However, property owner Title Two Investment Corp. has its sights set on another as-yet-unnamed retailer to build the proposed 143,000-square-foot store.
The city of Scotts Valley learned in an Oct. 27 e-mail to Susan Westman, director of Community Development, that Target is no longer under contract to acquire the La Madrona Drive property.
Title Two is proceeding with an application to allow a retail business of the same size to build on the property, Westman said.
The landowner requested that any mention of “Target” be taken out of the draft environmental impact report prepared by the city and replaced with the words “retail store.”
Target filed an application in October 2007 to build on the 18 acres of empty land next to the Hilton hotel in Scotts Valley.
Vice Mayor Jim Reed said the company backed out of its plans because of the unstable economy and the price tag to develop the hillside property. Reed said Target officials told the city it would cost $10 million more to develop the Scotts Valley site than other potential sites.
Reed, who has had recent phone conversations with Target representatives, announced the corporation’s withdrawal at the City Council’s Wednesday, Nov. 4, meeting.
“Target has no plans to be part of this project,” Reed said. It’s not a cost they’re willing to absorb right now.”
Target will explore other locations in Santa Cruz County, Reed added.
City leaders now worry about the dilemma of deciphering the benefit of an unknown retail store in the community.
“The change doesn’t make things easier,” Reed said. “It complicates a process that hasn’t been simple. How are we supposed to make an informed decision without knowing what’s going to be there?”
Councilman Dene Bustichi called the draft environmental study and economic report worthless, because data that fits Target may not work for other retail businesses.
“How do you do an economic study that assumes 25 different kinds of retailers that could be in this scenario?” Bustichi asked rhetorically.
The draft environmental impact report for a Target store was released in September. An accompanying economic study estimated the retailer would pull in an additional $489,000 in sales tax revenue for Scotts Valley.
The Target pullout is the latest setback for San Francisco-based Title Two.
In July, Scotts Valley began to foreclose on the property after Title Two failed to pay more than $300,000 in back property taxes. The company forked over the money in October to stave off the proceedings.
The conclusion of the entrenched battle over the retail giant’s proposed presence in Scotts Valley was met with passionate reactions from businesses and community members.
Scotts Valley resident Paul Bach, a fierce Target adversary, said he was thrilled to hear of the big-box store’s withdrawal.
“This is good news,” Bach said.
During this week's council meeting, Bach demanded that the City Council stop the entire retail proposal and scrap the draft environmental impact report, because it was created specifically for problems tied to Target, including parking and traffic. Bach argued that the report is no longer legal under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it was written specifically for the retailer.
“You can’t ask citizens to respond when the data is simply not there,” Bach said. “The traffic and economic studies were specific to Target, and new studies would need to be funded, conducted and released for public comment.”
Another Target opponent, Frank Kertai, said the project is hugely unstable and that he opposes any retailer at the La Madrona Drive site.
“This is the biggest project in the history of this city, but everything about it is extremely flawed,” Kertai said. “The traffic impacts alone would be grossly understated.”
Other residents expressed worries about what a big-box store would mean for the families, animals and businesses near the La Madrona Drive property.
Wednesday was the planned deadline for public comment on the environmental impact report. The council extended the comment period another 45 days in light of the change from Target to an unknown retailer.
“The fear of the unknown is definitely at play here, both for the members of the community and the members of the council,” Mayor Randy Johnson said. “It’s quite a turn of events.”
Editors Note: This story was modified from it's original version on Nov. 10, 2009
"backed out of its plans because of the unstable economy and the estimated $10 million price tag to develop the hillside property."
and replaced the comment with
"Target officials told the city it would cost $10 million more to develop the Scotts Valley site than other potential sites."
The correction is consistent with the exact quote from Jim Reed at 15:01 into the City Council meeting:
"This site costs about 10 million more to develop than any other site around."
We believe that a $10,000,000 premium along with strong and persistent opposition should be more than enough to keep another inappropriately large retail development project at bay. We welcome appropriately scaled development in Scotts Valley; clearly a single store 1/3 larger than the Santa Cruz Costco was too large for our City of just 11,700 people.
We thank the Press Banner for making the correction.
RLDPAC
relating to the cost of the project. stated that the project would cost $10,000,000 this post corrects the actual quote
I provided a link to all of the requirements.The nature a of a Scenic Route is that in exchange for the designation, the community gets a boatload of benefits. Protection from over development is just one of them.
Note that it doesn't say no development, just development not consistent with the intent of the act. Big box retail on 17 does match that description as designed, but that due to a lack of imagination, not my primary intent. They could put in underground with a grass roof with on and off ramps directly to the highway. No scenic impact. Still it doesn't solve the crime, traffic safety and pollution issue.Still we all know, like you admitted, it's not the place to put something as big as Target.
I pointed out there is nothing to stop the city from pushing something that big,and I am on the record as leading the issue of environmental and wildlife preservation.
In fact, I have a large ben and in illustration that appeared at the Santa Cruz county Fair, which I presented to the distinguished State Senator during last elections. As well as numerous writings.
So your just flat wrong, even now the requirements are being written to declare the entire county of Santa Cruz as a special open space district. EVERYONE with a conscience thinks this route is worth preserving. And It's coming no matter what think about it, even if a replacement for Target is found; but the opportunity there for leadership to take command of the issue. If not I am more than happy to help lead the movement.
I am just the messenger.
And the Scenic Route is a good compromise for the community.
Pretty simple really.
This is about preservation, not about a land grab.
In the vacuum of leadership we have no other option. We must preserve what god has created , once developed it's gone forever. The fact that a company like Title II has legal ownership now, doesn't mean that it's poor land use policy if the benefits to the community outweigh their right to develop it.
If that was true, we wouldn't pay taxes. Why do people pay school taxes who have no children? Because they grow up and contribute to the running of business and society. It is not an all or nothing game. Choo could use a little Manhattan caliber positive PR, what better way then to take 1 project that's worth saving and becoming a leader in it's preservation. Having ownership is the American dream, not an absolute right, don't blame me, I didn't write the rules.
If the City and County showed policies for responsible development, we wouldn't be here discussing this. It is by their lack of action which makes the Scenic Route a necessity. Their lack of transparent process and failure to include substantive debate from the public, in the area of development along hwy 17, clearly shows that it's time we take the issue to them in a clear, vocal and responsible manner.
I am a harbinger of things to come. In the Air Force (happy V day all), I was one of the first to fight for and get a smoke free work place, then the building followed, then the base. Then after that I joined the university, As en elected student representative to the dean, I lead in this issue there too. The building became smoking free, then the School of Law, then the entire campus. That was the University of Oklahoma.
Your effort to leave sleeping dogs lye, is over, it's time has come. Land use in Santa Cruz county and preservation is on the table, it's time has come. You are on the wrong side of this issue. That's my observation, not by belief.
Right or wrong, no matter how you may feel about it, the reality is that many smart elected people from Santa Cruz County to Sacramento, who created the law, disagree with you.
And more to the point took the time to study and create a program that achieves it's original intent, which is what we are here talking about.
Imagine having a county so special, that it is worthy of a vacation destination, from the Monetery, to the fields of Steinbeck country, to eclectic Santa Cruz, to the redwood community of Scotts Valley, Felton with proximity to Big Basin and Los Gatos. Wait, we have that. Are saying that this area is not worth preserving because of your personal belief?
If the Scenic Route was designated, there is no end to the opportunity to bring value into the county and along the route.
This is indeed the right way to go about it.
Many continue to agree with you that gateway south still isn't "the best place" for Target. As far as the Hilton, we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Besides taxes, the money it brings in will be spread around the town center, shopping local, and to Pacific Avenue. It has an education role as well, it is the point where many people learn about the area, and everything it has to offer. It's easy to be so spoiled by our setting that we take it for granted. I do not. It's pretty clear that if it's not protected, the economic pressures threaten us with the effects of over development.
Who decides what that is should be is something the community leaders are responsible for defining, using community consensus; until then, it's our moral responsibility to preserve what is worth saving.
The State of California says that the hwy 17 is described as having "..steep grades, narrow shoulders, tight curves, and scenic beauty.." They even passed a Statute that specifically identifies the portion that runs through Scotts Valley as "eligible" based upon it's location, and characteristics.
The intent of the law, as discussed in the wording of the law itself states "..to protect the social and economic values provided by the State's scenic resources.” Of which , 17 is designated eligible.
So besides being a political football hopefully ignored by incumbents, the opportunity is at hand to for our community leaders to lead and recognize the benefits. Community dialog is needed.
The Scenic Route program indicates 10 tangible benefits which include:
> Enhance community identity and pride, encouraging citizen commitment to preserve community values.
Perfect for a community which prides itself with the Bethany College which teaches values worth preserving.(yes, I was baptized Assembly of God, so sue me)
> Enhance land values by maintaining the scenic character of the corridor.
> Provide a vehicle for the community to promote local TOURISM that is consistent with the community's scenic values.
wow.
It's like they designed the Scenic Route program for Scotts Valley!
There really is no comparison between Target and the Scenic route. A Scenic Route will encourage the appreciation for our community as opposed to grossly distorting the community in many bad ways. Belief is not the final measure of good. Belief without works is dead. We have a moral obligation to preserve what we have as good stewards of the earth.
As long as the elected officials which have the power and responsibility to bring in the scenic route program to prevent over development, we have the right to insist that they do the right thing, and not just talk about it.
You will also see that I am a friend of community, I have been recorded in city minutes as praising the City Council, but you would understand that as the face behind the earlier posting agrees, that the Target was the wrong place for something that big. Our families and our community deserve defending. It's is my regret that the same people I had hoped would show constraint in development, were also the ones that are still holding onto the hope they will be able to bring in a new Big retail project at the Target site.
So in the spirit of community reconciliation, I am asking you to please contact community leaders and continue to organize so we can make the Scenic Route a reality.
Here are program details and contacts. Help them decide that this is worth persuing.
The benefits are many, here is just one way, one site promotes Scenic Routes, http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/2301
If fact google has 2,060,000 reference links on the topic of Scenic Routes.
Upon approval, every road map in the civilized world will be updated. So you can see that the Scenic Route in combination with some simple marketing would bring as many or as few tourists as the city sees fit. That is a sales tax revenue spigot at their control, and no big box needed. That sounds like a really great deal for the city and the region.
Read up, it’s not that deep.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_high...
Each segment of the Scenic Route is authorized from Los Gatos to Santa Cruz.
Make your voice heard:
Contact Santa Cruz County Supervisors:
http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/ctysupvs.h...
Scotts Valley City Council
Donna Lind, 440-5678 x140, dlindslind@earthlink.net
Dene Bustichi, 831 438-2356, dene@bustichi.com
Randy Johnson 438-0633, rlj12@comcast.net
Jim Reed, 461-0222, jimreedSV@gmail.com
1st District Supervisor: John Leopold (District borders hwy 17)
Meet him December 9, People's Coffee 1200 17th Avenue in Santa Cruz 5:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m.
2nd District Supervisor: Ellen Pirie (SC Regional Transportation commission)
3rd District Supervisor: Neal Coonerty (SC Regional Transportation commission)
5th District Supervisor: Mark Stone (SC Regional Transportation commission and Coastal Comission)
Los gatos
http://www.losgatosca.gov/index.aspx...
Mayor: Mike Wasserman
Vice Mayor: Diane McNutt
Council Member: Steve Rice Council Member Joe Pirzynski Council: Member Barbara Spector
Unless of course, you send a message and elect someone who is willing to protect the residents of this community, including our guests who travel to Felton and beyond. SLV every day.
If You DON'T want Lowes, or any other big box along the Hwy 17 corridor, you have the power now to do something about it now. Ask the current council to vote in the Scenic Route! It's a legally defendable designation that would give the council the ability to just refuse inappropriate applications. As apposed to processing every application like they had no choice. They DO have the choice, and an easy legal choice by declaring the route a Scenic Route.
Head of the Planning was provided the details a year ago, Mark Stone is aware by now of the issue who meets in the city, so to will Monning start to meet in Scotts Valley. So there is a full gamut of elected officials from Santa Cruz to Scotts Valley and to Los Gatos, that you can call and voice they NOW is the time to stand up and protect 17 and our friends and families from dangerous backups on 17, pollution, and devastating effects of economic over development.
This time it's for YOUR quality of life, if you have a banner in the SV parade, then you should be calling your Council persons and insist on the Scenic ROute so the Press will finally see that it is really the only issue that can bring peace and reason to development along the hwy 17 Route which is a road side billboard in our great community that attracts not just us by EVERY form of large scale development.
If you have been to other vacation spots in the US, you will see that some allow unbridled development that ruins that very nature of the community. Niagra Falls comes to mind, as well as the Retail sprawls of Branson Mo and Gattlenburg TN.
Our community is the size where we are at the beginning of that process and the heat is being turned up slowly and the Council is welcoming them in JUST by their very policies in accepting application.
This is failure of the approach to governance that Randy Johnson and Reed believe is an issue of Free Speech as mentioned in Reeds recent commentary.
Unless the members of the Council make public moves to implement a policy of responsible development then they are betraying even their close constituents.
The people who say that this is bigger than SV is 100% right, Every jurisdiction that boarders or includes HWY 17 is has the responsibility and opportunity to enact the Scenic Route designator.
This would allow No on Lowes.
If they won't, then we will have to send our message by vote at election time.
So now I'll have to continue to drive to Santa Cruz (or further) to get what I need for my impending baby, they'll get my tax revenue, and you all are at the mercy of whoever decides to move in during the crappy economy. Hope it's not a Walmart - or do I?
Traffic - We learned that the project would generate an additional 7,000 car trips on our busy roads each day. We learned that the project would cause numerous SV intersections to become clogged and drop below the Level of Service C requirement in the City General Plan. We learned that during all critical commute times traffic would be so bad as to be backed up across the Highway 17 overpass.
Size - We learned that the proposed building at 62 feet tall would have significantly exceeded the zoned height restrictions of 45 feet for a commercial building in Scotts Valley. We learned that the building would be built on top of 18 feet of fill dirt to make the building more visible from Highway 17. We learned that the building would raise 70 feet 6 inches above La Madrona road and over 100 feet above Highway 17 which is designated a "Scenic Route". We learned that why the building was advertised as 143,000 sq feet yet there was a little known provision to add an additional 20,000 sq feet. Even without the extra sq feet the building would have been 1/3 larger than the Santa Cruz Costco.
Zoning - We learned that while most of the building would be in Commercial Service Zoning some of the construction would have involved land zoned OS or Open Space. We also learned that the building exceeded by over 90% the amount of building space allowed in the SV Gateway South Specific Plan.
Parking - we learned that during the holidays the project would have 292 less parking spaces than the traffic study projected would be needed. The number is higher than was previously reported because of the additional 20,000 sq foot provision in the SEIR report.
Hydrology - We learned that the City never conducted a mandatory "detailed Hydrology analysis" and that this analysis was required by law because the location was designated as early as 1988 as a "High Protection - High Management Aquifer"
We learned a lot more from the EIR process than is presented here. In fact we learned enough that the project likely would never have been allowed by the courts to proceed. Yes in deed the EIR informed the public what a mess the Target project would have been.
Paul
Subject to the California Public Records Act, we are requesting (consistent with section 6253.9.(a) of the California Public Records Act here after know as CPRA) the following requests for “Writing” as defined by CPRA section 6252. (f) and all related material.
To be clear, the following is the definition of “writings” according to the California Public Records Act section 6252 (f):
“Writing” means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.”
Requested Information:
Under the above "Requested information" you will need to ask for all writings between any City employee, consultant and or elected official and any representative of Lowe's during the period of June 1, 2009 and November 6, 2009.
Now here is the tricky part. The city is only obliged to give you information that is recorded in some hard form. If a phone conversation took place or if an email was deleted the city will tell you that no information exists.
Because the CPRA will only provide you with hard copies of communications and not phone conversations I suggest that as step two you ask each of the City Council members and City Staff in attendance during the public comment period at the November 18th city council meeting if any verbal communications have taken place.
If my information is wrong the Mayor, Council and City Staff should have no problem answering the question.
Finally I suggest that you engage the press to follow up with direct questions to each Member of the Council and City Staff Management team.
We strongly oppose the building of any big-box store at any location within our small town of 17,600 people. That opposition includes not only a Target but also a Lowe’s big-box store. Now you need to do some homework. Paul Bach
I'll happily admit I'm wrong if Mr. Bach can provide any proof to back up his Lowe's news, or if developements shortly prove him correct. Until then, I'll bet the mortgage his Lowe's scare is yet another stunt wrapped around and untruth to stir people up and bring more attention to himself.