonymous Craig Campbell  1075 Ridge Rd, McCall  I have a very basic thought on the process. I was a homeowner adjacent to the shipping container homes built on Thompson Ave. At the time, the city  rammed down our throats the need for affordable housing and to stop being a NIMBY. Even Mayor Aymon rudely chastised our concerned neighbors  telling us that we will grow to live having these people as neighbors, which by the way the people who would live in those shopping container homes  had absolutely nothing to do with our objections to the project. Yet, the council rejected our concerns and approved the project because the city  needed affordable housing. Now, I ask the city to give the same courtesy that was granted to the developer of the shipping container homes, to the  developer of this project. The shipping container developer was so over his head and the city staff seemingly showed him every loophole to get  approved and even argued seemingly on behalf of the developer in the public hearing to city council to overlook parking codes and snow removal  codes and that it would be safe to have cars heading towards Davis Street to do a U‐turn on the middle of the busy road in order to park on the street  and to overlook all other neighborhood concerns, again all because of the need for affordable housing. Please show this developer the same courtesy.  Do his/her work for him and then argue in front of city council on "behalf" of the developer in order to get more affordable housing in town. This  developer is planning lots of multi unit homes that may actually be more affordable than a 600 SF shopping container. Please don't get in the way with  environmental concerns simply because the code allows the city to do so in the impact zone. The only hurdle the city couldn't seemingly overcome to  help the shipping container developer was getting the sewer district to overlook the limitations of the sewer system. Do the same for this developer.  Do his /her work for them to get this project done. Don't get in the way. Help him /her out. It is true that we need affordable housing. Please Gove the  same courtesy and outright advocacy given to the shipping container developer to this developer. We do need affordable housing.  19 7/26/21 14:26:04 anonymous Alana Gall 150 Fox Lane, McCall ID I am concerned about the easement and access to the proposed development site.  As a homeowner in the Fox Ridge neighborhood, on the corner of  Fox Lane and Fox Ridge Road, the access to this development through our small neighborhood is not necessary, and would be detrimental to our  community.  We have dogs and little children, as well as no shoulder in our neighborhood to enjoy biking or walking.  The construction traffic through  our neighborhood would significantly negatively affect our quality of life. There are other access points available, including off of Elo road.   20 7/26/21 16:10:29 anonymous John Gebhards 1444 Dragonfly Loop  McCall, ID 83638 After reviewing the draft Scope of Work I feel that most of my concerns will potentially be addressed.  My primary concerns are related to traffic flow  in and out of the development and how it might affect existing subdivision, school access and general traffic flow. Is there adequate capacity from city  services like water and sewer? will there be open space within the development to preserve the unique character of the area? How will the  development make sure that affordable housing issues are taken into account for the McCall area.  More lots doesn't equate to affordable housing. 21 7/27/21 7:45:59 anonymous Shauna Enders 648 Woodlands Dr Traffic is always a concern. Adding that much more traffic is huge as I have kiddos. At the meeting he had with us is it would be our responsibility to fix  our road and put in a path for him and his development. Woodlands is a quiet hardworking community of locals who work hard in the city of McCall.  Business owners, hospital personnel, foresters, fire fighters, etc. The residents of the woodlands should not have to financially have to take on this  burden for that persons development. He should be providing ways in and out of his development. I know my family couldn’t take a possible thousands  of dollars for a path for his residents. Please preserve our community. My other concern is for the wildlife. The elk herd does come here in the fall if  you go out on any evening you can hear them bugling. It is truly something special. Deer, foxes, bears, mountain lions, and all the little critters and I  have seen several birds of prey up there. The loss of habit for all of them should be of upmost importance! Adding the amount of housing in that one  area is not McCalls style. Please hold on to what makes this place special. We are not a Boise. Our environment that we share with the forest around us  works. This development would change it. Not for the better. We are unique! Woodlands is a community of people who shouldn’t have to take on a  financial burden for him. Migrating animals shouldn’t lose their land either. Please preserve the woodlands as a community of working families. Thank  you   22 7/27/21 20:22:29 anonymous Suzanne Mack 166 Fox Lane, McCall, ID  83638 I really appreciate that fact that the City is thinking about the following, "How can development of the site be designed to take advantage of the natural environment, preserving natural features such as streamside environments, intermittent streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat and vegetation?"  Sustainability is important and understanding the natural environment is a great start.  The majority of my comments will come after the report is  complete and a letter of intent has been submitted.   23 7/28/21 7:04:40 anonymous Katie Hudson 423 Colorado St McCall  Idaho 83638 Against further development, we need to listen to what is best for the land and native wildlife. It is not fit for development and McCall cannot sustain  further growth with current infrastructure. 24 7/28/21 9:52:50 anonymous Bruce Rankin 675 Fox Ridge Lane, PO  Box 1043 The City’s request for comments on the 5‐pg Scope of Work is, I believe, premature. Title 9 and specifically 9.7.08 is comprehensive and it would seem  the next step would be to have the Developer answer all applicable items and then ask for Public input towards omissions/concerns. 25 7/28/21 11:46:50 anonymous David thiede 1010 meadows The reason us ( locals) live here is because we like it quiet. Keep boise out of mccall. Fuck off with all this development. Go back to the boise and keep  ruining it. All these development company's care about is money. Leave mccall alone!!! 26 7/28/21 12:33:25 anonymous jan stein 708 Reedy, McCAll.  POB  1665, McCall I am so grateful that this Environmental Assessment is being considered.  I support all the points mentioned & am hoping that area can remain  forested, alive with plants & animals.  McCall needs green zones to stay healthy. The idea of more traffic moving through the Woodlands is disgusting,  this is a neighborhood full of young families with children or retired elders, walking, biking, very prevalent   The environmental impact on that  population would be devastating. 27 7/28/21 18:19:01 anonymous Courtney Hill 1044 Fireweed dr The fact that we have a moratorium on homes due to sewage and our infrastructure can not tolerate the current traffic this is ridiculous. I understand  the land owner wanting to make money. But at what expense? At some point the community of McCall needs to stand together for what is right for our small town and if we want to keep it this way and the uniqueness of a small mountain town or let literally hundreds if not another 1000 more homes  that overwhelms the grocery stores, gas stations, blue collar and white collar for that matter, hospitals, etc to where our little bit of quality of life is  killed. Especially if it's of environmental concern. I do not support it. Thank you for your consideration 28 7/29/21 10:15:52 anonymous David Gallipoli 200 Scott St McCall  To the City of McCall   The Pine Creek Ranch development should not be approved until a comprehensive study is conducted on the impact on our  ecosystem, watershed, and wildlife corridors. This summer, we have experienced water restrictions as much of our State is in drought. We need to  know how this proposed project would impact water, sewer, roads, refuse, and the community.  We also need to think about the growing impact of  industrial tourism from more development.  With more vacation rentals, more recreators, more fossil fuel watercraft, and off‐road vehicles, along with  more human presence,  we are harming the natural world we all love. If we continue our destructive trends, visitors will seek other destinations, and  the community will be left with the aftermath. An overwhelming amount of rigorous science, peer‐reviewed, and wildly published research confirms  we cannot continue with thoughtless traditional growth models. Since Covid 19, we have also experienced new migration trends that we could never  have predicted.  Traditional growth models are models we need to deny. We need a moratorium on all buildings, a rest for McCall and Valley County.   We need to know how much growth the environment and infrastructure can handle before we continue with development.  We need to find solutions  for sustainable growth models that will protect and preserve what we can never replace once the natural world surrounding us is gone.  29 7/29/21 14:57:03 anonymous Barclay Hauber 160 Old Pollock Rd,  Pollock, Idaho 83547 I own a rental property in McCall which is rented to long‐term tenants. I am extremely concerned about the direction the town is headed in. We need  to work on providing affordable housing for workers so the businesses can continue to operate.  McCall is going to be ruined by the greed of the  minority if you allow development. Please stop it before it begins and preserve McCall. Thank you.  30 7/30/21 8:42:17 anonymous Elizabeth DeCleur 906 Fairway Drive 1. Water in McCall has become an issue this summer and users are being asked to cut our consumption. Taking that into consideration is a main  concern. 2. The traffic it would cause to the Woodlands subdivision is a big concern. Traffic it would also bring to Highway 55 should also be considered. 31 7/30/21 10:09:28 anonymous Tim Hart 301 Finn Church Lane Doing an EA will answer for the city and developer the potential problems from the high concentration of basalt and springs in this area. Blasting and  pumping to someone else's property are not acceptable this close to town. 32 7/30/21 16:27:13 anonymous Sheri Class 174 Fox Ln McCall Idaho 1. We are constantly having issues with the increase population of deer in town and knowing there are many herds of deer and elk in this area, how is  this being resolved?    2. The safety of children around the subdivision with increased traffic. There is currently no transportation to and from school  available for students in this area. By allowing 600 homes, how are students going to have proper transportation or safe areas to walk to school.    3.  How is it possible to have hundreds of cars drive through these small subdivisions to get this new one? How does this affect the efficiency and  effectiveness of emergency services and personnel? Having limited emergency personnel and increased population can pose a safety risk for all  residents.   4. The city water and sewer systems are already affected by the subdivision in Fox Ridge, how can the city assist 600 more homes? Isn’t the  system at capacity? I feel like my water is low pressure already would this affect or water use?  33 7/30/21 22:03:24 anonymous Nayomee Robertson 361 Knights Rd I think it would be such a tragedy to cut down this beautiful forest for make way for homes that the city infrastructure can’t even handle. That has been  forest land forever and it deserves to be kept as such. If it must be developed I would hope that it would be large 1 to 2 acre lots to keep the integrity of the forest and wildlife intact. Please do not get rid of this beautiful landscape and forest that has been a part of my life since we moved in next to it 30  years ago.    34 7/31/21 7:54:35 anonymous Anne & Kevin Owen 376 Stockton Ct., McCall,  ID 83638 Our property is adjacent to the 90 acres within the proposal.  Our pasture area is already marshy and part of the 90 acres is that way as well. If that  property is built up to support the building of houses, I'd like to understand the plan to address the groundwater as I don't want to see the run off  simply flood our property.  With that many houses and roads, will there be storm drains to handle the run off in the spring or again, will it simply end  up in adjoining property?  I assume septic tanks would not be allowed as water contamination would be imminent, but if we add that many homes to  the sewer system in McCall, can the lines and treatment facility handle it?  I live on Stockton, a dirt road that already has a variety of issues. If that is an  entrance to the subdivision, will it be paved? It cannot sustain that kind of traffic without improvements.  If those houses are all occupied by families  with children, does the MD school district have the capacity to take on that many new students? The entrance to the elementary and middle school is  already difficult to deal with during school drop off and pick up times and school events. Has a separate entrance to the school area been considered?  Are we going to need to add traffic lights?  To allow that many houses means cutting down virtually all of the trees. How does this fit into the aesthetics  in McCall?  This impacts the neighboring subdivisions but also the displacement of wildlife. We have seen fox, deer and elk not to mention countless  birds, squirrels etc. that will be displaced.  In addition, our property is 2 acres and we are the smallest parcel neighboring the proposed subdivision on  the south side. To go from 2‐8 acre lots on our side of the fence to 1/4 acre lots on the other side of the fence doesn't make sense to me. Either a  buffer zone or a plan having larger lots adjoining larger lots and then moving to smaller lots as you move inward would lessen the impact all around.   Have these things been considered? I'm sure there are countless other issues to consider, but these are what come to mind as a property owner and  resident who will be directly impacted by the subdivision. 35 7/31/21 15:23:27 anonymous Melissa Daniels 656 Brady Dr McCall Idaho  83638 I think it is very important to include the transportation component in the study.  The existing streets and access need to be carefully considered and  weighed especially regarding the safety of our kids.  Thought should be given to the size and capacity of Woodlands Dr.  In the winter,  the road goes  basically down to  one lane.  Many school children use this road for walking and bicycling.  I also think that the overall effects on the community should  be included: how much will the traffic increase‐ not just on woodlands drive but also on Spring Mountain road and the Deinhard/spring mountain rd  four way stop?at the school.   36 7/31/21 16:48:33 anonymous Jennifer Duplisea 687 Fox Ridge Lane,  McCall, ID 83638 (P.O. Box  204) Addition to environmental scoping: (1) environmental impact to surrounding area within 1‐mile of project perimeter; (2) impact to environmental  sensitivity and existing infrastructure from heavy equipment and all traffic for clearing/grubbing of site, installation of utility and road infrastructure to  final build‐out of entire proposed development.  37 7/31/21 20:02:33 anonymous Janice Scott634  634 Ruby St  and 601 Lick   Creek, McCall, ID Considering all our water concerns, purification capacity, no more sewer hook ups in the city, our desperate need for low‐cost housing and increasing  concerns re open space I feel this project does not meet our current needs.  There are increasing concerns re the loss of the "McCall small town feel".   Our family has been summer residents here since 1917 and we have paid taxes on several properties with no opportunity to vote on any of the issues  regarding the area.  The Chamber of Commerce and Developers seem to be wielding the most influence!  Letters to the Editor of the Star News will  attest to many of my comments. 38 8/1/21 13:02:58 anonymous Dawna Leedom  370 Knights Rd. McCall, ID  83638 I believe the environment impact is far greater than anyone can understand in a project of this size. McCall has no equivalent development in the  recent years to compare this to. Firstly, most environmental impact studies are bias based off of desired outcome or who is paying for the information.  This should be completed by someone not hired by the developers and should be a third party with no ties in an way. This will have implication into  wildlife, public utilities, local school, well water (which is our only source; as an adjoining property to the recently purchased 98 aces.) McCall can't  support a development of this density. If the project were allowed it needs to be controlled by a realistic outline (ie. multiple acre lots or larger). I  would also like to mention that this developer doesn't understand the current economy of this small town. McCall isn't in a place were 400+ new  homes is going to have a positive impact for local residents. It needs to be considered on why individuals like myself moved here 35 years ago and not  to the Treasure Valley.  39 8/1/21 16:23:33 anonymous Todd Leeds 432 Virginia Blvd, McCall  ID 83638 Pine Creek Ranch Comments Dear Council Members, I am submitting these comments out of my concern for the potential development of these  parcels that comprise the proposed Pine Creek ranch.   I live in the vicinity of the parcels and would be impacted by the development.  While I  commend the city for pursuing an Environmental Scope of Work, it is only a start.  The city must complete a full engineering analysis of the potential  impacts of the proposed development.  The current population of McCall is approximately 3,350.  Adding approximately 585 units has the potential to  significantly increase the population of our city.  This development could increase the population of the city by a range of 35 to 52 percent assuming a  household size of 2 or 3 respectively.  Therefore, the engineering study must analyze the additional capacity needed to support this population growths  well as the cumulative total of all other potential projects.  The engineering study must be completed by an independent engineer(s) licensed in the  State of Idaho.  The study must also look the cumulative total of all potential and reasonably foreseeable projects that would also account for  population growth and increased infrastructure demands.   Traffic Analysis:  A traffic analysis must be conducted by engineers experienced in computer  traffic modeling.  This must include impacts throughout Valley County.  Currently the only ingress/egress to these parcels is Woodland Drive.  The  current level of service for Woodland Drive based on a residential use with no through traffic.  In addition, Denhardt Lane already has traffic issues due  to school related traffic.  The modeling must review a range of ingress/egress alternatives.  Is it even possible to design traffic infrastructure for 585  residential units given traffic constraints in this area?  How much will it cost and who will pay? Water Capacity Analysis – A water capacity analysis must  also be conducted.  Is there sufficient water capacity and rights to serve this many households? Sewer and wastewater Capacity Analysis ‐ A sewer  capacity analysis must also be conducted.  Is there sufficient capacity and rights to serve this many households? Stormwater Runoff Capacity Analysis ‐  A stormwater capacity analysis must also be conducted.  All computer modeling conducted to assess growth impacts must include sensitivity analysis  that will evaluate impacts based on a wide range of potential development scenarios including the cumulative total of all potential and reasonably  foreseeable projects.  This must include the proposal by Trident (which I do not support) as far‐fetched as it may be. The city cannot proceed with any  approvals for this development until all applicable studies are complete.  They should be paid for by the developer.  In my professional opinion these  studies could take up to a year to perform correctly.  As the current head of UDOT once told me, “There are a dozen companies that say they can  model traffic in Utah, only 2 can do it correctly” I would assume that the same applies in Idaho.  If you would like a summary of the experience, I am  basing my comments on, please feel free to contact me, I’ve worked on quite a few similar projects including resort towns. I cannot support this project  until all of the studies described above are performed and only then if they indicate that the city has the capacity to ensure that it does not impact local  citizens. Todd Leeds McCall, Idaho 40 8/2/21 16:58:12 anonymous Jared Schuster 654 Brady Dr. McCall, ID  83638 I think this is a needed addition to McCall.  I live adjacent to the property to be developed and am not happy to hear that I will have construction noise  out my back door for probably the next five plus years.  I understand that our tow is going to grow though, and we need more quality subdivisions for  folks to move into.  I do have some concerns that I think the city and builder should consider before building. TransportaƟon – This is a big concern to  me.  First the construction traffic accessing the property daily through a neighborhood that is full of children.  Both the woodlands and fox ridge have  many full‐time residences that have school age children.  Having large construction vehicles going in and out throughout the day especially as kids walk  to and from school on roads that already do not have a shoulder and are not to full width will be very dangerous.  The increase traffic on roads in the  woodlands and fox ridge subdivision has potential to triple.  Evacuation in case of an emergency also plays into this concern.  As we saw in California  during the Paradise incident evacuees where trapped due to narrow limited access road to subdivisions.  I have listened to some of the stories of the  first responders and as a local first responder I don’t want to ever have to go through this.  I have not seen drawings, but I would hope there are plans  to extend Dienhard lane for a third access from the west and that there are at least 3 good (always open) access points from the South as we know  there are no access points from the North or the East. Wildfire – We live in the Urban interface which is were homes are within forested areas that  could carry fire into a town.  One day we will have a fire that will come into our town.  We need to be prepared as best we can by planning for this  when we build out this subdivision that is adjacent to heavily timbered property.  As mentioned above access out and in during a wildfire event for  those needed to evacuate and the first responders coming to help is critical.  Defensible space around the subdivision itself is what I would suggest.  As  we find people that want to live in the woods like to have trees on their property, and not all people will make their property defensible.  If we can  require the subdivision to treat the area around it so that first responders have the best chance to stop a wildfire from spreading into town, we would  be saving lives and property. Water, Sewer, Schools, infastructure – I don’t know what the capabiliƟes are for our current systems, but I would think that  there would need to be some upgrades or expansion of our current systems.  We could possibly see the population of McCall grow by 1/3 it’s current  populaƟon.  I would imagine this would be a huge cost to the city, and I would hate to see taxes be drasƟcally increased due to this project. Retail,  Grocery – We have seen our supply chain dwindle, could be from COVID, with the large increase of visitors in town.  To add even more people to our  area we would need to work on our planning and zoning to allow more retail.  With this we need to look at letting more chain stores come into town  (ouch that sƟngs to say) to be able to support the increase in people. Housing – Our town is seeing an increase in the amount of vacaƟon rentals.  The  Woodlands HOA is one of the few successful HOAs in not allowing businesses such as rentals less than 6 months in the neighborhood.  By doing this we  have been able to keep our home prices a little lower than other places that allow vacation rentals.  We also have more locals per capita living in the  neighborhood yearly.  We have less problems with issues that need police to resolve.  If we open a new neighborhood that allows vacation rentals, we  will continue to make it hard for full time residents to afford homes.   As I said before I am not against this new neighborhood as I know our town is  going to continue to grow.  I want us to be ready for that growth. 41 8/3/21 12:00:18 anonymous Richard Todd 3520 N Rampart Street,  Boise, Idaho 83704 Generally, the draft scope of work appears to capture the key elements for an assessment of the proposed project. However, I offer the following  specific comments: 1) Recommend that the names and background of all participants (technical contributors, consultants, etc.) be included as an  appendix to the report. 2) Under the question of "How can development of this site be adequately served to minimize public costs and impacts on  existing development?" I would recommend applicant's consideration of potential on‐site or off‐site mitigation that could be offered in the form of  permanent protection of undisturbed habitat or natural areas elsewhere within or adjacent to the City's impact area. This could be by donation of land  or deed restricted land (e.g. conservation easement). 3) As a former employee of a Federal land management agency with direct involvement in  preparation and review of both Environmental Assessments (EA's) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's), I would recommend that the proposed  public review and comment periods described on the last page under Process Steps should be extended; specifically Step 3 should be no less than 14  days (two weeks), Step 5 should be extended up to 30 days, and Step 6 should be at least 2 weeks up to 4 weeks and include no less than 2 public  meetings with advance public notices of time and location. 4) Finally; technical review of the applicant prepared Environmental Assessment may  require expertise not available with existing City staff. Independent (impartial) third‐party technical review may also help strengthen a final decision on  the proposal. However, an independent review is not without cost. Have you considered which party (the applicant or the city) will absorb the cost for  an appropriate technical review of the Environmental Assessment? Is this application processing action by the City subject to cost recovery from the  applicant? 42 8/3/21 16:26:54 anonymous Thaddeus & Theresa Hoffman 602 Woodlands Drive,  McCall ID 83638 I have made edits on the published DRAFT Scope of Work for the Environmental Assessment.  These have been sent as a pdf to Mr. Brian Parker, City of  McCall Planner; at bparker@mccall.id.us.  The following comments are extracted from the document sent to Mr. Parker in an attempt to align to the  MS form built for comments with the on‐line Comment Form provided by the city.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  General Comments:  I recommend that the EA have a Revision # as well as a date so that revisions can be tracked. I recommend that the EA have a signature block for City  Staff; “Prepared By” and “Approved By”. I recommend that the EA reference some Exhibits for clarity: Exhibit A:  Proposed Area of Environmental  Concern from the City Exhibit B: 21012_PineCreekRanchConcept_210401.pdf  Draft EA Section: Title  For clarity regarding the purpose of this  document, I recommend changing the title of this document to the following: “Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Pine Creek Ranch  Subdivision”  Draft EA Section: Objectives; Bullet 1  For completeness, I recommend adding hyperlink to code MCC 9.7.08.  Draft EA Section: Bolded  Paragraph Between Natural Environment; “How can development of the site be designed to take advantage of the natural environment, preserving  natural…….”  This seems out of place.  Is this meant to be part of an introduction to the Natural Environment Section?  Draft EA Section: Built  Environment‐Community Context; 2. Transportation; Subparagraph a.  I would recommend adding Level of Service (LOS) to subparagraph a. as follows:   “Identify the existing street network adjacent to the site, the functional classification, level of service (LOS) and carrying capacity of existing streets.  Identify the constraints posed by the conditions of existing adjacent streets for accommodating additional traffic. Assess the alternatives for access to  the site in terms of level of service, capacity, safety, impacts on adjacent properties, direct access, cost, and multimodal potential. Show on a site plan.”  Draft EA Section: Built Environment‐Community Context; 2. Transportation; Subparagraph f.  Please see comments and questions embedded in the text  and designated with parens in subparagraph f. as follows:    “What are the current conditions for access to the schools in terms of traffic, congestion,  times of day, pedestrian, and bicycle interface? Describe the alternatives for resolving issues including the plan prepared for the (might include a  hyperlink to the plan or an attachment for completeness) school district (Question:  Is there a final version of the MDSD PAYETTE LAKES MIDDLE  SCHOOL & BARBARA MORGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DRAFT TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS?) and the extension of Deinhard Lane (? is there documentation  describing this alternative?  if so might include hyperlink or an attachment to the materials for completeness) . Identify the existing pedestrian and  bicycle counts from city GIS data and bus routes for current students.”  Draft EA Section: Built Environment‐Community Context; 3. Housing  I would  suggest adding subparagraphs b. and c. as follows:  b.   Characterize the type of housing and zoning planned for the development.  (# of single family &  zoning, # of mulƟ‐family & zoning.) c.   Characterize the type of property ownership anƟcipated for the development in terms of: i. Full‐Time  Residents ii. Part‐Time Residents Long Term Rentals Short Term Rentals  DraŌ EA SecƟon: Bolded Sentence Between Built Environment‐Community  Context Section and Process Steps  “How can development of this site be adequately served to minimize public costs and impacts on existing  development?”  This seems out of place.   Is this meant to be part of an introduction to the Built Environment‐Community Context Section?  Draft EA  Section: Process Steps   (I recommend moving this section out of this document and to the Area of Critical Concern web‐site to be used as a project  hldhl k43 8/3/21 16:28:49 anonymous Thaddeus & Theresa Hoffman (1) 602 Woodlands Drive,  McCall ID 83638 Additional Comments:  Draft EA Section: Process Steps   (I recommend moving this section out of this document and to the Area of Critical Concern  web‐site to be used as a project status.  This would help everyone keep track of where we are at in the process.  I recommend making this a table with  additional information to make this more meaningful and provide estimated dates for upcoming milestones, as well as actual dates completed.  See  example table below:  Column 1 = Step (Such as; “Scoping Meeting”) Column 2 = Description (Such as; “Meeting with City Staff, City Consultant,  Developer Team to discuss the scope of work for the Environmental Assessment.”) Column 3 = Status/Reference (Such as; “Complete/{hyperlink to  meeting materials archive}”) Column 4 = Est. Date Complete (Actual)  (Such as: “(07‐01‐2021))”  Draft EA Section: Process Steps; Bullet Point 3.  I  recommend a 30 day review period for the draft Environmental Assessment Scope.  Draft EA Section: Process Steps; Bullet Point 5.  Question:  Is one  week enough time to thoroughly review, answer questions and provide clarifications?  Draft EA Section: Process Steps; Bullet Point 6.  I recommend a  30 day distribution of the Environmental Assessment prior to the public meeting. 44 8/4/21 12:58:10 anonymous Rodger Daniels 611 Woodlands Drive Comments on the DRAFT Environmental Assessment Scope of Work Before looking at your scope of work outline, I read all the important comments  from the Woodlands and Fox Ridge residents. After reviewing the outline, I would suggest adding to it in a way that clarifies the current situation for  those subdivision and that they are captured separately. 1.Land use, part c. needs to be expanded to address each subdivision, in detail, so nothing of  importance is left out.. It seems like the concerns could be reflected in two sections. Sections for Woodlands and Fox Ridge. Expanded outline would  describe the critical characteristics of those subdivisions. The descriptions should capture the current character of the neighborhoods and the lifestyles  they enable, as well as a description of residents and the lifestyles they lead. There should also be descriptions of projected impacts on those  subdivisions by category as a result of the Pine Ridge development. Current outline calls this out generally, but not in specific detail. This section needs  a lot of work, it is a critical component of the study. An example for the Woodlands neighborhood description with a section on Woodlands Drive  follows to show what might be included: Current Description Woodlands Subdivision (Woodlands Drive) Woodlands Drive is a narrow, winding two lane  road, without sidewalks or bike lanes and a 20 MPH speed limit. It is the only artery in and out of the neighborhood. It frequently transitions to a one  lane road whenever a delivery truck parks to make a delivery, or when construction trucks park on the street. It has a significant downhill slope and the  curves are dramatic enough that visibility is limited in spots, especially during the winter. There have been multiple accidents between delivery trucks  and resident autos during the winter as a result. As winter progresses and snowbanks fill its edges, it becomes a 1 ½ lane road. The road doesn’t  tolerate heavy traffic loads because residents use it as an access to the bicycling, scootering, dog walking, family walking, jogging opportunities that  begin on the Spring Mountain bicycle, walking path. The road accommodates walking family groups composed of all family generations including:  elderly, parents, kids, grandkids and pets, ranging in size from 2‐10 walkers, meaning a safe road requires light traffic due to a lack of sidewalks and its  curving narrow nature. These activities available right out the front door without using a car is a critical component of the Woodlands resident lifestyles  and the character of the neighborhood. Another example of a Woodlands Drive traffic category might be: What is the current traffic load? What is the  acceptable maximum traffic load (load that keeps Woodlands safe)? What is projected traffic load increase from Pine Ridge? This may reveal a design  criteria, exceeded by the current Pine Ridge subdivision proposal. By not including enough detail focusing on the Woodlands and Fox Ridge subdivisions  you risk losing important relevant concerns about what will be lost to Woodlands and Fox Ridge residents. We all paid for a lifestyle accommodated in  large part by the character of the neighborhoods we live in. The residents of Woodlands and Fox Ridge, assume preserving the character of our  neighborhoods and our lifestyles, is a requirement of any Pine Ridge subdivision design, as reflected in their comments. Specific areas for each  subdivision should be included in the outline so the study captures all the details of what will be impacted and lost. 45 8/4/21 13:32:42 anonymous Erik Myers 425 Rio Vista Blvd, McCall,  ID 83638 Overall general comment is there appears to be opportunity in the Draft Scope of Work for the Environmental Assessment to include additional  question / scope items to ensure as much POST development impacts are fully reviewed.  In the Natural Environment Section this should include:  1.   For Plants ‐ What will the impact on forest / plants be upon completion of each phase of development, with additional focus on impacts after fully  development?  2.  For Wildlife ‐ How will wildlife corridors be impacted after each and full phase development?  What will the impact on wildlife,  including vegetation, be impacted by the likely domesticated pets that residents of the proposed development will bring to the area?   For  Transportation ‐ Other than 10d, did not see questions prompting impacts of full post development on traffic and especially evacuation requirements,  due to fire or other emergency.  Did not see a question on evaluation of potential increased likelihood of fire or similar issues from partial or full  development.   Recommend that there be an additional section focusing on post development full Socio / Economic impact, including impacts of the  areas service industries.  This should include at least (though some may be covered to some extent in other portions of the scope) review of adequacy  of such services ‐ groceries, other retail, health, food, etc. and adequacy of housing and support for the employees of these businesses, i.e. can the  existing businesses support the post development loads, either from total increased use and / or the ability to hire / maintain enough employees to  keep their businesses viable?  Socio / Economic impact analysis should also include impacts of the post development on the overall atmosphere and  targeted quality of life for existing and future McCall residents.  There are probably other items that are off shoots from the above comments that  could be elaborated on in the scope outline to ensure as many aspects of the proposed development's impacts are fully evaluated.  Another inclusion  should be the inclusion of enforcement of existing planning and zoning and other impacted city / county codes, as it appears that recent developments  indicate that waivers to such codes may be a fairly common item and as such, assumptions should not be made that these would be met in the full post  development (and if such assumptions are made this should be forcefully emphasized in the scope of the assessment0.  Thank you for the opportunity  to comment. 46 8/4/21 15:39:04 anonymous Dawn Matus 608 Woodlands Drive,  McCall, ID 83638 I am writing in response to the call for public comments on the scope of the environmental assessment for the proposed Pine Creek Ranch  development.   Because of its size and density, Pine Creek Ranch would be a precedent‐setting development for McCall and surrounding areas. A  project of this magnitude could have far‐reaching implications for the future of development in McCall and its surroundings. Therefore, I strongly  believe that the environmental assessment and any additional studies performed for the project should take a two‐pronged approach. On the one  hand, any assessments should thoroughly address issues specific to the site. But they should go further than that, by taking a wide‐ranging view and  examining what Pine Ranch and subsequent large‐scale developments would mean in the long‐term for McCall and neighboring communities.   As  currently planned, the Pine Creek Ranch proposal invites a number of questions. For residents in adjacent neighborhoods – The Woodlands and Fox  Ridge – concerns about traffic and public safety are high on the list. The conversion of 158 acres of forest to a residential area of 550‐plus homes also  raises questions about the loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat, air and water pollution, impacts on the supply of water and other natural resources,  and the burden on infrastructure, as well as on public and emergency services.   There are other, more fundamental, questions as well: What kind of  future do we envision for McCall? Do we want McCall and Valley County to go the way of communities such as Star and Kuna in the Treasure Valley,  where land is increasingly being carved up and filled with tightly‐packed homes? How much growth can our area sustain? How do large‐scale  residential developments mix with increased drought and wildfire risk? How can a development like Pine Creek Ranch help McCall address pressing  issues, such as the lack of affordable housing and the preservation of open space?   Some of these questions may very well be outside of the scope of a  conventional environmental assessment. But the Pine Creek Ranch proposal is not a conventional project for our area. And it could very well set a  benchmark for future developments in McCall and beyond. This is why the processes used for Pine Creek Ranch now could have a significant bearing on matters of vital importance potentially impacting the sustainability, livability and very character of McCall and Valley County for years to come. Let’s  make sure to take a close look at the project and its impacts from all perspectives, to help McCall make smart and informed decisions that will help  shape its future.  47 8/4/21 16:56:35 anonymous Susan Rost 14073 Morell Rd, McCall,  ID Thank you so much for doing this review before allowing a big project like this to proceed. We have two ways to drive to town from our home. One is  Elo Road to Hwy 55 and the other is Elo Road to Samson Trail and north on Samson Trail past this area which is being evaluated. Therefore traffic  congestion is obviously one of our concerns. The density of building you approve will affect all of us who live in the east end of McCall along Elo and  Farm to Market Road. I appreciate the fact that you are doing this study and will allow public input prior to approval.  48 8/4/21 18:29:03 anonymous Louise Laduke 657 Woodlands As I live in the  Woodlands, I am concerned for safety of our neighborhood and the many children who live here. I am glad to see these safety issues are  included in the scope document. The limitations on school capacity must be addressed. Assumptions made that the neighborhood would be 70%  second home use, are no longer accurate looking at the recent influx of full time residents to the area. This must be considered as well as the massive  need for truly affordable housing that our community needs now that should be included in the very first phase of this project.  49 8/4/21 18:37:51 anonymous Gail Rankin 675 Fox Ridge Lane I am writing to share my concerns about the significant infrastructure limitations our community is under and request that you consider a moratorium  on all new development until these are resolved. A realistic look at the actual capacity of McCall for residents would be invaluable. The pressure for  new development will not go away.   1. Lack of sewer capacity. This is a known limitation. 2. Seasonal stress to water usage. The lake must have a finite  capacity to supply water for a community and I am hopeful this could be researched as to what that capacity could reasonably be. We are being told to  water every other day as water usage is too high. What would doubling the population do?  3. Lack of primary care capacity. There are no primary care  physicians taking new patients in McCall at this time which is of great concern. How can we allow development until medical services are available? I  have also spoken to the phlebotomists at the hospital. They report that the number of people who moved here during Covid has pushed them to  capacity. Unfortunately the hospital expansion has not included hiring more phlebotomists.  4. Traffic flow into and out of new developments. The  situation regarding Pine Creek Ranch is an example of very poor planning as the Woodlands road is at capacity and only has one exit.  The small  potential easement road through Fox Ridge is totally inadequate for more than a small fraction of Pine Creek. Fox Ridge subdivision also has only 1 exit.  It seems that roadways in Pine Creek might not be able to all be connected forcing exits to Stockton or Knights Drive. I have heard that the road past  the school (extension from Deinhard) at one time had an easement to allow traffic into Pine Creek that somehow was not finalized when the school  was built.  5. Fire services. As our community expands, so does the wild land urban interface. What is our capacity for fire protection and is fire wise  building part of the code now? 6. Affordable housing for employees and first time buyers.  This issue appears to be at crisis level and is one more  bottleneck that will prevent healthy growth of our community. I know that the McCall clinic and Rite Aid are using traveling employees (including  nurses) who are put up in hotel rooms. This very unsustainable situation needs to be dealt with by our city as well before businesses cannot function.  It  is critical that the City of McCall take control over all these interactive planning issues and bring the most experienced and detail oriented people we  can find to help with the task of future planning.  Sincerely, Gail Rankin, MD 50 8/4/21 21:03:37 anonymous Shauna Au 155 Fox Ln, McCall, ID What do you think is helpful?  ‐The Objective: Identifying the environmental opportunities and constraints for development that balances the various  and competing interests for private development and the public interest. McCall is a special and unique community and public interest absolutely  needs to be considered to avoid any irresponsible developments that would take away from the community. What do you think is Missing?  Water>Ground water and Utilities>Water Services: As water is an increasingly precious resource, there needs to be a more in‐depth review of how a  development this size will affect surrounding areas and McCall as a whole. More specific information is needed regarding the impact on adjacent  properties and any mitigation. Transportation‐ This is a major issue for the community as there is a safety concern for the adjacent properties  (Woodlands & Fox Ridge & the public schools). This development is unique in that it is landlocked with no current major access points or road networks  established. Current usage of the main road will increase.  This also means an increase of noise pollution, light pollution, and PM2.5 and PM10 dusts in  the air, which can be harmful, especially to those with respiratory problems. For a development of this size there needs to be more than just an  assessment, but an exhaustive/in‐depth analysis that studies multiple alternatives, the impacts on adjacent sites, construction access, and the safety  implications for each alternative. What measures can be implemented to mitigate the anticipated impacts as described? This section of the EA scope  needs more scrutiny. Housing – As a resort community, we are experiencing a workforce crisis directly related to housing. We need to think about  whether this considers McCall’s community, those who live in McCall. Will this create local home ownership opportunities or is it primarily for second  homeowners? Plants/Deforestation – By clear‐cutting an area to include this many homes, you change the ecological integrity.  Is there a posted study  of the migratory or ecological impact this will have for the wildlife.  These actions will also cause the rapid increase of soil erosion and contamination of  the lake and ground water used in homes and businesses currently.  What about an environmental impact study of forested water storage and carbon  sequestration?  Without the forested water storage the temperatures in and around the city will increase. The following issues and surveys were not  outlined: Agencies consulted and references including letters, comments, and a summary of any phone consultations List of Preparers‐ all individuals  who participated in the preparation of the EA which includes Names, Address, Phone, Agency or Affiliation List of Agencies/Organizations/People to  who the EA will be sent Public Notice to include agencies contacted and who to contact for further information Public Participation‐ Review and  address any public comments submitted Process Steps: Steps 3 (Ten‐day public comment period on scope of work) and Step 6 (Ten‐day distribution of  environmental assessment and public meetings to discuss the implications of the analysis) are inadequate and do not provide enough time for us as a  community to review/discuss/comment on such a large‐scale project. There needs to be an in‐depth and informative public meeting/presentation for  us as a community to provide adequate and meaningful input.  A planned comprehensive review to address any concerns raised at a public meeting,  prior to making any recommendations to the applicant on development proposal, should be required. These actions are necessary to facilitate  transparency and clear communication with the public. 51 8/4/21 22:16:51 anonymous Joseph Fox 295 Rio Vista (owner and  summer resident) This scoping is deficient in the following ways: 1) the timing of public comment is far too limited, both for the scoping and the subsequent review.  The  public cannot be expected to digest the information in just a week to 10 days. The period of review for the staff is just one week which allows only  cursory review based on pre‐determined decisions; 2) There is no population study and cultural impacts study.  The assessment needs to equate the  projected density of houses with the cumulative population increase of other proposed developments, and relate that to a percentage expansion of the  current population.  This project alone may multiply McCall's population by 30‐50%.  The citizens of McCall need solid projections and an overall  cultural impact study to show how such an explosive population increase will change the character of the town; 3) there needs to be a citizens advisory  board appointed to sift through the information from the studies and assessments;  there is no way that the average citizen has time to digest all of the  information needed for this proposal.  To be clear, no one with developer interests should be on this citizens' advisory board due to an inherent conflict  of interest; #4) there needs to be a procedural framework protecting the public from undue influence over the process and the city planner; all emails  and correspondence and contacts must be made available to the public as they are created and the contacts must be limited between the developer or  its agents and the city planner; 5) there must be a full assessment of the sewer facility space to accommodate this proposal as well as a full set of  financial disclosures to the public as to whether this proposal will necessitate, either by itself, or cumulatively with other proposed projects, an  expansion of the current sewage treatment facility, and a full environmental and fiscal assessment of that potential must be done prior to this proposal  proceeding in the application process; 6) there must be a full water budget done for the city of McCall, and a study of this proposal's impact on that  budget, prior to this proposal moving forward; and such water budget must incorporate the best available science on the decreasing water and  snowpack caused by climate change; 7)  there must be a full assessment of the wildfire potential for this area and the capacity of the fire defense  resources, including  realistic projections of catastrophic wildfire and mortality and property damage associated with building homes in this area; 8)  there must be a comprehensive analysis of how climate change will impact the habitability of McCall in light of wildfire, scarcer food supplies, drought,  and extreme weather, and the aggravated risk this proposed development poses in light of that future; 9) there must be a legal analysis of the personal  and official liability for the McCall city planners in any approval of this development and legal costs to the community associated with defending  foreseeable lawsuits. 52 8/5/21 10:59:41 anonymous Don and Pam Sanda 639 Woodlands Dr.,  McCall, ID 83638 First of all, we would like to thank you for giving this large development the attention that is necessary. This draft is a precedent, setting the parameters for the future housing developments in the City of McCall. After reading the draft public review for the environmental assessment of Pine Creek Ranch,  we feel that the areas of concern have been addressed. However, we would like to emphasize certain aspects of the draft. One of our concerns is the  use of Woodlands Drive as the main access to the proposed development. Since this road is the most direct access from Spring Mountain Ranch Road  to the proposed new development, this would result in greatly increased traffic flow. We feel Woodlands Drive does not have the capacity to  accommodate the increased traffic as well as providing for emergency services and the safety of pedestrians. Certainly, additional appropriate  ingress/egress need to be properly addressed. Also, we question whether the existing city water and sewer infrastructure have the capacity to service  such a large development. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the course of this development and its impact on the City of McCall and the  Woodlands Subdivision. 53 8/5/21 11:12:46 anonymous Scott Sword and Dawn Cardwell 633 Fox Ridge Lane I have read many of the previously submitted comments and whole heartedly echo all of the concerns submitted.  I would emphasize concerns over  the lack of infrastructure needed to accommodate this large a development, the impact on existing neighborhoods and the safety and security impacts  to the City and County.  Assuming the development goes forward, what impact assessments will be levied to the developer?    It seems there should be  considerations given to the type of residences allowed, if not by city code, then by CC&Rs.  Will this address the onslaught of part‐time residences and  residences being used as Air B&Bs?  Is there consideration given to the density allowed considering the seclusion of the parcels.   1‐acre parcels would  impose much less negative impact than the suggested R4 and R8.  Will there be land set aside for public use such as a City Park.  Will there be other  properties set aside of equal ecological value as a means of mitigating the impacts imposed on the existing environment?  Will this assessment be  completed by a third party with no vested interest in the development?  While we are not "anti‐development", we are concerned with the quantity,   quality and integrity. Thank you, Concerned Residents 54 8/5/21 14:44:17 anonymous Christina Nemec 668 Koski Drive Population – With a current population of only 3900, impacts to schools, hospitaa development of this size could have significant impacts on the City of  McCall. It would be nice of the document evaluate the l, and other City services at full buildout, as well as address the proposed timeline as it correlates  to growth that is anticipated in the comprehensive plan.      Wildlife – I like that the proposed scope includes wildlife migration. I think that particular  attention should be paid to elk migrating in the fall.      Transportation – I appreciate that evaluation of existing street networks is included. I would  specifically like to see impacts of full build‐out traffic to pedestrian/cyclist safety addressed for both summer and winter conditions.   55 8/5/21 15:04:56 anonymous Kimberly Apperson 415 S Samson Trail Evaluation of impact to groundwater must show geographic range of effects and should consider both the already built environment and the  potentially completely built environment if all land that can be developed within the aquifer was developed. My concern is that this project could  seriously affect groundwater quantity and quality for many residences that have private wells. I am also concerned about a large concentration of  traffic and associated noise if very few roads are to serve as the only access to a large subdivision.  56 8/5/21 16:47:38 anonymous Andrew Eberly 14246 Hamilton rd.  McCall, ID 83638 Very comprehensive, glad to see McCall taking steps to ensure that the land is respected and the long term impacts from development are considered  as the town grows. 57 8/5/21 16:49:14 anonymous Marcia Witte 669 Woodlands Drive I am submitting my comments via email as they do not appear to fit in this comment box. 58 8/5/21 16:56:38 anonymous Steve Harkrader 365 Knights Rd., McCall, ID  83638 I am glad to see the City of McCall designate the proposed Pine Creek Ranch development an “Area of Critical Concern” requiring the higher level of  vigilance when evaluating the impacts of such a large‐scale project on our community. Perhaps all of McCall should be considered an Area of Critical  Concern.   The amount of information required by the Draft Environmental Assessment for Pine Creek Ranch is quite impressive. I will be quite  interested in reviewing the resulting report. I will be most interested in what the study will have to say about the increased population impacts to the  surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. I am a resident/property owner on Knights Rd. just south of the project. Approval of a project  this size will change life forever on Knights Road and in other adjacent neighborhoods. The impact of 500+ new homes in our community will be  profound.   Traffic impacts currently seem to be the most contentious. I hope the “Assessment” will include an exhaustive discussion on all potential  Ingress/Egress routing, especially the extension of Deinhard Lane from the intersection with Samson Trail east to the project boundary. Traffic from 500 plus new housing units in this area could be devastating to the older established neighborhoods nearby.  The housing aspect concerns me as well. It  seems almost inevitable that the great majority of the planned housing units would become second homes or third homes for out of area buyers and  not economically viable housing for wage earners in this area. Will there be any provision in the “Assessment” requiring discussion of meaningful  workforce housing and the restriction of Short‐Term Rental properties? (Workforce housing should not be confused with “affordable” housing which  often does not carry any restrictions as to whether residents are working in the community) At some point our community will need more residents  actually working in the local economy. The Assessment should study compatible use questions thoroughly as well. Perhaps lot sizes should be enlarged  along the southern boundary where current lot size is 2½ to 5 acres.  As for the “Assessment” itself, I have some concerns as to the credibility of the  those conducting the assessment, the accountability of the developer to follow directives contained in the study and the timeline for evaluating results.  Putting the developer in charge of conducting the assessment seems a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, perhaps the community  should have a say in who conducts this study. Or at least some sort of preemptive right of refusal when it comes to selecting the authors. I think it  would also be wise to include a discussion on how the developer could be held accountable for following the framework of the development  agreement and adhering to the findings of the environmental assessment. Lastly, the decisions made based on the completed Environmental  Assessment will change life here in McCall forever. We cannot afford to move too quickly or carelessly. The city must take as much time as needed to  review the findings and the citizens of McCall (and the surrounding area) must have plenty of time to read and understand the findings and plenty of  time to provide thoughtful feedback. We cannot afford to make these decisions in a hurry.  Thank You,  Steve Harkrader 365 Knights Rd. McCall, ID   83638 59 8/5/21 19:51:38 anonymous Jen Duplisea 687 Fox Ridge Lane,  McCall An addition:  Mitigation and management of environmental noise and dust pollution to perimeter properties and homes, to surrounding areas as well  as to migratory wildlife, specifically birds, insects, and deer. 1 Brian Parker From:Phil Brug <phillipbrug@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 25, 2021 11:00 AM To:Brian Parker Subject:Scope of Impact Study for Pine Creek Ranch Subdivision 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.    The study required for the proposed Pine Creek Ranch Subdivision (PCRS) needs the highest priority placed on ACCESS ISSUES for the following reasons:    1) WILDFIRES: Lands adjacent to the PCRS and the Woodlands subdivision are highly susceptible to wildfires. Climate change is dramatically increasing this risk. Safety of the residents, both in the Woodlands and in the PCRS, will require multiple options to quickly vacate homes, while not interfering with fire fighting resources attempting to reach fires. Wildfire activity is straining fire fighting resources all over the west. This makes it imperative that there be multiple good accesses to and through the PCRS and Woodlands to combat fires as quickly, and easily as possible. What has been considered adequate access in the past is no longer appropriate for public safety.    2) EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS: The current situation in Woodlands is inappropriate in that there is only a single access into the subdivision. This creates an unsafe situation for emergency medical, or fire fighting access. Recently the only access to Woodlands was temporarily totally cut off for road maintenance on Spring Mountain Boulevard. Last winter there was at least one incident of a delivery truck getting stuck on ice on the sloped and curving Woodlands drive and blocking all access to the subdivision for a time. This is not acceptable and must not be exacerbated by increasing traffic on Woodlands Drive.    3) SIDEWALKS AND PATHS: The current situation in Woodlands is unfortunate in that no sidewalks or paths were included in the original design. Adults and children are forced to use the street for walking and bicycles. The advent of electric bicycles, scooters, and skateboards is rapidly increasing use of the street. Climate change is placing emphasis on making use of these forms of non-vehicle transportation. It is inappropriate to place any more traffic on Woodlands Drive. The PCRS must include sidewalks and paths that are designed to be kept clear through out the winter.    4) AVERAGE USAGE IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE: Traffic on Woodlands Drive is extremely variable due to the presence of 2nd homes and our climate. Any study that does not measure and take into account peak traffic volumes will not be appropriate. It is at these peak volume times that safety is most compromised. Limited access as snow builds up during the winter contributes to unsafe situations and must be taken into account.    5) GROWTH AND THE FUTURE: McCall is growing rapidly. This is going to continue. There is no question that eventually there will be development beyond the PCRS. Future access will be required though the Woodlands and PCRS. This must be taken into consideration to avoid a repeat of the current situation, where barely adequate access is being asked to accommodate new development. The geography in this area will force future access to be from the West and this must be studied carefully and planned for.   Thank you,  Phillip Brug  628 Woodlands Dr.  1 Brian Parker From:sandra.brug@yahoo.com Sent:Sunday, July 25, 2021 10:59 AM To:Brian Parker Subject:Scope of Impact Study for Pine Creek Ranch Subdivision 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.    The absence of sidewalks and paths in Woodlands Subdivision is a problem for increasing any more traffic on Woodlands Drive. This needs to be studied. I am an elderly woman and I walk on Woodlands Drive daily for my exercise and health, as do many residents--young and old. Children walk and bike to school on the road; they also skateboard, skate and recreate in the street. Mothers push baby carriages on the road. Neighbors walk their dogs daily down the road. All this occurs while sharing the road with vehicles. Currently, this is frequently unsafe. Adding substantially more vehicles to this mix is not a safe option. The impact of increased usage of Woodlands Drive needs to be carefully studied. Sandra Brug 628 Woodlands Dr. Sandra Brug, PO BOX 3367, McCall ID, 83638 sandra.brug@yahoo.com (406) 548-1235 SHEREE SONFIELD 664 Woodlands Drive, PO Box 295, McCall, ID 83638 sonfield@telus.net 208.720.6889 July 26, 2021 Brian Parker, City Planner bparker@mccall.id.us RE: Public Comment on Draft of Scope of Environmental Assessment, Pine Creek Ranch (“PCR”) Attached: 1) Scope document, with my specific comments in the form of proposed additional questions marked in CAPS 2) Text of my public comment in support of the AOCC designation at the June 24 Council meeting 3) Letter to the Editor July 27 Dear Brian, The City Planners’ and City Council’s decision to designate PCR as an Area of Critical Concern was appropriate for a project of its large size. I supported the Planning Department recommendation by appearing in person at the June 24 Council meeting (see attached). It is the largest development in McCall’s history and is the first development designated as an Area of Critical Concern. We are all setting an important precedent and I appreciate that there is a learning curve for most of us. I live on Woodlands Drive in The Woodlands neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Pine Creek Ranch development area and safety on my street and all the roadways in The Woodlands is my primary concern, so I reviewed the Scope to see if my concerns were addressed. Where all my concerns don’t seem to be sufficiently addressed, I added text in CAPS and highlighted that in yellow. Hopefully this presentation is an organized approach for your review of my public comments. I have over 45 years of financial experience, including Municipal Finance and this is a big driver for my comments and why I limited my comments to the Built Environment section and the first page. The monetary, economic and other fiscal impacts and costs to the City and all its taxpayers of a development of this size can easily be much more than the benefit of the developer system upgrades, concessions, relatively minor contributions to affordable housing inventory and development ongoing taxes and fees. The size of the development will impact future costs related to housing, downtown use and maintenance of public streets, snow removal, Highway 55 traffic from Boise and intersections in McCall, use of recreational and other amenities, and it will require additional water treatment capacity and sewer system capacity. Police, fire, public works, other City services’ demand will increase in the short and long term due to a development of this relative size. Whether it is phased in or not, the total size and future cost of services impact is the same. And the access roads all need to be in place prior to the start of construction, this is prudent fiscal management. Finally, I need to comment that the timeline at the end of the Scope needs to be removed, it is a timeline. Also, the public comment period for the Environmental Assessment needs to be at least 30 days. The typical public comment period for an Environmental Assessment is at least 30 days with a public hearing to follow. I have even seen EIS or EA’s with more than 30 days for review and public comment. We will need that time to allow our professional advisors to properly review and comment on the EA and related consultants’ reports. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Scope draft document and I appreciate the City Planning and other offices’ and departments’ participation in this historical and important process that will set a precedent for the future and an opportunity to do this “right”. Please consider all of the concerns in this cover letter and attachments as my concerns that should be addressed in the scope of the Environmental Assessment, whether or not I specifically found a good place to add it on the draft Scope or not. Best Regards, Sheree Sonfield Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 1 | P a g e Environmental Assessment for Pine Creek Ranch Objectives: • To fulfill the requirements of MCC 9.7.08 for the completion of an environmental assessment plan by an interdisciplinary team of professionals. • To undertake a comprehensive analysis of the natural and built environment of the Pine Creek Ranch properties and its surroundings that is contained within one document. • To facilitate discussion and coordination among the applicant, public officials, and the public through an integrated analysis of the environmental conditions affecting the site. • To identify the environmental opportunities and constraints for development that balances the various and competing interests for private development and the public interest. • To provide the framework for the efficient review and decisions on the land use application for the site. TO HELP DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL, FISCAL AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL ARE SIGNIFICANT TO IDENTIFY AND DETERMINE APPROPRIATE EFFORTS TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE MCCALL COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. TO HELP DICTATE WHAT THE LAND CARRYING CAPACITY IS, WHAT THE PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE CAPACITY IS, TO FRAME THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF ITS LOCATION AND ITS INTENSITY TO CAPTURE AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED TO DATE BY THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS IMPACTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY OTHER AGENCIES, AS WELL. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT, NAME OF APPLICANT, ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT AND CONTACT PERSON. DATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED TIMING OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT, INCLUDING PHASING, IF APPLICABLE BRIEF, COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND LOCATION, PROVIDING MOST RECENT AVAILABLE PLANS, MAPS, OF THE PROJECT. Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 2 | P a g e Built Environment-Community Context 1. Land Use a. What is the historical and existing land use of the property? b. Describe any structures on the site. Will the structures be demolished? c. What are the current uses of adjacent properties? How will the development of this site affect adjacent properties? d. What is the development potential and/or potential intensity of development of properties in the immediate area? e. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands, including by historic indigenous populations? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? f. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? g. What is the current zoning classification of the site? h. What is the current comprehensive plan designation and policy direction for the future of the site? i. What subdivision and PUD regulations apply to the property? APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD RESIDE IN THE COMPLETED PROJECT, INCLUDING PERMANENT, SEASONAL AND SHORT-TERM RESIDENCY? WHAT MEASURES ARE PLANNED TO RESTRICT OR DISCOURAGE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT? IDENTIFY PROPOSED MEASURES TO ENSURE THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USES AND PLANS, INCLUDING GOALS IN THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RELATED MASTER PLANS. 2. Transportation a. Identify the existing street network adjacent to the site, the functional classification and carrying capacity of existing streets. Identify the constraints posed by the conditions of existing adjacent streets for accommodating additional traffic. Assess the alternatives for access to the site in terms of capacity, safety, impacts on adjacent properties, direct access, cost, and multimodal potential. Show on a site plan. b. Identify the City’s Transportation Plan for any system improvements that would serve the site. Are there any other planned street improvements to the streets that could serve the site? Describe any previously undefined street improvements that would be necessary to accommodate development of the site. c. Identify the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and street crossings, including paved, unpaved, formal, and informal paths and trails. Locate on a site plan. d. Describe and show which phase of the project each planned street improvement, pedestrian and bike facility will be constructed in. With a phased plan, also describe how the improvements will be ended in the interim until all phases are constructed. e. Is the site directly served by public transportation? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit route? Describe the frequency and span of any nearby transit routes and significant useful locations accessed. f. What are the current conditions for access to the schools in terms of traffic, congestion, times of day, pedestrian, and bicycle interface? Describe the alternatives for resolving issues including the plan prepared for the school district and the extension of Deinhard Lane. Identify the existing Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 3 | P a g e pedestrian and bicycle counts from city GIS data and bus routes for current students WHAT ARE ALL THE ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES AND ALTERNATIVES TO CREATE A GREATER NUMBER OF USEABLE ACCESS STREETS TO THE SITE AND TO REMOVE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC FROM WOODLANDS DRIVE? INCLUDE ALL POSSIBILITIES EG EXTENSION OF DEINHARD LANE, ACCESS TO ELO ROAD, CONNECTING ONLY BIKE PATHWAYS (NO ROADS) TO THE WOODLANDS AT THE EXISTING STUB ROADS WITH REMOVABLE LOCKING BOLLARDS THAT COULD BE REMOVED IN EMERGENCIES. WHAT ARE THE PLANS TO KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OFF OF ROADS IN EXISTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS? IDENTIFY PUBLIC STREETS AND HIGHWAYS SERVING THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE EXISTING SAFETY AND TRAFFIC ISSUES ON THESE ROADS, INCLUDING EXISTING SH 55 TRAFFIC VOLUME FROM BOISE AND CITY INTERSECTIONS (EG AT DEINHARD, RAILROAD AVE) AND SAFETY ISSUES, AND WHAT PLANS THE DEVELOPER HAS TO NOT EXACERBATE THESE ISSUES IN THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND DEVELOPED PHASE? INDICATE HOW CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND CREWS WILL BE TRANSPORTED TO THE SITE AND FROM WHERE? WHAT ARE THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ON AIRPORT ACTIVITY, ITS ABILITY TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS OF THE SITE AND COSTS OR THIS SERVICE, BOTH IN MONETARY, NOISE AND PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES WHERE AN INCREASING NUMBER OF INCREASINGLY LARGER PLANES FLY DIRECTLY OVER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND A SCHOOL. HOW ARE THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS COMPATIBLE WITH CITY’S TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN? 3. Housing a. What are the existing housing market and trends for the city and region? b. What are the opportunities in development of this site to satisfy market demand? WHAT ARE THE CURRENT EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS IN THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF PRICE POINT, LOCATION, SIZE, OWNERSHIP VS RENTAL, SEASONAL AVAILABILITY AND HOW MUCH NEED DOES EACH NEW HOME CREATE? HOW DOES THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MEET THESE NEEDS IN THE SHORT AND LONG-TERM? APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY UNITS WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND AT WHICH PRICE POINTS? INDICATE WHICH TYPE OF PURCHASER (LOW, MIDDLE, HIGH-INCOME) IS TARGETED FOR EACH TYPE AND PRICE POINT? WHERE WILL CONSTRUCTION CREWS RESIDE WHILE BUILDING THE HOMES? WHERE WILL CONSTRUCTION CREWS COMMUTE FROM WHILE BUILDING THE HOMES? 4. Utilities a. What utilities are planned to serve the site? b. What is the availability and capacity of existing water and sewer services? c. Are there planned improvements or what improvements would be needed to serve the site? Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 4 | P a g e WHAT IS THE ABILITY OF THE CITY UTILITY AND OTHER UTILITY AGENCIES TO ADEQUATELY SERVICE THE SITE, INCLUDING ITS SHORT- AND LONG- TERM FISCAL IMPACT ON CITY BUDGETS, EXISTING TAXPAYERS AND USER FEES? HOW WILL NEEDED UTILITY UPGRADES BE BROUGHT TO THE DEVELOPMENT (EG SEWER) AND HOW WILL THE CONSTRUCTON OF THESE UPGRADES IMPACT THE SURROUNDING EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEIR ROADWAYS? 5. Public Safety a. What are the existing service levels and jurisdiction providing service to the site? b. What would be the response time for service? Replace with WHAT IS THE CURRENT RESPONSE TIME IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, EVACUATION TIME IN THE CASE OF WILDFIRE AND HOW WOULD THIS TIME BE AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT? c. Are there any known EXISTING public safety issues (INCLUDING EMERGENCY EVACUATION ISSUES) on or IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS EXISITING near the site? WHAT ADDITIONAL PLANS ARE PROPOSED TO MITIGATE AN INCREASE IN EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES, PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF FIRE, WILDFIRE, EMERGENCY EVACUATION, EMERGENCY HEALTHCARE NEEDS? d. Are there any fire wise practices in place? WHAT IS THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES TO ADEQUATELY SERVICE THE SITE AND ITS RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ITS SHORT- AND LONG- TERM FISCAL IMPACT ON THEIR BUDGETS, EXISTING TAXPAYERS AND USER FEES? 6. Schools: a. What is the availability of school and capacity to serve the site? b. What is the availability of daycare facilities and capacity to serve the site? WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED AND TARGETED MIX OF HOMEOWNERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT: LOCAL FAMILIES WITH SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN, FAMILIES WITHOUT CHILDREN, SECOND HOMEOWNERS, AND BASED ON THAT WHAT IS THE ABILITY OF THE SCHOOLS TO ADEQUATELY SERVICE THE SITE, INCLUDING ITS SHORT- AND LONG- TERM FISCAL IMPACT ON SCHOOL BUDGETS, EXISTING TAXPAYERS AND USER FEES? NEW SECTION: PUBLIC SERVICES: WHAT ARE THE EXISTING SNOW REMOVAL SAFETY AND OTHER ISSUES REPORTED IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS AND HOW WILL AN INCREASE IN THESE SAFETY ISSUES BE MITIGATED? WHAT ARE THE EXISTING CITY SNOW REMOVAL STORAGE ISSUES IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOW WILL THIS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT THAT AND ISSUES BE ADDRESSED? WHAT ALTERNATIVE AND/OR ADDITIONAL SNOW REMOVAL STRATEGIES WILL BE REQUIRED, WHERE WILL SNOW BE STORED AND WHAT IS THE FISCAL IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO REMOVE AND STORE SNOW? WHAT IS THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES, INCLUDING Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 5 | P a g e HEALTH CARE AND OTHER AGENCIES TO ADEQUATELY SERVICE THE SITE AND ITS RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ITS SHORT- AND LONG- TERM FISCAL IMPACT ON THEIR BUDGETS, EXISTING TAXPAYERS AND USER FEES 7. Recreation/Open Space a. What designated and informal recreational/open space opportunities are in the immediate vicinity including school district property and city parks and pathways, IN PARTICULAR THOSE ACCESSIBLE BY FOOT OR OTHER NON-MOTORIZED MEANS? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational/open space uses? If so, describe. c. What is the recreation/open space opportunities, including trails and linkages with natural environmental conditions that could be provided WITHIN the project? HOW ARE THE PLANNED RECREATIONAL/OPEN SPACE OPPORTUNITIES COMPATIBLE WITH THE GOALS OF THE MCCALL COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN & PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN? 8. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Native American or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. 9. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? b. What kinds of energy conservation features could be included in the design of the development? c. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. 10. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that exist on the site? b. What are the current sources of light or glare on or IN NEIGHBORHOODS adjacent to the site? Could light or glare from the CONSTRUCTION OR THE development be a safety hazard or interfere with views OR NEGATIVELY IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES OF EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTIES? c. What are the current sources of noise on or IN NEIGHBORHOODS adjacent to the site? Could noise from the CONSTRUCTION OR THE development IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES’ OR be a safety hazard? d. What are the current conditions that make this site AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES prone to wildland fires? What are the considerations that should be made in the design of future site development to mitigate the impacts TO THE EXISTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS from wildland fire? What are the existing and planned evacuation strategies for the area INCLUDING IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD in the event of a catastrophic fire event AND HOW CAN NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS EVACUATION PLAN BE MITIGATED? (NOTE: THIS SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE WITH SIMILAR PUBLIC SAFETY QUESTIONS IN SECTION 5, PUBLIC SAFETY?) Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 6 | P a g e How can development of this site be adequately served, CONSTRUCTED, DESIGNED AND PLANNED to minimize public costs and impacts on existing development, THE MCCALL COMMUNITY, ECONOMY AND FINANCES OF THE CITY? I SUGGEST REMOVE THIS ENTIRE SECTION BELOW AS IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT ITSELF, IT IS A TIMELINE. HOWEVER, IT IS USEFUL FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, SO PERHAPS THIS COULD BE A SEPARATE DOCUMENT? TYPICALLY, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS AT LEAST 30 DAYS, WITH A PUBLIC HEARING TO FOLLOW. ITEM #7 IS ACTUALLY CITY STAFF REC ON THE EA? IN THE SCOPING MEETING, IT WAS CLEAR THAT NEITHER THE PREAPPLICATION OR THE FULL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION COULD GO TO PZ PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE EA. Process Steps 1. Scoping meeting. 2. Revised scope of work. 3. Ten-day public comment on scope of work. 4. Draft preparation by consultants 5. One-week draft review and approval by City. 6. Ten-day distribution of environmental assessment and public meeting to discuss the implications of the analysis. 7. Staff recommendations to applicant on development proposal. Comment made in person at the June 24, 2021 City Council meeting: My name is Sheree Sonfield and my residence is 664 Woodlands Drive and it has been for 18 years. Thank you all for your hard work and service to our community. I am here to comment on the City Planning Department’s proposed Resolution 21-25 to designate the 158 acres adjacent to The Woodlands and owned by Pine Creek Ranch, LLC as an “Area of Critical Concern”. If passed by council, the resolution would require an environmental assessment of the acreage. I support Resolution 21-25 and ask that you approve it with the requirement that the assessment specifically consider all potential options for vehicular traffic. This landlocked parcel with R4 zoning will add over 600 single family lots, presenting issues for routine and emergency access, as well as construction access. I’d like you to note these points that support specifically requiring this in your approval: 1) The 158 acres is landlocked– it is surrounded by the Nokes Property, The Woodlands, Fox Ridge, and West Place. 2) Unless a major new access point and road network is established, existing roadways will be overwhelmed thus creating safety hazards. There are many young children who use Woodlands roads to walk to the nearby schools. 3) The Woodlands (118 single family lots) plus Fox Ridge (32 single family lots) have 2 exits onto Spring Mountain Rd. The 158 acres’ residents (over 600 single family lots) would go through these 2 existing neighborhoods to access Spring Mountain Ranch. In total, more than 750 single family lots would use 2 access points to Spring Mountain Ranch Road. 4) Compare this to current development along Spring Mountain from Lick Creek to Bitteroot Dr: 9 access points to Spring Mountain Rd 528 single family lots (East of SMR) 5) Woodlands Drive is only 23 feet wide (at its widest points), with no shoulder or separate path. This does not meet the cross-section of a “local street’ in the Transportation Master Plan, much less a busier street. In winter, the road is even more narrow and the snowbanks are so high that sight lines are obscured for safe exit of driveways along Woodlands Drive. The McCall Comprehensive Plan includes transportation goals and policies that all speak to the importance of safe streets. The assessment needs to recognize the acreage is landlocked and that insufficient access has been proposed in the preliminary plan concepts. The assessment needs to look at creating additional and practical access to the landlocked acreage. Unless a major new access point and road network is established, existing roadways will be overwhelmed thus creating safety hazards. Thank you for your work and careful consideration. Safe, Smart Growth (submitted as a Letter to the Editor of the Star News to be published on July 29) Kids play and walk to school on my street. All ages cycle, walk dogs and exercise here. A relatively large percent of local families with kids live here because of our proximity to schools. Park Pointe Development of Boise’s current proposal for 585 homes in Pine Creek Ranch threatens the safety of existing users of my street and creates real life-safety concerns due to already limited emergency evacuation routes. As the largest development in McCall’s history, it should interest all taxpayers in McCall based solely on the estimated future service costs such a large development would create. Whether it’s 585 homes, as presented on the preliminary plans on the City website, or more, or fewer, 90 acres of the property would require annexation and all of the 158 acres would require re-zoning from current zoning. Let’s take the time to determine all its impacts and take every opportunity to speak up so McCall’s growth is safe and smart. The proposal currently has too few and inappropriate access points. Currently, the Woodlands Drive proposed access would be the shortest route to Pine Creek Ranch from downtown, so my street would see a dramatic increase in construction and resident traffic volume, creating an unimaginable safety hazard. The street isn’t built for this anticipated volume in summer and certainly not in winter when the street is narrow, snowbanks are higher, sight lines are obscured. Craig Groves, Park Pointe Development, said (in the July 1 City hosted scope meeting) that the “Fire Chief really has concerns about life-safety issues as it relates to [the area] today, let alone any additional development, without addressing transportation and other access points”. A wildfire emergency evacuation today could be catastrophic. When there is construction, a roadway obstruction, or a big school event, we have traffic bottlenecks and no exit alternatives today. For the safety of myself and my neighbors of all ages, I want to see a smarter plan. Extension of Deinhard Lane was envisioned by City Council in 1994 when there is development to the east, and now is the time. Deinhard could be the primary entrance to Pine Creek Ranch, it’s a direct access from the property line to Spring Mountain Ranch Road. Other additional practical access points should be considered too. No additional vehicle traffic should be allowed on Woodlands Drive, but pathways within Pine Creek Ranch could connect to The Woodlands and locking removable bollards could be utilized to improve everyone’s emergency routes. We could be smart and safe. The sheer size of the development should interest all McCall taxpayers. The nearly 600 homes could easily calculate to 1,800 additional residents and visitors for our small town, and that will impact future service demands and costs. We haven’t been taking into account all the future costs that come with each development, affordable housing is a perfect example. The incentive system doesn’t work, we need each development to be required to contribute to short and long-term solutions to our housing shortage crisis rather than exacerbate it. Then there’s the increased demand on water treatment systems, sewer systems, roads and snow removal improvements to accommodate increased traffic, police and fire emergency services, airport, parks and recreation facilities and programs, schools, just to mention a few. Current traffic on SH 55 would increase, and the intersections in McCall that have bottlenecks now would certainly require improvements due to more people in town. Smart growth is a big hot topic in the Treasure Valley now, and they have at least 1 new tool to assist in identifying and assessing the costs of growth. The “Fiscal Impact Tool,” or “FIT,” was announced recently by the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho. We also need to analyze the fiscal impacts for smart decision making here in McCall. Council’s designation of the Pine Creek Ranch area as an “Area of Critical Concern” is appropriate given its relative size and location. The designation allows for this development proposal to be looked at through an “Environmental Assessment” prior to the developer making any presentation to P&Z. This approach is supposed to allow us to get all the issues identified in a central location for analysis and smart decision making. This is McCall’s first designation of this sort and I applaud the move and recognize it requires our Planning Office and Council to learn as we progress through this process. Through August 5, we all have an opportunity make public comments on the Scope of this Environmental Assessment. Please consider speaking up so this report will address your own concerns, it’s part of the process. Sheree Sonfield, resident of The Woodlands, McCall From:Tom Kilgore To:Brian Parker; mwitte; Sheree Sonfield; tkilgore@frontiernet.net; phillipbrug@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Downed Tree Woodlands Date:Monday, July 26, 2021 1:31:49 PM Attachments:Attached Message Part 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. Dear Mr. Parker, as a followup to Mr. Brug's July 25,2021 email in regards to Pine Creek Ranch, Mr. Brug correctly stated the need for multiple good accesses to and from the Woodlands and Pine Creek Ranch in the event of a catastrophic wildfire. One ingress and egress on Woodlands Dr. will not be adequate. Two winters ago I took the attached picture of a fallen tree near the entrance of the Woodlands that prevented access until work crews could remove the tree. It took nearly and hour for the crew to respond and clear the road. As we all know, major wind associated with summer lightning storms could topple numerous trees on the only current access to the Woodlands and Pine Creek Ranch. We feel a major priority for the City is to require the developer to build at least one more ingress and egress road into Pine Creek Ranch before actual development begins.� Sincerely, Tom & Kathy Kilgore 674 Koski Dr. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject:Downed Tree Woodlands Date:Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:02:36 -0600 From:Thomas Kilgore <tkilgore@frontiernet.net> To:Tom Kilgore <tkilgore@frontiernet.net> Virus-free. www.avg.com r 1 ei • .Q II & ,, " " of 1 Brian Parker From:Erin Greaves Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 10:57 AM To:Michelle Groenevelt; Brian Parker Subject:Fwd: Area of Critical Concern - Pine Creek Ranch, LLC   Erin Greaves  Communications Manager   City of McCall  Office: 208‐634‐8966  Email: Egreaves@mccall.id.us  Web: www.Mccall.id.us  Please click to sign up for CodeRED!        Begin forwarded message:  From: Vern Farris <vernfarris@citlink.net>  Date: July 26, 2021 at 10:52:10 AM MDT  To: mccallcitysource@gmail.com  Subject: Re: Area of Critical Concern ‐ Pine Creek Ranch, LLC  Reply‐To: Vern Farris <vernfarris@citlink.net>     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.    I think this is BS in that the surrounding properties out side of the city should have no say on whether or  not private property can be developed.  The city and county should evaluate public safety issues,  emergency access and traffic routing to the city and major roadways.  Environmental issues should be  the DEQ not McCall!     Vern Farris  From: City of McCall Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 11:40 AM To: vernfarris@citlink.net Subject: Area of Critical Concern - Pine Creek Ranch, LLC   Draft Environmental Assessment Scope‐ Open for Public  Comment until August 5th.   Learn more at https://www.mccall.id.us/AOCC  2 On June 24, 2021, McCall City Council adopted Resolution 21‐25 designating certain properties owned  by Pine Creek Ranch, LLC as AREAS OF CRITICAL CONCERN. These properties located east of the McCall  city boundaries are within the area of city impact now require the preparation of an environmental  assessment.  3 4 In a memo to McCall City Council background was given regarding vacant parcels located east of the city  limits adjacent to the Fox Ridge, West Place, Woodlands No. 1, and Woodlands No. 2 subdivisions,  within the Area of City Impact, when combined, total 158 acres in size. The memo noted the owner’s  intent to develop the property in single‐family residences. Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Code sets Special  Subdivision Development Standards with the purpose to identify various types of developments that  normally pose special concerns to the city when reviewing and acting upon subdivision requests.  Section 9.7.08 specifically provides for the City Council to designate areas of critical concern, including  areas within the area of city impact outside the city boundaries. The code allows for the city to require  an environmental assessment prepared by an interdisciplinary team of professionals. After the  Resolution was adopted staff began drafting a scope of work outlining the required information that  need be contained within the Environmental Assessment.  As of July 22, 2021, the City of McCall is asking for input on the Draft Environmental Assessment Scope  of work. This is an effort to assure all aspects of environmental concerns are addressed for the Pine  Creek Ranch, LLC‐owned properties, and future designated Areas of Critical Concern.   Read the Draft Environmental Assessment Scope of Work.    Use this form to submit comments for staff consideration. Comments accepted through  AUGUST 5, 2021       Copyright © 2021 City of McCall, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because of your past  interaction with the City of McCall, its facilities, services, or programs. We look forward to sharing more  about McCall and receiving your input. If you would like to unsubscribe, please click on the link below. Unsubscribe    Comments on the Draft Public Review / Environmental Assessment for proposed Pine Creek Ranch August 4, 2021 As this process has not been routinely, if at all, invoked in the past, getting it right - or not - will affect the future of planning and growth throughout the McCall Area of Impact. Further, the significant resources necessary to complete this environmental assessment should be prudently and effectively applied to best benefit current and future residents and taxpayers. Its success would position City planning to better grapple with other upcoming and difficult challenges such as the disposition of significant State endowment lands within the area of impact. Conversely, its failure would cast a shadow over the City's ability to manage growth and maintain the quality of life that sets McCall apart. The large size of this project rises to the level of community-wide effects. However, neither indirect nor cumulative effects are explicitly found as issues in the draft scoping document. The inclusion of these elements would be needed to provide a truly meaningful assessment, and so they should be included. Put another way, significant broadscale effects would reasonably be expected to result from adding relatively large - and thus statistically significant - numbers of homes and residents to the City. City-wide indirect and cumulative effects within City government purview which should be analyzed for large proposals such as Pine Creek Ranch include the following: 1.Wildland-urban interface fire risk and mitigation, including effects on offsite insurance ratings 2.Increase in area and municipal vehicular traffic and indirect effects on streets planning and resources, including snow removal 3.Manageability of emergency access and evacuation routes 4.Exacerbation of community-wide imbalance in proportions of short-term rentals, long-term rentals, seasonally vacant homes and permanently occupied residences 5.Additional unplanned demand on City water infrastructure and treatment capacity at a time when restrictions on water use are already in effect 6.Stormwater analysis at the landscape level including nutrient management, long-cycle flood events and offsite effects on facilities, private and public property 7.Incremental demand / impact calculation for all City-wide services such as Police calls for service, Parks and Recreation facilities, Public Library, public boat ramp and associated parking 8.Incremental, indirect and cumulative effects on Payette Lake Of course it may be complicated, difficult and expensive to meaningfully address many indirect and cumulative effects. However, assessing and capturing the real costs of development in a timely way is arguably necessary to a sustainable community, and even more so during a time of high growth. We - as with many others in McCall - live in a neighborhood that suffers from some poor planning at the outset, many decades ago. Water, sewer and street infrastructure, pathways access, and emergency ingress / egress have deficiencies that are increasingly expensive and difficult to fix. The long-term cost of expedience and poor planning to the City and its residents far exceeds the cost of doing development right and capturing real impacts and costs at the outset. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. David Simmonds and Jamie Melbo 506 Sunset St, PO Box 287 McCall, ID 83638 From:Gail Eberharter To:Brian Parker Subject:May Need Help With Submitted Comments Date:Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:47:54 PM 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. Hi Brian. I submitted this comment on the comment form for Pine Creek Ranch draft scope of work. It only shows one line of text in the comment box and I am hopeful you could share my comments if they did not go through as I intended. They were submitted on August 4th around 6:30 PM. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Gail Rankin 675 Fox Ridge Lane McCall, ID 83638 Comments submitted: I am writing to share my concerns about the significant infrastructure limitations our community is under and request that you consider a moratorium on all new development until these are resolved. A realistic look at the actual capacity of McCall for residents would be invaluable. The pressure for new development will not go away. 1. Lack of sewer capacity. This is a known limitation. 2. Seasonal stress to water usage. The lake must have a finite capacity to supply water for a community and I am hopeful this could be researched as to what that capacity could reasonably be. We are being told to water every other day as water usage is too high. What would doubling the population do? 3. Lack of primary care capacity. There are no primary care physicians taking new patients in McCall at this time which is of great concern. How can we allow development until medical services are available? I have also spoken to the phlebotomists at the hospital. They report that the number of people who moved here during Covid has pushed them to capacity. Unfortunately the hospital expansion has not included hiring more phlebotomists. 4. Traffic flow into and out of new developments. The situation regarding Pine Creek Ranch is an example of very poor planning as the Woodlands road is at capacity and only has one exit. The small potential easement road through Fox Ridge is totally inadequate for more than a small fraction of Pine Creek. Fox Ridge subdivision also has only 1 exit. It seems that roadways in Pine Creek might not be able to all be connected forcing exits to Stockton or Knights Drive. I have heard that the road past the school (extension from Deinhard) at one time had an easement to allow traffic into Pine Creek that somehow was not finalized when the school was built. 5. Fire services. As our community expands, so does the wild land urban interface. What is our capacity for fire protection and is fire wise building part of the code now? 6. Affordable housing for employees and first time buyers. This issue appears to be at crisis level and is one more bottleneck that will prevent healthy growth of our community. I know that the McCall clinic and Rite Aid are using traveling employees (including nurses) who are put up in hotel rooms. This very unsustainable situation needs to be dealt with by our city as well before businesses cannot function. It is critical that the City of McCall take control over all these interactive planning issues and bring the most experienced and detail oriented people we can find to help with the task of future planning. Sincerely, Gail Rankin, MD From:Marcia Witte To:Diane Kushlan Cc:Meredith Todd; Brian Parker; Michelle Groenevelt Subject:EA draft scope and posted documents Date:Sunday, July 25, 2021 3:05:32 PM 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. Hi Diane - I have a few questions about the EA and some of the documents posted about the PCR project. One question is about the "Process Steps" that are included in the draft scope (last section, page 5). I'm wondering if the process needs to be included in the EA scoping document at all, or if it would be better placed in a separate document. It seems like once the scoping draft is approved, it becomes a formal document and commits us all to the process steps as outlined. Since neither the City nor the public has been engaged in this kind of process before, I would think it would be advantageous to maintain some flexibility about the process and the timing. Placing the Process Steps in a separate document and even calling them "Anticipated Process Steps" or "General Process Steps" would provide that flexibility. Regardless of where they are placed, I have some questions about the specific steps: - Is one week draft review of the EA by the City sufficient? I understand these EAs are often hundreds of pages long, and one week seems like a very compressed time frame, especially if there are questions for the consultants, with associated back-and-forth, or if a technical review by a third party on some aspect of the document is needed. I would think the City would want to plan on more than one week for review. - The "Process Steps" state that after that one-week review, there is "approval by City." Is that approval by City staff or City Council? Does that mean the document is finalized, or is it just approved for distribution to external stakeholders? - The 10-day time frame for distribution of the EA and a public meeting also seems unduly compressed. If we, as stakeholders, also want to solicit professional, technical review about any aspect of the EA, it will be extremely difficult to do that in 10 days. Also, my understanding is that a 30-day public review period is much more standard. - What happens with the public comment after it is received? Is there an opportunity to send the EA back to the developer for modifications if any major gaps or shortcomings are identified? Finally I have a few questions about the information that is posted on the website. - On the Community and Economic Development Department webpage, there is an announcement on the opportunity to comment on the draft EA. However, the link takes you here, where the AOCC web address is mentioned, but there is no live hyperlink. Is it possible to add a live hyperlink to make it easier to navigate to the comment page? - Also, on the AOCC portal, there is a file with Public Comment. Both documents have my name on them. The first is just an Adobe Acrobat image, with no actual document, so I'm not sure why it is there. The second is a document I had emailed to the City but the author is actually Sheree Sonfield. It would be more accurate to have her name on it. Also, I noticed that the public comments from the City Council meeting during which the AOCC resolution was passed are not posted. I think it would be appropriate to include those in the Public Comment folder if the goal is to have all the documentation in one place. (I note that the City Council resolution itself is posted, so it seems appropriate to post the public comments on the resolution as well.) Thanks for your help, and I hope you are all having a good weekend. Marcia 'RECEIVED JILL 28 2621 L "To (irfikA664', Fandan owe, on Firilfei n611/Aco(f., ra6covYfrn „ /ipnYA mit4d9 P29 0(40 :F. lop oaA4 ev. &1 ' raw Teo re- ar a FroF A,171, et r L . 6 _ � Parthg .nrea,, Trio/ 410(1 aff-)/ buAld(11 WI atdJ ual4A7 p 7 ir� ip Ju viIe, 2 764-1f) �� , . s avuvon e std 1 e, "TIvimin c a_ p;itlacif[ .rvove, clOt7p-ort_ ,ovti f/itv u;rt Wader LI I Or C:u =VA') p) 0T A.WAD\W_19,frOOTaNi OO A ME.67'DEVL,LorM jhoo ' u1� ! riad aviJbmit, 2 hp Nal 40 omlmodaire-- i -f weer Ali 1r aV ale„ a as 9 von 1 nlr� 1006012, muce_ etor ivuk Ye__ ttil/tKIP in 7 l a 1" of VU! 6iptflpack‘ totiv doe _ ?V �n4 vii*\ di _a_ 6Vw d` acr Wog_ yiewob (I r • pie- rimle7, 1\0,07/ nj woody ,� nOrle0 propecv 1)(Al. Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Pine Creek Ranch Subdivision 1.General Comments: a.I recommend that the EA needs a Revision # as well as a date so that revisions can be tracked. b.I recommend that the EA have a signature block for City Staff; “Prepared By and Approved By. c.I recommend that the EA have some Exhibits for clarity: i.Exhibit A: Proposed Area of Environmental Concern from the City ii.Exhibit B: 21012_PineCreekRanchConcept_210401.pdf Objectives: • To fulfill the requirements of (recommend adding hyperlink to code) MCC 9.7.08 for the completion of an environmental assessment plan by an interdisciplinary team of professionals. • To undertake a comprehensive analysis of the natural and built environment of the Pine Creek Ranch properties and its surroundings that is contained within one document. • To facilitate discussion and coordination among the applicant, public officials, and the public through an integrated analysis of the environmental conditions affecting the site. • To identify the environmental opportunities and constraints for development that balances the various and competing interests for private development and the public interest. • To provide the framework for the efficient review and decisions on the land use application for the site. Natural Environment 1. Earth a. General description of the site. Is the site flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, or other? b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck? Specify the classification of agricultural soils and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. d. Are there indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Are there any indications of filling or excavation in the past? f. Could soil loss or erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Are there any significant rock outcroppings or unique features? h.What are the opportunities and constraints for using the existing land conditions to influence the location, intensity, and design of future development on the site? Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 2. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the development require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description and purpose. 3) Does the site lie within a FEMA designated floodway or floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 4) What are the opportunities or constraints from surface waters to preserve open space and/or to create natural linkages for pedestrian trail? b. Ground Water: Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any. 3) What overall impacts to the aquifer system would be anticipated with development? c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any. Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other bodies of water? If so, describe. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 2) Would development of the site affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Describe how stormwater runoff from increased impervious areas created by this project are planned on being mitigated. 3) Identify the opportunities and constraints for snow stor a ge and removal on the site. Assess the potential impacts to water run-off. 3 . Plants a. What types of vegetation are found on the site, including deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, grasses, pasture, wet soil plants, water plants or other? b . What percentage of the site is forested? c. Are there significant stands of trees or large individual trees on the site? Please locate on a site plan. d . List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. f. Is there evidence of any insect or fungus driven vegetation infection or die-off on or adjacent to the property? (I.e., bark beetle infestation, dwarf mistletoe, blister rust etc.) g . What is general health of the forest? 4. Wildlife a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. What seasonality is expected and was observed for each species? b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Identify yes or no for each species previously identified and explain. d. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. If yes, identify possible resources for guidance on local management practices. e. Describe opportunities for preserving wildlife habitat on the site. 5. Climate a. Identify the current land-based greenhouse gas emissions and/or removals (and/or Net Ecosystem Productivity, NEP ). What classifications of land cover are present? What proportion of the property is covered by each land cover type? What is the approximate Ghg Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 Emission/Removal value for each land cover type in Tons CO2e/acre ? b. What change to land-cover and emissions/removals can be anticipated after development is Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 complete? What is the estimated difference in emissions/removals from the present condition compared to development completion? I.e., change in emissions due to project implementation. c. Based on traffic study information and local fuel efficiency data what would the expected Greenhouse Gas Emissions per unit, per year be following development? How would you design the project to reduce the need for vehicle trips and other emissions generating activities for residents? d. What emissions can be expected (approximately) from the construction process? (Operation of machinery, transportation of workers, manufacture and transportation of building materials, efficiency of structures built in project, etc.). How can development of the site be designed to take advantage of the natural environment, preserving natural features such as streamside environments, intermittent streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat and vegetation? (This seems out of place. Should this be part of an introduction to the Natural Environment?) Built Environment-Community Context 1. Land Use a. What is the historical and existing land use of the property? b . Describe any structures on the site. Will the structures be demolished? c. What are the current uses of adjacent properties? How will the development of this site affect adjacent properties? d . What is the development potential and/or potential intensity of development of properties in the immediate area? e. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands, including by historic indigenous populations? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? f. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? g . What is the current zoning classification of the site? h . What is the current comprehensive plan designation and policy direction for the future of the site? i. What subdivision and PUD regulations apply to the property? 2. Transportation a. Identify the existing street network adjacent to the site, the functional classification, level of service (LOS) and carrying capacity of existing streets. Identify the constraints posed by the conditions of existing adjacent streets for accommodating additional traffic. Assess the alternatives for access to the site in terms of level of service , capacity, safety, impacts on adjacent properties, direct access, cost, and multimodal potential. Show on a site plan. Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 b. Identify the City’s Transportation Plan for any system improvements that would serve the site. Are there any other planned street improvements to the streets that could serve the site? Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 Describe any previously undefined street improvements that would be necessary to accommodate development of the site. c. Identify the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and street crossings, including paved, unpaved, formal, and informal paths and trails. Locate on a site plan. d. Describe and show which phase of the project each planned street improvement, pedestrian and bike facility will be constructed in. With a phased plan, also describe how the improvements will be ended in the interim until all phases are constructed. e. Is the site directly served by public transportation? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit route? Describe the frequency and span of any nearby transit routes and significant useful locations accessed. f. What are the current conditions for access to the schools in terms of traffic, congestion, times of day, pedestrian, and bicycle interface? Describe the alternatives for resolving issues including the plan prepared for the (might include a hyperlink to the plan or an attachment for completeness) school district (Question: Is there a final version of the MDSD PAYETTE LAKES MIDDLE SCHOOL & BARBARA MORGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DRAFT TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS?) and the extension of Deinhard Lane (? is there documentation describing this alternative? if so might include hyperlink or an attachment to the materials for completeness) . Identify the existing pedestrian and bicycle counts from city GIS data and bus routes for current students 3. Housing a. What are the existing housing market and trends for the city and region? b. Characterize the type of housing and zoning planned for the development. (# of single family & zoning, # of multi-family & zoning.) c. Characterize the type of property ownership anticipated for the development in terms of: i. Full-Time Residents ii. Part-Time Residents iii.Long Term Rentals iv.Short Term Rentals d. What are the opportunities in development of this site to satisfy market demand? 4. Utilities a. What utilities are planned to serve the site? b. What is the availability and capacity of existing water and sewer services? c. Are there planned improvements or what improvements would be needed to serve the site? 5. Public Safety a. What are the existing service levels and jurisdiction providing service to the site? b. What would be the response time for service? c. Are there any known public safety issues on or near the site? d. Are there any fire wise practices in place? Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 6. Schools: a. What is the availability of school s and the capacity to serve the needs of the site? b. What is the availability of daycare facilities and capacity to serve the needs of the site? 7. Recreation/Open Space a. What designated and informal recreational/open space opportunities are in the immediate vicinity including school district property and city parks and pathways? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational/open space uses? If so, describe. c. What is the recreation/open space opportunities, including trails and linkages with natural environmental conditions that could be provided by the project? 8. Historic and cultural preservation Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Native American or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. 9. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? b. What kinds of energy conservation features could be included in the design of the development? c. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. 10. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that exist on the site? b. What are the current sources of light or glare on or adjacent to the site? Could light or glare from the development be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What are the current sources of noise on or adjacent to the site? Could noise from the development be a safety hazard? d. What are the current conditions that make this site prone to wildland fires? What are the considerations that should be made in the design of future site development to mitigate the impacts from wildland fire? What are the existing and planned evacuation strategies for the area in the event of a catastrophic fire event? How can development of this site be adequately served to minimize public costs and impacts on existing development? Process Steps (I recommend moving this section to the Area of Critical Concern web-site as a project status. I recommend making this a table with additional information to make this more meaningful. See example table below: Step Description Status/Reference Est. Date Complete (Actual) Scoping Meeting Meeting with City Staff, City Consultant, Developer Team to discuss the scope of work for the Environmental Assessment. Complete/{hyperlink to meeting materials archive} (07/01/2021) Thaddeus Hoffman EA Scope Comments 602 Woodlands Drive McCall, Idaho 83638 1. Scoping meeting. 2. Revised scope of work. 3. (Thirty day) Ten-day public comment on scope of work. 4. Draft preparation by consultants 5. One-week (is one week enough to thoroughly review, answer questions and provide clarifications?) draft review and approval by City. 6. (Thirty day) Ten-day distribution of environmental assessment and public meeting to discuss the implications of the analysis. 7. Staff recommendations to applicant on development proposal. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. 1 Meredith Todd From:Brian Parker Sent:Monday, August 2, 2021 8:11 AM To:Meredith Todd; Michelle Groenevelt; Diane Kushlan Subject:FW: Pine Creek Ranch     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: Kevin Hildebrand <kdh1975@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 7:11 PM  To: Brian Parker <bparker@mccall.id.us>  Subject: Pine Creek Ranch    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.      I've hiked throughout this area. It is probably less distinguished than the land upon which your house, my house, the  school, the roads, the golf course or anything else within city limits has been built. Scruffy lodgepole, ponderosa and  some fir. I laughed out loud when I saw it had been designated an "Area of critical concern."    At some point McCall is going to have to decide whether it wants to be inclusive and have affordable housing, or  whether it wishes to be an exclusive, high cost area where every project is fought to the dirt. (npi) People like to talk the  former, but they act the latter. The very length and complexity of the process, and the consideration given the NIMBYs  inflates the cost of any project and the eventual price of homes therein.     Thanks for your ear.    ‐Kevin Hildebrand  1 Meredith Todd From:Brian Parker Sent:Monday, August 2, 2021 9:21 AM To:Michelle Groenevelt; Meredith Todd; Diane Kushlan Subject:Fwd: Pine Creek Ranch   Get Outlook for iOS  From: Gary Smith <garyandterri@frontiernet.net>  Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 8:32:38 AM  To: Brian Parker <bparker@mccall.id.us>  Subject: Pine Creek Ranch      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.    Brian Parker, City Planner 216 E. Park Street McCall, ID 83638 July 31, 2021 I write you this in response to the scope document for the Environmental Assessment of the recently proposed area for development to be known as Pine Creek Ranch. As a long-time resident of the Woodlands neighborhood I wish to convey to you my concerns. Over the past twenty years I have seen substantial growth in the Woodlands and can’t conceive of even more traffic and congestion beyond what I typically see each day. Woodlands Drive is the only entrance and exit that exists for the Woodlands. This street is very narrow in width with curves that create serious blind spots. Along with numerous school children about, bicyclist and frequent walkers it is very dangerous now. Allowing for more traffic is a tragedy waiting to happen. In reviewing this proposed project please consider an alternative access point other than Woodlands Drive. Thank you. Gary Smith 645 Woodlands Drive McCall, ID 83638 1 Meredith Todd From:Brian Parker Sent:Monday, August 2, 2021 8:11 AM To:Meredith Todd; Michelle Groenevelt; Diane Kushlan Subject:FW: Environmental assessment for Pine Creek Ranch     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!    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Terri Smith <garyandterri1216@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 6:57 PM  To: Brian Parker <bparker@mccall.id.us>  Cc: Shauna Enders, WHOA President <Shauna_Enders_WHOA_President@mail.vresp.com>  Subject: Environmental assessment for Pine Creek Ranch    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.      We firmly support the Environmental Assessment requirement for the recently proposed Pine Creek Ranch development  east of Woodlands Drive.  The Woodlands Homeowners Association neighborhood has full time residents that work and go to school.  Homes can  be rented for not less than 30 days.  Please make sure Pine Creek Ranch is for full‐time home owners with children.    Terri Smith  645 Woodlands Dr  McCall, ID 83638      1 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    From:Marcia Witte To:Brian Parker Cc:Meredith Todd; Diane Kushlan; Michelle Groenevelt Subject:Comments on EA scope Date:Thursday, August 5, 2021 4:52:37 PM Attachments:EA Scope Comments.docx 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 - Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft scoping document for the environmental assessment. Please see my comments, attached. Thanks, Marcia Comments on Environmental Assessment Scope Natural Environment Water How will the development impact the groundwater in adjacent subdivisions? Many houses in the Woodlands already have water in the crawl spaces in the spring. Will the increase in impervious areas in the new development exacerbate that problem? If so, how will the problem be mitigated, and who is responsible for the cost? Wildlife What is the anticipated impact of destroying the natural habitat of wildlife? Will we expect the deer population in the adjacent neighborhoods and in city of McCall to grow because of disruption to their natural habitat? How will this problem be mitigated, and who will be responsible for the cost? Built Environment Land Use How will the development impact the character of the adjacent neighborhood with regard to green space experience, especially for homes on the periphery of the adjacent neighborhoods? Can this experience be preserved through green space buffers between the existing neighborhoods and the new development? What is impact of pesticide/herbicide use that would be needed for landscaping in the new development on the natural environment? Transportation What will the functional classification of the access streets through existing neighborhoods need to be to support full occupancy of the new development at full build out? (The developer has requested a sewer model run for 585 hook ups and has submitted conceptual plans with approximately the same number of dwellings. His engineer has also indicated that the plans are unlikely to change substantially as a result of the environmental assessment. Therefore, it should be possible to estimate traffic impacts at full build out using these plans.) If existing streets do not meet criteria for the anticipated functional classification, what are the mitigating measures that can address this issue, such as prohibiting traffic access through existing neighborhoods or severely limiting the number of dwelling units that would access existing streets? If existing streets will need to be improved, estimate the type of improvement and the cost of the improvement, and identify who would assume financial responsibility. What street safety issues on access streets though existing neighborhoods would be created by increased traffic accessing the new development? How would safe pedestrian and bike access to adjacent schools and the city’s pathway network be preserved? If street improvements are needed, estimate the cost and identify who would assume financial responsibility for these improvements. Estimate the proposed population increase in McCall at full build out. (One could estimate the population increase at around 2,000 additional people if there are 3-4 people/dwelling unit and close to 600 dwelling units.) What is the impact of this dramatic population increase on the road network throughout the city, including at key intersections? What improvements (such as turn lanes, traffic lights, etc) might be necessary? What is the estimated “wear and tear” impact on road network from this population increase? How would it change the road maintenance schedule, and who would be responsible for the costs of increased road maintenance? Housing What is the estimate of second homes vs primary residence occupancy in the new development? How can that ratio be controlled to ensure local housing is available at affordable costs for local workers? Utilities How would the development impact the long-term capital needs of the sewer and water infrastructure? What is the estimated cost of infrastructure improvements required because of the development, and who would assume financial responsibility for these improvements? How would the new development impact water pressure in adjacent neighborhoods? How would landscaping in the new development impact the need for water? What opportunities are there to minimize need for water such as requiring xeriscape landscaping? Estimate impact on cellular phone service and need for new cell phone towers. Where would these towers be located? Public Safety Estimate the additional service personnel, equipment, and building expansion that may be required to address police, fire, and EMS needs of the new development. What affordable housing opportunities exist to hire additional personnel? How would new equipment and building expansion needs be paid for? Schools How is the development anticipated to impact enrollment at local public schools? If capacity of current school buildings will be exceeded, what is plan for expansion? Who will pay for the capital expansion? Recreation/Open Space What open space amenities are planned for the site? Wildland fire risk (add as an additional section) Develop a wildland urban interface wildfire mitigation plan. What is evacuation plan for the development and adjacent neighborhoods? How is the evacuation plan impacted if one or more access points is blocked? Identify an evacuation plan for the entire McCall community. How does the population increase anticipated by the new development impact the ability of existing residents to evacuate? If evacuation is not possible due to road closures, what is the sheltering plan? How would the significant population increase anticipated from the new development impact a sheltering plan for existing residents (i.e., could shelters accommodate the dramatically increased population)? Payette Lake impacts (add as an additional section) What is anticipated usage of Payette Lake by development’s residents? How will beach access to the lake be impacted for city’s existing residents with increase in population from the new development? What is estimated increased boat traffic on Payette Lake by new residents? How will increased use of the lake impact water quality, shoreline erosion, and the lake experience for existing residents? Healthcare impact (add as an additional section) What is the anticipated need for healthcare services as a result of the dramatically increased population in the new development? Can current healthcare services accommodate this need? If not, estimate the healthcare expansion requirements. Who would be financially responsible for any capital expansion? Process Steps Consider removing this section from the scoping document since the steps are general, and flexibility may be required. Please extend the time allowed for public review and comment to at least 30 days to allow for thorough review, including possible engagement of technical experts. Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 1 | P a g e Environmental Assessment for Pine Creek Ranch Objectives: • To fulfill the requirements of MCC 9.7.08 for the completion of an environmental assessment plan by an interdisciplinary team of (certified/registered/accredited) professionals. • To undertake a comprehensive analysis of the natural and built environment of the Pine Creek Ranch properties and its surroundings that is contained within one document. • To facilitate discussion and coordination among the applicant, public officials, and the public through an integrated analysis of the environmental conditions affecting the site. • To identify the environmental opportunities and constraints for development that balances the various and competing interests for private development and the public interest. • To provide the framework for the efficient review and decisions on the land use application for the site. Comment: I worked with nationally recognized business and technical consultants during my career in the medical technology industry and found all had a high level of ethics. Unfortunately that was not always the case in my prior experience with regional consultants working for real estate developers, usually due to a limited budget from the developer resulting in superficial evaluations of both natural and built environments as well as fiscal impacts. Since the consultants engaged for the Area of Critical Concern will be engaged by the developer, not the City of McCall, it is extremely important the the consultants meet the Idaho Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing requirements. Additionally the contract or letter of engagement between the developer and consultants should be reviewed and subject to approval by City staff. Comment: Suggest that the development concept file be specified to assure transparency and clear definition of the scope of the proposed development. REFERENCES Pine Creek Ranch Concept, file 21012, 5 pages Page 5: Phase 1 – 21 units R4 Phase 2 - 54 units R4 and 16.3ac zoned R8 (130 units) Remainder – 138 units R4 and 30.3ac zoned R8 (242 units) Total at build out- 213 units R4 and 46.6ac zoned R8 (372 units) Natural Environment 1. Earth a. General description of the site. Is the site flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, or other? b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck? Specify the classification of agricultural soils and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 2 | P a g e significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. d. Are there indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Are there any indication of filling or excavation in the past? f. Could soil loss or erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Are there any significant rock outcroppings or unique features? h.What are the opportunities and constraints for using the existing land conditions to influence the location, intensity, and design of future development on the site? 2. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the development require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description and purpose. 3) Does the site lie within a FEMA designated floodway or floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 4) What are the opportunities or constraints from surface waters to preserve open space and/or to create natural linkages for pedestrian trail? b. Ground Water: Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 3 | P a g e 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any. 3) What overall impacts to the local aquifer system would be anticipated with development? c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any. Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other bodies of water? If so, describe. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 2) Would development of the site affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Describe how stormwater runoff from increased impervious areas created by this project are planned on being mitigated. 3) Identify the opportunities and constraints for snow storge and removal on the site. Assess the potential impacts to water run-off. 3. Plants a. What types of vegetation are found on the site, including deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, grasses, pasture, wet soil plants, water plants or other? b. What percentage of the site is forested? c. Are there significant stands of trees or large individual trees on the site? Please locate on a site plan. d. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. f. Is there evidence of any insect or fungus driven vegetation infection or die-off on or adjacent to the property? (I.e., bark beetle infestation, dwarf mistletoe, blister rust etc.) g. What is general health of the forest? 4. Wildlife a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. What seasonality is expected and was observed for each species? b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Identify yes or no for each species previously identified and explain. d. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. If yes, identify possible resources for guidance on local management practices. e. Describe opportunities for preserving wildlife habitat on the site. 5. Climate a. Identify the current land-based greenhouse gas emissions and/or removals (and/or Net Ecosystem Productivity, NEP). What classifications of land cover are present? What proportion of the property is covered by each land cover type? What is the approximate Ghg Emission/Removal value for each land cover type in Tons CO2e/acre? b. What change to land-cover and emissions/removals can be anticipated after development is Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 4 | P a g e complete? What is the estimated difference in emissions/removals from the present condition compared to development completion? I.e., change in emissions due to project implementation. c. Based on traffic study information and local fuel efficiency data what would the expected Greenhouse Gas Emissions per unit, per year be following development? How would you design the project to reduce the need for vehicle trips and other emissions generating activities for residents? d. What emissions can be expected (approximately) from the construction process? (Operation of machinery, transportation of workers, manufacture and transportation of building materials, efficiency of structures built in project, etc.). How can development of the site be designed to take advantage of the natural environment, preserving natural features such as streamside environments, intermittent streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat and vegetation? Built Environment-Community Context 1. Land Use a. What is the historical and existing land use of the property? b. Describe any structures on the site. Will the structures be demolished? c. What are the current uses of adjacent properties? How will the development of this site affect adjacent properties? Will changes in water flow affect wells on adjacent properties? d. What is the development potential and/or potential intensity of development of properties in the immediate area? Consider the Trident concept for residential development on Samson Trail. e. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands, including by historic indigenous populations? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? f. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? g. What is the current zoning classification of the site? h. What is the current comprehensive plan designation and policy direction for the future of the site? i. What subdivision and PUD regulations apply to the property? Comment: The development will likely result in a significant area (roads, etc,) that will be impervious and require drainage. The potential impact of reduced ground water permeation and diversion of surface water flows should be evaluated for possible impact on wells on adjacent properties. Comment: Trident has a preliminary concept for significant residential development on Samson Trail. This could be a concern for fire safety evacuation on roads in the area of the development and should be included in the assessment. 2. Transportation Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 5 | P a g e a. Identify the existing street network adjacent to the site, the functional classification and carrying capacity of existing streets. Identify the constraints posed by the conditions of existing adjacent streets for accommodating additional traffic. Assess the alternatives for access to the site in terms of capacity, safety, impacts on adjacent properties, direct access, cost, and multimodal potential. Identify snow removal issues. Show on a site plan. b. Identify the City’s Transportation Plan for any system improvements that would serve the site. Are there any other planned street improvements to the streets that could serve the site? Comment: Options for snow plowing/removal should be evaluated, to avoid the limitations of some existing areas. Consider road width, driveway locations and widths, snow storage areas, etc. Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 6 | P a g e Describe any previously undefined street improvements that would be necessary to accommodate development of the site. c. Identify the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and street crossings, including paved, unpaved, formal, and informal paths and trails. Locate on a site plan. d. Describe and show which phase of the project each planned street improvement, pedestrian and bike facility will be constructed in. With a phased plan, also describe how the improvements will be ended in the interim until all phases are constructed. e. Is the site directly served by public transportation? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit route? Describe the frequency and span of any nearby transit routes and significant useful locations accessed. f. What are the current conditions for access to the schools in terms of traffic, congestion, times of day, pedestrian, and bicycle interface? Describe the alternatives for resolving issues including the plan prepared for the school district and the extension of Deinhard Lane. Identify the existing pedestrian and bicycle counts from city GIS data and bus routes for current students g. What are the options for site access during construction? How might these options impact health and safety and noise? Comment: Construction of 585 units, even if phased, will entail a significant volume of construction traffic. The evaluation should identify new, dedicated, construction access to reduce the impact of traffic in adjacent residential developments and the resulting public safety hazards. 3. Housing a. What are the existing housing market and trends for the city and region? b. What are the opportunities in development of this site to satisfy market demand? 4. Utilities a. What utilities are planned to serve the site? b. What is the availability and capacity of existing water and sewer services? c. Are there planned improvements or what improvements would be needed to serve the site? 5. Public Safety a. What are the existing service levels and jurisdiction providing service to the site? b. What would be the response time for service? c. Are there any known public safety issues on or near the site? d. Are there any fire wise practices in place? 6. Schools: a. What is the availability of school and capacity to serve the site? b. What is the availability of daycare facilities and capacity to serve the site? 7. Recreation/Open Space a. What designated and informal recreational/open space opportunities are in the immediate vicinity including school district property and city parks and pathways? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational/open space uses? If so, describe. c. What is the recreation/open space opportunities, including trails and linkages with natural Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 7 | P a g e environmental conditions that could be provided by the project? 8. Historic and cultural preservation Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 8 | P a g e a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Native American or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. 9. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? b. What kinds of energy conservation features could be included in the design of the development? c. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. 10. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that exist on the site? b. What are the current sources of light or glare on or adjacent to the site? Could light or glare from the development be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What are the current sources of noise on or adjacent to the site? Could noise from the development be a safety hazard? d. What are the current conditions that make this site prone to wildland fires? What are the considerations that should be made in the design of future site development to mitigate the impacts from wildland fire? What are the existing and planned evacuation strategies for the area in the event of a catastrophic fire event? How can development of this site be adequately served to minimize public costs and impacts on existing development? a. Identify probable cost impact on water, sewer, fire, police, hospital, schools, roads and transportation by project stage and at buildout in consideration of all previously approved development projects. Consider probable impact of climate change on these factors. b. Identify probable economic benefits to the City and other public agencies. Identify probable economic benefits during construction phase to construction workers and local construction suppliers. Identify housing and transportation plan for non-local construction workers. Comment: Construction of 585 units, even if phased, will entail a significant volume of construction traffic. The evaluation should identify new, dedicated, construction access to reduce the impact of traffic in adjacent residential developments and the resulting public safety hazards. Process Steps 1. Scoping meeting. 2. Revised scope of work. 3. Ten-day public comment on scope of work. Draft Public Review July 20, 2021 9 | P a g e 4. Draft preparation by consultants 5. Draft review by City and public agencies. Third party review of areas of concern. 6. Ten-day distribution of environmental assessment followed by public meeting(s) to discuss the implications of the analysis. 7. Evaluation of public comments by staff. Follow up public meetings(s) if critical concerns have been identified. 8. Staff recommendations to applicant on development proposal. Comment: The documentation of these types of evaluations is usually extensive and a short review period by City staff is problematical. Review by the public is appropriate and the public’s interests would best be met by having two rounds of public meetings as detailed above. The developer, his staff and consultants should be invited to all public meetings as they may be able to answer questions/concerns thus expediting the review process.