Target report shows increased traffic in Scotts Valley
by Press-Banner
Sep 25, 2009 | 1691 views | 62 62 comments | 7 7 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The amount of traffic in Scotts Valley will likely be debated throughout the coming month as people have a chance to weigh in on what a proposed Target store in Scotts Valley would mean for the city.

The 143,000-square-foot store is planned for La Madrona Drive next to the Hilton hotel and Silverwood Drive, the entrance to the Monte Fiore housing community.

Last week, the city of Scotts Valley released the required draft supplemental environmental impact report and an economic impact report detailing the Target project.

Each member of the Scotts Valley City Council has begun analyzing the comprehensive report.

“I think the council is going to be open to what the public has to say and at the same time will rely heavily on the EIR and rely heavily on the experts and put it all together and make a decision,” Councilman Dene Bustichi said.

A 45-day comment period began Sept. 18 and ends Nov. 4. Comments in writing can be sent to senior planner Taylor Bateman at tbateman@scottsvalley.org, or mailed to city of Scotts Valley, One Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley 95066.

Fervent Target opponent Paul Bach, the head of the Responsible Local Development Political Action Committee, thinks the report seals the deal on the project being approved.

“It’s very clear that the City Council will approve this, and it will come down to a lawsuit,” Bach said.

Traffic

According to the traffic study performed by Fehr and Peers as found in the EIR, Target would generate 7,366 new car trips each day. However, the major impact would be felt at peak traffic times at specific intersections in the city.

*Between 4 and 6 p.m. weekdays at the intersection of Mt. Hermon Road and Scotts Valley Drive, the wait time at the stoplight would increase from 45.6 seconds to 49.8 seconds after a new turn lane is added on Mt. Hermon Road and Whispering Pines Drive is restriped.

*Between 4 and 6 p.m. weekdays at the intersection of Mt. Hermon Road, La Madrona Drive and the Highway 17 southbound off-ramp, the wait time would increase from 23.9 seconds to 31.7 seconds with a new turn lane on Mt. Hermon Road. From 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturdays, the wait would increase from 20 seconds to 31.6 seconds.

*Residents of Altenitas Road would face significant waits to turn onto La Madrona Drive: an extra nine seconds on weekday mornings, 29 seconds during the evening and 88 seconds at midday Saturday. The increased wait times at Altenitas were deemed unavoidable.

*Five other intersections in Scotts Valley were analyzed in the report, and no others showed increases of more than three seconds. Even traffic off Highway 17 should see little change in wait time.

The study also looks at cumulative traffic by the year 2018 and finds that wait times will be significantly longer based on growth in the city at that time.

The study concluded that 57 percent of traffic would come from the communities west of the development through the San Lorenzo Valley, 30 percent from Santa Cruz via Highway 17 and 10 percent from Highway 17 southbound.

Parking

A 517-space parking lot was deemed sufficient, except during the winter holiday season. During December, before Christmas, the study concludes that there will be a 213-parking space shortage.

“Some shoppers would not be able to find a space on the site during the peak holiday shopping period,” according to the report.

Target must therefore prepare a parking plan for employees to park elsewhere during the holiday rush, which might require a temporary shuttle service or an agreement with nearby property owners.

Bicycle parking for 26 cycles was also suggested.

Biological resources

Plants, trees and animals were studied as part of the environmental review. The report concluded that while the development would reduce open space for plant and animal species in Scotts Valley, it would not result in a substantial reduction of open space or wildlife habitat.

Storm water runoff

About 10.5 acres of open land would be covered with concrete or other impervious surfaces if Target were built, which would increase the flow of storm water into drains. However, the review concludes that with mitigation using screens, grease separators and various other solutions, the level of pollution flowing into storm drains would be acceptable.

In terms of groundwater recharge, granite bedrock below the property already limits access to underground aquifers, making the loss of recharge capacity insignificant.

Fire protection and emergency services

Both Scotts Valley Police Department and Scotts Valley Fire Protection District indicated that they would be able to provide adequate coverage for the estimated 50 to 70 employees per shift at the Target store.

See the full environmental and economic reviews of Target’s proposal at www.scottsvalley.org.

Comments
(62)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Question
|
October 04, 2009
Is there anyone here who really believes that the wait at 17 & Mt Herman will only increase by 10 seconds? Or that K-mart and other smaller business will not go under if The Target is built? Anyone?
Last 2 Large Lots
|
October 02, 2009
With the Town Center project (currently on life support) taking the center of Scotts Valley, the Polo grounds being taken for more housing and Target trying to take the southern entrance to Scotts Valley that leaves just two significant undeveloped pieces of land in our once quiet little town. Where are they and what will be developed there? The first is on Scotts Valley Drive nect to the RV place. It doesn't have viability from the highway but the land is available. The other lot (next to Enterprise Way/Borland Building) is the location where Borland had a soccer field. That 6.7 acre plot is currently for sale and even has it's own Highway 17 ramp. What will the City Council allow to be built there? That spot was even evaluated by the City as an alternative location for Target and the EIR listed the location as Superior from an environmental perspective. That lot is probably next to be developed. At multiple City Council meetings Mayor Randy Johnson has stated that he doesn't feel it is the City's position to say what business can or can not move into Scotts Valley.

So this may be you last stand. Push back or accept that Scotts Valley is almost out of open space and the two plots that are still open are both currently for sale. Say good bye to the Scotts Valley we all have known. We may soon be a mini San Jose. Think of all the sales tax leakage from not having a car dealership in Scotts Valley. Yikes!
Great Job?
|
October 02, 2009
The City has available a DVD of the EIR. It does not contain all of documents referenced in the report. That is hardly the kind of notice required by law. I think that the art of non disclosure is a live and well and being practiced by the Council and the CIty machinery.

The report fails to say how that fire station across the street will operate while there is a 40% shortage in parking spaces. Gridlock and fire emergency.

OVERDEVELOPMENT, GREED, TAXES, WAR ON THE POOR, ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION.

Hey Banner, your presumptions have been laid false. We will boycott your paper and advertisers if you continue to push this agenda and quickly support alternative papers, now or new.

It's only a matter of time before the backlash appears and those effected, from the school, to the higher taxes, to the crime, everyone who had anything to do with this will be remembered, and enshrined in the ruin of the community.

What do you want to be known for? How do you want to be remembered 1 minute past the spending of the last dollar you receive as MILLIONS and Tens of millions leave our community because hammer happy greed can't have decency or class.

Enabling a host of outsiders economically rape the community, and ruin the quality of life is the sure result.

tweet.
anonymous
|
October 02, 2009
"Did you move here to hope that Scotts Valley would not get developed????"

Well actually yes. I thought SV people liked small town rural life. And it sounds like a lot of other people had the same idea. I guess I was wrong. I had no idea you planned on replacing all the fields and meadows with shopping centers and high density housing. It was beyond my wildest dreams that anyone would want to destroy such a cute town. Especially someone who calls themselves "love scotts valley". So what, and termites love wood.

"That would mean that you moved here in the 80's.........why would I say that???"

It doesn't matter if someone moved here 30 years ago or 30 days. School pickup lines should not be extending out into public roads. But I guess that's perfectly normal in your vision of Scotts Valley.

City council doing a great job of what? Destroying Scotts Valley's quality of life? Certainly not protecting it. It sounds like it's not possible to overdevelop SV to you.

love scotts valley
|
October 01, 2009
Overdeveloping!!!!!come on.....the majority of lots that have not been developed are the one's that were owned in the 60's by multi non famliy owners. Did you move here to hope that Scotts Valley would not get developed???? That would mean that you moved here in the 80's.........why would I say that???......who were those city council members that were acused of overdeveloping???......or was it the developers who owned the land that everyone was trying to stop???????? do you live in one of those houses???? 2010 city council is doing a great job!!!!!!
anonymous
|
October 01, 2009
"Should we remove the middle school because people don't like to sit in traffic?"

No, we should stop overdeveloping our town to the point of ruining it. Enough is enough and too much is too much. All the school pickup lines extend out into public roads now and block them and a lot of the left turn lanes are overflowing too and not long enough. I guess I'm strange to thing there's something wrong with that. We had a good thing here in SV and now you're ruining it. Our quality of life is degrading and some people just don't care. Just listen to a book on tape while you sit in traffic or leave earlier and everything is fine. The answers are just so easy aren't they.
Target selling Lead
|
October 01, 2009
The Consumer Product Safety Commission alleged that Target knowingly imported and sold the illegal Chinese-made toys between May 2006 and August 2007.

Read todays article at:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Target-penalized-for-toys-apf-881637485.html?x=0

Target penalized for toys with lead paint

Target will pay $600,000 civil penalty for importing and selling toys with lead paint

By Natasha T. Metzler, Associated Press Writer

On Thursday October 1, 2009, 10:16 am EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Target Corp. has agreed to pay a $600,000 civil penalty for importing and selling a variety of toys with high levels of lead paint on the surface.

The lead content of some of the toys' surface coatings were higher than is legally allowed by the 1978 lead paint ban, according to government safety officials.

Lead is toxic if ingested by young children.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission alleged that Target knowingly imported and sold the illegal Chinese-made toys between May 2006 and August 2007.

Target recalled more than 500,000 Kool Toyz play sets, Anima Bamboo Collection games, and Happy Giddy gardening tools and Sunny Patch chairs for lead paint violations between November 2006 and September 2007.

The company did not take the proper steps to ensure none of the toys it imported and sold contained lead paint, according to CPSC.

As part of the settlement, Target denies that it knowingly broke the law.

The agency says the Target settlement makes fiscal year 2009 a record for both number of civil penalties, 39, and dollar value of fines imposed, approximately $9.8 million.

"This penalty should remind importers and retailers that they have always had the same obligation to meet the strict lead limits as the manufacturers," CPSC Chair Inez Tenenbaum said in a statement.

New Math
|
October 01, 2009
Target math only seems to include addition. The economic study assumes virtually no subtraction for costs to the City and assumes that only KMART will lose business. What a farce! City Council tell us the truth for once!

life in SV
|
October 01, 2009
As I drove north up SV drive this afternoon about 6-7 cars further up ahead of me pulled into the left turn lane to go into Bank of America. The left turn lane got full and the last car was sticking out into the main left lane. A car following it had to swerve into the right lane to avoid hitting it almost hitting another car in the right lane.

As I went down Bean Creek I also noticed the pickup line at the middle school extending out into Bean Creek blocking it. More pickup traffic coming east on Bean creek also sits and waits to get in the line blocking that side of the road too. I had to turn around and go another way.

I'm sure we can all go on and on about the horrible traffic in SV. We should not have to plan our lives around it and it's getting to the point where it's bad anytime of day. I can't imagine it any worse.
love scotts valley
|
September 30, 2009
Welcome S.V. Target. As I drive to work every day on 17, I look up at where Target will be. I don't see the field. I can't see the Hilton. I look along the side of the freeway and see our old election signs thrown over the fence. I think to myself. How is anyone that does not live in Scotts Valley going to know that the Hilton is there and Target? Should we remove the middle school because people don't like to sit in traffic? I drive by 2 schools in Santa Cruz on my way to work everyday. The speed limit goes from 30 to 25. I wait at 4 traffic lights because of it. But if I leave 1/2 hour before I have to be at work, I see no kids, don't have to stop at all 4 lights, and it's not and excuse anymore. Everyone will plan around Target, just like they did Bill Graham and the building of Mt Hermon Rd.
anonymous
|
September 30, 2009
10 million spent for a new library? That could have been 500k a year for 20 years. That could have made up for the citie's shortfall. Who even goes to the library anymore in the internet age.

anonymous
|
September 30, 2009
Lets see, when the measure C money runs out the city is supposed to be around 700k short and Target estimates to bring in about 500k. Wow, perfect timing, I wonder how they'll vote?

$35 not $50 mil
|
September 30, 2009
The Gruen & Gruen (G&G) Target Economic Study includes some fairly suspect assumptions in getting to the $500k in net revenue for the City. The City gets to keep 1% of sales as a tax. To get $500k the report estimates that the Store will generate $350 in sales per sq foot or $50,050,000 in annual sales. That number is more than a little suspicious since Target publicly estimated they would do just $35 million in annual sales. “A Scotts Valley store is predicted to generate about $35 million in annual sales.” John Dewes Target's Development Manager for the project.

Santa Cruz Sentinel August 20, 2008 http://www.scsextra.com/story.php?sid=78905&storySection=Local&fromSearch=true&searchTerms=

Woops there goes $150k in tax revenue for the City.

No Groceries?
|
September 30, 2009
The G&G report also assumes that none of Targets sales with come from groceries which we all know generate no sales tax. Target's Mr. Dewes also said that 10-15% of the store would be devoted to groceries. Well that alone reduces the sales tax revenue to SV by another $35-52k. The City number is now down to about $300k not the $500k from the economic study.
Only KMART
|
September 30, 2009
The G&G report assumes that KMART is the ONLY business that will lose revenue due to Target. Surprisingly the Hilton won't be hurt at all or at least the report doesn't subtract for any lost occupancy tax. The report estimates that KMART will lose just 20% of it's business to Target. It however also states that KMART might need to close the SV Store. But we needn’t worry because G&G believes that there is a “favorable market/supply demand” for retail in Scotts Valley. I have to wonder if Mr.Gruen (a lawyer not an economist) reads the financial papers and is aware of the turmoil that the retail sector is in. According to Mr. G. “Given the favorable market demand-supply conditions, the desirable location within a vital commercial area, should the Kmart store close due to the chain’s struggles as a whole or because of the entry of the proposed Target store, the building would be re-tenanted within a reasonable time.” If the market is so favorable then why is the Town Center project on life support?

Target City Costs
|
September 30, 2009
The City Economic Study estimates that Target will cost the City just $19,990 in City expenses such as police, road maintenance and general services. More surprising than the extremely low number is way the number was calculated. You might think that City costs would be associated with the 7,000 plus car trips per day or based upon the number of police calls that neighboring Target stores receive or some other plausible metric but you would be wrong. G&G decided to base the cost to the City upon the number of Target employees at the store. The report uses a number of $119.70 per full time employees. Let’s see we need a low number, we can’t use the number of cars …too high. How about the number of people visiting the store? Nope that would be an even higher number. Got it! Lets base the cost to the City on the 167 FTE employees (full time equivalent). And lets assume that each one will cost the City just $119.70 per year. That works. By the way, each citizen in Scotts Valley costs the City $706.79. Boy those Target employees use hardly any city resources by comparison.
anonymous
|
September 30, 2009
What can't I get in SV ?

http://sites.target.com/site/en/spot/mobile.jsp?title=product_detail&asin=B002EIZQB4

This is reason enough for me to plow down the most pristine meadow on earth if need be.

Any questions?

SeaHag
|
September 30, 2009
"A good portion of work near one, can go there, and come home to their beautiful small town."

Exactly. Most SV residents have to commute the hill because there's no good paying jobs here. We can just shop at the Targets there on the way home. SV doesn't need the Target. The city council just wants the tax revenue.

"Anymore sprawl of Scotts Valley has to be stopped before we become Milpitas and run out of water."

We're already out of water. I can't wash my car.

anonymous
|
September 30, 2009
"I think the council is going to be open to what the public has to say..."

Oh bullcrap.
FL Right
|
September 30, 2009
SLV does not want, nor does it belong there either. A good portion of work near one, can go there, and come home to their beautiful small town. I believe that is what the majority of people want. All of their crap can be bought online also. Anymore sprawl of Scotts Valley has to be stopped before we become Milpitas and run out of water.


We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.