Planning Commission to review former Target plan
by Press-Banner
May 11, 2010 | 1586 views | 4 4 comments | 12 12 recommendations | email to a friend | print
A public hearing in front of the Scotts Valley Planning Commission will begin at 6 p.m. May 13 at the City Council chambers, 1 Scotts Valley Drive to review the final supplemental environmental impact report of the former prospective Target development.

Copies of the SEIR can be found at City Hall, 1 Scotts Valley Drive; at the Scotts Valley Library, 230 Mount Hermon Road; and online at http://www.scottsvalley.org/planning/GatewaySouthRetailStore.html.

The report details the impact of a 143,000-square-foot retail store and 517 parking spaces, including a 57,650-square-foot parking deck.

Though Target withdrew from the development last year, the developer had already paid the city to complete the extensive report.

Share This Article |
similar stories

Club celebrates industrious officer, retired fire marshal | 25 days ago by Press-Banner

AmeriGas lists Scotts Valley parcel for sale | 11 days ago by Joe Shreve

Commentary: Water district takes wrong approach for pump station | 16 hrs ago by Suellene Petersen

SLV district to seek substantial rate increase to complete projects | 11 days ago by Peter Burke

Supervisor to form Town plan groups | 17 hrs ago by Press-Banner

Comments
(4)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
What overriding con
|
May 13, 2010
The City does not have an indemnity under the EIR process when it comes to attorney fee reimbursement. The Council members themselves wouldn't pay, the City of Scotts Valley would pay the attorney fees of the other side if they were to lose an EIR challenge ruling. Over riding considerations have to be just that - an over riding reason to violate City, Caltrans, or State traffic or environmental requirements. The current EIR lists many exceptions to requirements as over riding consideration. Without knowing who or what big box might go in the City doesn't have the justifications that it would need to win in court. This could get very expensive for the City if they approve a generic big-box and lose in court because of a flawed EIR process.
Reply
Indemnity of Council
|
May 13, 2010
means they no pay any damages, or costs. Just taxpayers. No problem, they have deep pockets, and no responsibility. Now if we can delete all links to campaign promises, we laugh all way to bank.
Reply
What overriding Con
|
May 12, 2010
If the City Council approves the generic Big-box EIR with overriding considerations, ignoring the traffic, the economic impact, the environmental issues and they don't even know what type of Big-box might go there, the City can expect to lose a very expensive court battle. Remember City Council if it goes to court, when you lose you also pay the legal fees of the other side!
Reply
KMA2010
|
May 11, 2010
Ha! Ha! Looks like something will be going there!
Reply


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.