North McKay project shouldn’t be approved sans specifics
Re: North McKay Subdivision Project
Dear Trevor Estlow and Planners,
The project should be recognized for its departure from the standard subdivision model. However, its specifics — or lack of specifics — tells me that many of the same old planning methods are at work here.
0.0 Process. Although I asked more than once to be notified of any change in status of this plan, I received no notice of last year’s scoping session and only a few days ago learned that the plan was out for comment.
Last year’s pre-approval and speedy annexation of an 11acre portion of the project is typical of this practice: years of inaction followed by sudden changes and poorly noticed deadlines. The parcel was for the developer’s daughter, I was told by your now retired planner.
3.2 Agriculture & Forest. The county has made a token show of concern about CO2 reduction — there’s a committee! — but even that effort is not reflected here. The removal of 60 acres of trees will not be mitigated by the payment of $82.24 per tree. Equivalent restock of forest should be required.
3.4 Biological Resources. Roads, crossings, and logging and development on steep slopes will add to the degradation of Ryan Creek. Assurances to the contrary are much like what we’ve heard in Elk River. Logging and construction on the same soils, same steep slopes, will produce similar results: silt and degradation of water quality and riparian species. The proposed mitigations are not adequate.
3.7 Geology. Again, we have some of the same soils in Elk River, get the same assurances. Weasel words like mitigation “where feasible” translate to silt and loss of habitat and water quality. Strike “where feasible” wherever it occurs.
3.12 Noise. The plan neglects the issue of noise coming into the project area. I’m not certain how clearly the Redwood Acres stock car races will be heard there, but when the wind is right I hear them several miles farther away. Won’t noise and traffic conflicts lead to calls to restrict activities at this popular venue?
3.16 Transportation. This has been a glaring deficiency of the project since it was first proposed. Cutten has been developed with little regard to transportation, and traffic and congestion have increased markedly since I lived there 50 years ago. I’ve complained to Humboldt Community Services District’s directors about annexations and urban sprawl and the costs that are now being felt by ratepayers, property owners, and anyone even thinking of driving through Cutten. Some of this additional traffic will spill over through Ridgewood and down to Elk River Road, which isn’t even mentioned. Mostly I pity those poor souls at rush hour at the intersection of Dolbeer and Harris, waiting for an average of 821.7 seconds at rush hour. At least require better bicycle and pedestrian access and a bus stop nearer than half a mile.
3.19 Wildfire. The shortcomings of the traffic plan will go from comic to tragic when the inevitable wildfire comes through the degraded forest left by Green Diamond. The fire plan’s inadequacy — bigger numbers on the houses is my favorite — should be obvious to anyone who’s recently watched California towns going up in flames. I find no assurance that “consultation” with Cal Fire will result in an adequate plan. They approved the Timber Harvesting Plans that have left the forest a tinder box just waiting for a spark — which Pacific Gas and Electric’s transmission lines, as we know, are able to provide. The project should not be approved without specific strategies, including a fuels reduction program and longterm fire readiness plan — in consultation with communities who are presently doing this work. As the plan admits, in its bureaucratic never-mind way: The proposed project would expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
It’s strange that we are making a plan that carries significant risk of injury or death. Aren’t such plans often called “premeditated”? Thank you for anything you can do to improve that outcome.