Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Area Of Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McCall residents urge council to oppose Stockton gravel access; council sends guarded comment to Valley County
Summary
Residents from the Woodlands neighborhood told the City Council the proposed Stockton gravel road tied to Pine Creek Ranch South would push traffic and safety risks onto their streets; after extended public comment the council authorized a staff agency comment to Valley County that says the county proposal lacks sufficient detail and included residents' written and oral comments as an attachment.
Dozens of residents from the Woodlands neighborhood pressed the McCall City Council on April 30 to oppose a proposed gravel secondary access tied to the Pine Creek Ranch South subdivision — a project residents and speakers called “Woodlands 3.”
"The gravel road is inadequate to handle the amount of estimated traffic… and would push traffic to the Woodlands Drive entrance and exit," said Russell Royal, who gave his address and asked the council to recommend against the county subdivision unless the developer provides independent infrastructure that avoids impacts to Woodlands.
Marcia Woody, who referenced AB26177 in written comments, told the council that Valley County’s recent change to the area‑of‑impact rules and a move to multi‑use zoning make future uses unpredictable: "Woodlands Drive was not designed and was never intended to be a major thoroughfare," she said, asking the council to recommend against the county application until both the 68‑acre and adjacent 90‑acre parcels are fully described.
Other speakers described pedestrian and school‑safety risks, fire‑response vulnerabilities and long community conversations with the owner. "To put that much traffic on that road would definitely and most surely affect our community," said Shauna Enders, who lives on Woodlands Drive. Margie Elliott asked the council to renew a neighborhood fire audit after describing sections of Woodlands Drive as "undefendable." Several speakers urged the council to be decisive in its public comment to the county.
Staff and council deliberated at length before approving a public‑agency comment letter to Valley County on the proposed subdivision and road. Meredith Todd, the city planner, said staff had drafted technical comments but wanted council guidance because the county process now governs the impact‑area parcel and the city must avoid prejudging any future annexation application.
Mark Bbeby, filling in for the city attorney during deliberations, described the legal standard the county must consider: the county should assess whether subdivision development "would impair the ability of political subdivisions to deliver services without compromising quality or imposing substantial additional costs on current residents." Planning and public‑works staff told council they lacked the traffic‑study and build‑out specifics needed to assess likely effects on city services and road capacity.
After discussion the council directed staff to transmit the agency comment letter as edited during the meeting, attach the written and oral public comments received that night, and include language urging the county to request additional information (for example a traffic impact study) because the current application lacks specificity about potential future build‑out and attendant impacts on city services and infrastructure. Council members also requested a future workshop on the city’s authority and options related to connections between county roads and city streets.
Council President Thrower and all four council members present voted to send the written comment as revised. Staff said the county planning‑and‑zoning hearing schedule would follow Valley County rules; the county deadline for agency comment fell in the days after the meeting.
Why it matters: the Stockton access would provide a physical connection between county‑administered parcels and the city's road network. Residents and staff said that without clearer plans for the 90‑acre parcel, the gravel‑road approach risks creating a permanent traffic pattern and service demands the city has not been asked to authorize or design. The council’s letter places the city’s concerns on the public record and asks the county for more detailed analysis before moving forward.
Next steps: the letter and public comments will be sent to Valley County. The county planning calendar will determine when the subdivision application is heard; city staff will monitor the process and the council asked for a workshop on roadway‑connection authority and mitigation options.
