Woodlands residents urge McCall council to oppose gravel access tied to Pine Creek Ranch South

Dozens of McCall residents appealed to the City Council on April 30 to oppose a proposed gravel road that would provide secondary access to Pine Creek Ranch South, a developer’s plan for roughly 176 dwelling units often referred to in testimony as "Woodlands 3." The comments, given during general public comment, focused on safety concerns for Woodlands Drive and the adjacent neighborhood.

"The gravel road is inadequate to handle the amount of estimated traffic," said Russell Royal, who identified himself as a Woodlands resident at 654 Brady Drive, warning that traffic would be funneled into the neighborhood’s paved Woodland Drive and create hazards for children, walkers and bicyclists. Marcia Woody, who submitted a written letter in advance, told council the city previously objected to reductions in the area‑of‑impact protections and urged the council to recommend against the county subdivision application until both the 68‑acre and the 90‑acre parcels are fully described.

Other neighbors described repeated discussions with the developer over several years and said the application lacks the buildout detail needed to evaluate safety, traffic and emergency access. "There is no way that our road as it stands now can handle a thousand more cars a day," said Shauna Enders, who noted special‑needs students walk along Woodlands Drive.

Several speakers, including Melissa Daniels and Dave Carter, urged the council not to endorse improvements that would create connectivity into the Woodlands until the county or the developer submits a comprehensive plan for the larger Stockton 90 parcel. Margie Elliott requested a renewed fire‑audit, recalling a prior assessment that described Woodlands Drive as difficult for emergency response because of timber and reduced defensible space.

Council members thanked speakers and confirmed staff had distributed 17 written comments. The public comment segment concluded without a formal council position being adopted at that moment; later in the meeting the council voted to transmit an amended agency comment letter to Valley County that attaches resident input and asks for more specificity (see related article). The council did not take a formal vote tonight on the road itself.