|
In This Issue...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should Scotts Valley Continue Review Process for Retail on La Madrona?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Driving Impaired: The Costs & Consequences
|
|
|
|
|
Should Scotts Valley Continue Review Process for Retail on La Madrona?
By Linda Fridy
When mega-store Target notified the city of Scotts Valley in late October that it was no longer working with developer Title II to build a 143,000-square-foot store in the Gateway South area, the city agreed to continue the environmental impact report (EIR) process. Maybe another big-box retailer would want to build in that spot.
That decision to replace Target with a generic retailer in the report has created confusion and a possible legal challenge.
On Nov. 12, attorney Bill Parkin wrote the city on behalf of the Responsible Local Development political action committee, suggesting the city should have halted the review process.
"The fact that Target no longer seeks to occupy this site radically alters the environmental analysis," Parkin wrote. "If the landowner wishes to still pursue retail at the project site without Target, new environmental documents must be prepared for a new project."
The project site on La Madrona Drive has been subject to several environmental reviews. The first in 1995 addressed the entire Gateway South specific plan area, which includes the Hilton and a shopping strip.
In 2005, Title II prepared a supplemental EIR for an office building to be located on the site. Title II then replaced that project with the Target proposal.
Several city council members continue to express skepticism about the value of the supplemental EIR given Target's withdrawal from the project.
"The document we have today, the draft EIR, is for a Target store and we don't have a Target store any more. It is irrelevant for anything but a Target store as far as I'm concerned," said councilmember Dene Bustichi.
However, he and other council members each told The Post that finishing the review process protects the city legally from any claim of denied property rights.
The extended deadline for the generic retail version of the supplemental EIR is Dec. 21 at 5 p.m.
Too Many Unknowns
Although the city has agreed to continue with the review for an open-ended tenant, that action does not guarantee that the council will find that the concerns the report raises are outweighed by benefits to the community.
Councilmembers made it clear that they do not feel comfortable approving a review with so many unknowns. While the physical building remains the same, other impacts such as traffic, parking and competition with existing businesses could vary widely depending on the type of retailer.
For example, in response to community concerns, the city required an economic impact review as part of the process. That portion of the report addresses the impact of Target's product mix and size on existing businesses. The report states that Kmart would be the lone retailer to face a significant economic impact from the project.
But other "big box" stores such as a Lowe's or Home Depot would affect building and garden supply stores, while a Smart & Final warehouse would hit existing grocery retailers, noted Mayor Randy Johnson.
Traffic patterns could also change. A Home Depot may increase morning traffic from contractors,
Johnson said.
Councilmember Stephany Aguilar noted that the parking needs – which the study said would exceed spaces during holiday shopping – may change depending on the tenant.
"I wouldn't give anybody carte blanche," she said.
None of the councilmembers that spoke with The Post have heard from Title II or other prospective tenants about the Gateway South location. Several months ago, a developer did have a general conversation with Aguilar about bringing a Lowe's to another Scotts Valley spot, off of Santa's Village Road, she said.
The city used that parcel to consider an alternative site in the required comparison of the Target EIR.
Challenging Location
"This has been a tough property to find just the right match," said Johnson, who recalled that both Orchard Supply Hardware and a large gasoline station had previously started then halted projects there. "Part of what we're trying to do as a city council is look for what's missing from our community."
Parkin notes that the Target proposal has several on-site environmental impacts, including site grading and a size that exceeds the current guidelines. A different project may not require those exceptions.
He sees no reason for the city to go forward with the report.
"There's no possible way the environmental document can be accurate," he told The Post. "Why put the public and the developers through this process if [councilmembers] have to find [the report] is inaccurate?"
In addition to providing legal cover, city Vice Mayor Jim Reed said the process gives community members who did not wish to comment on Target but who now wish to weigh in on an open-ended retailer the chance to have their opinions heard.
Who's in the Loop?
Another criticism of the PAC's attorney was the delay in announcing that Target had pulled out. Parkin noted in his letter that while the city apparently heard from the big box chain in late October, officials waited until the Nov. 4 meeting to make the decision public.
That was the day public comment ended for the Target version of the draft EIR. Parkin said the city wasted the time of those who continued to prepare comments for a plan the city knew was no longer applicable.
The attorney is not the only one questioning the communication. Councilmember Aguilar said none of her fellow councilmembers or the city manager told her about the change.
"It's a sad state of affairs when a councilmember is left out of the loop entirely. … It would have been very appropriate for that information to be disclosed," she said.
|
